D

I , 'Igivr tht '
\./t^^f^^i^'Vf-.£CoStg^'.i^.&^£^eyn

0

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

OKIGTJSTES JUDAIC^.

IN THE NATIONAL GALLERY:
The Italian Schools from the Thirteenth to the
Sixteenth Century.
By Cosmo Monkhouse. Illustrated with numerous examples
specially prepared for this work. Crown 8vo, buckram,
gilt top, price 7s. 6d.

A NATURALIST IN MID-AFRICA.
By G. F. Scott Elliot, F.L.S., F.E.G-.S. Being an Account
of a Journey to the Mountains of the Moon and Tanga-
nika. With numerous Illustrations from Photographs
and Sketches by the Author. Medium 8vo, cloth,
price 16s. London: A. D. INNES & CO.,
31 & 32, Bedford Street, Strand.

OBIGINES JUDAIC^.

AN INQUIRY INTO HEATHEN FAITHS AS AFFECTING
THE BIRTH AND GROWTH OF JUDAISM.

BY
W. F. COBB.

" Mens hebes ad verum per materialia surgit,
Et demersa prius, visa hao luce, resurgit."
' Abbe Sugek.

LONDON:
A. D. INNES & CO.,
BEDFORD STREET.
1895.

ez. fir Jll 5^

QTLE SIBI
CUEARUM- REQTJIES
NOCTE VEL ATEA LUMEN
IN SOLIS TUEBA LOCIS
SEMPER FUERIT
UXORI PLACENTI
OPUSCULUM DICAVIT
CONJUNX AMANTISSIMUS

PREFACE.

Some indulgence may be fairly asked for from Churchmen
for the following attempt to show that the Bible has
nothing to fear from the late increase of our knowledge
of heathen beliefs contemporary with the Old Testament
record. For the author is moving along a path not trodden
before, at any rate by the orthodox scholar, and among
fields where the numerous excavations of many kinds of
explorers tend sometimes as much to confuse as to assist
the traveller in his search after truth. He does not pretend
that his treatise is more than an introduction to the study
of the origins of Judaism, or that the theory to which he
has given the name of Menotheism may not be capable of
failure at some point when fresh evidence is available.
But he has no doubt that, in the main, the explanation here
given of the groundwork of the heathen cults out of which
Judaism took its origin is correct.
To save any misconception, he thinks it better to state
at the outset that his work is not, strictly speaking, theo
logical, but anthropological He is not investigating the
course of Revelation, or discussing the nature of Inspiration,
but cross-questioning the materials that Revelation had to

Vlll PREFACE.
deal with, and appraising the language that Inspiration
necessarily had to use. " Conveniunt cymbse vela minora
mese." Hence Revelation and Inspiration are here taken
for granted ; they are data, not qucesita. Their place is at
the head, giving character to the events, not at the end as
corollaries from the conclusion.
Nor, strictly speaking, is the present work concerned
so much with the science of religion as with the philosophy
of religion. It does not attempt to co-ordinate the facts
that emerge on observation, but, given those facts and the
various hypotheses that have been framed to formulate
them, it inquires how far these hypotheses are capable of
being embraced by a wider generalization. The historical
facts that are quoted, therefore, — as, for instance, the
phenomena of solar worship or of ancestor-worship, — are
not used to prove the existence of those cults, for this is
generally admitted, but they serve a twofold purpose. They
are at once indications of the nature of the cults under con
sideration, and tests to which the reader may recur after
a perusal of the whole work, that he may judge whether,
and how far, the wide generalization of menotheism is
capable of substantiation by such subsequent verification.
It is necessary, however, for the Christian apologist to
examine his armoury from time to time to see whether it
is adequate, and has been tested at all points. Inspiration,
as a fact, is a dogma which can stand the quod semper, quod
ubique, quod ab omnibus test. But the character of that
Inspiration, and the modes of its working, have never yet
been determined, because these questions have never yet

PREFACE. IX
been formally raised. . Accordingly, individual apologists
have the duty left to them of studying the new lights that
history throws from time to time upon our ancient records,
and of determining whether they give any assistance in
fixing the quale of Inspiration.
Impugners of the Old Testament records have presented
the orthodox believer with the following syllogism : —
If the Bible be inspired it cannot contain elements
traceable to heathen sources :
But the Bible does contain such elements :
Therefore it is not inspired.
This argument has been commonly met by a denial of
the minor premiss, but the researches of the Higher Critics
and of Orientalists have made it impossible for this denial
to have any validity. Consequently, the Christian Apolo
gist will find it necessary to bend his force to show the
inconsequence of the major premiss.
In proof of the minor of this syllogism critics point to
the presence of a Chaldean or Persico-Chaldean account
of the Creation side by side with another "Jehovistic"
account, to a Chaldean account of the Flood, to an early
legend about the origin of heroes, to the Egyptian story
of the Two Brothers alleged to be incorporated in the
history of Joseph, to sundry details of the temple worship
which were borrowed from Egypt, or Chaldea, or Phoenicia,
or all three, and to other similar borrowings.
Of a similar character are some of the conjectures of
the Higher Criticism. It is, no doubt, easy to urge against
them that many of them raise more difficulties than they

X PREFACE.
solve; that some of their solutions are far-fetched, some
the mere creatures of an absorbing theory, and some worse
than puerile. But, on the other hand, the most orthodox
supporter of the traditional view is bound to admit the
soundness of the main contention of the Higher Critics,
that a progressive course of guidance in the history is
paralleled by a progressive inspiration in the record. That
is to say, there are traces of revisions, and of revisions of
the revisions, each displaying the over-ruling Spirit working
in each age. Accordingly the inspiration which acts in
the records of each age is determined as to its form by
the conditions of that age, for " even the emptiest vessel
must limit the quantity and determine the configuration
of any liquid with which it may be filled." If, then, it be
true that the Jews were led gradually from lower views
of religion to higher, a fact which is freely admitted on
both sides, then the inspiration of the later periods will be
more evident, and of a fuller character, than that of the
former. This is but another way of saying that we are
to look for the inspiration, not so much in the bare narra
tion of the facts as in the shaping of them, not so much
in the earlier narrative as in the later revision, not so much
in the subject-matter of the record as in the purpose of the
redactor.* To take an extreme case, suppose it were
* *' None of the historians of the Bible claim supernatural enlightenment
for the materials of their narrative ; it is reasonable, therefore, to conclude
that these were derived by them from such human sources as were at the
disposal of each particular writer ; in some cases from a writer's own personal
knowledge; in others, from earlier documentary sources; in others, especially
in those relating to a distant past, from popular tradition. It was the function

PREFACE. xi
granted, for the sake of the argument, that the Torahs of
Moses and his successors were worked up, as we are told,
in exilic or post-exilic times into the Levitical Code, and
were deliberately clothed then in the form they still wear,
nothing would prevent the traditionalist from maintaining
that in the way that the Law is made to subserve the
inculcation of a more spiritual religion is to be sought the
inspiration of the record. The laws themselves may be
traditions from a much older period, orally or scripturally
preserved; they derive their religious significance from
their setting, from the purpose that shines through them,
from their relation to the pure religion which they helped
to proceed ultimately from its lowlier origin.
Fr. Lenormant, taking as a Roman Catholic and as a
man of science much the same position, finds the home of
Inspiration in the same place as here, viz. in the form given
to the .narrative by the writer, or the later redactor. He
says : —
" Mais s'il en est ainsi, me demandera-t-on peut-etre, oh done
voyez-vous l'inspiration divine des ecrivains qui ont fait cette
archeologie, le secours surnaturel dont, comme Chretien, vous
devez les oroire guides ? Oil ? Dans 1' esprit absolument nouveau
qui anime leur narration, bien que la forme en soit restee pres-
que de tout point la m^me que chez les peuples voisins. C'est
le meme recit, ce sont les memes episodes se succedant de meme ;
et pourtant il faudrait etre aveugle pour ne pas voir que le
sens en est devenu tout autre. Le polytheisme exuberant qui
of inspiration to guide the individual writer in the choice and disposition
of his material, and in his use of it for the inculcation of special lessons ''
(Driver, " Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament," p. xvi. (1891) ;
cf. Dr. Sanday, " The Oracles of God," pp. 72-75).

xii PREFACE.
encombrait ces histoires chez les Chaldeens en a ete soigneusement
elimine, pour faire place au plus severe monotheisme. Ce qui
exprimait des notions naturalistes d'une singuliere grossierete
est devenu le vehement de verites morales de l'ordre le plus haut
et le plus purement spirituel. Les traits essentiels de la
forme de la tradition ont ete conserves, et pourtant entre la
Bible et les livres sacres de la Chaldee, il y a tout l'intervalle
d'une des plus immenses revolutions qui se soient jamais operees
dans les croyances humaines." *
While taking this as his main position, the author is
not to be understood as denying or doubting the substantial
truth of the subject-matter of the records. An important
assumption of some critics, viz. that writing was unknown
or little practised in early Biblical times, has been upset
by the latest work of Professor Sayce. With the explosion
of this assumption disappears the inference drawn from it,
viz. that the absence of the art of writing was proof against
the early date of the Old Testament records. Accordingly,
it is fair to expect that the presence of fuller evidence will
cause the judgment of competent critics to swing round
again to something approaching the traditional standpoint,
and will cause a limitation of the work of criticism to a
discrimination of the elements that were added at the
various revisions to the materials supplied by the stream
of continuous tradition.
This now established fact, that the Old Testament
writers worked up older materials just as freely as an Early
English architect utilized previous Norman work, and gave
* Fr. Lenormant, " Les Origines de l'Histoire," p. xix.

PREFACE. Xlll
it in the process a new turn, is well stated by Noldeke,
whose words I quote : —
" La tradition historique, legendaire, et mythique, en partie
orale, en partie ecrite, voila le fonds sur lequel le narrateur tra-
vaille avec plus ou moins de liberte. Autant qu'il nous est
donne de la reconnaitre, les plus vieux de ces narrateurs ne
s'attachent pas, en general, aussi etroitement que nous pourrions
eroire a la reproduction pure et simple de ce qui forme le fond
de leurs recits. Non seulement ils ajoutent a ces recits des
ornements libres et poetiques, mais aussi certains traits essen
tiels, d'apres leur propre maniere de voir. Les recits sur l'histoire
primitive abondent surtout en descriptions libres, ou la tradition
ne sert que de point d'appui. Ainsi, par exemple, il serait tout
a, fait faux de considerer comme un mythe populaire le recit de
la creation du premier couple et de la chute, puisque c'est une
imagination fibre et reflechie du narrateur, qui conserve seule
ment quelques traits empruntes a, la tradition mythique." *
One main point of this treatise, then, will be to give or
suggest reasons why the Christian apologist should in the
face of an altered attack raise a new defence. Instead of
denying the minor premiss of the argument just given,
he should deny the consequence of the major, and demand
proof of the assertion that Inspiration is incompatible with
the incorporation of heathen elements. Let it be granted
freely that there are such elements in the Old Testament —
what then ? It is merely proof that heathenism was not
wholly false — which few deny ; it is not proof that the
elements which were false — i.e. which, objectively considered,
were untrue representations of reality — have been adopted
* Noldeke, "Histoire Litte"raire de l'Ancien Testament," traduction
Franchise, p. 10.

XIV PREFACE.
by Judaism. To maintain this, new arguments must be
adduced, and new methods discovered.
The position here suggested as the one to be adopted
has at least one obvious, tactical, and practical advantage
over and above its grounds in truth. If Inspiration is to
be looked for only, or chiefly, in the subject-matter of the
narratives, the ordinary person can never feel sure that
some fresh discovery at Khorsabad or Kouyunyik may not
compel him to reconsider his position. He is thus put in
a state of chronic uneasiness which is fatal to religion as
a practical force. But if, instead of judging his Old Testa
ment by a comparison of it with its sources, he turns round
and judges it by a comparison of its devotional, ethical, and
spiritual purpose with that established by Christianity, he
may rest assured that no discrepancy exists. The Old
Testament becomes then for him the record of an evolu
tion of religion on its moral rather than on its political
or material side.
"L'Ancien Testament s'occupe peu de cette marche ascen-
dante en ce qui est du developpement de la civilisation materi-
elle, dont il indique cependant en passant les principales etapes
d'une maniere fort exacte. Ce qu'il retrace, c'est le tableau du
progres moral et du developpement, toujours plus net de la
verite religieuse, dont la notion va en se spiritualisant, s'epurant
et s'elargissant toujours d'avantage, chez le peuple choisi, par
une succession d'echelons que marquent la vocation d' Abraham,
la promulgation de la loi mosaiique, enfin la mission des pro-
phetes, lesquels annoncent a leur tour le dernier et supreme

progres." *

Fr. Lenormant, "Les Origines de l'Histoire," i. i

PREFACE. XV
. Having occupied this strong, and, as the author believes,
impregnable vantage-ground, our ordinary Christian may
then in security examine for himself the original materials,
and the sundry revisions the co-ordination of which has
led up to the final result, and made the Old Testament the
first of the long line of the religious training of mankind
which the Christian Church is still carrying out, as the
Holy Spirit teaches her the way.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. PAGE
Object of the essay ... ... ... ... ... 1
The Jews and heathenism ... ... ... ... 2
Judaism the child of heathenism ... ... ... ... 2
Dispensation of paganism ... ... ... ... 4
Bearing on nature of inspiration ... ... ... ... 5
Lenormant's " monotheistic plane " ... ... ... 6
" Lux Mundi " and Bible myths ... ... ... ... 7
Question as to whether myths are compatible with inspiration— how
to be answered ... ... ... ... ... 8
Changed attitude towards revelation ... ... ... II
Its causes : —
(1) Dwarfing of man by physical discoveries ... ... 12
(2) Dwarfing of Christianity by increased knowledge of world-
religions ... ... ... ... ... 13
(3) The solvent power of the doctrine of evolution ... 14
Superfluousness of the hypothesis of a primitive revelation ... 17

CHAPTEE II.
ON THE PLACE OF THE JEWS IN HISTORY.
The vulgar view ... ... ... ... ... 22
Its unsatisfactoriness due to its Puritanism ... ... ... 22
Condemned by Fathers of the Church ... ... ... 23
St. Chrysostom's witness ... ... ... ... ... 24
Unsatisfactory attitude of Keil ... ... ... ... 24
Vulgar view condemned by Hooker ... ... ... ... 26

xvm

CONTENTS.

Sounder theory supported by Eobertson Smith
Kuenen's unfair treatment of the subject
Necessity for existence of some specific difference in Judaism
Monotheism not sufficient differentia ...
Egyptian monotheism considered
The Litany of the Sun ...
M. Naville's conclusions from it
Coincidence of pantheism and monotheism not impossible
Ambiguous character of the expressions relied on „
Views of Georg Ebers, Emmanuel de Bouge", and Le Page
Eenouf
Menotheism the common ground of all
The case of Assyria not so clear, but similar
Judaism was more than a monotheistic creed ...
Its differentia to be found rather in the character of its monotheism
The personality of Tahveh contrasted with that of Amon-Ea
The prayer of Eameses II. at Kadesh
Compared with Hebrew utterances
The real differentia of Judaism is moral holiness

PAGE 27 28 3031
32 32323334 35
363637373737 38
40

CHAPTER III.

ON HEBREW MYTHOLOGY.

On Mythology in general
Mythology the language of childhood
M. Eenan's view ...
Mr. Tylor's view
Mythology expressed truth as understood by its framers
And must be interpreted accordingly
A myth, therefore, reveals history of its author
Caution of Lenormant ...
The function of the critic ...
Goldziher's " Hebrew Mythology " examined
His first foundation
Question of mythology among peoples using language that has no
gender
Goldziher's second foundation ...
Pastoral and agricultural mythology ...
Goldziher's examples from the patriarchal histories ...
Steinthal's explanation of Samson
Samson and Herakles paralleled ...

41
41 42424343
44 4445
45 46
464849 495354

CONTENTS. xix
PAGE
Other parallels not drawn by Steinthal ... ... ... 54
The Phoenician Herakles ... ... ... ... 56
Goldziher's explanation contrasted with that of Welhausen ... 56
Dangers of Goldziher's method set out by Mr. E. B. Tylor ... 58
Its resemblance to mystical interpretation ... ... ... 59
Example from St. Gregory's Morals on the Book of Job ... 59
„ French and English History ... ... ... 60
„ Professor Wilson's "Buddha and Buddhism " 60
„ J. A. Dupuis ... ... ... ... 60
But, in fact, the Bible narratives were clearly not intended as myths 61
Further answer supplied by unlikeness between the narratives
known to be founded on earlier myths and Goldziher's
examples ... ... ... ... ... 62
Creuzer's theory briefly described ... ... ... ... 64
Crucial difference between Kuhn and Creuzer ... ... 66
Presumptions in favour of latter ... ... ... ... 66
The two harmonized ... ... ... ... ... 66

CHAPTEB IV.
ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA.
What Religion is ... ... ... ... ... ... 68
ReviHe's definition discussed ... ... ... ... 69
Mr. Max Miiller's rejected ... ... ... ... ... 70
Another definition by Mr. Max Miiller ... ... ... 71
„ „ by Mr. Herbert Spencer ... ... ... 73
Its falsity ... ... ... ... ... ... 73
Mr. Matthew Arnold's definition ... ... ... ... 73
The early emergence of a unitive idea in religion ... ... 74
Animism the first step towards religion ... ... ... 77
Physiolatry its product ... ... ... ... •¦• 78
Polytheism the successor of physiolatry ... ... ... 78
Comte's account of the passage from the first to the second ... 78
The middle term in three classes of objects ... ... ... 78
Polytheism the precursor of monotheism ... ... ... 79
Menotheism and the place of early monotheism ... ... 80
„ and Judaism ... ... ... ••• 80
Influence of Asiatic despotism on evolution of monotheism ... 81
Menotheism and current opinions ... ... ••• 81
Its distinction from fetishism, polytheism, henotheism, monotheism,
and pantheism ... ... ... ••• ¦•• 83
Its prevalence in Canaan ... ... ... .•• 84

XX CONTENTS.
PAGE
Professor Robertson Smith's testimony ... ... ... 86
The Babylonian cosmogony described ... ... ... 86
The Egyptian cosmogony described ... ... ... ... 87
Their early date ... ... ... ¦•• ... 89
Intercourse between the two via Canaan ... ... ¦•• 90
Indian cosmogony ... ... ... .•• ••• 91
Connection between Bel and Baal ... ... ... ... 91
Inadequacy of Robertson Smith's explanation ... ... 92
Question of validity of conclusions drawn from comparisons of Aryan
and Semite documents , ... ... ... ... 94
Their substantial likeness presumable ... ... 94
Mr. Max Muller's distinction ... ... ... ... 94
Its baselessness shown by five reasons ... ... 95
Rejected by Professor Sayce ... ... ... ... 96
„ Professor Robertson Smith ... ... 96
Argument from Greek religious analogies ... ... ... 97
Greek mercenaries and their influence as missionaries ... 99
Argument from parallelism of localized deities ... ... 99
Localized deities in Egypt ... ... ... ... 100
Argument from Gen. x. ... ... ... ... 100
Egyptian beliefs at time of Exodus ... ... ... 101
A period of religious revival ... ... ... ... 103
The witness to monotheism of contemporary documents ... 104
Presumptive influence on the Hebrews ... ... ... 105
Semitic and Aryan elements in Egyptian race ... ... 106
This hybrid character suitable for mediators between Aryan
and Semite... ... ... ... ... ... 108
The importance of the Phoenician influence ... ... 109
Their formal unlikeness not to be neglected ... ... ... Ill
Influence of national character ... ... ... Ill
„ of climatic differences ... ... ... ... 112
Scandinavia and India contrasted ... ... ... 112
Five chief cults considered in succeeding chapters ... ... 113

CHAPTER V.
ON ANCESTOR-WORSHIP.
Mr. Herbert Spencer's theory examined —
Its argument from an undistributed middle term ... ... 116
Illegitimately assumes unity of racial characteristics ... 116
„ „ monotony of religious ideas ... ... 117

CONTENTS. XXI
Mr. Herbert Spencer's theory examined— continued.
Ancestor-worship a later product ... ... ... 118
„ „ in Greece and Eome ... ... ... 119
„ „ in India ... ... ... ... 120
These due to a common origin ... ... ... ... 120
Ancestor- worship in Egypt ... ... ... ... 121
Illustrated by the Book of the Dead ... ... ... 122
The sacred fire on the hearth ... ... ... 123
Its menotheistic character ... ... ... ... 124
Agni, and his worship ... ... ... ... 125
Burial by burning ... .. ... ... ... 126
Ancestor-worship by the Euphrates ... ... ... 126
Professor Maspero's conclusion ... ... .. ... 127
Ancestor-worship among the Jews ... ... ... 127
The Old Testament view of the soul (tstoj) ... ... ... 128
The law of Levirate marriage ... ... ... 129
The law of property ... ... ... ... ... 129
Three explanations of the absence of ancestor-worship among
the Jews  ... ... ... ... 130
Inference as to external influences ... ... ... 132
Its bearing on the theory of menotheism ... ... ... 132

CHAPTEE VI.
ON SOLAR WORSHIP.
The prevalence of this worship ... ... ... ... 132
The identification of rnrv with a sun-god, by Movers ... 135
The weakness of its supports ... ... ... ... 135
His argument from etymology ... ... ... ... 136
Old Testament witness to earlier beliefs and customs ... ... 136
The Feasts of the New Moon ... ... ... ... 137
The three great festivals ... ... ... ... ... 138
Baal and Yahveh confused ... ... ... .¦¦ 138
Difficulty of ascertaining meaning of Baal ... ... ... 138
Proofs of identification of Baal and Yahveh ... ... 139
Baal as a deity ... ... ... ... ... ... 140
The Syrian Baalim ... ... ... ... ... 141
Dr. Oort's testimony ... ... ... ... ... 142
The Tyrian Baal ... ... ... ... ... 143
The sin of Jeroboam ... ... ... ... ... 144
The character of Baal ... ... ... ... ... 144

XXll

CONTENTS.

PAGE
The proof of the Divine origin of Judaism supplied by Baal-worship 145
Exod. vi. 3 considered ... ... ... ... ... 146
Difference between El-Shaddai and Yahveh ... ... ••• 146
Identification of El-Shaddai with Set .. ... ... 147
„ of Sutech with Ciidiiq ... ... ... ••• 148
Original meaning of Yahveh ... ... ... ... 149
Importance of Exod. vi. 3 ... ... ... ... ••• 149
Signification of El-Shaddai with the patriarchs ... ... 150
History of Set ... ... ... ... ... — 151
The legal conception of Yahveh ... ... ... ... 152
The laws of uncieanness ... ... ... ... ... 152
The early conception of holiness ... ... ... 153
The later conception of holiness ... ... ... ... 153
Uncieanness and holiness in Levitical Code ... ... 154
The educative power of the Levitical Code ... ... ... 156
The underlying menotheism of the ceremonial law ... ... 156
Parallel cases from other countries ... ... ... ... 157
Sacred animals ... ... ... ••• ••• 158
Unclean animals among the Jews ... ... ... ... 159
„ „ among the heathen ... ... ... 160
Witness to the current conception of Yahveh ... ... ... 161
Summary of pre-Biblical evolution ... ... ... 161
„ of Judaism ... ... ... .¦• •• 162
The double side to Judaism ... ... ... ... 163
The stern side seen in human sacrifices ... ... ... 164
The underlying meaning of animal sacrifices ... ... 165
The conception of Yahveh as a stern God of later date ... ... 166

CHAPTEE VII.

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP.
Serpent-worship —
Serpent- worship among the Turanians
„ „ in Egypt 
Connected with the sun
Illustrated by the history of Set
Unity in variety of serpent-cults ... ...
Relation of serpent-worship to kindred worships
The serpent in Assyria...
Hea and the serpent
The serpent in Persia ...

169
169 171
172 173
173
174
174
175

CONTENTS.

XX111

Serpent-worship- Mr. Fergusson's explanation of the Persian serpent ... 176
The serpent in the West ... ... ... ... 176
„ in the Bardic poems ... ... ... 177
„ in Greece ... ... ... ... ... 178
„ in India ... ... ... ... 178
Possible influence of historical events ... ... ,.. 178
The serpent in Indian mythology ... ... ... 178
„ in Scandinavian mythology ... ... ... 180
Its connection with rivers and fountains ... ... 181
Its healing powers ... ... ... ... ... 181
Tree-worship —
Tree-worship in the West ¦ ... ... ... ... 182
in Egypt  183
Insufficiency of Eobertson Smith's explanation ... ... 184
Inadequacy of totemism ... ... ... ... 184
Totemism often a mistaken etymology ... ... ... 184
Natural origin of tree-worship ... ... ... 186
Tree-worship in the Old Testament ... ... ... 187
Evidence from Assyrian fir-cone ... ... ... 188
Tree-worship and fire-worship—
Need-fires and bale-fires among Aryans ... ... 189
Little practised in Canaan ... ... ... ... 190
Tree- and serpent-worship —
Egyptian and Phoenician examples ... ... ... 191
Mr. Keary's explanation of the origin of this worship ... 192
Incongruous elements, how accounted for ... ... 192
Passage from rural to urban worship ... ... ... 193
Evolution of tree- into phallic- worship ... ... ... 194
Serpent and tree in combination because expressions of same
idea  194
Persistency of tree- and serpent-worship ... ... ... 194
The Maypole in the sixteenth century ... ... 195
The Legend of the Cross ... ... ... ... 195
The serpent in the Old Testament ... ... ... 197
Its different names ... ... ... ... ... 197
Its name compounded in names in David's family ... 198
The serpent in the narrative of the Fall ... ... ... 198
The Hindu tree of life, and the Fall ... ... ... 199
Difference between Edenic and parallel serpent ... ... 199
Prevalence of myth of the Fall ... ... ... 200
' Peculiarities of the account in Genesis ... ... ... 201
Fergusson's explanation of it ... ... ... 202

XXIV CONTENTS.

Tree- and serpent- worship — continued.
The brazen serpent of Moses ... ... ... ... 203
The critic's natural explanation ... ... ... 204
The explanation suggested by the narrative ... ••¦ 205
Its witness to menotheism ... ... ... ••¦ 205

CHAPTEE VIII.
ON PHALLIC WORSHIP.
Incongruity ofthe subject compared with modern ideas ... ... 207
Ubiquitous nature of this worship ... ... ... 208
Circumcision a branch of it ... ... ... ... ... 209
Twofold division of this worship ... ... ... ... 209
Circumcision, current explanation of its origin ... ... ... 209
Its modern observance ... ... ... ... 210
Its character in the Bible ... ... ... ... 211
Different explanations of it as a religious rite ... ... 211
Exod. iv. 24-26 shows an earlier conception among the Jews 212
Other Old Testament examples of the same belief ... 213
The Ashlrahs—Nature of the goddess ... ... ... ... 214
Distinction from Ashtaroth ... ... ... ... 214
Ishtar among the Babylonians ... ... ... 214
Derivation of the word " Ashirah " ... ... ... 215
Authorities of R. S. Poole, Gesenius, Fiirst, Movers ... 215
Two facts that emerge clearly ... ... ... ... 217
Patronage of Ashgr&h by Jewish kings ... ... 217
Exact nature of her rites unknown ... ... ... 219
The Palestine Exploration Fund and hill-top worship ... 220
Semite nature-worship borrowed from Accadians ... ... 221
Dagon —
A corn-god rather than fish-god ... ... ... ... 222
The argument from etymology ... ... ... 222
Statement of Philo By blius ... ... ... ... 222
Gesenius on the meaning of ^ss ... ... ... 223
Character of the mouse in ancient religions ... ... 224
A similar incident in Bochart ... ... ... 227
Similar customs in India ... ... ... ... 228
Kede'shim —
Dr. Inman's opinion of Jewish Kedishim ... ... ... 229
The worship of Mylitta by Kedishim ... ... ... 230

CONTENTS.

XXV

KedSshim — continued.
Similar worship in other countries
Ancient view of its character
Examination of relevant passages in Old Testament ,
1 Sam. ii. 22 considered ; also Exod. xxxviii. 8.
Ewald's interpretation of the latter passage
The use of mirrors in Egypt ...
The case of Maachah

231232 232
233 235
235 237

CHAPTER IX.

ON SOME " ORNAMENTS OF THE CHURCH OF THE JEWS
General bearing of this chapter
Exaggerated opinion of influence of Egypt on Jews .
Three opportunities for Assyrian influence
Assyrian names in Palestine
Worship of Assyria compared with that of Israel
Similarity of temples in both countries
The cherubim of Assyrian origin
Suspicious statement of Josephus
Views of German theologians
Mythological origin of cherubim probable
The cherubim in Assyria
Ascription of life to them
The ark— The ark in Egyptian worship
Ewald's conjecture as to its shape
Question as to the canopy
The ark in Assyria
The Urim and Thummim —
Not identical with breastplate
Nor with each other
The Thummim a judicial ornament in Egypt ...
Dean Plumptre's identification of Urim with ScarabaMis
The Teraphim identified with Urim ...
A possible origin assigned to Urim from Syria
Evidence ofthe LXX. Version of 1 Sam. xiv. 41
Spencer's arguments on the subject
Oracular and judicial functions of high priest ...
Appendix

239 239
240 240242242244 244 244
245 247
247 248
250 250
251
251 251
252252 253
253 255256258261

EDITIONS CONSULTED.

Balfour, A. J., The Foundations of Belief. London, 1895.
Bochart, S., Geography of Canaan. 3 vols. Lugduni Bata-
vorum, 1712.
Brugsch, Heinrich, Egypt under the Pharaohs. London, 1891.
Cory, J. P., Mythological Enquiry. London, 1837.
 , Ancient Fragments. London, 1832.
Coulanges, Fustel De, La Cite Antique. 14th edit. Paris, 1893.
Cox, Sir G. W., Mythology of Aryan Nations. London, 1870.
 , Comparative Mythology. London, 1881.
Creuzer, G. F., EeLigions d'Antiquite. Paris, 1825, etc.
Deane, J. B., The Worship of the Serpent. London, 1833.
Draper, J. W., Conflict between Eeligion and Science. London,
1872.
Dulaure, J. A., Les Divinites Generatrices. Paris, 1805.
Ebers, Georg, Uarda (notes). 2 vols. 1877.
Ewald, Antiquities of Israel. 1876.
Fergusson, James, Tree and Serpent Worship. London, 1873.
FrsxE, John, Myths and Myth-Makers. Boston, 1873.
Forlong, J. G. E., Eivers of Life. London, 1883.
Frazer, J. G., The Golden Bough. 2 vols. London, 1890.
Ginsburg, Dr., The Kabbalah. London, 1865.
Goldziher, I., Mythology among the Hebrews. London, 1877.
Gould, S. B., Curious Myths of the Middle Ages. London, 1881.
Grimm, J. L. C, Teutonic Mythology. 4 vols. London, 1880.
Gubernatis, A. de, Zoological Mythology. London, 1872.
Ikman, Thomas, Ancient Pagan Symbolism. London, 1869.
 , Ancient Faiths and Modern. New York, 1876.
Keary, C. F., Outlines of Primitive Belief. London, 1882.

xxviii EDITIONS CONSULTED.
Knight, E. Payne, Symholical Language pf Ancient Art. New
York, 1876.
Kuenen, A., Eeligion of Israel. 3 vols. London, 1874.
Lajard, Eecherches sur le Culte de Mitjira. Paris, 1867.
 , L'etude du Culte de Mithra. Paris, 1847.
 , Eecherches sur le Culte de Venus. Paris.
Layard, A. H., Nineveh and its Eemains. London, 1849.
Lenormant, Francois, Les Origines de l'Histoire. 2 vols.
Paris, 1880.
Maurice, T., Indian Antiquities. London, 1806.
Moor, Edward, The Hindu Pantheon. London, 1810.
Movers, F. C, Die Phonizier. Bonn, 1841.
Muller, F. Max, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Ee
ligion. London, 1878.
 , Selected Essays. London, 1881.
 , Introduction to the Science of Eeligion. London, 1882.
Naville, Edouard, La Litanie du Soleil. Leipzic, 1875.
Oort, Dr. H., The Worship of the Baalim in Israel. London,
1865.
Pleyte, W., La Eeligion des Pre-Israelites. Utrecht, 1862.
Eawlinson, G.,Eeligions of the Ancient World. London, 1882.
 , Herodotus. 4 vols. London, 1875.
Eenouf, Le Page, Origin of Eeligion. 2nd edit. London, 1880.
Beville, Prolegomena of the History of Eeligions. London,
1884.
Eosenmuller, E. F. C, Scholia in Vetus Testamentum. 1828.
Sayce, A. H, Hibbert Lectures. London, 1887.
 , The Verdict of the Monuments. London, 1894.
 , Ancient History. London, 1892.
 , Assyria: Its Princes, Priests, and People. London, 1885.
Schrader, 0., Prehistoric Antiquities. London, 1890.
Selden, John, The Fabulous Gods. Philadelphia, 1880.
Seyffarth, G., Summary of Eecent Discoveries. New Yort,
1859.
Smith, George, Chaldean Account of Genesis. London, 1880.
Smith, W. Robertson, Eeligion of the Semites. First series.
Edinburgh, 1889.
 , The Old Testament in the Jewish Church. London, 1892.
Spencer, Dean, DeLegibus Hebrseorum. Cambridge, 1727.

EDITIONS CONSULTED. XXIX
Spencer, Herbert, Ecclesiastical Institutions. London, 1885.
Tiele, G. P., History of the Egyptian Eeligion. London, 1882.
 , Outlines of the History of Eeligion. London, 1880.
 , Histoire des Aneiennes Eeligions. London, 1882.
Tylor, E. B., Primitive Culture. 2 vols. London, 1891.
Wake, C. S., Serpent Worship. London, 1888.
Welhausen, History of Israel. Edinburgh, 1885.
Wilkinson, Sir J. Gardner, Manners and Customs of the Ancient
Egyptians. Eevised by Dr. S. Birch. 3 vols. London,
1878.

ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
CHAPTER I.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
It is proposed in the following pages to apply the com
parative method of modern science to the religion of the
Jews. Such an attempt would, perhaps, have been con
sidered impious in former days. Happily, however, we
have learned to see God's workings in a wider sphere than
our forefathers, and we have no fear now that an admission
of His general providence will rob His particular provi
dence of any of its glory. It is not proposed, however, to
deal, except by way of illustration, with the customs of
the Jews, nor with their history, except so far as it eluci
dates their religion. The former have been painfully
treated by Ewald in his "Antiquities of Israel," and
Kuenen's " Religion of Israel " traces from the evolutionary
standpoint the historical growth of monotheism among the
Jews. In these pages the humbler task will be attempted
of showing directly from the records of the Jews, and
indirectly from their circumstances, i.e. the religion of the
surrounding nations of Egypt, Babylonia, and Phoenicia, as
well as from the analogies presented to those religions
elsewhere, what were the ideas and feelings out of which
the Jews were called to work their upward way to that
B

2, ORIOINES JUDAICjE.
conception of Yahveh which the later prophets give us,
and which in its turn was but the preparation for the still
higher conception of God as the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ. One good result, it is hoped, from our inquiry will be
to make still more untenable the belief, once almost uni
versal, that the Jews' only temptation from the heathen
was to idolatry, so called. What is now known by recent
discoveries of the world-religions of Western Asia and of
Egypt must make this view impossible for the future.
Those discoveries have shown conclusively that it was not
only idols, i.e. false gods, the work of man's hands, but low
ideas of the true God, the creation of man's brain, that the
Jewish nation was called upon to reject. The false idols
were the later embodiment of previous low ideas, and it is
only as we grasp the idea that we shall understand the
idol worship that sprang from it. Baal was an idol, but
he was also the expression of an idea, and it is far more
important to know what that idea was than to be able
to describe the features of the idol which sought to set the
idea forth in visible form.* A careful study of heathen
religions will show that scant justice has been done to the
idea out of which Canaanitish idol-worship sprang, and I
have endeavoured to give clearness to that idea by clothing
it in a word which balances the demerit of novelty by the
assistance it renders to definiteness of conception. The
meaning of that word menotheism will become clear as we
proceed; here it is sufficient to say that this work as a
whole has for its main motive the endeavour to show that
menotheism was the creed of Canaan with which the Jews
were faced. The illustrations I have borrowed from other
* " Qui flngit sacros auro vel mannore vultus
Non facit ille Deos : qui rogat, ille facit."
(Martial, "Epigrams," viii. 24.)

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 6
religions are subsidiary in their application, as their peculiar
use is to make clear the character of Canaanitish meno
theism by way of analogy.
Any attempt to coin a new word demands some apology.
But when an idea has no word to express it, everything is
to be gained and nothing lost by a judicious attempt to
give it a- local habitation and a name. To speak of the
religious conception underlying heathen customs in the
days of Solomon as pantheistic is to be guilty of an
anachronism, at any rate so far as the populace is con
cerned. What was believed commonly was, that behind
all phenomena was one Spirit, whose manifestations these
phenomena were. Whether this Spirit were identical with
phenomena, in the sense that He was All, and All was He,
was a later refinement of a more refined age. Accordingly,
just as the conception that All is God is expressed by the
term Pantheism, and the conception that God is One is
expressed by the term Monotheism, so the conception that
God is Immanent — "O Qlog fiivu — is here expressed by the
term Menotheism. Mr. Frazer's use of the term "sym
pathetic magic" appears to me to be inadequate to the
truth we wish to express. There is, to use an Eastern
phraseology, White magic and Black magic, and both may
be but cunning attempts of the natural man to manipulate
for his purposes, by arts good or evil, the powers of
physical nature or of human nature. So far " sympathetic
magic" is on a par with the force exercised by some
peculiarly gifted persons, by which they are enabled to
mesmerize their inferior fellows, and make them do their
bidding. There is in it, therefore, nothing that religion
can claim; whereas the conceptions that meet us in the
period under discussion were religious in their base, and
accordingly demand a generic term which may give due
place to this religious character. In default of a better,

4 ORIOINES JUDAIC^!.
menotheism may perhaps be allowed to represent the
belief in the One Immanent Spirit diversely manifested in
phenomena. A further result for which we must be prepared is the
discovery that Gentile conceptions form the groundwork
out of which the later pure monotheism of the Jews was
developed. That the Jews should for a time share those
conceptions is not extraordinary, when we remember the
general mode of God's education of mankind. That they
should be admitted into Holy Writ, so far as it is a history,
was inevitable, if they were historical facts. On the sup
position that the Jews had some mythology, or that they
at some time failed to distinguish between Baal and
Yahveh, we should of course expect mythology and nature-
worship noted in their history.
Any reluctance to admit this is probably due to an
imperfect conception of the Divine purposes of Gentilism.
If there were a " Dispensation of Paganism " as Newman,
out of Clement of Alexandria, has reminded us ; if God did
not leave Himself without witnesses among pagans before
Moses, as St. Paul assures us He did not; if the Mosaic
law be not a merely new code of positive enactments, but
a republication of the moral law engraved on the heart
of man; then it will not be beneath the dignity of a
revealed religion to take up and absorb from the old what
may suit its purpose, and is in itself good and true.
" The Christians of the first centuries often appropriated to
their own use representations and symbols drawn from pagan
antiquity. . . . Under the influence of the arts of antiquity,
having to express by painting or sculpture moral and religious
ideas, or allusions to certain parables of Holy Scripture, they
have borrowed from ancient art certain picturesque types con
secrated by long use, which, having little or no connection with
the positive worship of the pagans, could be admitted without

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 5
injuring the new Faith : such are the Good Shepherd, Orpheus
surrounded by animals, etc." *
It is well known, too, how Christianity appropriated
heathen temples, festivals, and rites, and consecrated them
all to a nobler end. Nay, the spirit of Aristotle's method
dominated Christian logic for centuries, as Plato's philo
sophy passed into Christian thought through the influence
of the Alexandrian school, and afterwards through St.
Augustine. It need not, therefore, surprise us if, when
the older revelation descended from heaven to earth, it
did not disdain the services of its pagan forerunner ; but,
while asserting its own intrinsic superiority, yet used them
as the readiest way to win acceptance for itself.
" The tenets of natural religion, though they never con
stituted by themselves a real historical religion, supply the
only ground on which even revealed religions can stand, the
only soil where they can strike root, and from which they can
receive nourishment and life. If we took away the soil, or if
we supposed that it, too, had to be supplied by revelation, we
should not only run counter to the letter and spirit of the Old
and the New Testament, but we should degrade revealed religion
by changing it into a mere formula, to be accepted by a
recipient incapable of questioning, weighing, and appreciating
its truth ; we should indeed have the germ, but we should have
thrown away the congenial soil in which alone the germs of
revealed truth can live and grow." J
Nor will an admission of this sort militate in any way
against the inspiration of the Bible. It is too early yet
to formulate any definition of Inspiration, but this much
is made clear by recent discussion : (I) The nature and
extent of inspiration must be determined by the Bible's
own witness to itself, and not by any preconceived theories,
however venerable or highly placed. (2) It will be found
* " Aeademie des Inscriptions," torn. xvi. pt. 2, p. 240.
t Max Mttller, "Lectures on the Science of Religion," 1882, p. 75.

6 ORIQINES JUDAIC^.
to work largely in the direction of selection taken all
round — selection, that is, of one nation out of all others,
of certain writers above the rest in that nation, of certain
materials out of the mass of either pre-existing foreign
or contemporaneous native writings, and even of certain
works of one author to the rejection of the rest. (3)
Inspiration will also be sought, and, it may be, mainly '
sought, in the one progressive purpose which is seen, like a
golden chain, to run through the whole course of revelation,
linking every preceding fact to every succeeding one, and
making them all subserve a common end. Inspiration, of
course, may eventually be found to include more than this.
It would hardly seem, however, that we are in a position
yet to claim a consensus theologorum for more than what
has been stated above.
The way this purpose, as we now trace its features,
worked in the sacred record is well described by Francois
Lenormant, who, speaking of the two antediluvian genea
logies of Genesis, remarks very truly —
" Eien presente a un plus haut degre le cachet de la sorte
d'Euhenierisme particulier qui est propre a, la Bible, que son
monotheisme rigoreux lui a inspire, et qui reduit aux pro
portions strictement humaines, en les depouillant autant que
possible de leur caractere allegorique,* les heros de la tradition
populaire qu'elle accepte en enregistrant les plus antiques
souvenirs recus de ces ancfitres par le peuple dTsrael. C'est
un niveau implacable et systematique, proscrivant impitoyable-
ment toute trace d'esprit mythique, sous lequel on a fait passer
tous ces personages, concus d'abord d'apres la genie syrnbolique
de la haute antiquite." f
The most conservative champion of the traditional view
of the Old Testament must admit here the debt that
* In the " Shi-King," a collection of songs selected by Kong-tse, and
included in the canonical books of his followers, all mythological expressions
seem to have been eliminated in the same way.
t "Les Origines de l'Histoire," i. 182.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 7
orthodoxy owes to the Higher Criticism. It has insisted
strongly on the later redaction that the Bible narratives
have undergone, and it is that redaction that the Roman
Catholic critic Lenormant specifies as giving orthodoxy to
the borrowed materials. If that redaction be denied or
ignored, we are left to explain as we may the presence in
the inspired record of passages the non-Hebrew origin of
which has been established beyond all possibility of doubt.
But the most orthodox may admit that origin, and yet
may assign the inspiration of the passages in question to
the differences between their Hebrew and foreign setting.
In other words, the inspiration will show itself in the
redaction that they may have undergone.
The present bearing of what has just been said as to
inspiration may be illustrated by a single example drawn
from a subject which will occupy our attention more fully
later on, viz. the nature and place of mythology in
religion. Mr. Gore, in essay V. of " Lux Mundi," used the
word "myth" in such a way as to give rise to a large
amount of severe criticism. He said —
" Once again : an enlarged study of comparative history
has led to our perceiving that the various sorts of mental or
literary activity develop in their different lines out of an
earlier condition in which they lie fused and undifferentiated.
This we can vaguely call the mythical stage of mental evolution.
A myth is not a falsehood ; it is a product of mental activity,
as instructive and rich as any later product, but its characteristic
is that it is not yet distinguished into history, and poetry,
and philosophy. It is all these in the germ, as dream and
imagination and thought and experience are fused in the mental
furniture of a child's mind.' ' These myths or current stories,'
says Grote, writing of Greek history, ' the spontaneous and
earliest growth of the Greek mind, constituted at the same
time the entire intellectual stock of the age to which they
belonged. They are the common root of all those different
ramifications into which the mental activity of the Greeks

8 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
subsequently diverged ; containing, as it were, the preface and
germ of the positive history and philosophy, the dogmatic
theology and the professed romance, which we shall hereafter
trace, each in its separate development.' Now, has the Jewish
history such earlier stage ; does it pass back out of history
into myth? In particular are not its earlier narratives, before
the call of Abraham, of the nature of myth, in which we
cannot distinguish the historical germ, though we do not at all
deny that it exists ?
" The inspiration of these narratives is as conspicuous as
that of any part of Scripture, but is there anything to prevent
our regarding these great inspirations about the origin of all
things — the nature of sin, the judgment of God on sin, and the
alienation from God as conveyed to us in that form of myth
or allegorical picture, which is the earliest mode in which the
mind of man apprehends truth ? " *
Those who attacked Mr. Gore on the ground that to
posit a myth is to deny a history, should remember that a
myth may itself be a history. "It is highly erroneous
to speak, as is often done, of myth and history as two
opposites which exclude any third possibility." -J- And
those who affirm that at all events myths are unreliable
because of the tricks that an untutored imagination may
play with the truth of things, may be reminded that the
knowledge of the modes of thought of the authors of our
earliest religious teachings is in itself a priceless boon. Our
religion has sprung from their mythology. " Mythologies
are by no means to be regarded as the mere creation of
human fancy, but as a 'theogonic' process elaborated in
the human consciousness, and as presupposing a primitive
revelation within the mind of man." $
The critics of "Lux Mundi" did not always stop to
inquire what was the exact meaning attached to the term
* " Lux Mundi," 5th edit., pp. 356, 357.
f Goldziher, " Mythology among the Hebrews," p. 22.
% Keil, " Biblical Archaeology," vol. i. pp. 89, 90.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 9
"myth" in the passage quoted above. They, or some of
them, assumed too hastily that a myth is but another
name for a falsehood, and therefore has no place in Holy
Writ. They did not know that mythology is a form of
expression, an infantile way of looking at things, the
stammering language of babes and sucklings from which
praise has been perfected. Mr. Gore accordingly after
wards explained that a myth is not necessarily inconsistent
with the over-ruling purposes of inspiration, but is capable
of being adopted, moulded, and made subservient to the
end in view.
" Now if we recognize that God in the Old Testament can
condescend for the purposes of His revelation to a low stage of
conscience, and a low stage of worship, what possible ground
have we for denying that He can use for purposes of His
inspiration literary methods also which belong to a rude and
undeveloped state of intelligence ? If He can ' inspire ' with
true teaching the native Semite customs of ritual, why can He
not do the same with their traditions of old time ? How can
we reasonably deny that the earlier portions of Genesis may
contain the simple record of primitive prehistoric tradition of
the Semites, moulded and used by the Holy Spirit, as on all
showing the record manifestly has been moulded and used to
convey the fundamental principles of all true religion ? " *
These " literary methods " depend on the earlier myth,
and, according to a definition of M. Reville, which is some
what wider than most mythologians are inclined to make
the term "myth," —
" the myth is either the description of a natural phenomenon
considered as the exponent of a Divine drama, or else the incor
poration of a moral idea in a dramatic narrative. In both
cases, that which is permanent or frequent in nature and in
humanity is brought together into one event, accomplished
* Preface to the tenth edition of " Lux Mundi," pp. xxviii., xxix.

10 ORIGINES JUDAICJE.
once for all, and the drama, although invented, is looted upon
as real." *
The myth is thus the embodiment of the thoughts of
mant in his youth about the phenomena which a more
scientific age learns later to distinguish into doctrines
about God, the Soul, the World. These thoughts may have
no more objective truth than the imaginings of an intelli
gent three-year-old child at our knees, or they may en
shrine simple yet deep truths in a picturesque but vanishing
form. The only question, therefore, which can arise in
this connection, is whether it is permissible that pagan
myths should be adopted into a system of Divine revela
tion — a question which can only assume the form: Has
God, as a matter of fact, utilized such myths or beliefs in
the Jewish revelation ? And to answer this question we
must go to the record itself, and compare it with what we
know from other sources to have been the content of pagan
systems anterior to Judaism.
The question may very fairly be put whether, as a
matter of fact, revelation has condescended to use pagan
materials ; but Bishop Butler's $ wise words should save us
from all temptation to lay down a priori what form reve
lation is bound to take —
" The only question," he says, " concerning the truth of
* "Prolegomena of the History of Religions," p. 111. [Williams and
Norgate. 1884.]
t Cf. the article " Urim and Thummim" in Smith's " Dictionary of the
Bible : " " It is obvious in such a case [the use of the scarabseus as a
symbol], as with the crux ansata, the Scarabseus is neither an idol nor
identified with idolatry. It is simply a word, as much the mere exponent
of a thought as if it were spoken with the lips, or written in phonetic
characters. There is nothing in its Egyptian origin or its animal form
which need startle us any more than the like origin of the Ark or the
Thummim, or the like form in the Brazen Serpent, or the fourfold symbolic
figures of the Cherubim." Mutatis mutandis, the same may be said of the
myth. t " Analogy," pt. ii. c. 3.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 11
Christianity is whether it be a real revelation ; not whether it
be attended with every circumstance which we should have
looked for : and concerning the authority of Scripture, whether
it be what it claims to be ; not whether it be a book of such
sort, and so promulged as weak men are apt to fancy a book
containing a Divine revelation should."
But, before we turn to the record itself, two facts will
have to be considered — one the significant change which
has silently and yet surely come over men's views as to the
nature of revealed religion, and the other the mode in
which we may believe the evolution of the world-religions
to have taken place. As to the former, we need but notice
the contrast between the division formerly drawn between
Christians and non-Christians and that drawn now. In
the fifth century, Christian teachers had no doubt about
the heathen. Non-Christians were outside the Ark, and
therefore must perish; those who remained within, free
from mortal sin, were assured of salvation. The Inquisi
tion was a perfectly logical method of asserting this eternal
distinction. It is not too much to say that modern Chris
tianity has for all practical purposes surrendered this
belief. Men no longer condemn those who disagree with
them in their creed to endless torment; they no longer
burn their bodies to save their souls; they admit, nay,
they are forward to welcome, any generous and reasonable
expedient by which the new spirit may still be enclosed in
the old forms, as, e.g., Pius IX. 's offer of hope to non-Roman
Catholics on the score of invincible ignorance.* Moreover,
joined to these tokens of tolerance on the part of believers,
* " Tenendum quippe ex fide est extra Apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam
salvum fieri neminem posse, banc esse unicain salutis arcam, hane qui non
fuerit ingressus, diluvio peritrurum ; sed tamen pro certo pariter habendum
est, qui verae religionis ignorantia laborent, si ea sit invincibilis, nulla ipsos
obstringi hujusce rei culpa ante oculos Domini. Ex Pii IX. Allocutione,
9 Dec, 1854."

12 ORIGINE S JUDAIC^.
we .find a remarkable indifference to definite theology on
the part of those unattached to any religious creeds save
the simplest. According to our beliefs we shall deplore
or applaud this change of view, but no competent observer
of modern religious thought in Christian bodies in general
will deny its existence. It is a fact to be reckoned with,
whatever moral colour it wears to our eyes.
What is the cause of this remarkable phenomenon ?
No doubt much of it may be due to the divisions which
prevent the voice of the Christian Church from being
listened to with the reverence which an undisputed
authority would naturally claim. But this only suggests
the further question : " What supports the tortoise ? "
Why are Christians divided ? And the answer must refer
us to three powerful causes, which in their turn have for
three centuries been slowly shaping modern thought, viz.
the discoveries of physical science, especially of astronomy ;
the discoveries in the world of ancient religions ; and the
doctrine of evolution.
In the fifteenth century the western part of Europe
was brought back to an intellectual and spiritual condition
very similar to what the Roman Empire found itself in at
the beginning of our era. An old world was on its death
bed, a new one was ready to take its place. This new
order was ushered in by some remarkable discoveries, aided
by a no less remarkable apostle — the printing-press. The
surface of the earth was completed by the unrolling of a
new continent; the old world of Rome and Athens was
brought from its wintry sleep ; and the infinite expanse of
the heavens was made still more awful by the discovery of
the telescope. When, for example, astronomers tell us that
our whole solar system is to the nebula in Orion as a half-
inch square is to a two-yards square; when they tell us
that the number of derelict suns wandering through space

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 13
is equal to the number of those still alive and brilliant ;
when, too, at the other end, the microscope reveals the
infinitesimally small, and untold myriads of sentient beings
where our forefathers saw a desert, who can help being
appalled by the awful greatness and no less awful smallness
of created things ? The knowledge thus gained by the
chosen few was soon made the possession of the unlettered
many by the improvements in the art of printing. The
chief result from these discoveries and their dissemination
far and wide was a widening of man's mental horizon, and
a consequent dwarfing of his own importance in his own
eyes.* "What is man that Thou shouldst be mindful of
him ? " became the new version of his questioning of God,
caused by the acquired sense of his own insignificance in a
universe teeming with worlds greater than his own, each
of which it would appear had been brought to its present
state through seons of patient preparation. The discovery
of Copernicus, it has been said, was the death-blow to
Christianity. "The new Astronomy transferred the
centre of the world from the small earth to the mighty
sun ; the new Sociology transfers the centre of social life
from the small group of idlers to the mighty mass
of workers." f Similarly, the new Theology is tending
to transfer religion from a personal God to the cosmical
forces. Akin to this humbled feeling attacking us as men is
the spirit of depression which, from a similar cause, has
settled on us as religious men. If we are almost nothing
in the infinite space of the universe, and among myriads of
other races of spiritual beings, our religion too, we are
alarmed to find, is threatened with an eclipse from the
* On the groundlessness of this feeling, see some excellent remarks in
A. J. Balfour, " The Foundations of Belief," pp. 343-348.
t Lewes, "History of Philosophy," vol. i. p. 20, ed. 1880.

14 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
great world-religions of India, Assyria, and Egypt* The
Sphinx has been made, if not to speak, at least to whisper
some of its secrets; the veil of Neith,t the mother of
mysteries, has been lifted as to one corner; while, from
George Smith to Professor Sayce, scholars have been
deciphering the cylinders on which Assyria has written
her religious beliefs and aspirations. So strong, too, is
India's religion still, that Hinduism, in a more or less
debased form, has been seriously propounded to Westerns
by Westerns as the panacea for all religious ills, and as a
nobler philosophy and purer moral code than Christianity
can supply.
One consequence of this increased familiarity with
these venerable faiths, and of an appreciation of the truths
they contain, is a temporary alarm for the supremacy of
Christianity itself. It is difficult, many are vaguely feeling,
to place their religion on its former lofty pedestal, if other
religions have forestalled so many of its truths, or reached
unaided to truths that were formerly thought to be the
special gift of God to man through the channel of revela
tion. These are the feelings that are stirring many minds,
and if we do not share in the alarm they indicate, we can
at all events sympathize with those who have them, and
perhaps help them to escape from their anxieties by
pointing to the cause.
Following on these, and partly as a consequence of the
former, partly as a subsidiary cause of the latter, is the
doctrine of evolution. It is true that the doctrine is not
new, for it was known to Greek philosophy five centuries
* " Israel is no more the pivot on which the development of the whole
world turns, than the planet which we inhabit is the centre of the universe "
(Kuenen, " Religion of Israel," i. 9).
t Cf. the inscription on her temple as given by Proclus : Th bvra, /ca! ra
liro/KVa, Kal tcL yeyov6ra, 4yii eifu. Tbv ifibv x'Tava ovSeis aireKdtotyw, %v 4y&>
Kapirbv ere/cov fi\ios iyivero. Cf. De Rouge", Rev. Arch., 1851, i. 58-60.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 15
before Jesus Christ. It was clearly taught, too, by St.
Vincent of Lerins : —
" But some will say, perhaps, shall there be no progress in
Christ's Church? Certainly, all possible progress. Yet on
condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith.
For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself;
alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The
intelligence, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals
as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought in
the course of ages and centuries to increase and make much
and vigorous progress ; but yet only in its own kind, that is to
say in the same doctrine, in the same sense and in the same
meaning." *
But though not new as an idea, it is new as an effective
force over the whole field of thought. When it was first
brought to the front by Charles Darwin and Professor
Wallace, it was opposed strenuously by traditional theology,
then it became familiarized, and now it is accepted. It is
not pretended that it is an exhaustive explanation of all
cosmical processes and of all sentient existence, but it is
agreed by all competent thinkers that evolution is a law of
nature to which all things conform. I do not enter into
any discussion of the exact idea that is to be attached to
the term ; this is a matter whose proper debating place is
in the schools. But, speaking generally, the doctrine of
evolution as teaching a gradual progress of innate powers
to their full perfection, whether through the kindly in
fluence of favourable circumstances, or in spite of the
hindrances caused by unfavourable, is now beyond dispute.
It is accepted by all students of physics and of psychology.
From a heresy it has become a postulate. Accordingly,
theologians nowadays, ever since Mozley published his
" Ruling Ideas in Early Ages," have set themselves to the
task of showing that not only is there nothing in the
* " Commonitorium," c. xxiii.

16 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
philosophical conception of evolution contradictory to
the records of revelation, but that those records themselves
speak of the same gradual process being adopted in the
preparation made for the coming of the Messiah.
While all this may be fully admitted, it is, at the same
time, right to point out that that was not the view upper
most in the minds of defenders of revealed religion at the
period which preceded the enunciation of this doctrine. A
doctrine of evolution has always been written in large
letters across the face of the Christian records, but the
deism of the eighteenth century had done much to lead
astray Christian thought by countenancing the carpenter
theory of the universe.
" For whereas the material and organic world was once
supposed to have been created 'all of a piece,' and to show
contrivance on the part of its Author merely by the machine
like adjustment of its parts, so now science has adopted an idea
which has always been an essential part of the Christian view
of the Divine economy, has given to that idea an undreamed-of
extension, has applied it to the whole universe of phenomena,
organic and inorganic, and has returned it again to theology
enriched and strengthened and developed." *
It may be further remarked that, if this theory is to be
adopted as forming part of our intellectual data, then it
will have to be applied more thoroughly than it formerly
was. It will not be sufficient to allege a general evolution
of Christianity out of Judaism; an evolution of Israel's
belief, rites, and religion in general will have to be allowed.
The origin of Judaism, in its low and early stages, out of
the preceding heathenism ; the struggle between the worship
of Yahveh and the nature- worship of surrounding nations ;
the gradual conception formed of Yahveh, from being the
tribal god of Israel to the one true God, beside whom
* A. J. Balfour, " The Foundations of Belief," p. 320.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 17
there is none other, will have to be traced ; the growth of
the ceremonial law, the success of the higher ideas of the
prophets, the slow education of the Jewish nation, will all
have to be explained by those who affirm that evolution
includes in its wide sweep the facts of revelation as
recorded in Holy Writ. Moreover, if the history of the
Jews is to be subjected to a test which borrows its spirit
from the postulate of evolution, it is difficult to see why
the history of the Christian Church should not be called
upon to submit to the same process.
It is not our purpose, however, here to inquire how far
it may be legitimate to apply this doctrine of evolution.
I content myself with drawing attention to the fact that
it has entered as an ingredient into every modern mode
of thought, and that, consciously or unconsciously, the
framework into which we fit all our thoughts is supplied
by it, so much so that it is almost a logical impossibility
for us of the present day to give permanent lodgment in
our minds to any ideas that do not fit in with this pre
conceived system. If physical science has revealed to us
an orderly process in the formation of worlds, in the pro
duction of sentient and rational life ; if the study of old
faiths is conducted on a presupposition that growth and
a strict connection between cause and effect are present
throughout, it is futile to expect that revealed religion
will be allowed any immunity from this ruling idea. If
it is subjected to the test and declared wanting, it will be
condemned by its self-appointed judges. Some reasons, it
is hoped, will be given in what follows for a belief that it
can stand the test of these more modern methods, and that
it has no reason to shirk the fullest inquiry into its origin
and growth.
Many of the problems, no doubt, which beset this
subject would be solved easily if the hypothesis of a
c

18 ORIGINES JUDAIC 'JS.
primitive revelation could be raised to the level of a
scientific fact, or even be established as of high proba
bility. An a priori proof is insufficient, and, if the doctrine
of evolution holds the field of prior postulates, is impossible.
For that doctrine leaves us in an uncertainty whether the
interval between the highest brute and the first man was
wide enough to enable us to fix a moment when there
appeared a being sufficiently qualified to receive a revela
tion. Indeed, on the theory that man in his earliest form
of existence was but a step above the brute in intelligence
and moral power, it is obvious that no revelation, in the
sense generally intended, could have been possible. At
the same time, it should be observed that if we cannot
positively affirm a primitive revelation, others are equally
unable to deny it. The wise words of Bishop Butler*
accurately describe the position : —
" We are wholly ignorant what degree of new knowledge it
were to be expected God would give mankind by revelation
upon supposition of His affording one ; or how far, or in what
way He would interpose miraculously to qualify them to whom
He should originally make the revelation for communicating the
knowledge given by it ; and to secure their doing it to the age
in which they should live ; and to secure its being transmitted
to posterity."
The question is one of evidence.
But, happily for our present purpose, there is no need
here to enter into the spacious question whether evolution
is to be accepted, and, if so, what kind. For there is a
theory capable of scientific support, intermediary between
that of a primitive and perfect revelation, and that
of an uninterrupted gradual upward development, and
that is the theory of an upward climb followed by a
lamentable fall. One school of modern gnostics affirms
* "Analogy," pt. ii. c. 3.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 19
that the soul of man by its projection into a material body
has first fallen, then risen, then fallen again, and then
sought its final origin — has, in fact, followed a switchback
mode of motion. Others, however, who are not prepared
to dogmatize about the origin of the soul and the birth of
worlds, are content to note the rhythmical nature of
human progress. When we look at Egypt, at Assyria, at
Canaan during the Israelitish possession of this latter
country, we can discover traces of the low type of the
popular religion. But further inquiry has established
beyond all doubt that this religion was not merely of a
low type, it was also a degradation of a higher original.
And when we piece together the broken fragments of our
evidence we are struck with the accurate observation, the
massive judgment, the deep philosophy, and shrewd policy
of the framers of the older religion. Whatever religion in
Egypt may have become by the time of Pharaoh-Necho,
or in Assyria by the time of Assur-bani-pal, it is obvious
that the sacerdotal bodies who moulded their creeds were
the depositories of many centuries of stored-up wisdom.
We may safely allow, therefore, that if the hypothesis
of a primary revelation be ruled out of court as possible
but not provable, then we arrive at a similar result re
latively to later ages. To the inhabitant of Western Asia,
of Phoenicia, of Egypt, and of Greece, the wisdom of the
Chaldean was as good as a revelation. As he passed
through the various stages of the "mysteries" he rose
from the gross conceptions of the vulgar to the highest
wisdom that man in forgotten ages had attained. Whether
this wisdom were the result of the labours of centuries, or
were a revelation given once and for all,* was a question
* It is " more consonant with the general working of an all-wise and all-
powerful Creator, that He should have endowed human nature with the
essential conditions of speech, instead of presenting mute beings with

20 ORIGINES JUDAIC 'JS.
of comparatively little importance. And we, too, living as
we do in the light of a higher revelation still, may be
content to say that, whether God saw fit to reveal Himself
in the beginning, or to give man the faculties, and arrange
his circumstances, so that he might attain the same wisdom
slowly and painfully, is a matter of indifference so long as
the truth is gained. And that later ages had, whether a
revelation or an intellectual harvest, is indisputable. As
in many other things, so in ancient religions, we have to
confess that the old is better.
Nor need we have scientific scruples in applying con
jectures based on observation of heathen customs to the
Jewish religion. For, in the first place, the scientific
method requires precisely the course here adopted. Our
Observations are drawn from the wider field of Aryan and
Semite religious belief and custom. On generalizing from
these observations we are able to formulate certain general
formulae in the shape of Hypotheses, which rise to the level
of ascertained fact when they have been verified. A
Verification takes place when, on examination of the
Hebrew records, we find embedded in them similar facts
bearing the same construction. Thus, if at the time of
the Exodus we find serpent-worship in vogue in Egypt,
and, on extending our observations, we find similar worship
generally prevalent, we are able to lay it down as an
hypothesis that what was so generally distributed was not
likely to have passed by the dwellers in Canaan. Accord
ingly, when the Hebrew records reveal, in however slight
grammars and dictionaries ready made. . . . The same applies to religion.
A universal primeval religion revealed direct by God to man, or rather to a
crowd of atheists, may, to our human wisdom, seem the best solution of all
difficulties ; but a higher wisdom speaks to us from out the realities of
history, and teaches us, if we will but learn, that ' we have all to seek the
Lord, if haply we may feel after Him and find Him, though He be not far
from every one of us ' " (Max Miiller, " Lectures on the Science of Religion,"
1882, p. 78).

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 21
a degree, the existence of such worship among the Jews,
we are justified in seeing in those records a verification of
our hypothesis.
In the second place, it must be remembered that there
are many degrees of assent, from the lowest presumption
to that high probability which borders on certitude. In
investigations into matters of ancient history, especially
when new materials are constantly being offered us by
explorers, the existence of these degrees is particularly to
be remarked. Science is " content with that degree of
relative certainty which permits prevision and the adjust
ments consequent on prevision." We have no right to
demand " better bread than can be made of wheat." In all
investigations "the varying degrees of probability will
depend on the possibility of admitting a negative. This
latter condition varies of course with the enlargements of
knowledge, that negative which was easily thinkable at one
epoch becoming unthinkable at another." Where absolute
certainty is unattainable " our only ground is probability,
or such harmony of our explanation with established truths
as compels conviction." *
It is for the reader to judge of the exact degree of
probability reached by the comparison here instituted
between Jewish customs as evidenced by the Old Testa
ment and heathen customs as known from the many sources
at our disposal. All that is contended for is that there is
a family likeness between the two, and that they display
a common menotheistic base. That result holds good if
facts have been accurately observed and judiciously
generalized. If new facts or a more sound generalization
can be brought to the front, our result must then, and not
till then, give place to one more probable.
* On this subject, see the admirable remarks of Mr. Lewes in the Intro
duction to his "History of Philosophy," vol. i. pp. lxvi., lxx., lxxvi., ed. 1880.

22 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.

CHAPTER II.
ON THE PLACE OF THE JEWS IN HISTORY.
On the very threshold of any attempt to compare Jewish
and heathen beliefs we are opposed by a feeling which finds
its strength in an unverified conviction that the Jewish
nation was divinely separated from the rest of the nations,
in such a way that their history begins with a white
sheet on which all that was afterwards written was written
in Divine characters. All that was human previously was,
it is felt, nullified when Yahveh separated Israel to be
His own son, and, if anything human creeps in afterwards,
it is to be carefully excised as an accretion foreign to the
true life ofthe chosen people. This attitude towards the
Old Testament is based on feeling rather than on conviction,
for when examined it cannot stand any legitimate test.
According to it the legislators and heroes of the Jews were
Divine puppets mechanically set in action, instead of human
beings under Divine tuition.
The error involved in this view is that which is
engrained in the Puritan mode of looking at God and the
world, which is well illustrated by the now exploded
theory of verbal inspiration. It regards God as infinitely
distant from man and from the world at large. It would,
if it were logical — which happily it seldom is — deny the
possibility of vital relations being established between God
and the children of His hand; for, though they are His
creatures, yet are they totally depraved and corrupt. To

ON THE PLACE OF TEE JEWS IN HISTORY. 23
pass from this condition to that of children is to pass from
death into life, a step which must be taken at one leap,
and admits of no preparation and no gradual progress.
Such a one-sided view of God and man might serve a good
purpose in a certain stage of human progress, as, e.g., in
days when the " categorical imperative " of duty asked for
re-affirmation. But in days marked by keen intellectual
inquiry, not only is the distortion to which truth is here
subjected easily detected, but if this view were accepted
it would turn into heretics all those who acknowledge
God's image in all men, and His tender mercy in all His
works. But, as has been finely asked, —
" aTe we to find a full measure of inspiration in the highest
utterances of Hebrew prophet or psalmist, and to suppose that
the primitive religious conceptions common to the Semitic race
had in them no touch of the Divine ? Hardly, if we also believe
that it was these primitive conceptions which the ' Chosen
People7 were divinely ordained to purify, to elevate, and to
expand until they became fitting elements in a religion adequate
to the necessities of a world." *
The greatest Fathers of the Church have not failed to
see " God in and behind nature," and " the old unconscious
religious tradition " behind the " Positive religion " of
Judaism. Nay, they have even seen the same thing in
Christianity itself. Gregory of Nyssa praised Gregory the
Wonder-worker for adapting heathen temples to Christian
worship; and Gregory of Tours specially dwells on the
wisdom which, at the baptism of Clovis, showed itself in
the use of a certain amount of material pageantry which
was borrowed from the familiar heathen ritual. St.
Chrysostom rests on the same principle when he explains
why God made use of Jewish things to commend Chris
tianity, and heathen things to commend Judaism : —
* A. J. Balfour, "The Foundations of Belief," p. 331.

24 ORIGINES JUDAICJS.
" In exceeding condescension He calls them through what
is familiar. ... In imitation of this Paul too reasons with
the Greeks from an altar, and adduces testimony from the poets,
while he harangues the Jews on circumcision, and makes from
the sacrifices a beginning of instruction for those who are living
under the law. For since to every one familiar things are dear,
therefore both God himself and the men who were sent from
God, with a view to the salvation of the world, manage things
on this principle.
" Think it not then unworthy of Him to have called them
by a star ; for by the same rule thou wilt find fault with all
the Jewish rites also — both the sacrifices and the purifications
and the new moons and the ark, and the temple itself. For all
these things had their origin from Gentile grossness. Yet
God, on account of the salvation of those in error, endured to
be worshipped by means of the very things through which
those outside were worshipping demons, only giving them a
slight alteration, that little by little He might draw them away
from their customs and lead them up to the high philosophy." *
Keil, while acknowledging the impossibility of main
taining the " older orthodox " opinion of Bochart, Abbe
Guerin du Rocher, Vossius, Huet, i.e. of Josephus, that the
Mosaic institutions were strictly original, and that kindred
heathen forms were mere imitations, rejects the view that
any heathen institutions were allowed to be imported by
God's condescension to Israelitish weakness — a monotheistic
colouring being given to the blend. He refuses, too, the
explanation of evolutionists, like Vatke and Kuenen, that
what is common to Judaism and heathenism was the ethnic
ground out of which monotheism sprang. His objection
to the former of these two explanations, viz. that there is
an inward relation between the ceremonies and the essence
of religion, and that, therefore, the adoption of heathen
ceremonies was incompatible with the purer essence of
Yahveh's worship, seems to be met by saying that, granting
* St. Chrysostom, " Horn.," in Matt. vi. 3.

ON THE PLACE OF THE JEWS IN HISTORY. 25
the supposition that no such ceremonies were adopted,
yet the Jews retained their leaning towards idolatry to
the time of the Captivity. If monotheistic forms, on his
supposition, did not conserve the monotheistic spirit, what
advantage had they over polytheistic ?
His objection to the second theory, that Judaistic forms
were borrowed from the heathens and modified to the pur
poses of revelation, viz. that —
" if the idol- worship were once to be abandoned then the
symbols that belong to it, and that reflect its spirit, would
necessarily be discarded along with it, and would have to
make way for a new set of symbols and forms of worship cal
culated to embody the spiritual idea of God that would in that
case have dawned upon the mind,"
is met by pointing to the incorporation by the Christian
Church of many of the usages of heathendom. And yet
the differences between Heathenism and Christianity were,
to say the least, quite as great as between Heathenism and
Judaism. Keil's own explanation distinguishes between what is
found semper et ubique among heathens, and what is of only
partial occurrence. He would accept the former and reject
the latter, on the ground that the former was not so much
heathen as the outcome of God's primaeval constitution of
man, which caused him to give a general uniformity to his
forms of worship wherever found, an outcome, too, which
might be expected from the admitted unity of origin of
the race, and which would also naturally spring from the
intercourse of tribe with tribe. Accordingly Keil admits
that —
" Divine revelation does not refuse to avail itself of human
culture and knowledge, but interpenetrates them with its own
elevating and illuminating influences to render them the
better fitted for promoting the aims of the Kingdom of God.

26 ORIGINE S JUDAIC^.
Therefore, it is quite possible that various forms belonging to
Egyptian worship, i.e. such forms as in themselves did not
embody any religious ideas of a specifically heathen kind, but
only those of a universal nature, and which first came to
acquire their heathen character through inward contact with
what was specifically heathen, were imported into the Mosaic
worship." *
The weakness of this reasoning is not only due to its
a priori character, but also to the vagueness of the word
" heathen." In fact, it is reasoning in a vicious circle.
There can be nothing strictly heathen, it argues, in Jewish
religion, because nothing strictly heathen would be admitted.
Whereas the question is not " What would be likely to be
done," but " What as a matter of fact has been done ? "
The same superstitious belief which locks up all truth
of all kinds within the covers of the Bible was rampant in
Hooker's time. Every one remembers how again and again
he has to insist on the fact that the Bible was the supple
ment and not the substitute of reason.
" Whereas they allege," he says, " that Wisdom doth teach
men ' every good way,' and have thereupon inferred that no
way is good in any kind of action unless Wisdom do by Scrip
ture lead unto it ; see they not plainly how they restrain the
manifold ways which Wisdom hath to teach men by unto one
only way of teaching which is by Scripture ? ... As her ways
are of sundry kinds, so her manner of teaching is not merely
one and the same. Some things she openeth by the sacred
Books of Scripture; some things by the glorious works of
Nature ; with some things she inspireth them from above by
spiritual influence ; in some things she leadeth and traineth
them only by worldly experience and practice." j
The argument condemned here is exactly the one used
by those who would exclude from revelation any use of
the knowledge of God gained without the law. Elsewhere
* " Biblical Archasology," vol. i. p. 94. t " E. P.," II. ii. 1.

ON THE PLACE OF THE JEWS IN HISTORY. 27
he lays down positively what just above he had dealt
with negatively : —
" We may safely conclude that it is not evil simply to con
cur with the heathens either in opinion or in action, and that
conformity with them is then only a disgrace when either we
follow them in that they think and do amiss, or follow them
generally in that they do, without other reason than only the
liking we have to the pattern of their example, which liking
doth intimate a more universal approbation of them than is
allowable." *
The distaste for human knowledge, as apart from the
guidance of revelation, that lies at the root of all objection
to building up revelation on a prior base of Gentilism is
scornfully dismissed : —
" But ' many great philosophers,' it is urged, ' have been very
unsound in belief.' And many ' sound in belief have been also
great philosophers.' Could secular knowledge bring the one
sort unto the love of Christian faith ? Nor Christian faith the
other sort out of love with secular knowledge ? " t
The words of Robertson Smith, in his first lecture on
" The Religion of the Semites," may be quoted as expressing
exactly what the Fathers of the Church and Christians in
general recognize as true : —
" No positive religion that has moved men has been able to
start with a tabula rasa, and express itself as if religion were
beginning for the first time ; in form, if not in substance, the
new system must be in contact all along the line with the older
ideas and practices which it finds in possession. A new scheme
of faith can find a hearing only by appealing to religious in
stincts and susceptibilities that already exist in its audience,
and it cannot reach these without taking account of the tradi
tional forms in which all religious feeling is embodied, and
without speaking a language which men accustomed to these
old forms can understand." J
* "E. P.," IV. vii. 1. t Ibid., III. viii. 8. J Page 2.

28 ORIGINES JUDAICJE.
That is to say, that any revelation from God must, by
virtue of the very laws impressed on human nature by
God Himself, adapt itself to the current beliefs, ways of
thinking, and imperfections of those to whom it is addressed.
St. Paul at Athens argued to Greeks on the basis of their
heathen belief, and at Thessalonica to Jews on the basis of
theirs. Had he interchanged his sermons his hearers might
have had some cause for denouncing him as a "mad
fellow." Of course the question of principle, that all religious
revelation is under the necessity of speaking with stammer
ing lips as people can understand it, is logically distinct
from the question whether, as a matter' of fact, revelation
has done so, and, if so, what amount of pre-existing material
it has seen fit to incorporate, to reject, or to transmute.
This, of course, can be determined by no a priori theory as
to the nature of revelation, its scope, and methods, but only
by a careful study of what evidence shows it actually
to be. Kuenen, on the other hand, in his " Religion of Israel "
lays down the proposition that if there be any specific
difference between the religion of Israel and the " principal
religions " of the world, then " their union in one group can
only lead to misunderstanding and confusion," because this
idea of a specific difference places a deep gulf between it
and the " principal religions." This assumes as unquestion
able the Puritan fallacy that a divinely revealed religion
like that of the Jews must necessarily be placed in an
exclusive class by itself. It assumes, too, that revelation
must be of such a character that none of the "principal
religions" can by any process of thought be brought side
by side with it, that so by comparison its salient points
may be brought into strong relief.
This assumption is the more remarkable because Kuenen

ON THE PLACE OF THE JEWS IN HISTORY. 29
admits that "Zarathrusta, Sakya-Mooni and Mohammed pass
among their followers for envoys of the Godhead ; and in
the estimation of the Brahmin, the Vedas and the laws of
Manou are holy, Divine books." This does not, however,
prevent him from recognizing the legitimacy of examining
those religions with a view to determining the validity of
their claims. Why should he not then do the same for
Judaism, leaving the question of its specific difference to
depend on an a posteriori examination of its contents,
instead of pushing it on one side by an a priori assump
tion that the claims of each of the " principal religions "
to supernatural origin are discredited by the similar pre
tensions of its rivals ? For this is what he does when he
asks the question — " If we look upon those other religions
as so many manifestations of the religious spirit of mankind,
are we not bound to examine the Israelitish and the
Christian religions also from the same point of view ? "
A more scientific way of putting an initial question of this
sort would be — " If the ' principal religions ' all alike lay
claim to a supernatural origin, are we not bound to examine
the contents of them all alike to see whether the claims
they make are well founded or not ? " To prejudge the
question at issue is as unscientific when the judgment is
given thus against the Jewish religion, as when it is given
in the same way for it.
Ecclesiastical tradition does not exclaim, when the sacred
books of Christianity are approached, Odi profanum
vulgus et arceo;* it does not shrink from "impartial
* Nearly every religion seems to adopt the language of the Pharisee
rather than that of the publican. It is Christianity alone which, as the
religion of humanity, as the religion of no caste, of no chosen people, has
taught us to study the history of mankind, as our own, to discover the traces
of a Divine wisdom and love in the development of all the races of the world,
and to recognize, if possible, even in the lowest and crudest forms of religious
belief, not the work of the devil, but something that indicates a Divine

30 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
criticism," so long as it is impartial, but in the name of
clear thinking it has a right to demand that the Jewish
religion shall be judged on the evidence it can lay before
its judges, and not be told before the discussion commences
that it can only be looked upon as " a manifestation of the
religious spirit of mankind." It may be no more than
this, but at the same time it may be much more ; and a
writer who enters on his discussion with a warning that
he is determined to find no " specific difference " in Judaism
is as biassed on his side as the champion of the so-called
" ecclesiastical standpoint," who, in his turn, examines the
same subject with his mind made up to find no likenesses
to other religions, and no truths borrowed from them. If
the former will be unable to account for the power of
Christianity and Mohammedanism, both of which sprang
out of the loins of the Jews, neither will the latter be in a
position to account for the assumption in Genesis i. 1, that
God was already known to those for whom Genesis was
first written.*
Is there, then, any specific difference between Israel's
religion and that of Egypt, Assyria, and India ; and, if so,
what is it ? That there must be some specific difference
between the religion of one race and that of another is evi
dent, apart from all questions of revelation, from the simple
fact that there is a specific difference between one race and
another, and that, therefore, the religion which expresses the
religious beliefs of one has a differentia which marks it
off from the religion of another race. . This difference may
be due to climatic and geographical surroundings, or to
racial heredity, or to a special controlling providence, or
guidance, something that makes us perceive, with St. Peter, " that God is
no respecter of persons, but that in every nation he that feareth Him and
worketh righteousness is accepted with Him " (Max Miiller, " Lectures on
the Science of Religion," 1882, p. 28).
* Cf . Kuenen, " Religion of Israel," vol. i., introd.

ON THE PLACE OF THE JEWS IN HISTORY. 31
to all combined. But the sciences of comparative mytho
logy and of anthropology depend for their very existence
on the supposition that there are such racial differences.
Else every nation might be taken as an exact ditto of every
other, and the necessity of studying them in comparison
would be annihilated by the destruction of their differences.
Thus the history of Egypt, which this century has unfolded,
and is weekly unfolding more completely, might be taken
to dispense with all further attempts to understand
Babylonian and Assyrian history. The hieroglyphs of
Karnak might be accepted as adequate representatives of
the cuneiform texts of Khorsabad.
It being impossible, therefore, to accept Kuenen's theory
that a " specific difference " such as springs from a super
natural origin is fatal to the impartial study of a religion, we
are led then to ask what is the specific difference between
the religion of Israel and the religions of Assyria, Phoenicia,
and Egypt, in the midst of which it rose, and side by side
with which it flourished ? The view that that difference
is to be found in its monotheistic character is one that has
gained common currency, and, even in the presence of more
intimate acquaintance with the inner religion of Egypt and
Assyria, is still tenable. But, on the other hand, there is
some reason at least for suspecting that, at the period when
the Jews left Egypt, a monotheistic belief was not unknown
among the more instructed. "Thou only One" was a
common salutation of Ra ; and it may be plausibly argued
that the common people of Egypt in the time of Rameses II.
had as keen a sense of the unity of the God they wor
shipped as the populace of Naples have of their God in the
nineteenth century.
In assigning to Egypt a belief under the New Kingdom
that was not only monotheistic, but exoterically mono
theistic, we might quote such Egyptologists as Georg

32 ORIGINES JUDAIC^:.
Ebers (who, in " Uarda," has drawn a vivid picture of life
in Egypt under Rameses II.) and Emmanuel de Rouge.
On the other hand, M. Edouard Naville, in his elaborate
and valuable monograph on the inscriptions found on the
royal tombs at Bibau-el-Moulouk, comes to an unhesitating
conclusion that the creed of the priests there delineated
is purely pantheistic. He translates and comments on the
" Book " written in stone on the walls and columns of the
vast underground tombs where Seti I., Meneptah I., Seti II.
and Rameses IV. lie, and his " co-ordination " of the ideas
found scattered throughout the seventy-five litanies in
which Ra is there invoked is expressed as follows : —
" ' Pantheism,' as M. Cousin has said, ' is the conception of
All, To ITav, as solely existing, self-sufficing, and self-explaining.
All early philosophy is a philosophy of nature, and already
tends to paotheism.' This neat definition of a philosophical
doctrine perfectly definite is what best describes the ideas
which inspired the authors of the Litany of the Sun. In the
beginning of this work, from the very first line, we are face to
face with the Supreme Power, Ea, manifesting himself first by
the universe, by the Great All, outside which nothing exists
nor can exist, and then we pass in review the seventy-five
different forms assumed by this Supreme Power. Then pro
ceeding from the general enumeration of the manifestations of
the Supreme Power, we hear the prayers addressed to it on
behalf of the king's soul, while across the wearisome monotony
of the invocations preserved by these tombs we distinguish the
final object towards which all the aspirations of the dead were
directed. His most eager desire, his most lively hope, his
dearest wish is to be completely identified with Ea. It would
not suffice him to be raised by the Supreme Power to the rank
of a divinity, to be given an honourable place among the
numerous heroes with which it has peopled the sky or Amentis,
and which it calls its own members. He must become the
same person as Ea, Ea himself, so that it shall absolutely be
impossible to distinguish which is the father of the other, or
rather so that they may be each father and son of the other ;

ON THE PLACE OF THE JEWS IN HISTORY. 33
in a word, that his personality, his individuality lose itself, and
be swallowed up in that of Ea from which it came forth. So
is the circle completed, when, after having come from the Great
All, we return to It, and surrender to It the personality, the
Ego which is inseparable from It." *
Paradoxical as it may seem, it may be contended that
M. Edouard Naville may be right, when he describes the
priestly creed as pantheistic, and Georg Ebers is not
wrong when he declares that Egyptian belief at the same
time was frankly monotheistic. There are numerous
instances in history of the maintenance of religion among
the common people after it has been merged in & philosophy
among those who occupied the room of the "initiated"
among the Egyptians. Gibbon's famous sentence, that
"the various modes of worship which prevailed in the
Roman world were all considered by the people as equally
true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the
magistrate as equally useful," t may be paralleled, e.g.,
by Italy in the sixteenth century, and France in the
eighteenth. When this diversity happens it is, speaking broadly,
the result of two causes : one, a long adherence to an early
faith which has not yet adjusted itself to the new ideas
that have surged round it in later times, or else a general
unsettlement of philosophic religion caused by the adop
tion, without assimilation, of alien ideas; and the other,
the undisturbed enjoyment of wide-spread material re
sources. These conditions were present in the earlier
days of the New Kingdom. There was the ancient faith
held by the common people with an obstinate conservatism-
There was the result of the upheaval caused by the now
expelled Hyksos rulers, and there was at the same time
* E. Naville, " Litanie du Soleil," p. 123.
t " Decline and Fall," ch. ii. p. 36 (Bonn's edit., 1853). D

34 ORIGINES JUDAICM.
great material prosperity as the consequence of the wise
and strong rule of the first kings of the nineteenth
dynasty. And when we add the searchings of heart
caused by closer contact with Asiatic religions, we have
just the state of things from which are produced that
semi-sceptical state of mind among the more educated,
which turns readily to some form of pantheism, to satisfy
those religious instincts which among the less inquisitive
remain vaguely monotheistic.
Another mode of reconciliation between the views held
by Ebers and others on one side and Edouard Naville on
the other is possible. The expressions relied on, as e.g.
" Thou only One," are as consistent with pantheism as
with monotheism. Indeed, Georg Ebers himself bears
witness to the pantheistic character of the mysteries : —
" The sacred text repeatedly calls God the ' One,' the ' only
One.' The pantheistic teaching of the mysteries is most clearly
expressed in those texts which are found in almost all the
kings' tombs in Thebes, and on the walls of the entrance halls.
They have been collected, and contain praises to Ea, whose
seventy-five principal manifestations are invoked. The text
of the Book of Death, the Hymn to the Sun, preserved at Bulaq,
the inscriptions on the sarcophagi and on the walls of the
temple of Ptolemy, and, second in order to these, Plutarch's
treatise on Isis and Osiris, the Egyptian Mysteries of
Iamblichus, and the Discourse of Hermes Trismegistus on the
Human Soul are the principal sources for the study of the
secret teaching of the Egyptians. The views brought forward
and developed in these discourses seem first to have come to
perfection in the New Kingdom. The Egyptian religion pro
ceeded from a comparatively rude Sun and Nile worship." *
We may explain in the same way the following passage
from Emmanuel de Rouge", which may be, as it stands,
* Ebers, "Uarda," i. 237 n.

ON THE PLACE OF THE JEWS IN HISTORY. 35
interpreted, either of monotheism or pantheism, but which
leans more towards the latter : —
" No one has called in question the fundamental meaning
of the principal passages by the help of which we are able to
establish what ancient Egypt has taught concerning God,
the world and man. I said God, not the gods. The first
characteristic of the religion is the Unity most energetically
expressed: God, One, Sole and Only; no others with Him.
He is the only Being — living in truth — Thou art One and
millions of beings proceed from Thee. He has made everything,
and He alone has not been made. The clearest, the simplest,
the most precise conception. But how reconcile the Unity of
God with Egyptian Polytheism ? History and geography will
perhaps elucidate the matter. The Egyptian religion com
prehends a quantity of local worships. The Egypt which
Menes brought together entire under his sceptre was divided
into nomes, each having a capital town ; each of these regions
has its principal god designed by a special name ; but it is
always the same doctrine which reappears under different
names. One idea predominates, that of a single and primaeval
God ; everywhere and always it is One Substance, self-existent,
and an unapproachable God." *
Or we may (and M. Rouge does not assert the con
trary) follow M. le Page Renouf, when he says that —
" throughout the whole range of Egyptian literature no facts
appear to be more certainly proved than these: (1) that
the doctrine of one God and that of many gods were taught
by the same men ; (2) that no inconsistency between the two
doctrines was thought of." f
If this be correct, then the key to the apparent
contradiction between the doctrine of the " One only God "
and that of many gods is found in the belief that is here
* " Conference sur la Religion des Anciens Egyptiens prononcee au
Cerole Catholique, 14 Avril, 1869," published in the Annate de la Philosophic
Chretienne, torn. xx. p. 327.
t " Origin of Religion," 2nd ed., p. 92.

36 ORIGINES JUDAIC 'JE.
called menotheism — that is, the belief that One and the
same Spirit dwells in the vast frame of the universe,
Who, Himself unseen, manifests Himself in phenomena,
just as the soul of man, itself unseen, manifests itself in
corporal actions.
The pantheistic creed of the priests, we may safely
assume, was more subtle than that of the streets ; just as
that of Hegel or Spinoza is more ethereal than that of
a daily newspaper. Hence, while the priests thought of
absorption in the All, the people may well have been
content with the lower menotheistic creed which is con
cerned with an anima mundi. The former might without
much difficulty be characterized as atheism, and the latter
as monotheism ; in neither case would the verdict be
strictly just. But in both cases we should be quite within
the limits of the evidence if we include them alike under
the general term menotheistic.
It is too soon yet to give the same verdict in the
case of Assyria. When we have as much evidence from
the cuneiform inscriptions of Nineveh as we have from
the hieroglyphic writings of Thebes, we may perhaps
find that the Assyrians had attained to no lower a con
ception of the Godhead than their half-cousins the
Egyptians. But it is at least established that the
Egyptians' creed, under the eighteenth and following
dynasties, was much more refined (without being mono
theistic) than some have previously imagined. This being
the case, it is undoubtedly possible to regard monotheism
as the characteristic difference of the Jewish religion.
But if we say this only, we should be doing the Jews
a great injustice. As we follow their fortunes from the
Red Sea to Antiochus Epiphanes, and note how their
religion rises step by step to its culminating point under
the older dispensation, we are struck not only by the

ON THE PLACE OF THE JEWS IN HISTORY. 37
way that polytheism pales and gradually gives place to
pure monotheism, but also, and perhaps still more, by the
purging from their minds at the same time of all un
worthy and imperfect ideas of the nature of the One God,
Yahveh. Thus they not only come to believe in Him as
the Only One, and a Personal Being, but as the source
of the purest morality, in fact as being " Holiness " itself.
The obligation the world owes to the Jews lies, not only
in their insistence on the single personality of God, but
also in the character of that personality.
The differentia of the Jewish religion is to be found
therefore in the lofty personality of Yahveh. It is per
haps not quite correct to attribute it to personality as
such, because the fundamental laws of human nature make
anthropomorphism in religion unavoidable, and, therefore,
necessarily the gods are conceived as akin to men — that
is, endowed with a personality more or less definite. But
there is an unmistakable difference between the person
ality of Yahveh, as set forth by such prophets as Isaiah
and Hosea, and the personality, for example, of Amon-Ra.
Observe, e.g., the prayer — beautiful as it is in some re
spects — of Rameses II. to Amon, when he was beset by
the Cheta in the battle of Kadesh : —
" ' Not a prince is with me, not a captain,
Not an archer, none to guide my horses !
Fled the riders ! fled my troops and horses —
By my side not one is now left standing.'
Thus the king, and raised his voice in prayer.
' Great father Amon, I have known Thee well.
And can the father thus forget his son ?
Have I in any deed forgotten Thee ?
Have I done ought without Thy high behest,
Or moved or staid against Thy sovereign will ?
Great am I — mighty are Egyptian kings —
But, in the sight of Thy commanding might,
Small as the chieftain of a wandering tribe.
Immortal Lord, crush Thou this unclean people ;
Break Thou their necks, annihilate the heathen.

38 ORIGINES JUDAIC JE.
" ' And I — have I not brought Theo many victims,
And filled Thy temple with the captive folk ?
And for Thy presence built a dwelling-place
That shall endure for countless years to come?
Thy garners overflow with gifts from me.
I offered Thee the world to swell Thy glory,
And thirty thousand mighty steers have shed
Their smoking blood on fragrant cedar piles.
Tall gateways, flag-decked masts, I raised to Thee,
And obelisks from Abu I have brought,
And built Thee temples of eternal stone.
For Thee my ships have brought across the sea
The tribute of the nations. This I did —
When were such things done in the former time ?
" ' For dark the fate of him who would rebel
Against Thee ; though Thy sway is just and mild.
My father, Amon — as an earthly son
His earthly father — so I call on Thee.
Look down from Heaven on me, beset by foes,
By heathen foes — the folk that know Thee not.
The nations have combined against Thy son ;
I stand alone — alone, and no man with me.
My foot and horse are fled ; I called aloud
And no one heard, in vain I called to them.
And yet I say the sheltering care of Amon
Is better succour than a million men,
Or than ten thousand knights, or than a thousand
Brothers and sons though gathered into one.
" ' And yet I say : the bulwarks raised by men,
However strong, compared to Thy great works
Are but vain shadows, and no human aid
Avails against the foe — but Thy strong hand.
The counsel of Thy lips shall guide my way :
I have obeyed whenever Thou hast ruled ;
I call on Thee — and, with my fame, Thy glory
Shall fill the world from farthest east to west.' "
Compare with this the moral earnestness which burns
in Isaiah's song to Yahveh : —
" The way of the just is uprightness. Thou, Most Upright,
dost weigh the path of the just. Yea, in the way of Thy
judgments, 0 Lord, have we waited for Thee; the desire of
our soul is to Thy name, and to the remembrance of Thee-
With my soul have I desired Thee in the night; yea, with
my spirit within me will I seek Thee early; for when Thy
judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will

ON THE PLACE OF THE JEWS IN HISTORY. 39
learn righteousness. Let favour be shown to the wicked, yet
will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness
will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the
Lord."* So too Hosea exalts the pure spirituality of Jehovah : —
" For I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge
of God more than burnt offerings ; " f
and His tenderness : —
" I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely :
for mine anger is turned away from him. I will be as the
dew unto Israel : he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his
roots as Lebanon." J
This is only equalled for its tenderness by Isaiah's
question and answer : —
" Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not
have compassion on the son of her womb ? yea, they may
forget, yet will I not forget thee. Behold, I have graven
thee upon the palms of my hands ; thy walls are continually
before me." §
The Egyptians were probably the purest, the most
moral and refined nation of antiquity, but their One God,
in his greatest exaltation, always retains something of his
natural origin. Yahveh, on the contrary, dwells, the Jew
thinks, in an atmosphere of utter holiness ; His eyes are
too pure even to behold iniquity, the wicked cannot tarry
in His sight, and evil doers shall be rooted out. The back-
slidings of Israel are so hateful because of the holiness of
the God on whom they turn their backs. If Yahveh wears
a severe aspect at times, it is tbe severity of perfect
holiness, and not of anger at the slights offered Him by
His worshippers. Nothing like the passionate worship
* Isa. xxvi. 7-10. t Hos. vi. 6.
J Ibid. xiv. 4, 5. § Isa. xlix. 15, 16.

40 OR1GINES JUDAIC^.
of moral holiness among the Jewish prophets is to be
found in the history of any " principal religion " of an
tiquity. We can trace a gradual process of refinement
among other religions than the Jewish, but it nowhere
reaches the same sublime worship of the beauty of holiness
as in the Prophets and Psalmists. The very existence of
this burning purity is testimony enough to the Divine
guidance of the Jewish nation ; and it alone, while marking
off the Jews religion from all others, is sufficient to account
for the marvellous power in its later development which
brought under its yoke the haughty Aryan nations of
Europe. The differentia, then, of Judaism is not so much mono
theism or personality, but both of these clothed with the
highest conceivable holiness. The proof of this will be
gathered from the facts and arguments hereafter set forth.
Meanwhile it may be assumed provisionally ; and we will
try to keep this characteristic difference in mind, while we
set forth to discover how much of external beliefs and
practices the Spirit which led the Jews so high saw fit to
use in laying the broad foundation of the pyramid which
in Jesus Christ was to receive its crowning point.
Before, however, proceeding directly to an inquiry into
the religious institutions of the Gentiles with a view to
ascertain what influence they exerted on the religious
history of the Jewish nation, it is necessary to deal with
a subject that is prior to religion in time, though not in
importance. At the bottom of all religions is a mythical
substratum — the scientific meaning of this word mythical,
as distinct from its vulgar connotation,' will appear as we
proceed, — and it is impossible to understand the later
developments of the religious thought of a nation unless
some attention is first paid to its mythology.

( 41 )

CHAPTER III.
ON HEBREW MYTHOLOGY.
It is not part of our present purpose to enter into any
examination of one of the youngest of our sciences, that
of mythology, because there is a general agreement in the
results attained by the labours of scholars like the brothers
Grimm, Kuhn, and Max Miiller, and because those results
are easily accessible. But one or two general observations
may be made so as to clear the ground. Mythology,
properly speaking, is not a branch of religion but a mode
of language used when dealing with the phenomena of
nature as they appear to man in his infancy. In fact, myth
precedes religion, and dies when religion attains to self-
consciousness. " The end of the life of the myth coincides with the moment
at which is formed out of the elements of the myth a religious
conception of the world peopled with gods. The living and
conscious existence of the myth is finished when the mythical
figures become gods. Theology hurls the myth from its
throne." *
To us, except for their historical and psychological
value, many of the primitive myths seem extravagantly
grotesque. If we were to say that " Britannia has two
daughters, Canada and Australia ; or that she has gone to
keep house for a decrepit old aunt called India, this would
* Goldziher, " Mythology among the Hebrews," p. 51.

42 ORIGINES JUDAIC^:.
be admitted as plain fact expressed in fantastic language." *
But to early man such a statement, if he made a statement
on the subject at all, would be plain fact expressed in plain
language. With us the products of imagination are placed
on a shelf by themselves and labelled " Poetry," lest any
simple-minded person should swallow them, and upset his
mental balance by confusing fact and fiction. With the
ancients, on the contrary, every mental concept had to pass
through the refracting medium of a powerful imagination,
and atone for its inaccuracy by the warmth of its colouring.
If early man spoke of Phoebus Apollo and his chariot and
horses, he was accurately describing what he saw. He
enunciated what was subjectively, if not objectively true.
It is the study of comparative mythology which has
enabled us to understand the psychological value of myths,
and has taught us to rescue them from the category of
nursery tales and old wives' fables.
M. Renan gives a lofty position to mythology when he
says : —
"Les facultes qui engendrent la mythologie sont les memes
que celles qui engendrent la philosophie, et ce n'est pas sans
raison que l'lnde et la Grece nous presentent le phenomene de
la plus riche mythologie a cote de la plus profonde meta-
physiqne. La conception de la multiplicite dans l'univers
c'est le polytheisme chez les peuples enfants ; c'est la science
chez les peuples arrivees a l'age mur." "f
It is not, however, the sense of multiplicity which gave
us polytheism, nor porytheism which gave us science. The
real explanation is that philosophy, like mythology, springs
from the imaginative and not the logical faculty.
" The treatment of similar myths from different regions by
arranging them in large compared groups, makes it possible to
* Tylor, " Primitive Culture," i. 399.
t " Hist, des Langues Semitiques," torn. i. p. 9.

ON HEBREW MYTHOLOGY. 43
trace in mythology the operation of imaginative processes
recurring with the evident regularity of mental law ; and thus
stories, of which a single instance would have been a mere
isolated curiosity, take their place among well-marked and
consistent structures of the human mind. Evidence like this
will. again and again drive us to admit that, even as 'truth is
stranger than fiction,' so myth may be more uniform than
history." *
The second fact, then, we have to bear in mind when
dealing with myths is, that they express truth as it was
once understood, and not falsehood. If, for instance, it
were found that a myth, in the sense explained above, were
incorporated in a sacred document it would not discredit
the authority or credibility of that document. It would
put on the reader the duty of transporting himself to the
days when the myth was originated, and of reading it in
the light of those days, and of refusing to interpret it in
terms borrowed from his own age.f
For example, the genesis of things is summarily ex
plained in the first book of the Hebrew Bible as due to a
creative force extending its operation over six days. We
have here a transcript from an early myth, coloured it may
be by Persian thought, which the Holy Spirit has seen fit
to include in the Scriptures. Interpreted in the terms of
geology or astronomy, it lends itself to mental confusion
and distress. If read in the spirit in which it was written,
as a child's account of the origin of things, it is simplex
munditiis, and as true as it is simple. It is not a finished
* Tylor, " Primitive Culture," vol. i. p. 282, ed. 1891.
t " Les communications de Dieu avec les hommes revetent la forme qui est
de nature a frapper le plus les esprits, au milieu des idees regnantes. C'est
ainsi que les visions bibliques ont toujours la couleur du milieu dans lequel
elles se produisent; c'est ainsi, par exemple, que celles de Joseph, dans la
Genese, sont purement Egyptiennes par leur cote plastique, et celles du
temps des Prophetes purement Assyriennes, principalement celles de Ye-
'hezqel qui e'crivait dans la captivite" " (Francois Lenormant, " Les Origines
de 1'Histoire," p. 78).

44 0R1GINES JUDAICJE.
cosmogony, like those of Assyria and Egypt, which are
described elsewhere, but an assertion of the origin of all
things from the one God by creation. If geologists and
theologians persist in thrusting their own conceptions head
and shoulders into this simple language of childhood they
are of those who darken counsel by knowledge. They
reverse the true order : Non fumum ex fulgore sed ex fumo
dare lucem is what they are not attempting.
If, however, this danger be avoided, and the writings of
early ages be treated with the simple faith of childhood on
both sides, then are these " myths " of the highest possible
value, as living witnesses to the mind, the feelings, the
beliefs of ages long buried beneath the sands of time.
" The shapers and transmitters of poetic legend have pre
served for us masses of sound historical evidence. They moulded
into mythic lives of gods and heroes their own ancestral heir
looms of thought and word; they displayed in the structure of
their legends the operations of their own minds ; they placed
on record the arts and manners, the philosophy and religion of
their own times, times of which formal history has often lost
the very memory. Myth is the history of its authors, not of its
subjects ; it records the lives, not of superhuman heroes, but of
poetic nations." *
Before applying the principle of mythology to any
Biblical narrative, the wise words of Fr. Lenormant may be
well kept in mind : —
" En se tenant dans le role de la critique pure, en envisageant
la Bible avec la mSme liberte d'examen que tout autre livre
antique, rien n'est plus contraire que Pesprit de ce livre au
mythe, tel qu'il se presente chez les peuples polytheistes. Ce
sont a proprement parler, des legendes, non des mythes, que les
ecrivains des livres sacres d'Israel ont quelquefois, surtout dans
la Genese, empruntees a la tradition populaire. Et lors mime
que Ton est en droit de soupconner qu'une de ces legendes doit
* Tylor, "Primitive Culture," i. 41G.

ON HEBREW MYTHOLOGY. 45
proceder de ce qui a ete a I'origine un veritable mythe, on doit
reconnoitre qu'elle a ete soigneusement depouillee de tout ce
qui lui donnait ce caractere, avant de passer dans la Bible." *
It is the duty of the critic, then, to enter into the state
of mind of the authors, whether he be dealing with sup
posed myths, or historical narratives, or prophecy, or poetry,
or " wisdom." If he is the best critic who is best able to
put himself at the exact view-point of the writer, he is the
worst who starts upon his task with a prepossession in
favour of interpreting early documents in terms of later
belief. But, on the other hand, the critic is distinct from
the theologian. It is the part of the former to elucidate
the human, it is the prerogative of the latter to trace the
Divine. The neglect of this elementary distinction has been
the cause of much unnecessary confusion, and many un
called for disputes. The conclusions of the critic may be
wholly unfounded, but this impugns his competency, not
his office. There should be no antagonism between the
critic and the theologian, any more than between the latter
and the student of physical science. The theologian assumes
the conclusions of both, and in the name of the " queen of
sciences " proceeds to construct the edifice of this architec
tonic science.
Quitting now the ground of mythology in general, and
turning to the Jews and their records, we find that the
system of Kuhn has been applied to Hebrew literature and
religion by Ignaz GoldziherJ and to the story of Samson in
particular by Steinthal. I select these two as favourable
specimens of the dangers that attend all thorough-going
attempts to convert the Bible narratives into pure myths.
The theory of the former is based on two arguments — one
* Fr. Lenormant, " Les Origines de l'Histoire," i. 183.
t " Der Mythos bei den Hebr'aern und seine geschichtliche Entwicke-
lung," Leipsic, 1876.

46 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
general and one special. He assumes that Renan is in
error when he declares dogmatically that "Les Semites
n'ont jamais eu de mythologie," * on the intelligible ground
that all nations have a childhood, and that there is no
reason for denying that stage of existence to the Hebrews.f
Moreover, if it is the nature of child-life to formulate
its thinking on nature in myths, it is due to the " uniform
psychological constitution of the human race " to maintain
that Semitic child-life is like all other, and therefore" it too
has its mythologie language. Of course this may be
admitted, and without any necessary inference that this
mythology has been allowed a place in the Hebrew Canon.
Whatever may be the truth with regard to this latter head,
a separate argument must be adduced to prove that the
Hebrew writers did, as a matter of fact, utilize for their
special purpose the myths which tradition may be supposed
to have put within their reach.
Mr. W. H. I. Bleek remarks in the introduction to his
work on the " Story of Reynard the Fox in South Africa,"
that nations that have different genders for names have
myths, those that have no gender have no myths, while
their religion remains where all religion begins, at the cult
of ancestors. It is true, as Goldziher remarks on this, that
Religion and Myth are distinct entities, but though a myth
may have no place in an act of worship, it may in a Creed.
If the Sun be worshipped, a Solar-myth might be the
* " Histoire general et systfeme compare des Langues SemitiqueB," p. 7.
T "Now for the first time we can learn to appreciate them [the Biblical
stories] as spontaneous acts ofthe human mind; we perceive that they arose
through the same psychological process which gave us language also ; that
like language itself, they were the very oldest manifestation of activity of
the mind, and burst forth from it <pii<rei, not fleVei, at the very threshold of
its history; and subsequently transformed and developed themselves again
quite spontaneously on the attainment of a higher stage of civilization, by
processes of national psychology, and most certainly not by the cunning
ingenuity and the worldly wisdom of certain leading classes " (Goldziher,
" Mythology among the Hebrews," p. xxxi.).

ON HEBREW MYTHOLOGY. 47
expression of the worshippers' belief. And what is more,
there is no reason why a myth should not centre round the
dead in Hades — why, e.g., a people who worshipped their
ancestors, as the Greeks and Romans did, should not at one
time have believed in such a story of Hades as is given by
Virgil and Dante. Indeed, as a matter of fact, we know
that the myth of Persephone and Demeter, which originally
denoted the descent of the Sun into the land of darkness,
had in later times the mystical interpretation read into it
whereby it became a legend of the descent of the soul into
Hades.* But, as we shall see later, the denial of mythology
to the Hebrews will not hold on this ground, inasmuch as
this people were little tempted to ancestor-worship, and
much given to the worship of gods of different sexes, as, e.g.,
Baal and Ashtaroth.
There is no reason for denying the mythopoetic power
to nations whose language has no gender. Such a loss is
good ground for presupposing a poorer mythology, or one
of a character different to that found where the language
has genders ; it is no sufficient ground for supposing that
the imaginative faculty is absent altogether. Dr. Bleek
attributes the ancestor-worship of the Kafirs, Negroes, and
Polynesians to the want of grammatical gender, and the
worship of the heavenly bodies among the Hottentots,
Semites, and Aryans to their possession of it. " The nations
speaking sex-denoting languages are distinguished by a
higher poetical conception, by which human agency is
transferred to other beings and even to inanimate things,
in consequence of which their personification takes place,
forming the origin of almost all mythological legends." t
It would be interesting to know, as bearing on this
* Cf. Keary, " Outlines of Primitive Belief," p. 243 (1882).
t W. I. Bleek, " Comparative Grammar of the South African Languages,"
pref. (1862).

48 ORIGINE S JUDAIC^!.
point, what was the comparative worth in which woman
was held among the nations whose language has no
genders. The exclusion of sex deprives life of more than
half its poetry, and mythology of the greater portion of its
wealth, but does not necessarily destroy both. At the
same time, this distinction deserves more consideration
from those writers who would resolve the story of the
early history of the Jews into a collection of myths.
While admitting the impossibility of the Jews being
utterly devoid of mythology, we are bound to deny the
probability of the religious records of their early days
being nothing save myths. Such a statement would be
too sweeping even for the Aryan races, and a fortiori for
the Jewish people.*
Goldziher's second and more special support is drawn
from the mythological difference between the beliefs of a
nomadic people and those of an agricultural. The nomad
travels by night in an Eastern country ; by night he
watches his flocks ; he seeks " green pastures by still
waters ; " he is a " Son of the water of Heaven " and
welcomes the kindly clouds. Hence his mythological
concepts will start from the phenomena of night, and not
from those of day. The stars are his friends, the clouds
his benefactors, and the moon his guardian ; while, on the
contrary, the sun with his scorching rays of midday is an
* Baron Bunsen laid down that " the spirit of the Jewish people was
historically penetrated through and through with aversion to mythology "
("Gott inder Geschichte," i. 350), — that is, of home growth, for elsewhere he says
that " in the long period from Joseph to Moses there have been interwoven
with the life and actions of . . . Abraham, and the history of his son and
grandson, many ancienttraditioDsfrom the mythology of those tribes from whose
savage natural life the Hebrews were extracted, to their own good and that of
mankind and for higher ends " (" iEgyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte,"
V. ii. 18-19). It is difficult, however, to believe that any nation which so
far felt the need of a myth as to borrow one should be wholly incapable of
supplying its own mythological needs.

ON HEBREW MYTHOLOGY. 49
enemy constantly at war with the beneficent powers of
midnight. On the other hand, the agriculturist loves the
sun which ripens his corn, and looks with aversion on the
storm, the winds, and excessive rains which threaten to
spoil or destroy it.
From these different circumstances spring two different
sets of myths, one of which centres round the Moon, and
the other round the Sun. Hence the Arab counts by nights
and not by days. There is evening, there is morning, one
day. A fortnight or a sennight would be used in pre
ference to fourteen days or seven days. Sin, the moon-god,
is worshipped in Babylonia before Samas, the sun. Indra
( = Jupiter Pluvius) antedates among the Aryans Dyaus
( = ZeO?, the brilliant, sunny heaven). The Hebrews were
a nomadic race in their origin, and shared the contempt
that the true nomad always feels for the sedentary agri
culturist. Hence Goldziher concludes —
"the Hebrew conception of the world, like the Arabic,
inclines to a glorification of the nomadic life. In the last
stage of their national development, the Hebrews refer the
origin of agriculture to a curse imposed by God on fallen
humanity. What charm tent-life had for them is proved by
the fact that the fair shepherdess of the Song of Songs *
compares her beauty with -np. "hpK (the tents of the Arabs).
Even the Hellenized Jew, Philo, quite in opposition to Greek
ideas, glorifies the shepherds as ideals of morality in contrast to
the agriculturists. Such a view could not but exert an influence
on the figures of the myth. The persons of the myth who
have our sympathy are generally presented as shepherds ;
Abel, Moses, and David are shepherds; whereas Cain is an
agriculturist." f
Having thus laid his foundation, Goldziher proceeds to
show how the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, their wives
and families, are all myths sprung from the vivid fancy of
* i. 5. t iv- § 7. E

50 ORIGINES JUDAIC^:.
a nomadic race, whose waking moments were largely spent
under the benignant shelter of the starry sky. His theory
reveals, in its application to these Bible characters, its
strength and its weakness. It will appear, for instance,
how the innate vice of exclusive students of language,
whether critics or mythologians, viz. dependence on un
certain and ingenious guesses, tends to banish common
sense. Thus the Semite, starting from the "sensuous
impression of height," gives his night sky a name connected
with tn, high ; and Abram is the High Father, a Semitic
Diespiter, in the sense of the High Heaven. p!W, the
Laugher, is he that smiles or shines in Heaven. "The
Nightly Heaven and the Sun, or the Sunset, child of the
Night, fall into a strife in the evening, the result of which
is that the Lofty Father kills his child ; the day must give
way to night." But Isaac is not killed — " scarcely is one
sun dead in the west in the evening, than there grows up
out of the earth in the east next morning another which is
no better." * The rest of the story is not mythical but
epic, and is of later date.
Of course, if Abram is the night-sky, Sarah is the
Princess, the Queen of Heaven. Istar and Milcaht and
"IJH (Hagar) is " the flying one " put to flight before the
moon, the legitimate spouse of the midnight sky. " The
battle of the two figures of the night-sky against Hagar is,
again, that inexhaustible theme of all mythology, the battle
of Day with Night." When we come to Rebekah we are
told, after Tiele, that np?n is the rich earth — a solution,
however, which Goldziher handles uneasily. But he has
no doubt that the verse, " When Isaac was old, his eyes
became too dim to see," means, when properly understood,
* These are the words of a Central African to a Christian missionary, in
denial of the latter's assertion that God is good. Sepp, " Jerusalem and the
Holy Land," ii. 687, [Schaffhausen. 1863].
t Cf. Jer. xliv. 16-19.

ON HEBREW MYTHOLOGY. 51
the darkening of the sun's eye at eventide. Nor is he
surprised to find that Isaac, the laughing sun, prefers the
solar Esau, while Rebekah, the fruitful earth, loves Jacob,
the dark, rainy sky.
Jacob grasping Esau's heel at birth is clear enough :
" Night comes into the world with Day's heel in his hand,"
or, as we should say, Night follows close upon Day, driving
him from his place. " Esau is a hunter, Jacob a herdsman."
The Sun is a hunter, the Night Sky shepherds its clouds.
" Jacob fights against Esau," i.e. Night and the Clouds
attack the Sun, who sends his arrows to repel the invader.
" Esau is a hairy man, Jacob a smooth man." The sun is
universally represented as yellow-haired, and the sun's
rays have been called, by a Latin poet, Crines Phcebi.
When the sun sets, Samson's locks are shorn, and his
strength lost. Because the derivation of 1B'5? (Esau) from
nb% so as to mean qui facit, does not suit the myths
therefore it is rejected. The words in which this opinion
is expressed so fitly display the weakness of the mytho-
logians that they deserve quotation : —
" If, then, the name Esau cannot be etymologically explained
in the spirit of the oldest mythical circle of ideas, we are
necessarily driven to conjecture that the appellation does not
belong to the oldest stratum of the materials of Hebrew
legends, but was introduced by a legend of civilization." *
In other words, the truth of the myth theory is
assumed, and awkward facts must accordingly be explained
away. As in the case of Abraham and his wife and concubines,
so in the history of Jacob. Leah and Rachel, his legitimate
wives, are lunar beings ; Zilpah and Bilhah are solar. The
* v. § 10.

52 ORIGINES JUDAICM.
name ns6, Leah, is from itfcO, languit, and has the same
meaning as Delilah, the spouse of the sun-god Samson, i.e.
she who cuts off his locks, or the setting sun sinking into
his lover's arms. So, too, ^>rn, Rachel = a sheep, and repre
sents the "grey clouds slowly driving over the celestial
fields ; " and " Rachel weeping for her children " is a fossil
ized phrase of the mythic age, meaning the cloud " which
lets fall its wet burden in drizzling rain upon the earth."
Again, Rachel's favourite son Joseph (f|pi'1) gets his name
from f)pj, addidit, and stands for the Multiplier, i.e. the
Rain, son of the Cloud which " gives back to the parched
earth her fertility, and procures nourishment for starving
mankind." Joseph, the rain, is thus the very opposite
of Elijah (Elias = Helios), the fiery, who parches the
ground and leaves the earth in a chariot of fire. Jacob's
concubine ns^f, Zilpah, bears a name of which stilla, a
drop, can hardly be the meaning, no doubt because this
meaning does not fit in with the theory. Accordingly,
it must come from the Arabic zalafa, and denotes she
that marches forward, i.e. the Sun, and is identical with
Zalicha, Joseph's mistress, who deprived him of his cloak
and so put the rain to flight.
After this it is almost a relief to find that " the
resource of etymology abandons us" in the case of Bilhah.
But our relief is promptly clouded by the information that
what we want can be readily obtained from the verse,
" Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine." *
This, we are told, is parallel to the story of Shechem
and Dinah, Helios and Anaxibia,| Abimelech and Rebekah,
Tammuz and Istar, Lot and his daughters, Judah and
Tamar, Amnon and Tamar. "When, at the end of the
night, the morning darkness gives way to the sun, or
* Gen. xxxv. 22.
t Plutarch, " De fluviorum et montium nominibus," iv. 3.

ON HEBREW MYTHOLOGY. 53
dawn, and disappears in them, Reuben and Bilhah are
united." The difficulty in identifying Jacob's twelve sons with
sky phenomena is ingeniously got over by the assumption
that some are mythical, some are ethnographical or geo
graphical (Ephraim and Benjamin), while others, like
Joseph, are treated by the myth as sons of Jacob's wives,
their father being neglected. Some names resist any
reasonable etymology, or at least "any etymology conso
nant with the character of mythical appellations ; " among
these are Reuben and Simeon. Zebhulun (J-lVl3t) is the
Globular, and therefore the sun when his red ball is
sinking in the west. Naphtali (^ns?), from the root briSj
contortus est, is "he of the plaited locks," and his de
scription, in Gen. xlix., as a "hind let loose" obviously
identifies him with the dawn. If rn-ini, Judah, be not of
ethnographical origin, then it means Splendour, and
Judah's union with "IDFI, Tamar (Fruit), expresses the fact
that " the autumn sun pours its rays over the fruits of the
trees and fields." Judah's sons Perez and Zerah (f^ from
jns, rupit, and rnj from rnt == ortus est sol), are the Shining
One who comes into the world with a red thread, and the
Dawn who breaks through the veil of darkness. The
explanation given of Levi is specially ingenious. Levi
C^), associatus, is to Leviathan (jn^), serpens, as nachash
(wni) to nechusthan (ine'm), as earth to earthly. Accord
ingly, by this Simple process, Levi becomes the Serpent,
and inasmuch as the lines which describe Dan as a serpent
on the way biting the horse's heels are inapplicable to
Dan according to the exigencies of our author's theory,
they are transferred to Levi, and we are told that Levi is
the Rain-serpent fighting with the Sun-horse.
Let us now turn to Steinthal's explanation of the story
of Samson. It is a story that has very naturally received

54 0RIG1NES JUDAICJE.
much attention from students of comparative religion.
They have seen in Samson a legend of the sun, similar to
the legend of Herakles among the Greeks, but with such
differences as might be expected among the Hebrews.
The name of the Hebrew judge (flE'lpt?) = little sun, or
sunlike, lends itself to their theory, and they maintain
that, if in other ways Samson's connection with the sun
be made out, Bertheau's objection to this derivation, on the
ground that " we do not expect to find a name of this kind
anywhere in Hebrew antiquity," falls to the ground. The
points in Samson's history to which attention has been
mainly drawn are (1) his slaughter of the lion, (2) his
riddle, (3) the incident of the foxes, (4) the incident of
the jaw-bone, (5) the carrying away of the gates of Gaza,
(6) Samson's amours, (7) the power assigned to his hair,
and (8) his end.
The parallels to these in the history of Herakles, as
found among the Greeks, are these : (1) Herakles, as
recorded by Hesiod,* slew with his hand the Nemean lion ;
(2) Eurytus, king of CEchalia, had promised his daughter
Iole to the victor in an archery contest, but refused the
promised prize to Herakles when winner: Herakles
afterwards, in a fit of rage, throws Iphitus, the son of
Eurytus, down from the wall, and kills him ; + (3) Herakles
had love-affairs with Deianeira, Iole, Auge, Omphale ;
(4) He brought Cerberus by main force into the upper
world. Out of the multitude of stories which had grown round
the name of Herakles, the Greek hero, that one or two
should resemble the doings of the Hebrew hero is not
very wonderful. That Herakles should, at one stage of
his history, be identified with the sun naturally leads
* Theog., 327.
t Apollod., ii. 6, §§ 1, 2.

ON HEBREW MYTHOLOGY. 55
the analogical mind to perform the same service for
Samson. Steinthal then supports his theory by other arguments.
The lion by its fiery mane typifies the sun, which, when
strongest, i.e. when in the sign of the Lion, causes honey
to be most abundant. The fox, too, is a solar animal, as
is obvious from its "red colour" and its bushy brush.
That it should burn the cornfields, either by heat or
mildew, is quite in keeping with Eastern myths.*
Samson's hiding in the cave (in the top of the rock Etam,
Judg. xv. 8) is the analogue of Apollo flying after his
slaughter of the dragon, and of Indra after killing Yrtra.
" The jawbone of the ass " is explained from a place called
'OvvyvaQog (Ass's Jawbone), which is a promontory in the
Lakonian Gulf, opposite to Kythera. On it was a temple
to Athene = Astarte, and in the temple was a monument
to Kinados (Fox), the steersman of Menelaus. Moreover,
the ass was sacred to the sun-god Moloch. We have only
to alter the reading " With an ass's jawbone I slew " to
"At the Ass's Jawbone I slew" to get an account of the
sun-god casting forth his lightning and winning the victory,
even as Herakles conquered Antseos, the type of the
stifling heat of the Libyan desert. When, too, Herakles
broke open the gates of the well-bolted Hades, and escaped
with Cerberus to Earth again, what is it but a prejudiced
obstinacy which refuses to see in Samson's feat at Gaza
a "disfigured myth"? The establishment by Herakles
of two pillars in the extreme West must be the two pillars
that Samson pulled down in the Temple of Dagon when
the sun was in the sign of the Waterman, and tbe .sun-god
died. Samson's hair, of course, is the sun's rays where
* See Ovid Fasti, iv. 679 et seq. No doubt this story, of which the
meaning had been lost in Ovid's time, had some connection originally with
sun-worship.

56 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
his strength lies, and his amours with Philistine women
are but a mythical rendering of —
" The sunlight clasps the earth
And the moonbeams kiss the sea ; "
and — " The mountains kiss high heaven." *
Other analogies have been noticed in the story of
Herakles in Egypt. The people were leading him out
with a chaplet on his head, when he turned restive at the
altar, and slew them all.t Bochart notices a passage in
Lycophron, from which we learn that Herakles was three
nights in the belly of the sea-monster, from which he
emerged with the loss of all his hair. This is obviously
a solar myth, and no doubt will be declared ore rotundo
to be the original of an incident each in the life of Samson
and Jonah.
The meeting-point between Palestine and Greece was
Phoenicia, and we learn from Herodotus that Herakles,
under the title of Melkarth, had a temple at Tyre, at about
2755 B.C., and since this " Lord Melkarth Baal of Tyre,"
as a Phoenician inscription at Malta calls him, was the
Sun, and since, moreover, Baal was called Baal-Shemesh,
Baal the Sun, the chain of probability seems complete
which binds Samson, Herakles, and Baal together into a
simple unity. Others, perhaps, will be less ready to come
to the same conclusion when they recollect the pitfalls that
analogy digs for the unwary.
It is amusing to notice, in another direction, how com
plete is the power possessed by a favourite theory to
mould facts at its will. Welhausen surveys the narratives
of the Book of Genesis from a different standpoint to that
* See Steinthal's "Dissertation on Samson," where most of these
analogies are given.
t Herodotus, ii. 45, Kawlinson's edit.

ON HEBREW MYTHOLOGY. 57
of Goldziher, and these are some of his conclusions : The
patriarchal stories are not mythical, but historico-political.
The autochthonous Isaac prefers Esau, the Aramaean
Rebekah, Jacob. In Jacob's blessing we can trace the
influence of the repeated attempts of the Edomites to
cast off the yoke of Israel. In the story of Jacob and
Laban we have embodied the forced migration of the
Hebrew from Mesopotamia, while he is hotly pursued by
his Aramaean father-in-law.
"The standpoint of the Jehovist narrative is throughout
that of Northern Israel, as appears most evidently from the
circumstance that Rachel is the fair and the beloved wife of
Jacob, whom alone in fact he wished to marry, and Leah the
ugly and despised one who was imposed on him by a trick."
We are not surprised, after this, to be told that the
stories of the erection by the patriarchs of altars at various
places take their rise from the fact that, at the time of
the writer, Yahveh is still worshipped there ; that the
description of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is
a suggestion of Dead Sea geography, and that, in short,
" the original motive of the legend appears in the Jehovist
always and everywhere covered over with the many-
coloured robe of fancy." The believer in the traditional
view may well be excused if he leaves Goldziher and
Welhausen face to face to settle their differences as they
best may, and postpones his decision till he finds sub
stantial agreement among impugners of the received
opinion. We have described Goldziher's and Steinthal's specu
lations at such length because they are an admirable
example of the facility with which a theory can absorb
the most contradictory facts, and make them submissively
repeat its Shibboleth. The feeling of unreality which
creeps over the reader of some of Max Miiller's ingenious

58 0RIG1NES JUDAIC JE.
etymologies, or some of Sir G. W. Cox's harmonies, attacks
us with redoubled force as we listen to Goldziher. Perhaps
the best general answer may be given him in the caution
delivered by a student in the same school, Mr. E. B.
Tylor, who sees the snare set for those who neglect the
wise maxim " As above so below," and so fail to see the
many natural points of contact between the life of man
and the constitution of the external world : —
" The close and deep analogies between the life of man have
been for ages dwelt upon by poets and philosophers, who in
simile, or in argument, have told of light and darkness, of calm
and tempest, of birth, growth, change, decay, dissolution,
renewal. " But no one-sided interpretation can be permitted to absorb
into a single theory such endless, many-sided correspondences
as these. Rash inferences which, on the strength of mere
resemblance, derive episodes of myth from episodes of nature
must be regarded with utter mistrust, for the student who has
no more stringent criticism than this for his myths of sun, and
sky, and dawn, will find them wherever it pleases him to seek
them. It may be judged by simple trial what such a method
may lead to ; no legend, no allegory, no nursery rhyme, is safe
from the hermeneutics of a thorough-going mythologie theorist.
Should he, for instance, demand as his property the nursery
' Song of Sixpence,' his claim would be easily established ;
obviously the four and twenty blackbirds are the four and
twenty hours, and the pie that holds them is the underlying
earth covered with the overarohing sky ; how true a touch of
nature it is that when the pie is opened, that is, when day
breaks, the birds begin to sing ; the King is the Sun, and his
counting out his money is pouring out the sunshine, the golden
shower of Danae ; the Queen is the Moon, and her transparent
honey the moonlight; the Maid is the 'rosy-fingered' Dawn,
who rises before the Sun her master, and hangs out the clouds,
his clothes, across the sky ; the particular blackbird who so
tragically ends the tale by snipping off her nose, is the hour of
sunrise. The time-honoured rhyme really wants but one thing

ON HEBREW MYTHOLOGY. 59
to prove it a Sun-myth, that one thing being a proof by some
argument more valid than analogy." *
Or we may parallel Dr. Goldziher's method of interpre
tation by another, which he would be the first to condemn.
If it is allowable to assume nature-myths as concealed
behind Old Testament narratives, and to use etymology to
drag them from their hiding-place, why is not St. Gregory
to be allowed to see Christ and His Church concealed in
every verse of the Book of Job ? St. Gregory sees the
twelve apostles (4 X 3) in Job's seven sons (4 + 3), and
the multitude of their hearers who believe in the Trinity
in his three daughters. Job the "griever " is our Lord in
His passion. Eliphas, the " despiser of the Lord ; " Bildad,
" oldness alone ; " Sophar, " dissipater of the prospect," are
three classes of heretics who despise God, refuse the new
life, and mar heavenly contemplation. Elihu, "that my
God," is a Christian Pharisee who thanks God he is not
as other men are. The seven thousand sheep possessed
by Job are the innocent thoughts within our breasts, fed
in perfect purity with the food of truth. His three
thousand camels represent the innumerable crooked things
in us subdued to the knowledge of the Holy Trinity. If
the Bible under this system became a nose of wax, capable
of being pulled in any direction at will, can any better
plea be urged in favour of Goldziher's mystical interpre
tation, against the charge that it reads into the Bible
narrative what Goldziher sees in it, not what the writers
intended it to mean ? Extravagances of this description
do but damage the cause they seek to help, by setting in
opposition to them the common sense of all thoughtful
people. When the New Zealander stands on London Bridge,
* "Primitive Culture," I. ch. ix. pp. 318, 319.

60 ORIGINES JUDAIC JE.
and surveys the ruins of an historic city of apparently
enormous extent, he will, if he is so fortunate as to be in
possession of London's libraries, come across at least one
strange parallel which, on Goldziher's reasoning, will
assuredly reveal to him an ancient solar myth. It is a
parallel between French and English history in the last
two centuries. He will find that both countries under
went a revolution in which the king was beheaded. In
each case he was succeeded by a military dictator who
was dreaded at home and abroad, and cast a gloom over
the country. Each dictatorship was got rid of, and the
monarchy was restored. Again, after a short interval, the
crown was humbled in the dust, and eventually the people
in both countries became supreme. Who can help coming
to the conclusion that the likeness between these two
histories is good cause for suspecting that they enshrine a
forgotten myth, which explained the alternate victory of
Night and Day, Sun and Storm ?
A second example may be taken from Professor Wilson's
"Essay on Buddha and Buddhism." There tbe very
existence of Buddha is questioned ; it is pointed out that
about twenty different dates, ranging from B.C. 2420 to B.C.
453, are assigned to his birth ; that the Sakya clan is not
known to early Hindu writers ; and that the proper names
connected with the Buddha easily lend themselves to
mystical interpretation. E.g. Suddhodana = he whose
food is pure; Mayad&vi = illusion; Siddhartha = he by
whom the end is accomplished; Kapilavastu = the sub
stance of Kapila (an earlier teacher). But, in spite of all
this, what sane person questions the reality of the life and
work of Gautama, the Enlightened ?
Another example of the same kind is ready to our hand
in a work published in 1805 by J. A. Dupuis, " L'Origine
de tous les Cultes," in the course of which the author

ON HEBREW MYTHOLOGY. 61
applies the same dangerous tool to the life of Jesus Christ.
Shaped by it the four Gospels become an astronomical
myth. Jesus Christ is the Sun whose birth is celebrated
at the winter solstice, and whose resurrection from the
sleep of winter is commemorated at the vernal equinox by
the rejoicings of Easter, of the true origin of which the
Paschal Candle is a relic. St. John the Baptist's Day and
Michaelmas Day become in the same way solar fete-days-
The twelve Apostles, of course, represent the twelve signs of
the Zodiac.
But a further answer is demanded by the mythological
school of Goldziher, besides the general one drawn from the
dangerous weapons that it wields. For it might retort that
it is fully aware of the fallacies that lurk behind the argu
ment from analogy, and has done its best to avoid them.
Putting on one side the obvious rejoinder that it would be
difficult to suppose an interpretation where less care in
insisting on remote resemblances has been taken, this
answer may be also given. Suppose that, for the sake of
argument, it were admitted for the moment that the
narratives of Genesis sprang originally from myths, even
then there would, on our hypothesis, be no myths in the
Bible narrative. For they certainly appear there as
historical events ; Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are repre
sented as historical personages, and their lives as real lives.
What the student of religion is concerned with then is, not
so much with the pre-Biblical myths, as the actual Biblical
story. The intention of the writer or redactor was clearly
to set forth a history, and even supposing — which seems a
large supposition — that he had found myths and made them
histories, he has in the act destroyed them as myths.
" Retrancher le merveilleux d'une mythe c'est le supprimer."
The " pitiless plane " of the monotheistic redactor has
certainly passed over the whole series of supposed myths,

62 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
has removed the marvellous from them, and hence they are
given to us no longer as myths. What was meant to be
history is, on our hypothesis, part of the history of the
development of monotheism out of nature-worship.
Notwithstanding this, the answer just made to Gold
ziher's mythology, however unexceptionable as an argu-
mentum ad hominem, will yet appear to most readers highly
unsatisfactory. It is not enough to be assured, they will
urge, that the narrative was meant to be history. If it
was not actually history then, it may be interesting as a
literary product, as a " category of history," but as an
instrument of religion it is worthless. What is false in
history cannot be true in religion. Does the Bible supply
an answer to this difficulty ? We think it does, and one
that is conclusive.
Strictly speaking there are no myths or mythical
elements in the Bible. The nearest approach to a myth is
in the early verses of Gen. vi., which describe the golden
age when heroes and giants lived upon the earth. But
even here the myth has been subjected to a rigorous re
vision, which has effaced its distinctive mythical features.
What we have, then, in the Old Testament, where other
books of the same character might have myths, is something
which is not a myth but a " literary product." There is a
well-defined class of these " literary products " which every
reader recognizes as possessing distinguishing features of
its own. In this class will be placed such narratives as tbe
account of the Creation in Gen. i., the story of the Tempta
tion and Fall of Man, the intercourse of the sons of God
with the daughters of men, the Deluge and the building of
the Tower of Babel. Assyrian discoveries have made it
clear that these narratives were not peculiar to the Jews,
but in some form were common to that part of the human
race which had its cradle in Asia. The Creation narrative

ON HEBREW MYTHOLOGY. 63
and the Flood narrative have been compared with the
Chaldean, and no doubt exists that there was some relation
ship between the two sets. What we really have, then, in
this class of narratives is a preface, as it were, to the record
of Jewish development. We do not get myths, for —
"a myth is in its origin an explanation by the uncivilized
mind of some natural phenomenon; not an allegory, not an
exoteric symbol — for the ingenuity is wasted which strives
to detect in myths the remnants of refined primaeval science —
but an explanation."
And the explanation given here is not " the explanation of
an uncivilized mind," but of one highly developed. What
we do get, therefore, is a statement of God's workings in
and over Nature, told through the medium of language
supplied by earlier cosmogonies.
When we turn from this set of narratives to the history
of the patriarchs, where Goldziher professes to see nothing
but myths, we are transported to an entirely different
clime. It is not too much to say that every feature which
characterized the former is absent from the latter. The
interest centres not round cosmical processes, or natural
catastrophes, or the distribution of races, or the problem of
evil, but round the doings of certain persons. Moreover
their doings — as, e.g., the altars built by Abraham, his
relations with Lot, Jacob's relations to the Canaanitish
septs — are all quite natural, and just what fits in with a
pastoral life and an early stage of development. What
likeness is there between the serpent and the tree, on one
side, and Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac on the other ? between
Adam and Abraham, Sarah and Eve ? If any patriarchal
story might seem to wear a legendary aspect, it is the story
of Melchizedek, and yet Professor Sayce has shown good
reason from the monuments for accepting him as a historical
personage. In short, there is a total unlikeness between

64 0R1GINES JUDAIC^!.
the cosmogonical and the patriarchal narratives, and if the
former contain no myths still less do the latter. Whether,
as the former worked on myths and transmuted them, so
the latter worked on legends and verified them, is a question
that Goldziher does not raise, and which, therefore, we need
not consider.
In sharp opposition to the school of Kuhn and his
specialist Goldziher, is the school which still bears the
name of Creuzer. Georg Friedrich Creuzer was born at
Merburg in 1771, and died at Heidelberg in 1858. Between
1810 and 1812 appeared his magnum opus in four volumes,
called "Symbolik und Mythologie der Alten Volker
besonders der Griechen." Though this work was at once
assailed by Voss, 0. Miiller, Hermann, and other German
scholars, yet it still remains a text -book to one school, and
a stone of offence to the other. Approaching the subject
from a different side to that followed by Kuhn, he dis
cusses the ancient religions of India, Egypt, and Greece
from the materials supplied by their symbols. His system
may be briefly summarized as follows: —
Mankind at first worshipped gods to whom they gave
no name. Long afterwards they gave them names that
they had learnt, some in one way, some in another.
Between these two times a priesthood had established
itself. This priesthood, far superior to the common herd,
taught them by sensuous imagery and an impressive con
ciseness. Such teaching was for the people a revelation;
it was addressed to the eye, and appeared as a supernatural
manifestation. To a people who had not learned to
separate their own life from the world-life, the priest, in
creating symbols, was acting as a real creator. Through
the necessity of compressing his knowledge into a small
external compass, we owe to the priesthood the art of
writing, which in its earliest stages was purely symbolic,

ON HEBREW MYTHOLOGY. 65
at all events in its hieroglyphic character. Each symbol
represented at first a well-defined idea, till experience of
life had taught it to represent at last the infinite, and it
then assumed the character called mystic or divine. Later
the symbol became extended, by alliance with other symbols
into the allegory of words, signs, matter, form, colour, or
action. Finally, as in Greek art, man came to recognize
that the most fitting symbol of God was man.
Side by side with the development of religious symbol
ran a diverse stream of mythology. A myth may take its
origin in a chance visitor of a superior intelligence being
cast amongst an inferior people; or from the phenomena
of nature ; or from a mistaken interpretation of some word
of which the original meaning had been forgotten ; or from
the incomprehensibility by the vulgar of the symbols in
religious use, of which the priests kept the key. The
myth had two main divisions — one, which told of some
historical event, a sage; the other, which enshrined an
ancient religious belief, i.e. a belief in any department of
knowledge, for religion in early days contained within
itself all that was or could be known. Myths of both
kinds would then mingle, as the branches and leaves of
a tree cross and recross one another. The symbol and
the myth are inextricably united : the myth may be
but a spoken symbol ; it may be also used by the priest
hood as itself the subject of a new and more composite
symbol. When the religious feeling is enfeebled the myth
descends to the level of a fable, a parable, an apologue, to
amuse or instruct in the things of earth, not to unite,
as heretofore, God and man. Philosophy has dethroned
religion. The two schools of Kuhn and Creuzer are obviously
sharply contrasted with each other. Their characteristic
differences are brought to a head by the assertion, by the
F

66 ORIGINE S JUDAIC JE.
latter, of the existence of an enlightened priesthood, a fact
for which the system of the other finds no room. If
Creuzer is right in supposing that the religious instinct
of mankind would be as unequally operative in early days
as it certainly is now, then it follows that those in whom
it was most strong would naturally lead their fellows.
And, as man is by nature a gregarious animal, the aristo
crat of religion would feel himself drawn to associate with
his fellow aristocrats, and a collegiate priesthood would be
formed. Again, as interchange of ideas between men of
kindred tastes and interests is a powerful means of ascer
taining truth and discarding error, the formation of a
college of priests would of itself tend to widen still further
the gulf which separated the priest from the common herd,
in whom the religious feeling was less highly developed.
All the facts from ancient history unite to support this
reasoning. The Egyptian priests had a system of know
ledge that was not revealed to the populace. India and
Assyria and Greece, as well as Egypt, had their mysteries.
Religion was, in fact as well as fame, the guardian and
dispenser of all knowledge, human and Divine. The power
exercised by the priesthood was based, not on office, but
on knowledge. It drew to itself the highest political
power, prior to the period when differentiation of functions
set in. The king was a priest before he was a king, and
the paterfamilias enjoyed his potestas by virtue of his
priestly character, and not merely from respect to him as
founder of the family.
It must be observed, however, that there is no necessary
contradiction between the two schools. Kuhn confines his
theory to a time prior to religion ; Creuzer's researches are
more concerned with the period which succeeded the
formation of the myth. Indeed, according to the view
of Otfried Muller, that " the mythic form of expression

ON HEBREW MYTHOLOGY. 67
changes all beings into persons, all relations into actions," *
we may repeat that the myth is the necessary antecedent
to theology. ¦(¦ As man awakens to self-consciousness, and
recognizes his personality through the impact of external
phenomena, so did he learn to recognize the existence of a
Person behind all phenomena by the mythological process.
Dyaus, or Zeus, the clear-shining sky, was the subject of a
myth which led to the worship of a multitude of spirits,
and, finally, of One Supreme Spirit.
We may accept Kuhn's theory, therefore, as in the main
true of an earlier stage of religious development, and
Creuzer's as equally true of a later. Our real difficulty
begins when we try to establish some order in the evolution
of religion. We will now proceed, therefore, to trace briefly the
general lines that the development of religion follows, the
differences which distinguish the religious path of one
nation from that of another being left out of account. We
shall then be in a position the better to determine whether
the religion of the Jews does not show marks of its having
been led gradually to its perfection along the road trodden
by every other religion whose history we are enabled to
study from the documents it has left us.
* "Prolegomena zu einer wissenschaftlischen Mythologie" (1825), p. 78.
t Mythology is antecedent to theology, not necessarily to religion.
Eeligion may accompany the growth of a mythology, and mythology grow
up alongside of religion. But as religion clothes itself in later times with
a rational theology, so in earlier times does it with a childlike mythology.
Mythology is the first attempt to explain the facts which later on fall into
position in a systematic theology.

68 ORIGINE S JUDAIC^!.

CHAPTER IV.
ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA.
Before we proceed to lay down any order in which reli
gious ideas in Gentilism developed themselves, with the
further view of tracing their influence on the Jews, it
seems necessary to define what religion is. We are not
speaking of religion as it actually is in the nineteenth
century, or as it ought to be in a perfected humanity, but
as to its essential character, displayed in history, and
disengaged from all the accidents which from time to time
have been fastened on it. Nor can it be objected here that
the place of a definition in a treatise of historical theology
(or anthropology) should follow, and not precede, the dis
cussion. For we are not dealing with the evolution of
religion in general, but, given what religion was among
the Jews in the seventh century before Christ, we are
attempting to trace the beliefs out of which it sprang.
We are at liberty, therefore, to assume that religion is an
historical fact already ascertained, and omr duty, then, is
to proceed to lay down what it is, with a view ultimately
to see whether pre-Judaism has any germs of it, and, if
so, what. It will be convenient to adopt provisionally the defini
tion of religion given by Albert Reville in his " Prolegomena
of the History of Religions." * According to this, " Religion
* Max Miiller defines Eeligion as " a mental faculty or disposition, which,

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 69
is the determination of human life by the sentiment of
a bond uniting the human mind to that Mysterious Mind
whose domination of the world and of itself it recognizes,
and to whom it delights in feeling itself united."
A word or two must be added to make clear the mean
ing of this comprehensive definition. It assumes, what no
one denies, that human life is determined to this or that
end by wants which have their spring within man himself.
They all may be summed up in the formula " the need of
living." The savage may put less into his " living " than
the Christian saint and philosopher, but both alike are
determined by the feeling which prompts them to enrich
their lives to their fullest capacity. The one may rest
content with a rude fare and ruder shelter, the other cannot
be satisfied with less than the purest morality and the
closest communion with the Eternal Spirit. That deter
mination called Religion is reached when the satisfaction
of the elementary wants of man is ascribed to a superior
Mind or Minds, Spirit or Spirits. Indeed this may be
fairly said to be the first step trodden by all religions in
human history. It is not necessary that man at this early
stage should regard his god or gods as more than the source
of his lowest needs; he may approach them in fear, or
regard them with gratitude; but in either case Religion
has begun for him when he feels that there is a bond of
independent of, nay in spite of sense and reason, enables man to apprehend
the Infinite under different names and under varying disguises." :
1 follow Eeville in preference, because I attribute religion to the feelings
rather than to the intellect, and because the term " Infinite," as used here,
is ambiguous. If it means the infinite in space, this is a concept not essen
tial to religion ; if it means the Supreme Spirit, it would be better to
say so; if it means the Mysterious, it is reserved for later experience
to find that the great Mysterious Being is greater than all that can be
thought. 1 " Introduction to the Science of Eeligion " (1882), p. 13.

70 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
some sort between himself and the beneficent Spirit or
Spirits. Moreover, the sense of mystery is inseparable from all
religion — a god explained is a god dethroned. Man may
increase in wisdom, but his conception of his god grows
proportionately, and his growing circle of knowledge only
serves to exhibit more clearly the encompassing darkness.
Hence fear is not a sufficient motive for religion, else, when
man ceased to fear, he would cease to worship. It is the
mystery of the Superior Being which makes him shudder
with fear, or tremble with adoration. In either case there
is present as the core of fear and adoration a feeling of
pleasure. Man likes to be religious.
If this definition be correct, and we believe it has the
support of history, then we are led to take the bold step
of summarily rejecting the doctrine which has become so
popular lately in England under the teaching especially of
Max Miiller. It is not so much that this system is false as
that it is imperfect. It very rightly appeals to the multi
tudinous evidences of the early worship of the Sky, the
Sun, the Winds, the Rain, etc. But its gods are corpses ;
they are but facts, in a sense Divine no doubt, which beckon
the beholder on and on until he has arranged his museum
of natural objects, and covered it over with the Infinite.
They establish an intellectual outlook on the world, whereas
Religion's home is in the feelings.*
* " Almost before there is a worship of things, there is a sort of worship
of emotion ; and this gathers especially about two phases of strong excite
ment, the one created by love, the other by wine. Passion, mental or bodily,
is the soul of all religious excitement; that is to say, it is the soul of all
belief. The Vedic charmer does after a fashion shadow forth the religion
of all mankind ; the darweesh and the fakeer display in their strange dances
something which is older and more of the Essence of human nature than the
dogma of Islam ; the Christian Flagellant, he who joined in a Procession of
Penitents or in a Dance of Death, was the brother in faith of these Two, and
had got back to a point where no difference of creed could divide " (Keary,
' ' Outlines of Primitive Belief," p. 21 5. 1 882).

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 71
But man's feelings are and always have been reached
through his wants, whether physical or spiritual. When,
then, Max Miiller, in a characteristic sentence, says —
" As man might look into the eye of man, trying to fathom
the deep abyss of his soul, and hoping at last to reach his
inmost self, he never finds it, never sees or touches it — yet he
always believes in it, never doubts it, it may be he reveres and
loves it too : — so man looked up to the Sun, yearning for the
response of a soul, etc.," *
he aptly exposes the weak point in his panoply. Man did
not worship the Sun because the Sun appealed to his sense
of wonder, but because he was the kindly source which
supplied his daily wants. Or when Max Miiller grades the
worship of the Sun as that (1) of a mere luminary ; (2) of
the giver of daily life ; (3) of the giver of life and light in
general; (4) of the disperser of the darkness; (5) of the
moral eye of the world,f we may accept his steps if we
place the first under the head of mythology and not reli
gion ; % and transfer the last four from perception to feeling.
Man revered and loved the Sun first, then believed in it,
reversing the order laid down above by Max Miiller.
Mr. Max Miiller gives us another definition of religion
* " Lectures on the Origin of Eeligion," (1891), p. 214.
t Ibid., p. 271.
% But Max Miiller makes the life of a myth to begin when fusion of
ideas sets in. He does not distinguish between my thology as an intellectual
process, however elementary, and religion as an affectional. E.g. he says,
" Parts of mythology are religious, parts of mythology are historical, parts of
mythology are metaphysical, parts of mythology are poetical. But mythology
as a whole is neither religion, nor history, nor philosophy, nor poetry." ' So,
too, when Grimm says that " Divinities form the core of all mythology," 2 he
is forgetting that the myth in.its strictest sense is simply a phase of expres
sion, a language in which objects are translated into persons, relations into
actions. Hence Mythology is a Branch of Logic, and only concerns Religion
when Eeligion uses the language supplied by the myth.
1 " Introduction to the Science of Religion " (1882), p. 252.
2 " Deutsche Mythologie," vol. iii. pref.

72 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
in his "Lectures on the Science of Religion." After excluding
the popular use of the word to denote a body of doctrines,
he defines it as meaning " a mental faculty or disposition
which, independent of, nay, in spite of sense and reason,
enables man to apprehend the Infinite under different
names and under varying disguises." * Later on, he tells
us that he uses the word Infinite as distinct from the
Indefinite as defined by Kant,t and as less liable to be
misunderstood than the Absolute, or the Unconditioned,
or the Unknowable. He also explains that " faculty " is
but a useful name for a mode of action of the mind. It
is true that Mr. Max Miiller distinguishes the religious
faculty from the operations of sense and reason — Vernunft
from Sinn and Verstand ; but inasmuch as psychologists
distinguish, in the former, sensation and perception as two
complementary parts of the same act, and inasmuch, too,
as in the latter we have the ultimate sense-perception and
a deduction from its general form, it is possible that
Vernunft (? intuition) may be double ; that is, it may
have something analogous to sensation and perception.
As a matter of fact it will be probably admitted by all who
know what a religious act is, that the two elements are
always mingled, for the most part perhaps confusedly.
Why I cannot admit Mr. Max Miiller's definitions as
adequate, is because they take little notice formally of
the sensation element. It is fair, however, to add that,
when he forsakes his definition and gives way to
description, then he leaves nothing to be desired. Kg. he
says truly : —
"If we will but listen attentively, we can hear in all
religions a groaning of the spirit, a struggle to conceive the
inconceivable, to utter the unutterable, a longing after the
* Page 13.
t " Critique of Pure Reason," ii. 422. M. M.'s transl.

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 73
Infinite, a love of God; ... he (man) alone yearns for some
thing that neither sense nor reason can supply, nay, for
something which both sense and reason by themselves are bound
to deny." *
This, however, is not logic and criticism, but poetry
and appreciation, and is so much the more true as religion
is more akin to the poetical side of our nature than the
ratiocinative. Similarly, we must reject the definitions of religion
given by Mr. Herbert Spencer and Mr. Matthew Arnold.
That of the former is this : —
"Leaving out the accompanying moral code, which is in
all cases a supplementary growth, a religious creed is definable
as an a priori theory of the universe. The surrounding facts
being given, [some form of agency is alleged, which, in (the
opinion of those alleging it, accounts for these facts. . . . How
ever widely different speculators may disagree in the solution
which they give of the same problem, yet by implication
they all agree there is a problem to be solved. Here, then,
is an element which all creeds have in common. Religions
diametrically opposed in their overt dogmas are yet perfectly
at one in their conviction that the existence of the world, with
all it contains and all that surrounds it, is a mystery ever
pressing for interpretation. On this point, if on no other, there
is entire unanimity." f
Mr. Spencer forgets that religion, as a practical feeling,
antedates a theology. Mr. Arnold's definition also reverses
the natural order, and contradicts the first sentence of
Herbert Spencer's : —
" Religion, if we follow the intention of human thought and
human language in the use of the word, is ethics, heightened,
enkindled, lit up by feeling; the passage from morality to
religion is made when to morality is applied emotion ; and the
* " Introduction to the Science of Eeligion," p. 14.
t " First Principles," 3rd edit., pp. 43, 44.

74 ORIGINES JUDAICAE.
true meaning of religion is not simply morality, but morality
touched by emotion." *
On the contrary, man first worships, and when the
Being he worships is found, or conceived to be, a moral
Being, then morality follows religious emotion, t There
is much more to be said for another definition of Max
Muller's, which traces religion to the sense of dependence :
" All nations join in some way or other in the words of
the Psalmist, ' He that hath made us and not we our
selves.' " J But no definition can pass which assigns the
subjective origin of religion to the intellect.
This distinction is of the utmost importance to a clear
conception of the growth of religion. Religion being given
as properly a matter of feeling, § and man's feelings being
stirred primarily by his wants, it follows that the early
religion would first fix itself on the objects which supplied
his wants, as such. Thus the earth which produced his
crops, the rain which watered them, the sun which warmed
them would be regarded as benefactors. But, again, by
a law of his being, man's concepts are necessarily anthro
pomorphic. The spirit which animated his body projected
itself on the external world, and the sun, the earth, the
rain were but the dwelling-place of a spirit which was
to each of them as man's spirit was to his body. Accord
ingly the sun-spirit, the rain-spirit, the earth-spirit
were all looked up to with gratitude as givers of the things
man needed.
* " Literature and Dogma," pp. 20, 21.
t " Theology restricts itself ,to the region of Faith, and leaves to Philosophy
and Science the region of Inquiry. Its main province is the province of
Emotion ; its office is the systematization of our religious conceptions " (Lewes,
" History of Philosophy," vol. i. p. 17, ed. 1880).
I " Lectures on the Science of Language," second series, p. 436.
§ It is not too much to say that the highest and noblest religions known
to the history of man are the product of three elementary instincts of the
non-rational part of man's nature, viz. the sexual, the gregarious, and the
venerating.

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 75
But although I attribute the cradle of religion to the
emotions, I do not, therefore, affirm that religion has no
necessary relationship to the conscience and reason. In the
childhood of religion we look for its simpler features before
they have been expanded by the manifold experiences of
later life. And when religion is young, reason and con
science stand aloof from it. Religion, even when matured
by philosophy, and limited in its beliefs by reason, has no
necessary concept of its Object. As we have no definite
ideas corresponding to the sensations of warmth or rest,
but merely a general feeling of satisfaction, supplemented
by an idea of the supposed cause of our sensations, so the
religious feeling, which is an undeveloped act of worship,
is not necessarily accompanied by any idea, confused or
distinct, of the Object that calls out the feeling. But when
the reason has laboured in the realm of inquiry, and
formulated a philosophic system of Man and the Universe,
its results are carried over into the emotional sphere, and
there confer a blessing, or introduce a danger. They may
prevent the religious feeling from wandering into extrava
gances of intensity, or from wasting themselves on unworthy
objects. On the other hand, they may induce their subject
to substitute their contents for the religious feeling which
is the essence of religion itself. When the former takes
place, man is saved from credulity and superstition, while
reason stands as a guard over emotion, on the one hand
restricting the range of activity of its mistress, and, on the
other hand, insuring her greater purity and strength within
the limits thus marked out. When the latter takes place,
theology expels religion, reason usurps the place of what
we commonly call faith, i.e. intuition of the Great Spirit,
and this state of unstable equilibrium is in its turn reduced
to order by an early or late uprising of faith, when reason
in its turn becomes discredited. This revolt of faith against

76 ORIGINES JUDAIC^®.
an arrogant and usurping reason is a prime characteristic
of the age in which we now are living.
The same remarks hold good, mutatis mutandis, of
conscience. Morality is no essential part of the religious
faculty, but an aftergrowth upon it. When man obeys the
impulses of his religious feeling he worships, and the Object
of his worship gathers gradually round it the highest
moral ideas that the worshipper entertains. Accordingly,
as physical wants become subordinated to intellectual, and
intellectual to moral, so does the religious feeling undergo
a purificatory process, and a great gulf opens itself between
the early feeling, which was hardly distinguishable from
the sense of physical dissatisfaction, and the later, which
is encircled by an atmosphere where the purely physical
languishes and expires. But what is common to both, and
forms the core of both, is a feeling of want, a sense of
dependence and inferiority, a desire to appropriate what
is recognized as most worthy. The worship of Caliban
and St. Francis de Sales is the same in kind, but in degree
indefinitely distant.
And here I must interpose with a remark, the full force
of which will appear only when the supporting facts have
been recorded, viz. that, side by side with the early belief
in separate spirits in nature, there grew up in the mind
of man the conception of One Spirit, out of which they all
took their origin, as flowers spring from the one soil.*
This conception, doubtless, did not at once, or even soon,
take definite shape, but that it underlay all belief in
separate spirits, will be readily conceded by any one who
* "In the pre-Semitic days of Chaldea, a monotheistic sohool had
flourished, which resolved the various deities of the Accadian belief into
manifestations of the one supreme god, Anu ; and old hymns exist in which
reference is made to ' the one god ' " (Sayce, " Assyria : Its Princes, Priests,
and People," p. 58). For "monotheistic" substitute "menotheistic," and the
remark becomes just.

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 77
has tried to find a philosophic base for the divergent beliefs
and traditions of early religions. The reasons for this
position will appear as we proceed.
Meanwhile it may be enough to say that they are two
fold : 1. An a priori reason based on the anthropomorphic
necessity that man labours under, which compels him to
fashion his gods after his own likeness ; and since the most
persistent fact of consciousness is the one Ego variously
manifested, that fact would soon find its reflex in the One
World-spirit revealed in a thousand forms. 2. The former,
if it stood alone, would be a conjecture and nothing else.
But if we can find no age, and if we can find few savage
tribes, whose supposed fetish-worship does not, when more
closely examined, yield a belief in One Spirit behind all
phenomena ; and if this belief gives a philosophic explana
tion as none other does, to the facts of religious history,
then we shall be justified in saying that our conjecture is
something more than a guess: it is a principle. It is
claimed for menotheism that it, and it alone does this.
To return now to our examination of the outward
evolution of religion and the different forms it assumes.
It is generally agreed by students of early religions that
the first step taken by man towards religion was that of
animism. He could not but attribute a life similar to his
own to all objects in motion. If it were the sun rising
from the east, and travelling to the west ; if it were the
wind gently sighing in the tree-tops on a calm summer
evening, or raging in the forest in the gloom of winter ; the
river never ceasing in its onWard course ; the tree putting
forth bud and leaf, all were living beings like himself whose
inner life manifested itself in visible action. Nay, even
motionless things like the mountains were persons in
majestic repose, and even if the spirits of which they were
the bodies did not give them much life in motion, at all

78 ORIGINES JUDAICJE.
events they were there, and watched jealously over any
thing that might be supposed to affect the interest of the
mountain. When man paid religious respect to these
several spirits, the first step was taken towards primitive
religion. Animism had given birth to a primitive
physiolatry. The second step was of the nature of a logical generaliza
tion. From the spirit of an object our fathers rose to the
conception of the spirit of a class of objects of similar
character. Comte even supposes religion to begin at this
stage, for he defines deities proper as differing by their
general and abstract character from pure fetishes (i.e. ani
mated objects), the humble fetish governing but a single
object from which it is inseparable, while the gods
administer a special order of phenomena at once in different
bodies. When, he continues, the similar vegetation of the
different oaks of a forest led to a theological generalization
from their common phenomena, the abstract being thus
produced was no longer the fetish of a single tree, but
became the god of the forest ; here then is the intellectual
passage from fetishism to polytheism, reduced to the
inevitable preponderance of specific over individual ideas.*
It may be interesting to notice that the passage from
the " primitive fetishism," viz. the worship of the spirit as
necessarily connected in some single object in nature, was
probably made, in the case of at least two of the three
classes of early divinities — the tree, the river, the mountain,
— by a vague middle term. The wind seems to have been
identified with the spirit of the forest, and the mist pre
siding over the river with the spirit of the river. In the
grove of Dodona it was the wind which, by moving the
tree-tops to sound, made Jove's message audible to mortals.
* " Philosophie Positive," v. 101. Quoted by Tylor, "Primitive Culture,"
ii. 243. Cf. also Frazer, " The Golden Bough," i. 66.

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 79
A relic of the same belief may perhaps be seen in the
committal to the winds, by the Sibyl consulted by iEneas,
of the leaves on which her divine responses were written.*
So, too, the Hindu apsaras, the formless ones, the mists,
were something between the clouds and the rivers. They
are neither embodied nor unembodied. Later they have
assumed the anthropomorphic form of nymphs, and stand
side by side with dryads, fauns, and nereids.
When man had reached this stage, it was comparatively
easy for him to go a step further, and to a larger generali
zation. As from the individual he had risen to the species,
from the tree-nymph to the forest-god, from the domestic
divinity to the city-god, so did he, after much thought and
many a struggle, rise to the explicit conception, formerly
implicit only, which, when it was first communicated, was
a veritable revelation to the learner, of one single supreme
spirit behind all phenomena. Primitive fetishism (or
physiolatry), polytheism, menotheism.t These would be
the three chief steps that reflection would lead us to expect
in man's religious progress, and as we shall see that the
various world-cults resolve themselves into an elementary
pantheism (i.e. menotheism, which has been described and
defined already) as their intellectual basis, it is difficult
not to presume some such order of ideas, unless we are
prepared to believe in a primaeval revelation of monotheism,
afterwards degenerating by way of polytheism into this
elementary pantheism.
* Virg. Mn., vi. 74.
t With this agrees the schema of Pleyte, who says, " The expression of
the religious sentiment has followed the following course. In the beginning,
we see man paying homage to inanimate matter ; little by little this rude
and gross worship is replaced by another where animated matter is
worshipped. This in its turn disappears, and gives place to a worship which
has as its object an invisible Spirit, to whom homage is paid by means of
material offerings. And finally, we get religion where God, as a Spirit, is
worshipped in Spirit " (" La Eeligion des Pre-Israelites," p. 15).

¦80 ORIGINES JUDAICJE.
It is, however, at present impossible to say whether
man's first religion was monotheism, afterwards degene
rating into polytheism, or whether the former was a slow
product of the latter, or whether the order should be
menotheism, polytheism, monotheism. Where authorities
differ so widely, it may be more modest to withhold
judgment. But it is at least worthy of consideration
whether the admitted difficulties in the way of a decision
are not, at all events partially, cleared away by the remark
made above, that man as man is an individual, and unifies
all his perceptions by relating them to his own unitary
self-consciousness. It is impossible, with this fact in mind,
not to suspect that primitive man — acting under a blend
of the two laws, viz. (1) that which made him the
measure of the universe; and (2) that which caused him
to unify all phenomena — attained at an early stage to a
sub-consciousness at least of the existence of One Sole
Spirit variously manifested. When he had reached this
point he had travelled far, and laid the foundations of that
religious system which in some form or other held sway
over every ancient nation whose history has come down to
us. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the religion of
antiquity, as soon as it attained the level of self-conscious
ness, was Menotheistic, and that all varying forms known
to us can only be harmonized and explained by reference
to it as their underlying spirit. A discussion of the forms
thus assumed by what I have described as the menotheistic
spirit must be left to another chapter. It may be added
here, however, that the religion of the Jews is only ex
plicable on the ground that it was not merely a divinely
guided protest on behalf of monotheism against polytheism,
but also and still more a protest on behalf of the Per
sonality of God as against incipient or completed Pan
theism.

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 81
This belief, however, in the Divine guidance of the
Jews, which made them the pioneers in the education of
mankind in a pure monotheistic belief, is quite compatible
with a recognition of the fitness of the circumstances of the
Semitic race to this destiny of the Jews. In the West, as
e.g. in Greece and Rome, the monarchy fell at an early date
under the too great power of the aristocracy. Accordingly,
the supreme god of those countries never attained the
sharpness of outline which gave him a unique supremacy
over the other immortals. But in Babylon and Assyria
the Semites were familiar with a government on earth
which was supreme over all its subject-governors and
peoples, and was in the hands of one man. The Jew did
but set forth the same kind of supreme power as in the
hands of Yahveh, and add the conception of absolute and
universal righteousness, superior to all local limitations,
and then he had paved the way for that differentiation of
religion which ultimately led, under Divine providence, to
the Catholic religion of Jesus Christ.*
This is the place to establish the distinction, already
frequently alluded to, which has not yet been insisted
on by any writers on the subject of the growth of
religion. They have been content for the most part to
leave the question of an early monotheism open, and to
trace, as existing monuments justify them in doing,
a gradual progress from the earliest known stage, viz.
Fetishism.t The order generally laid down is then : fetishism, poly
theism, monotheism, pantheism. Mythologists are agreed
that " the conception of impersonal powers is always later
* For this see an admirable passage in Eobertson Smith, " Eeligion of
the Semites," p. 74.
t I use the word fetishism here as De Brasses used it, in the wider sense
as denoting the worship of single physical objects in nature. Fetishism as
the worship of artificial objects is a later corruption. G

82 ORIGINES JUDAICJE.
than that of personal powers," — that is, that pantheism
follows, and does not precede, the other three. To the
divisions given above, Mr. Max Miiller has added a sub
division of polytheism, in which, while many gods are
worshipped, one at the actual moment of worship is tacitly
regarded as supreme, and to this he has given the name of
Kathenotheism, or, more shortly, Henotheism. This dis
tinction is perfectly valid, and is a distinct gain both to
knowledge and language. But what the learned professor
has not remarked is, that the state of mind which makes
such worship possible is necessarily preceded by, at all
events, the first suspicion of a higher truth. No heno-
theistic worshipper could possibly in his philosophic, as
distinct from his worshipping, moments regard as supreme
each of the gods he worships from time to time. It is only
by successive illusions, voluntarily permitted, that Indra, or
Varuna, or Zeus, or Apollo attains a conceptual supremacy.
There is, therefore, a preparation already made for that
higher belief where one attains supremacy and makes the
rest his vassals. This in turn is succeeded by another and
clearer conception, which is nothing but the original
implicit menotheistic belief made explicit, where One
Spirit, One without a second, is worshipped, and the other
gods are degraded either to varying manifestations of this
one spirit, or else sink still lower and find their own proper
level in being the instruments by which the One Spirit
manifests itself. When, e.g., the Rig Veda * says, " They
call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni; then he is the
beautifully winged heavenly Garutmat ; that which is One
the Sages speak of in many ways — they call it Agni, Yama,
Matarisvan ; " or again, t " Wise poets make the Beautifully-
winged, though he is one, manifold by words," it is but
giving expression to this conception which is destined to
* i. 164. 46. t x- H4- 5.

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 83
supersede henotheism. This higher belief is well described
by Mariette : —
"On the summit of the Egyptian pantheon hovers a sole
God, immortal, uncreate, invisible, and hidden in the inaccessible
depths of his own essence. He is the creator of heaven and
earth ; he made all that exists, and nothing was made without
him. This is the God, the knowledge of whom was reserved
for the initiated, in the sanctuaries. But the Egyptian mind
could not, or would not, remain at this sublime altitude. It
considered the world, its formation, the principles which govern
it, man and his earthly destiny, as an immense drama in which
the one Being is the only actor. All proceeds from him, and
all returns to him. But he has agents who are his own
personified attributes, who become deities in visible forms,
limited in their activity, yet partaking of his own powers and
qualities." *
The only criticism I would venture to make on this is,
that according to the Litany of the Sun on the royal
tombs, referred to elsewhere, the creed of the initiated was
pantheistic — not, as Mariette here implies, monotheistic;
and that if ever Egypt did attain a pure monotheistic creed,
of which I can find no certain evidence, then it succeeded,
not preceded, the belief in one Spirit variously manifested.
It seems desirable to have some provisional name for
a creed such as I have described, which shall give it a local
habitation, and make it easily recognizable among the many
subtly shaded forms of belief among which it has its being.
The concept for which we have to find a name consists of
two elements : (1) the existence of one and only one all-
pervading Spirit; (2) His manifold manifestations. Let
us agree to call it by the name of Menotheism,} not from
any expectation of permanent enrichment of the English
language, but for the sake of clearness. Menotheism will
* Quoted by Max Miiller, " Lectures on the Science of Eeligion " (1882),
p. 102. t Cf. 1 St. John, iv. 13.

84 ORIGINES JUDAICJ2.
then stand for that belief which sees the One Eternal
Spirit dwelling behind phenomena and manifesting Him
self through them. It differs from Fetishism as the uni
versal differs from the particular ; it differs from Polytheism
as unity differs from multeity ; it differs from Henotheism
in that it excludes the existence of any potential rivals ;
it differs from Monotheism because it has not the marks
of clear-cut personality and transcendental existence which
are denoted by the higher term ; and, lastly, it differs from
Pantheism because it does not blur the dividing line
between the personality of the God that is worshipped
and that of his worshipper, as Pantheism necessarily does.
That this distinction between what is here called Meno
theism and the other forms of belief mentioned is valid,
and for our purpose necessary, will be admitted when we
have examined the faiths with which Judaism came into
contact. Canaanitish worship was neither monotheistic
nor pantheistic, and yet it was the worship of a single god,
locally reigning in much the same way that the cult of
the Blessed Virgin is localized on the Continent. We shall
see that Baal and Asherah were respectively the lord and
lady of the generative power of nature — not of two co-ordi
nate powers, but of one power manifesting itself under the
double form of active and passive. Merodach and Ishtar
tell the same story in Mesopotamia. As we shall see,
Egypt offers the same religious phenomena which are
inexplicable either by polytheism in its higher or lower
form, or by monotheism, or by pantheism, but which fit
in exactly with the conception of menotheism. The same
may be said of the May-pole festivities which are now
on their death-bed, the veneration for the mistletoe, the
beltane-fires of the Highlands, the vestal fire of Rome, the
worship of Agni in India, of Egyptian zoolatry before its
decay set in, and the wide-spread devotion to the corn-spirit

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 85
or the tree-spirit, in the practice of killing a cock and
scattering its feathers with the seed over the fields, and
in the sanctity attributed to the boar in Scandinavia.*
The position here taken up, viz. that a menotheistic
belief lies at the base of the heathen religions known to
us, requires some further support. We are not now dealing
with the origins of religion in the early days (if they ever
existed) when man appeared on earth with the faculties
and experience of a new-born babe. For the sake of
argument it has been assumed that such was the case,
however great may be the difficulties in conceiving of such
a being. Where mythology and primitive religious belief
are referred to here, it is only for the light they are calcu
lated to throw on the period under discussion, in the same
way, that when later creeds and customs are appealed to,
it is that they in their turn may show the nature of the
religion which produced them. The period we are mainly
considering lies between the Exodus and the Captivity,
with excursions on both sides, or in other words between
the seventeenth century and the eighth century before
Christ. If, however, we are to follow in the footsteps of the
" Higher Criticism," this " period " will have to shrink into
a century, as the greater part of the evidence, according
to it, that the Hebrew writings supply, is supplied by
works compiled, or written, or edited about the time of
the return from the Exile. Without attempting to decide
this question, it may suffice to say that, if this contention
be true, and the Old Testament be in the main a reflex
of Canaanitish religion, Jewish history, and prophetical
aspirations, as they presented themselves to the men of the
eighth century before Christ, then no one will seriously
* The character of these particular rites may be seen portrayed in
Frazer's "Golden Bough" [2 vols. Maemillan, 1890]. The author does not,
however, proceed to the conclusion that his premises inevitably suggest.

86 ORIGINES JUDAICM.
argue that menotheism was not at that time a form of
faith long ago elaborated and exercising a powerful sway
over religious thought.
Professor Robertson Smith, whose theories of the
origins of religion leave little room for a matured
theology, yet admits that —
" the conception of the mother goddess was not unknown, and
seems to be attached to cults which go back to the ages of
polyandry and female kinship. . . . She is the mother of the
gods and also the mother of men, who in the Chaldean flood-
legends mourns over the death of her offspring. In like
manner the Carthaginians worshipped a 'great mother' who
seems to be identical with Tanith- Artemis, the 'heavenly
virgin ; ' and the Arabian Lat was worshipped by the Nabatseans
as mother of the gods, and must be identified with the virgin-
mother, whose worship at Petra is described by Epiphanius.*
In Lajard t may be seen the bearing of this concession
of Professor Robertson Smith's. The Virgin-mother, the
virgo ccelestis or numen virginale, could have nothing to
do with the merely physical production of men, to which
relation Mr. Smith seems to confine the gods and their
worshippers. On the contrary, the Virgin-mother was
intimately bound up with a cosmogony of which the
origin is probably to be assigned to Babylonia.
It may be well perhaps to briefly summarize this cos
mogonical creed, to which Professor Smith somewhat
inconsistently gives such early standing-room.
According to this account, the universe is the thought
of God manifested when He said " I am." He Himself is
inconceivable, and therefore nameless. The primal dark
ness was composed of mingled light and shade which
separated at the creative word. This darkness was the
Virgin-mother, or the mother of the gods (Mylitta). The
* " Religion of the Semites," p. 56 (1889).
t " Eecherches sur le Culte de Venus."

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 87
light was divinized as a good androgynous god — Baal,
Merodach, etc. The separated darkness was also divinized
as a god, androgynous also, but evil — Tiamat, Ahriman,
Typhon, etc. Each of these two deities, the good and the
evil, produced his own world, one the counterpart of the
other. The elements of fire and water, with air as an
intermediary agent, were used by them to produce heaven
and earth. The heaven was twofold: one, of the fixed
stars ; and one, of the seven planets. The earth also was
twofold: one the region of fire and ether, the other of
the atmosphere. Man occupied a middle position between
the two creations. Later the androgynous god became
divided into male and female ; and Bel and Mylitta, with
Love as mediary, give us the Assyrian triad, which appears
as Anu, Bel, Ea.
Nor are we without traces of the same elaborate
cosmogony in Egypt. There, in On Turn, is " the first of
the gods, the only one who does not change ; " he is " Ra in
his first sovereignty," "the great god self-existing, the
creator of his name, the lord of all gods, who is upheld
by none among the gods." He is the unmanifested, the
" hidden " god, and Ra is his manifestation. He is behind
" Ra in his egg ; " that is, Ra is Turn manifested, who brings
life out of the world-egg, or chaos.
Less difficulty will be felt, perhaps, in accepting meno
theism as the background against which we are to place
Judaism, when it is recollected that at so remote an epoch
as 2000 B.C there was formed in Chaldea a syncretistic
system out of the various cults which had their meeting-
point in the valley of the Euphrates. No doubt such a
system demands a preceding period of arrested development
and incipient decay. Religion has attained its native
fulness of stature, and seeks support from outside itself.
But, at the same time, no creed is more capable of lending

88 ORIGINES JUDAIC 'M.
itself to this tolerance than menotheism. Even if the
menotheistic stage has not passed into and out of a later
monotheism into absolute pantheism, it contains all the
elements which would produce a broad syncretistic system.
Monotheism is too rigid, and pantheism too philosophic to
lend itself to such a development. Menotheism alone
makes religion and thought at once worshippers at the
same shrine. If then, at this early period, menotheism
held sway in Chaldea, it is but what we should expect
when we find a similar creed and its natural worship
prevalent among the inhabitants of Canaan five centuries
later. But the clearest and most complete account of the
Egyptian cosmogony in its more finished form is derived
from the sacred prayers cut on the walls and pillars of the
royal tombs at Bibau-el-Moulouk, which have been trans
lated by M. Edouard Naville. From the seventy-five forms
of Ra there enumerated, and the seventy-five formulae of
prayer corresponding to them, we are able to construct a
cosmogony not essentially differing from that of Babylonia.
According to it, Amenti, or Hades, or Sheol, is prior in
time to the earth, night precedes day, as in Genesis. In
other words, the visible world proceeds out of pre-existing
darkness. In that darkness before all manifestation is
Ra, the Supreme Being, or rather the Supreme Power, who,
not being a person, does what he does, not freely, but by
necessity. What he does is to manifest himself under
seventy-five different forms. His first manifestation is as
Turn, the universe, or universal envelope, i.e. the Great
All, Pan, whose most fitting emblem is a silkworm or the
letter 0 (according to Eusebius). Turn is the lord of the
spheres; that is, he embraces them all in himself. For
every manifestation of Ra there is its own proper sphere,
or habitation, or cave, wherein it dwells. But the spheres

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 89
are created before their inhabitants. When the house is
ready, the tenant is provided. After the creation of
Amenti the earth, represented as Ptah, comes into being.
The earth has a double aspect : it is male and female, it
engenders and it destroys its children. But as yet Amenti
and the earth are both in darkness till the essence of Ra
takes the form of the god with the great disk, and then it
produces, by the creative word, beings in whom is the
breath of life. As soon as they are produced, their enemies
and Ra's come forth too, and from the same source ; they
are both manifestations of Ra, just as in the Babylonian
cosmogony the good and evil principle are both alike from
the Great Unknowable. Ra afterwards seems to take the
form of the nine great gods of Heliopolis, Chefra, Shu,
Tefnut, Seb, Nut, Isis, Nephthys, Horus, and Nun. But
whatever exists is Ra in his manifestations ; he is the sun,
Amenti, the earth, the water, the heavenly bodies, men,
animals, vegetables, all that is. Every quality has its
manifestation, and every manifestation will in its time be
swallowed up in the unceasing stream of life which goes
forth from and returns to the Unknown All.*
No objection can lie against this system on the ground
that it requires many ages, and the birth and long growth
of the reflective spirit, for its evolution. For Professor
Maspero.t in company with Professor Sayce, admits the
authenticity of the chronicle which records the exploits of
Sargon, circa 3800 B.C., at the time when the sixth dynasty
ruled Egypt, or the third, if we accept M. Brugsch's
chronology. At all events, as the latter admits, Egyptian
art at this time is " Art in the truest sense of the word,"
and is, moreover, " Egyptian art ; " and, as Professor
Maspero himself speaks of the cutting on a seal of Sargon
* Cf. Naville, "Litanie du Soleil," pp. 122-130. [Leipzig, 1875.]
t "Dawn of Civilization," p. 601.

90 ORIGINES JUDAIC JE.
as worthy " to be ranked among the masterpieces of
Oriental engraving," it is clear that, even at that early
period, both Egypt and Assyria were sufficiently advanced
to have passed into that stage where primitive wonder had
given place to philosophic speculation, the latter being
embodied in pictorial and ceremonial symbolism.
Moreover, Professor Sayce, in his recent work on the
" Higher Criticism," has shown how much more close was
the intercourse between Babylonia, Phoenicia, and Egypt
in very early times than has been commonly supposed.
So far from writing being unknown, or at most confined
to the priestly and allied castes, it was wide-spread, and
extended its operations to the commercial affairs of life.
We know, too, that at an early date both Babylonia and
Egypt had their sacerdotal colleges, which acted as the
guides of religious thought and the guardians of the
established ritual. It is impossible, therefore, to suppose
that the elaborate system just set out, whatever its near
ness to truth, joined with the now known frequency of
communication through Canaan between Babylonia and
Egypt, could have left the inhabitants of Canaan innocent
of all knowledge of an intellectual creed.
In Egypt, the conception of a distinction between the
objects of nature and the spirit animating them is very
ancient. Thus in chap. xv. of the " Book of the Dead "
we have included some hymns to Ra, where that god is
identified with the Sun and yet distinguished from him.
For the sun's disk is called " his disk," and the sun is his
emblem. He travels "in his disk," and is described as
"the ancient unknown one in his mystery." This dis
tinction is found on the very oldest Egyptian monuments,
and shows to what a high antiquity does the doctrine of
the higher pantheism, or menotheism, trace its birth. The
religious history of other nations makes it probable that

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 91
-Egypt worked out this simpler creed from an earlier
fetishism, but at all events that fetishism had disappeared
when Egypt appears in history. It is only in later times
that Egyptian history shows any traces of fetishism, and
then it is a retrogression from the more philosophic faith
to the cruder antecedent of pantheism. Probably the
fetishism of Baal- worship in Canaan during Jewish times
had gone through a similar decadent process*
This cosmogony, it should be observed, has a similarity
to the Hindu creed. That creed distinguishes between
Brahm, the Inconceivable, the Unknowable, the Ineffable,
and Brahma, a member of the manifested Triad. Similarly
the Babylonian cosmogony emerges into the presiding
deities of Anu, Bel, and Ea, while behind them, unmani-
fested, is God.
If, then, the chief of this triad obtained the cognomen
of Bel, and if, as even Professor Smith allows, Baal has a
linguistic affinity with Bel, we shall be justified in regard
ing the Phoenician Baal as deriving his origin from the
wonderful thinkers of Babylonia, who gave birth to the
conception of Bel. In other words, as the Hindu faith is
menotheistic, so was the ancient Babylonian, and hence
the worship of the Canaanitish Baal partook of the same
* " The contemplation of the political constitution and of the civil and
domestic life of the Egyptians cannot but have made a deep impression
upon the Israelite, and, while it made him value the privileges of the free
nomadic life more highly, must at the same time have opened his eyes to-
those deficiencies which were prejudicial to the people of his own race"
(Kuenen, " Eeligion of Israel," i. 277). Kuenen also admits that it is possible
to ascribe to Moses, the " Egyptian priest of Heliopolis," as Manetho calls
him, the introduction into the Jewish ritual of the ark, the priestly vest
ments, and the Urim and Thummim. He also points out that the Egyptians
had in their nuk pu nuk an equivalent to " I am that I am," and that there
is a parallel between the ethical doctrines of the Pentateuch and those of
the Egyptians. His only hesitation in ascribing the introduction of all this-
to Moses, is that it might have been as well introduced in later times, e.g.
in the reigns of Solomon and his successors, when Egypt and Israel were
equally in contact.

92 ORIGINES JUDAIC J3.
character. This, of course, does not necessarily imply that a
pantheism higher or lower was always consciously present
to the minds of Canaanitish worshippers. What it does
include by implication is, that such a belief lay at the root
of the local worships which the Old Testament shows us
as holding sway in Palestine. Professor Smith, again,
admits as much when he says —
"When the divine manifestation takes such a form as the
flames in the bush, the connection between the god and the
material symbol is evidently much looser than in the Baal type
of religion, where the divine life is immanent in the tree. . . .
It has sometimes been supposed that the conception of a god
immanent in nature is Aryan, and that of a transcendental god
Semitic ; but the former view is quite as characteristic of the
Baal worship of the agricultural Semites as of the early faiths
of the agricultural Aryans." *
It is true that Robertson Smith's general conception of
the relations of the ancient gods to their worshippers is of
a grosser kind, and rests on a physical unity of blood, and
a participation in the same physical existence ; t hut this,
as will appear elsewhere, is part of his favourite totem
theory, for rejecting which some reasons will appear as we
proceed. Nor is there any more credence to be given to the view
which attributes the " chaotic monsters," such as the winged
* " Eeligion of the Semites," pp. 177, 178.
t How little the totem theory is capable of explaining all expressions
where fatherhood is assigned to the gods appears from such phrases as
Horus uses to the Egyptian king, over whose head the sparrow-hawk hovers
as he goes forth to battle. In the inscription on the Gizeh Sphinx : " The
majesty of this god speaks with his own mouth ; like a father with his son,
so he speaks : ' Behold me, my beloved son, Thotmes ' " — Thotmes IV., 18th
dynasty, — " ' I am thy Father Harmachu ' " (Brugsch, " Keiseberichte aus
iEgypten," p. 335). But Thotmes IV. was no totem worshipper, nor when
he wore the sparrow-hawk of Horus on his head did he regard himself as of
one blood, through his first parent, with a sparrow-hawk. Horus was his
guardian, his lord, and stood towards him, as the inscription says, " like a
father to his son."

ON TEE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 93
bulls, the sphinxes, and griffins, to the " chaotic imagination
of early man," who had not learned to distinguish between
" gods and men, on the one hand, and the lower creation on
the other." For these " fantastic monsters " were produced
at a time when art and civilization had made great progress,
and not in the early mythologie period. They as little
evince confused thought about the dividing lines between
gods, men, and beasts, as they testify to the fear of early
hunters, caused by .imaginary monsters of the Egyptian
deserts or the Chaldean marshes. They were symbolic
emblems * devised by sacerdotal guilds to express abstract
ideas of courage, power, and eternal life ; and display an
excellence of conception and execution as would be utterly
impossible in those twilight days when men saw gods as
trees walking. Totemism is incapable of giving birth to
the Cherubim.
In Jotham's fable f the trees talk and make themselves
a king, i.e. they are represented as dittoes of man. " Life
analogous to human life is imagined to permeate all parts
of the universe." And the unity of human life inevitably
led to the conception of the unity of cosmic life. It is not
denied that "primitive religion was not a philosophical
pantheism, and the primitive deities were not vague ex
pressions for the principle of life in nature." But we are
not dealing in Bible times with primitive religion, but
with the religion of a period when religious thought had
attained a high level, when elaborate cosmogonies had been
formulated, and when there was a constant interchange
of ideas both by the mingling of different nations through
* Cf. Lajard : " The world having been created by the Word, the World
had necessarily a Divine origin; and beings, the elements, everything of
which the world is composed, were considered as so many characters used
by the gods to write the history of their works or of creation " (" Culte de
Venus," p. 6).
t Judg. ix. 8.

¦94 ORIGINES - JUDAIC^.
warfare and captivity, and also by the gentler means of
commerce. A question may be raised as to the validity of conclu
sions drawn, in reference to Semitic religion, from premises
borrowed from Aryan or other religions. An objection of
this nature is based on the underlying assumption that
religions of different races must fundamentally vary — they
must be discreti et diversi : the position taken here is that
they must fundamentally agree. The underlying unity of
human nature is a postulate without which all inquiry into
ancient religions is lost labour. If we may not assume a
substantial likeness between Aryan and Semite, then we
may not assume either any likeness of the same kind
between the Semite of the fifteenth century before Christ
and the Semite of the fifth ; in other words, we may
abandon all attempts to construct a science of religion.
At the same time, it would be equally unscientific to
neglect the variety of forms under which the unity of
human nature manifests itself. Given the elements
common to all races which form the structure of religion,
the experienced student will have little difficulty in
separating form from substance. When, for instance, we
find Wuotan, or Odin, occupying the post of honour in the
Teutonic Pantheon, Phoebus- Apollo in the Attic, Indra or
Varuna or Dyaus in the Indian, Ra in Thebes, we have little
difficulty in seeing that the difference of climate has deter
mined the special aspect of nature that has been most highly
honoured in each country, while what is common to all, viz.
the worship of nature, springs from what is common to all.
I must here venture to differ from Mr. Max Miiller, who
characterizes the worship of all the Semitic nations as a
worship of God im history, and that of the Aryan race as a
worship of God in nature* Attractive as this division
* " Lectures on the Science of Eeligion " (1882), pp. 92, 93.

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 95
may be, there are good reasons for rejecting it. In the
first place, it is a cross division. The god who was a
national or tribal god, might be at the same time a god
of nature. For example, Merodach was the god of Semitic
Babylon, but he was essentially a solar deity. Dr. Kuenen,
indeed, does not shrink from saying that the earliest
conception of Yahveh among the Jews was that of a sun-
deity, who makes all things to exist. In the second place,
Semitic worship was, as among the Phoenicians, the worship
of gods of nature. Baal was a sun-god, and Ashtoreth a
moon-goddess. The Babylonian triad Anu, Bel, and Ea
were Semitic nature-gods. In the third place, the argu
ment from the epithets, the Strong, the Exalted, the Lord,
the King, applied to their gods by the Semites, are as
applicable to nature-deities personified as to tribal gods,
conceived as endowed with moral qualities. In the fourth
place, the admitted tendency of the Semite gods to "run
together " is opposed to the definiteness that marks tribal
personal gods, and is in harmony with the character of
nature-gods. In the fifth place, the distinction is admitted
by Mr. Max Miiller himself to be nugatory when he says
that " Baal can hardly be considered as a strange and
foreign god in the eyes of the Jewish people, who, in spite
of the protests of the Hebrew prophets, worshipped him so
constantly in the groves of Jerusalem," and also when he
adopts Philo's * identification of Baal with the sun, in the
quotation —
"When the heat became oppressive, the ancient races of
Phoenicia lifted their hand heavenward to the sun. For him
they considered the only god, the Lord of Heaven, calling him
Baal-samen, which with the Phoenicians is ' lord of heaven,' and
-with the Greeks ' Zeus.' " f
What is more true is that Aryan and Semitic religions
* Fragmenta Hist. Grsec, vol. iii. p. 565. t Ibid., pp. 114, 115.

96 ORIGINES JUDAIC JE.
alike display a groundwork of nature-worship, but among
the Semites the nature-god was more ready to transform
himself into a tribal deity, and so limit his functions to
moulding the destinies of his chosen worshippers.
With this conclusion Professor Sayce is in substantial
accord : —
" When the Semitic Babylonians adopted the deities of their
predecessors and teachers, Anu and his compeers lost much
of their elemental nature, while the sun-god Samas came to
assume an important place. The religion of the Babylonian
Semites, in fact, was essentially solar; the sun-god was
addressed as Bel, or Baal, the supreme 'lord,' and adored under
various forms. He appeared to them, moreover, under two
aspects — sometimes as the kindly deity who gives life and light
to all things, sometimes as the scorching sun of summer who
demanded the sacrifice of the firstborn to appease his wrath." *
So, too, Professor W. Robertson Smith, though from a
different point of view : —
"The differences between Semitic and Aryan religion are
not so primitive or fundamental as is often imagined. Not only
in matters of worship, but in social organization generally, the
two races, Aryans and Semites, began on lines which are so
much alike as to be almost indistinguishable, and the diver
gence between their paths, which becomes more and more
apparent in the course of ages, was not altogether an affair of
race and innate tendency, but depended in a great measure on
the operation of special local and historical causes." f
To this it may be fairly added that the early presence
of menotheism in either of these two great divisions of the
human race, if independently established, is presumptive
evidence that it exists also in the other.
Or to take a closer parallel to Semitic worship. If we
find the earth-gods and goddesses of Greece and Asia Minor,
* Sayce, " Assyria : Its Princes, Priests, and People," p. 56.
t Professor W. Eobertson Smith, " Eeligion of the Semites," p. 33.

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 97
such as Dionusos, Aphrodite, Demeter, or, still earlier, Pan
and Hermes, bear a close resemblance in their general out
lines to those of the Phoenicians, and if we can assure
ourselves that the former are strictly representative of the
kindly generosity of the earth, we shall not be far wrong
if we use the parallel provided by Greece or Asia Minor, to
illustrate the dark corners where the Canaanitish gods
lurk concealed. Moreover, there is good reason for con
cluding that there was very close connection, in very early
times, between the Phoenicians and the Yavanas of the
Aryan dispersion who settled on the western coast of Asia
Minor, and then crossed over to Greece and Italy, carrying
with them their native religion of Bactriana, with such
modifications of it as intercourse with the more civilized
and better travelled Phoenicians may have introduced.
For example, in Crete the Ionians had settled, and had
afterwards passed under Dorian rule. In Crete we have
evidences of a sun-worship not unlike that of Western
Asia; the bull- headed Minotaur had this character, and
the famous labyrinth has a striking resemblance to the
garden of Mylitta described by Herodotus.* Aryan Greece
borrowed its forms to a large extent from three con
tinents, but its spirit was its own, and that spirit has
given us deathless monuments of an unsurpassed art.
The same intermingling of religious ideas is clearly
traceable in the honour paid to Aphrodite. It matters
little to our present argument whether she assumed her
final form as the goddess of celestial and terrestrial Love,
under the influence of ideas borrowed from Mylitta and
Astarte, or whether she is the representative of ideas that
sprang up spontaneously among Ionians, Phoenicians, and
Babylonians alike. For, in the one case we should have
a historical connection between Aryans and Semites, and
* i. 199. H

98 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
in the other a close resemblance based on the psychological
unity of man. That is to say, in either case the illustra
tion of Semitic religion by Aryan belief is perfectly
legitimate.* - If we have to choose between the two alternatives
just mentioned, we should be more inclined to believe
that the worship of Aphrodite in Attica and the iEgean
isles was due rather to Phoenicia than to the Ionian
nature. For nature- worship of the orgiastic character that
Canaan presents to us — as, e.g., in the cutting of the body
and the wild cries ofthe Baal priests on Mount Carmel — is
more the prerogative of a peasant and agricultural class
than of a commercial and colonizing people. Hence the
Eleusinian mysteries of Attica, the Dionysiac rites of
Thrace, the worship of the Cabiri in Samothracia, the
Lupercalia and Saturnalia of Rome, have a more native
resemblance to the nature-worship of Western Asia than to
the worship of Aphrodite. Indeed, the " mysteries " which
were so common, and which were found even in countries
which could have borrowed little from one another, afford
an excellent example of a worship springing naturally
from the "unity of the human mind applying itself to
resolve the same questions with the same elements of
solution." The advent of spring and the death of summer
touched man closely in his physical wants, and the legends
of Demeter and Isis, the worship of Cybele in Asia Minor,
of Adonis in Cyprus, of Thammuz in Tyre, and the cele
bration of Balder's bale among the Teutons,t bear witness

* " La tradition, non seulement de l'existence des geants primitifs, mais
aussi de leur violence desordonnee, de leur rebellion contre le ciel et de leur
chatiment, est une de celles qui sont communes aux Aryas comme aux
Semites et aux Kouschites " (Fr. Lenormant, " Les Origines de PHistoire,"
i. 339). t The rites of Demeter at Eleusis differ little from the rites of Osiris and
Isis. As in the one Osiris is sought amid the lamentations of his mother, so

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 99
to widely differing nations giving similar expression to
feelings excited by the phenomena of nature*
It is not without value, perhaps, to note as bearing on
our present subject, that long before the days of the
Persian invasion Greek mercenaries hired themselves to
foreign monarchs, and took service at Nineveh and Babylon.
Just as we have good reason for supposing that the spread
of Christianity was greatly helped by the system of the
Roman Empire, which transplanted its soldiers to lands
other than that which gave them birth ; so it is probable
that these Greek mercenaries had no small share in the
work of drawing closer together the religious ideas and
customs of the Aryans and Semites.
Again, when we find, as we shall find presently, a crowd
of Baals throughout Canaan, locally distributed, and locally
worshipped ; when we find in early Greece and Rome that
every household, every civitas, or iroXig, had its own god
dislinct from that of every other ; f and when we find
in the other it is Persephone' that is sought for. As Demeter is said to have
made her search with torches, so in the case of Osiris the rites are signalized
by the throwing of fire-brands. Cf. Lactantius, i. 21-24.
* "Ogygia me Bacchum vocat,
Osirim iEgyptus putat,
Mysi Phanacen nominant,
Dionyson Indi existimant,
Eomana sacra Liberum,
Arabica gens Adoneum,
Lucaniacus Pantheum." (Ausonius, " Epigramma," xxx.)
t "Each of their innumerable gods had his own little domain, one a
family, another a tribe, another a city, and this was to him the world which
sufficed him. . . . Each city had its body of priests, which owed respect to
no outside authority. Between the priests of two cities there was no bond, no
communication, no interchange of doctrine or of rites. Any one who travelled
from one town to another would find different gods, different dogmas, different
ceremonies. The ancients had liturgical books, but those of one town had
no resemblance to those of another. Each city had its collection of prayers
and customs which was kept strictly secret; it would have thought its
religion and destiny compromised had it been made known to strangers. Thus

100 ORIGINES JUDAICJE.
that every place had its local fountain and local nymph,
each wood its dryad, each river its own presiding spirit,
then we may assume that we are justified in concluding
that we are dealing with a similar development in every
nation. They all develop homologously because their
natures are at bottom the same, and obey the same rigid
laws. The same phenomenon meets us in Egypt. Horus was
not so much the name of an individual deity as "the
common title given to a particular class of gods." Har,
or Her, the Most High, is a name that lends itself to the
chief divinity in any nome. At Edfu we find Harhut, at
Dendera Harsamto, at Thebes Harmachu, Harkamutef, etc.,
while the plural of Horus sometimes is synonymous with
nuteru, the gods. And just as the Baalim of Syria were
distinct from the Baal of Tyre, so are there distinct classes
of the Horus-gods. We have Horus the father, and brother
of Osiris ; Horus the young, son of Osiris and Isis, and the
avenger of his father ; and the infant Horus-gods borrowed
from India.*
But we have evidence that other races than their
own were known to the children of Israel in the ancient
document embodied in Gen. x. There we are given a
description of the three great divisions of mankind that
most impressed their existence on Canaan. Those described
as the sons of Japhet are the heterogeneous bodies of
Aryans and Turanians who, like the young Aryans
(Yavanas), settled on the western coast of Asia Minor and
in Greece, or went still further westward to Tarshish and
the isles. Of these the knowledge of the Bible writers does
religion was strictly local, strictly civic, if we may use the word in its
original meaning, viz. that of special to each city" (Fustel de Coulanges,
"La Cite" Antique," p. 173, 14th edit.).
* Cf. Tiele, " Hist, of the Egyptian Eeligion," p. 52.

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 101
not seem so intimate as of the next division in which
Egypt and her dependencies appear. This is quite what
might be expected when it is recollected that the native
Egyptian was of mixed breed, partly Semite and partly
Aryan, or else, as Bunsen thought, the offspring of the
early race from which the Semitic and Aryan families
afterwards separately swarmed. The sons of Shem, in
Gen. x., describe the nations the centre of whose civili
zation was in the Assyrian Empire. When, too, we recollect
that Canaan at an early period was subject to Egypt, and
that Phoenicians, long before the settlement of the Israelites
in Canaan, had occupied the coast of North Africa between
Libya and Arabia, and that from them came the Philistines,
who played afterwards so important a part in Jewish
history, enough has been said to remove any hesitation in
discarding the former conventional idea which regarded the
Jews as a nation isolated from all surrounding influences.
A short notice of the religious belief and intellectual
culture of Egypt at the period of the residence of the Jews
in Egypt and at their exodus, will serve to bring out clearly
both the falsity of the views of those who can see in Jewish
history beliefs not far advanced beyond the totem stage of
barbarism, and of those who persist in isolating the Jews
from all external influences.
It is agreed, now, that Rameses II. is the Pharaoh of the
oppression, and his successor, Meneptah III., the Pharaoh
of the Exodus. The dynasty to which they belong reigned
over Egypt in the very heyday of its glory, both material
and intellectual. The Shepherd Kings for four dynasties,
or some five hundred years, had imposed on Egypt an
Asiatic yoke. These, according to Josephus, were Phoenicians,
or Arabians. Chabas, from a study of their names, has
shown they were not Semitic* Brugsch thinks they were
* "Les Pasteurs en .ffigypt.," p. 27, [Amst., 1868].

102 ORIGINES JUDAIC^. i
Assyrians: Tiele thinks Brugsch is utterly mistaken.
Ebers, more cautious, is content to say that they —
" were an Eastern race who migrated from Asia into Egypt,
conquered the lower Nile valley, and ruled over it for nearly
five hundred years, till they were driven out by the successors
of the old legitimate Pharaohs, whose dominion had been con
fined to Upper Egypt." *
What seems generally agreed on, at any rate, is that they
were Asiatics, who became thoroughly naturalized in
Egypt, and adopted its worship. Papyrus Sallier I. informs
us that Apepi, one of the best known of their kings, " made
Sutech (Set) his divine master, and served none of the gods
that are in the whole country. He erected a temple to him
of excellent workmanship for the centuries."
It is noticeable that Set was that one of the Egyptian
gods who was already falling into the background in
Egyptian devotion because of his more savage nature, and
that he was not far removed from the Moloch of Syria.
This fits in with the little otherwise known of these Hyksos
kings and their people. The rich polytheism of Egypt did
not accord with their more severe religion, and, accordingly,
they signalized their accession to power by a wholesale
destruction of Egyptian monuments. They lived, however,
to repair their mistake ; and the mingling of the Hyksos
and the Egyptians set in motion a syncretism which was
further advanced when the conquests of Seti I. and Rameses
IL, at the beginning of the New Kingdom, had made the
Egyptians more familiar with Asiatic deities. Then Baal,
Astarte, Anata, Kedesh, and the Phoenician thunder-god
Reshpu were worshipped, and had their priesthoods in the
Nile valley.
Baal was identified eventually with Seth, as we learn
from the treaty concluded by Rameses II. with the Kheta ;
* " Uarda," i. p. 145, n.

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 103
and Astarte frequently appears on the monuments and in
the papyri of the same period as Sechet. This lion- or cat-
headed goddess shows her Semitic affinities by the way
that she assumes the double character common to the
goddesses of Western Asia. Athene, the heavenly maid, has
Aphrodite as her earthly counterpart. So Ashtaroth had
AsMrah, and in Egypt we find the strictness of Sechet
balanced with the mildness of Bast, who afterwards became
identified with Hathor. Similarly we have Tanit the
" goddess of heaven " — like Artemis, Athene, or Ashtaroth —
balanced by Anit the mother goddess, Demeter, or Anahita,
wearing the matronal head-dress, and representing nature's
beneficent productive power.
The days of the Exodus of Israel were, in Egypt, days
of social and intellectual expansion and exhilaration not
unlike " the spacious days of great Elizabeth " in England.
The religious revolution attempted by the " heretic king,"
Chu-n-Aten, though execrated by his successors, was
apparently a popular monotheism, for which the people
were not ripe, but which could not but leave its traces on
popular thought, and on the conception of the revived
worship of Amun-Ra which succeeded it.
But what led to a still greater development was the
expansion of national life and vigour naturally resulting
from the freedom and sense of power gained by the success
which attended the Egyptian efforts to expel the Hyksos
domination. The eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth
dynasties mark the zenith of Egyptian prosperity. Agri
culture was more skilfully carried on ; towns were built
and enriched, magnificent monuments erected; commerce
.flourished, and intercourse accordingly with Phoenicia was
closer than it had ever been; the Egyptian armies were
uniformly victorious; art and literature had numerous
devotees, and have left imperishable monuments, some like

104 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
Seti's sublime hall at Karnak, never equalled in the whole
history of mankind. And finally, religion assumed a less
naturalistic colouring, due perhaps to Chu-n-Aten, but
more to the people's enhanced sense, drawn from their own
more vigorous life, of the power of spirit over matter.
A proof of this higher conception of the gods is seen
in the confusion that at this period prevails between the
different members of the Egyptian pantheon. Formerly,
the distinction had been more or less sharp which marked
off Ptah, Khem, Osiris, Ra, and the rest from one another.
Now, as a consequence of the causes already detailed, the
gods become merged in one another, and what Max Miiller
calls Henotheism is the method by which the old forms
are fitted on to the new spirit. Amun-Ra, Chnum-Ra,
Ptah-Ra, Sebak-Ra, each becomes supreme at the moment
he is worshipped, and retires into the background of
devotion with admirable facility when another deity
occupies the foreground.
No surer proof could be afforded of the underlying
unity which was seen to link all these deities together,
than this readiness to make each supreme as occasion
suggested. What a hymn of this period says of Shu
applies to all : " Thy personality is intermingled with that
of Ra." In other words, One Supreme Spirit was explicitly
recognized, and it was He who was worshipped, whatever
name and form He might for the moment choose to manifest
Himself under. Moreover, this "higher pantheism" was
no secret jealously guarded in the temples; inscriptions
and papyri make it abundantly evident that the doctrine
was as exoteric as any doctrine well could be.
In this spirit Hapi, the Nile god, was worshipped.
Where their forefathers had worshipped the material river,
or its spirit, the Egyptians of the New Kingdom worshipped
its celestial counterpart. The Papyrus Sallier II. declares

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 105
of the celestial Nile that he is the source of all fertilizing
waters, of which the earthly Nile was but one form ; that
no one knows his name or can form any image of him :
" No abode contains him ; people do not offer sacrifices to
him, but all the offerings made to the other gods are to
be considered as dedicated to him." A people which was
capable of so refined a belief as this was very far removed
indeed from the rude totemism of early savages, and we
may confidently assert that no other nation that had
dealings with it could permanently be content with such
conceptions as primitive fetishism supplies.
It was at a time of culture like this that Israel went
forth from the land of Egypt. It is not necessary to assert
that they were penetrated with this high civilization ; as
a helot race they were denied opportunities for sharing in
it to the full. But it is impossible to believe that they
could have been living in the very midst of this energetic
thought and comparatively purified religion, and have
gone from the midst of it with no thought or customs
superior to, those of the totem stage. If the refined creed
of the priestly colleges, which at this time were crystal
lizing into a powerful body, was too refined for them, yet
they were not below the religious standard of the common
people of Egypt, who worshipped the kindly deities Amun,
Ra, Ptah, Hathor, Isis, etc. That the ideas attaching to
these deities were those they attached to the Syrian Baal
and Asherah is only what might be expected from a con
sideration of their surroundings. They were far advanced
above the crude superstitions of early naturalism, and at
the same time they had as little taste as the Egyptians
for such cruel gods as Moloch, the Tyrian Baal, Seth, or
Sechet. And this expectation is confirmed by what we
actually find recorded of them in their sacred books.*
* The argument here drawn from the familiarity of the Jews with

106 ORIGINES JUDAICM.
What has been said above of the comparatively refined
religion of Egypt and its influence on the Jews is not
materially affected if, with Kuenen, we take the statement
of Gen. xv. 16 literally, and assign to the sojourning of
the Hebrews in Egypt a period of about 120 years only.
For on that assumption the Israelites spent less time in
Egypt, but still quite long enough to be impressed with
Egyptian ideas. Their readiness to adopt Canaanitish cus
toms and ideas, too, is all in favour of their having adopted
Egyptian. But there are two facts which deserve notice in
this connection — one the nature of the Egyptian race, and
the other the place occupied by the Phoenicians in history.
According to Bunsen the Egyptians must be traced
back to the Semitic race before it split off from the Aryan.
Benfey, and most philologists now follow him, regards the
Egyptians as one of two branches of the same race, one
of which is found along North Africa and the other in
Western Asia. Brugsch and Ebers are convinced of the
Semitic origin of the Egyptians.
The most startling theory, however, that has been
propounded in modern times as to the origin of the
Egyptians is that put forth by Professor Lepsius in his
"Nubische Grammatik." He considers the Hamitic lan
guages — the Egyptian, Libyan, and Kushitic — as foreign
to Africa and native to Asia. Of these, the Kushitic he
considers to have been brought from Southern Arabia to
the opposite coast of the Red Sea. It was the language
of a people who were the ancestors of the Poeni, the red
sailors of the Red Sea, known to history as the Phoenicians.
pantheistic modes of thought and worship is met by Kuenen, " Eeligion of
Israel," i. 270, with the assertion that they were polytbeists, which he
proves by saying that they worshipped trees and stones. This proves
nothing. Such worship is quite as consistent with pantheism as with poly
theism. The question really is as to the powers attributed to the trees and
stones. Their " spirit " might be regarded as locked up in them, or they
might be symbols of the all-pervading spirit.

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 107
Of these Phoenicians those on the Mediterranean coast
were another branch. But a further conjecture made by
Professor Lepsius is still more audacious. He believes
that these Kushites, after having settled in Egypt and
become more or less connected with their Hamitic neigh
bours, sent a colony to Babylon, and there sowed the seeds
of Egyptian civilization. On this theory everything in
Babylonian civilization — its art, its religion, its buildings
— must be attributed in its origin to Egypt. There is a
striking resemblance between the temples and the worship
of Egypt and Babylon, and the Jews have analogues to
them so close that it is difficult to say to which they
are due. If the conjecture of Professor Lepsius can be
maintained, the ground of Jewish archaeology is consider
ably cleared, and such similarities of language as, e.g., the
discovery of words like Abrek in Egypt will possibly have
to be assigned, not to later intercourse between the two
countries, but to the colonial origin of Babylon.
Professor Maspero, however, places their origin in
North Africa, and thinks the aboriginal Egyptians were
a black race driven out by the ancestors of the Egyptians
known to history. He thinks they may afterwards have
received an accretion of Asiatics by way of the Isthmus.*
Erman, too, says —
¦" there is no necessity for a great immigration of the
Egyptians from some distant corner of Asia. We may con
scientiously believe them to be natives of their own country,
children of their own soil, even if it should be proved that
their old language, like their modern one, was imported from
other countries." f
Brugsch, on the contrary, says —
"the cradle of the Egyptian people must be sought in the
* " Dawn of Civilization," p. 45.
t " Life in Ancient Egypt described by Adolf Erman," 1894.

108 ORIGINES JUDAIC JS.
interior of the Asiatic quarter of the world. In the earliest
ages of humanity, far beyond all historical remembrance, the
Egyptians, for reasons unknown to us, left the soil of their
primeval home, took their way towards the setting sun, and
finally crossed that bridge of nations, the Isthmus of Suez, to
find a new fatherland on the banks of the sacred Nile." *
Professor Petrie believes that in the earliest historic
times Egypt was occupied by two or three different races,
because the earliest monuments show two or three distinct
types of faces, and his excavations disclose two different
forms of burial. Hence he concludes we have " an
indigenous race and an invading race ; or perhaps even
two invading races in succession, the large-eyed race
preceding the aquiline." On the whole he thinks that
the ancient Egyptians as known to us were not the
aboriginal race, but that they crossed into Egypt from
the coast of the Red Sea, and were akin to the Phoenicians.t
What is agreed on by all Egyptologists is enough for
our present purpose, viz. that the Egyptians of history
were a hybrid race, and that the base of their language
is Semitic. They must have taken possession of Egypt
before the dawn of history, and there become amalgamated
with other races. Hence they show points of connection
both with Africans, Aryans, and Semites; and perhaps
it was this very mixture and assimilation of diverse races
which gave them the power they held for several thousand
years, in much the same way that Britons, Saxons, Danes,
and Normans all coalesced to create the plastic race of the
English. This diversity of race, and particularly the union
of the Semitic element to the Aryan, admirably fitted
them to act as mediators between the Aryans and Semites,
and if Greece owed much of her civilization to them, and
* " Egypt under the Pharaohs," p. 2, (1891).
t W. M. Flinders Petrie, "A History of Egypt from the Earliest
Times," (1894). Cf. also his letter to the Academy, April 20, 1895, p. 341.

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 109
Canaan much of her religious conceptions, it is only because
the Egyptians, as a race having affinity with both, possessed
what could easily be assimilated by both.
Secondly, if Egypt was well adapted to be a centre of
civilization by her racial peculiarities, the Phoenicians were
equally well adapted to be the carriers of progressive
truths by their commercial activity. This extraordinary
people, inhabiting as their proper country a thread of sea
board about thirty miles long and a mile across, exercised
an influence on the history of the world entirely dispro
portionate to their size. Long before we have any
ascertained history they had settled on the shore of Egypt,
and established the worship of a foreign Venus.* This
worship is testified to by the Papyrus Harris so late as
the reign of Rameses IX.-, in the magical formulae of which
we read, " Shut the mouths ... as is sealed the thread of
the sword of Anata and Astarte, the mighty goddesses who
conceive but do not bear, being sealed by the gods." As
the Israelites occupied a position in the north-east of
Egypt, and the Phoenicians lived on the sea-coast, they
could not but have known of this worship, with the
Canaanitish side of which they had before been familiar,
Migdol and Baal-Zephon were two frontier towns towards
Palestine, each bearing Phoenician names, the latter
embodying the name of Typhon.f From Egypt the
Phoenicians crept along the northern coast of Africa,
* Herod., ii. 112.
t Mr. Poole is doubtful whether Typhon is either an Egyptian or
Semitic word, though Gesenius sees it in Baal-Zephon. It is doubtful
whether the Egyptians borrowed the word from the Phoenicians or vice versa.
According to Plutarch, Typhon is also called Set, and on the monuments the
figure of Typhon takes the place of the figure of Set as the evil being. In
this latter fact we can trace the hostility felt by the pure Egyptians to the
Asiatic strangers of the north. The probability is that each country had
its own independent representative of natural and moral evil, and when the
Hyksos had been driven out, their chief god drew to himself all that was
detestable to the Egyptians.

110 ORIGINES JUDAIC 'JE.
colonizing as far as Carthage and even Tangiers. Greece
and Rome were familiar with their ships : the former has
her myths about Io and Dodona, which evince a Phoenician
influence in very early times ; and, as every schoolboy
knows, Rome was never in greater distress than when the
Carthaginian Hannibal led his army into Italy. It is
hardly too much to say that the Phoenicians were the
newspaper of antiquity. They went from country to
country on their trading expeditions, and wherever they
went they carried new ideas and helped to break down
national barriers, until their work was taken over by the
Roman Empire.
On the other side, the side ofthe Israelites, their influence
was equally great. Indeed, one circumstance helped to
make it very great, and that was that the Phoenicians and
Hebrews spoke what was practically the same language.
So remarkable is this fact that some writers have pro
pounded the hypothesis that the Hebrews, on arriving
in Palestine, abandoned their own former tongue, and took
over that of the Phoenicians.* So great a linguistic
miracle however has found little credit, and the more
reasonable explanation is generally received, viz. that
Phoenicians and Hebrews are closely allied branches of the
same Semitic race.
It will, at all events, be discernible at once how well
calculated were the Phoenicians to impress the Hebrews.
Speaking the same language, acquaintances in Egypt,
sprung from the same stock, these were all circumstances
that tended to bring them close together. And when
they were brought together, the well-travelled and more
civilized Phoenician would naturally excite the admiration
and imitation of his more uncouth cousin. If that cousin
adopted so much of his kinsman's religion as suited his
* E.g. Welhausen, " History of Israel," p. 429.

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. Ill
taste, and tried to make it fit in with his worship of
Yahveh, his action was, under all the circumstances, such
as need excite no great surprise.
It is only when we leave the domain where psychological
unity holds sway, and insist on seeing resemblances all
along the line in ancient religions, that we are treading a
wrong path. ' The laws governing human nature are
universal because they are impressed on all. But their
application is capable of indefinite modification, due partly
to the , different blending of the root elements of human
nature which is the cause of racial characteristics, and
partly to the different circumstances by which different
nations find themselves surrounded.
" The joyous careless disposition of the sensual negro is
reflected in his religion as clearly as the sombre melancholy
character of the American Indian in his. The great influence
of national character on religion is specially apparent among
peoples which, though living in the same climate and engaged
in the same occupations — like the Papuans, the Melanesians,
and Polynesians, — stand at such different stages of development ;
while the religion of the Americans, on the other hand, though
they are spread over a whole quarter of the globe, and diverge
so widely in civilization, exhibits everywhere the same character,
and is everywhere accompanied by the same usages." *
Notice, too, how the quick-witted Attics, living under
a sunny clime and face to face with the blue iEgean, chose
the youthful and winsome Apollo as their chief male
divinity, and the maid Athene, the goddess of many devices
and of deep wisdom, as the patron goddess of their chief
city, ousting Heracles and Ares on the one side and
Poseidon on the other, because not so well suited to express
the bright gladsomeness of their religion. Not that the
Greeks were without the coarser forms of religion, but
* Tiele, " Outlines of the History of Eeligion," p. 16.

112 ORIGINES JUDAIC JS.
these were shouldered off on to such divinities as
Aphrodite * or Heracles, or were left, as in the case of the
gloomy thoughts occasioned by death, to be tacked on to
the later versions of the legend of Persephone
On the other hand, the Teuton of the north, living under
a stern sky, where the storm was as familiar as the sun
light, and in the midst of gloomy forests, through the pines
of which Odin, the storm-king, led his legions to the battle,
and which girdled his "mark" with a ring of terrible
darkness where giants and monsters flourished, gave his
religion a tone which was as gloomy as the Greek's was
cheerful. Tyr (Tiw) is not so much Dyaus the bright sky,
as the sky whence storms emerge; Odin is the wind, or
sun, or sky, " the All-Father, embracing all the earth and
looking down upon mankind," but powerful, rough, and
loving slaughter. Thorr, the Thunderer, has little of the
placability of the Greek Zeus. The latter is now and then
stirred to wrath, and is quickly appeased, but the breath of
life of Thorr is warfare. The Teuton gods are, as always,
a reflex of the character of their worshippers.
In India, again, we have the Dyaus, Indra, Varuna of
early days, the Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva of modern
Hinduism, who, so far as they represent nature phenomena,
bear no outward resemblance to the gods either of Scandi
navia or of Greece. It is well known that their origin, like
that of all natural religions, can be traced back to ideas
and sensations begotten by intercourse with nature. But,
nevertheless, the religion of India has clothed itself in forms,
* " The Greeks transformed the myths of Aphrodite, Herakles, Dionusos,
by introducing into them Semitic elements, but it is with difficulty that
these gods can be distinguished from those that are purely Hellenic. Who
would perceive in the charming, graceful Cyprian goddess the Ashtoreth
of the Phoenicians, who in the beautiful myth of her birth out of the foam
of the sea would recognize the tasteless nature-myth of the Phoenician
cosmogony, if ample proof did not compel the acknowledgment of their
identity ? " (Tiele, " History of the Egyptian Eeligion," p. xviii. 1882.)

ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS IDEA. 113
and assumed a metaphysical expression, which would have
been unintelligible to the worshipper of Wuotan. The Re
generator, the Preserver, the Destroyer, worshipped as the
chief Hindu Triad, have their birth in nature quite as truly
as Wuotan and Apollo had theirs, but the form taken in
each country is that which suits the genius of the inhabi
tants of each, and differs in toto from the forms adopted by
a different race under different natural conditions. In
Wuotan and Brahma we may see substantial identity, and
so far we may illustrate one by the other ; but we also see
formal dissimilarity where it would be illegitimate to
establish any parallel except by way of contrast. That is
to say, when in each case we can strip off the differences of
form to find a substantial unity of origin, and when, more
over, we can show that those differences are due to ascer
tainable causes, such as racial or climatic peculiarities, we
then are certain that those very differences are another
collateral testimony to the foundation unity we believe all
natural religions to possess.
The chief cults that have come down to us from the
earlier ages, and which have impressed themselves in vary
ing degrees, from the slightest traces to the deepest inden
tations, on the Aryan, Semitic, and, as far as we can judge,
on the Accadian races, are five — (1) ancestor- worship ;
(2) solar worship, under which is included the worship of
the other heavenly bodies; (3) tree- worship ; (4) serpent-
worship ; (5) phallic worship ; to which it is necessary to
add a special form of (3) and (4), assumed by a union of
the two, which then is properly a subdivision of (5) phallic
worship. Inasmuch as we have copious evidences of each of these
cults just named, and inasmuch as the menotheistic base on
which they are erected is one that would necessarily require
a long period of time for its explicit manifestation, and,
I

114 ORIGINES JUDAIC JE.
again, as there is abundant evidence that the " mysteries "
were concerned with the pantheism underlying the rites
popularly known and practised, it is obvious that Creuzer's
system, in so far as it postulates the creation of a priesthood
at no late period of the life of the ancient cults as they are
known to us, is, to say the least, quite defensible.
What, at all events, is pretty plain is that, with meno
theism as the esoteric basis of an exoteric symbolism
(whether there were a priesthood as the organized centre of
direction of public worship or not), we shall find that the
ancient cults all fall into line together, and mutually explain
one another. Without it all is confusion, where the lines
of each cult run into another, until amid the multitude of
Protean changes it is difficult to say whether any separation
can be scientifically established. E.g. the serpent, besides
having a distinct worship of his own, has an important
part in one large side of phallic worship ; he enters also as
a symbol into solar worship, and even takes his place as a
recognized emblem in ancestor- worship. If he be a symbol
of the one life variously manifesting itself we can under
stand this ubiquitous sanctity of the serpent ; but unless
the menotheistic nature of early historic religions be kept
in mind, it is impossible to account for the apparently
incongruous parts played by the serpent.

( 115 )

CHAPTER V.
ON ANCESTOR-WORSHIP.
Me. Herbert Spencer, as is well known, holds that ancestor-
worship is the germinating cause of all religion, and to it
accordingly he attributes all religious customs, no matter
how dissimilar their nature.* He even declares, against the
theologians and mythologists, that nature- worship is but an
aberrant form of ghost-worship. He succeeds in doing this
by the easy assumption that the citation of a select number
of examples of prayers and customs connected with ancestor-
worship is sufficient explanation of the many other prayers
and customs which he does not cite. It is singular that so
clear a thinker should imagine that proof that some religion
springs from ancestor-worship is sufficient proof that all
religion has the same origin. This fallacious reasoning can
only be explained by the recollection that Mr. Spencer is
here travelling on unfamiliar ground, and that the authority
deservedly due to the conclusions of an expert when stick
ing to his last is not necessarily owing to him when he
attempts to practise an unfamiliar handicraft. He quotes,
for example, five instances of the connection of serpents
with the dead.t Are these five, therefore, to be held to be
all-inclusive of every other mention of the serpent as a
sacred animal ? Are we to prune every other instance
where the serpent is connected with the sun, or with phallic
* Compare his " Ecclesiastical Institutions," chap. i.
t Ibid., p. 683.

116 ORIGINES JUDAIC JE.
symbols, or with rivers and clouds, of its distinguishing
characteristics, and attribute the dead residuum to the
ghosts ? Because the Blantyre negroes convert a powerful
and dead chieftain into the god of a mountain or a river,
are we therefore to conclude that in Greece some hero
went to " an elevated point of rock," and then " leaped up
into the sky " to be transformed into the Homeric Cloud-
Compeller ? Would not Mr. Spencer be the very first to
expose the fallacy of the universal affirmative that "in
their normal forms, as in their abnormal forms, all gods
arise by Apotheosis " ? And can we not imagine the scorn
with which he would crush the purblind theologian who
would insist on taking literally, as Mr. Spencer does, such
a phrase as the one he quotes from an Egyptian inscription
at Silsilis: "Hail to thee! King of Egypt! Sun of the
foreign peoples. . . . Life, salvation, health to him ! he is a
shining sun " ? How does this justify him in the conclusion
that " in such cases worship of the ancestor readily becomes
worship of the sun," any more than it proves that he was
recognized as " Father of the foreign peoples " ? Again,
because he can quote " a whole series " of such leading
religious conceptions as are exhibited by the same people,
viz. the Egyptians, in proof that they worshipped their
ancestors, how does this go to prove that they worshipped
nothing but their ancestors ? No one denies the former,
the only legitimate conclusion from his examples, but
what Egyptologist would accept the latter conclusion that
Mr. Spencer draws ?
Again, his method of proof is radically vicious in
another particular. He takes no account of the differ
ences that must be allowed for variations in the order
of development. Whether it be some savage tribe that
belongs to the class of those tribes which are distinguished
from the ancestors of Assyrians, or Egyptians, or Englishme n

ON ANCESTOR-WORSHIP. 117
in that the latter have advanced and the former have
not, — or whether it be the Egyptians in the very zenith
of their civilization, or a deaf mute at Edinburgh, or
the Hebrews at any period of their development, so long
as they can produce some expression or some custom
which shows regard for the dead, it is all one apparently
to Mr. Spencer. He does not grade his evidence. He
does not stay to ask whether there is not a crucial differ
ence between the customs of civilization and those of
savagery, or between barbarian and barbarian, sufficient
to make him pause before he draws the conclusion that,
because one tribe sometimes worships its ancestors, or
some race at some period of its progress does the same,
therefore in every case their whole religion is to be re
solved into ghost-worship.
And if he does not "recognize the complexity of human
nature, individual or social, neither does he allow for the
complexity of religious ideas. If it is incidental to man
to worship all that he feels to be greater than himself,
as all investigation seems to show that it is, then ancestors
may occupy a co-ordinate place in man's Pantheon along
with other divinities ; * but it is contrary to the evidence
we possess, when it is fairly weighed, to say that ancestors
were first worshipped, and then transferred to everything
in heaven and earth, so as to monopolize the worshipful.
When, too, Mr. Spencer asks whether " we are to make
any exception of the religion current among ourselves,"
and goes on immediately to conclude that the current
view is held to " hide a transcendent unlikeness ' behind '
its likenesses to the rest," he might have been reminded
* In China " there are so many spirits that it seems impossible to fix
their exact number. The principal classes are the celestial spirits (tien
shin), the terrestrial spirits (ti hi), and the ancestral spirits (jin kwei), and
this is the order in which they are ranked according to their dignity "
(Max Miiller, "Lectures on the Science of Eeligion " (1882), p. 138).

118 ORIGINES JUDAIC JE.
that, apart from all question of a transcendental unlikeness,
there is the possibility, to say the least, of a natural
unlikeness. If he had recollected this he might have been
less ready to draw the sweeping conclusion he has, that
"ghost propitiation is the origin of all religions." It is
not perhaps unfair to adopt his own words : " It is strange
how impervious to evidence the mind becomes when once
prepossessed. One would have thought that such an
accumulation of proofs, congruous with the proofs yielded
by multitudinous other societies, would have convinced
every one " that all religion is not a developed ancestor-
worship. We must demur therefore to the opinion of Herbert
Spencer, that ancestor-worship is to be regarded as the
earliest religion of man. The chief objection to this view
— apart from the reasons given above and from the facts
that (1) mythology shows us nature as attracting man's
attention before he thought of dreams and shadows, and
so testifies that nature- worship preceded ghost-worship ',
and that (2) such ancestor-worship as we have described
to us in antiquity is, as we shall see, inextricably mixed
up with nature-worship as its forerunner — lies in the
indisputable truth that man must have travelled some
distance along the road of religious thought, must, in fact,
have long entered the self-conscious state, before he was
able to so far dissociate the soul and body as to pay
worship to the former when the latter had been dis
solved. It is true that man's earliest conception of the soul
after death was, that it was in some vague sort of way
still connected with the body just under the surface of
the ground, the idea of Hades being a later development ;
but still he knew quite well that the body moulders away,
and that his ancestor's real self was something distinct

ON ANCESTOR-WORSHIP. 119
from the body. Obviously this conception, whether drawn
from the sight of breath condensed as it left the mouth,
or from dreams, or from shadows, or from all these con
fusedly blended together, is one that requires time for its
growth into actuality, and hence it is highly improbable
that ancestor-worship should be the earliest indulged in
by man. Fortunately we have, enshrined in the earliest customs
of Greece and Rome, and in the earlier beliefs of Egypt,
documents which show clearly the place held by ancestor-
worship in the parts that would affect Jewish thought
and customs. The life of the dead was regarded as similar
to the life of the living. Accordingly milk, wine, oil, and
victims were offered to them to maintain them in con
tinued existence. If, for any reason, these offerings ceased
to be made, then the dead ceased to be ; they, as it were,
died of starvation. " The dead feed on the foods that we
place on their tomb, and drink of the wine that we pour
out to them ; so that the dead to whom nothing is offered
is condemned to perpetual hunger." *
When Romulus dug the round fosse, and threw into
it a sod from the neighbouring soil,f and filled up the
fosse, and on it erected an altar, and invoked genitor
Mavors Vestaque mater, he supposed himself to be trans
ferring his ancestral gods from Alba to the Palatine Hill.
When Virgil describes Andromache! as preparing the
customary sacrificial foods, and making the sad libations
at Hector's tomb, he was embodying the earlier belief in
the actual presence of the shade below the earth.
Moreover, the mystery attaching to the state of the
dead, and the fact that they were the ancestors of the
living joined to the natural veneration that all feel for
* Lucian, De luctu, c. 9. t Ovid, Fasti, iv. 821.
\ Mn., iii. 301-303.

120 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
their ancestors, led to the dead being regarded as gods.*
Thus the Book of the Dead speaks constantly of the dead
as identified with Osiris, and bearing his name. Among
the Romans they were Dii Manes, and Qsol XOovioi among
the Greeks. Accordingly, the Egyptian Mastaba had its
altar for the dead man, and in Greece and Rome one also
stood before the tomb. In India, too, long before the idea
of metempsychosis had occupied the field, ancestor- worship
may be traced ; and the best proof of its power may be
seen in its persistence side by side with the later and
incompatible doctrine. The Laws of Manou bade the
master of the house offer his Sraddha, i.e. the funeral
repast, with rice, milk, roots, and fruits, so as to win the
good will of the departed spirits.f And what is a singular
proof of the indestructibility of religious ideas, these
identical rites are still observed by the Hindus.
This ancestor-worship of Greece and Rome, which
seems to have preceded their polytheism, and which for
centuries was the most powerful factor in determining
their social institutions, was clearly identical in origin
with that of the Hindus. Indeed, the close parallel
between the two — a parallel in details, and not only in
general outline — justifies us in concluding that the two
systems did not grow independently out of similar roots
planted deep in human nature, but that they both date
back to an early period before the great Indo-European
family became divided into separate colonies. If this be
* When victims were offered to the heavenly deities their flesh was
eaten by men; when to the dead the flesh was wholly burnt (Pausanius,
ii. 10.) The prayer of Electro to her dead father (iEschylus, Choeph.,
122-145) is an excellent instance of the strong belief held by the ancients
as to the power of the dead : " Pity me and Orestes, my brother ; help him
to return to this country : O my Father, hear my prayer, grant my petitions,
and receive my libations : give me a, heart more chaste and hands more
clean than my mother's."
t i. 95 ; iii. 82, 122, 127, 146, 189, 274.

ON ANCESTOR-WORSHIP. 121
the case, then we have a clear proof of the early prevalence
of a menotheistic creed, for this creed is obviously pre
supposed by the facts just quoted.
As instances which show the common origin of Grseco-
Italian and Hindu customs, the Laws of Manou permit the
adoption of a son by a man to whom nature has denied
one, in order that the funeral rites may not be preter
mitted.* For the same reason, marriage of a childless
widow with her husband's nearest relation was prescribed,
and any son born of this marriage was regarded as the
dead man's.t A sterile woman was ordered to be put
away at the end of eight years, J just as two kings of
Sparta were compelled to repudiate their wives, § and as
Carvilius Ruga || put away his reluctantly, from a sense of
religion, because he had sworn in the marriage formula to
take a wife for the purpose of having children.
Just as ancestors whose descendants failed became
themselves extinct in Greece and Rome, so the Bhagavad
Gita If laid down that " the extinction of a family causes
the ruin of that family's religion ; the ancestors deprived
of the offerings of cakes sink into the abode of the
miserable." In India descendants alone, as in Rome and
Greece, could make the offerings, and the Laws of Manou
put a prayer into the mouth of the dead that descendants
might never fail them to offer, in all ages, rice boiled in
milk, honey, and butter.**
The large part played by ancestor-worship in the re
ligion of Egypt also is remarkable. It was not that there
nature-worship and ancestor-worship were friendly rivals,
dividing, as in later Greece and Rome, the field of religion
between them. On the contrary, it might almost be said
* Laws of Manou, ix. 10. t Ibid., ix. 69, 146.
X Ibid., ix. 81. § Herodotus, v. 39; vi. 61. || Aulus Gellius, iv. 3.
f i. 40. ** iii. 138, 274.

122 ORIGINES JUDAIC.®.
that at one period at least the former was, in popular
esteem, a mere appendage of the latter. The soul of the
dead was conceived as in early Rome to be attached to the
body, which religion taught should therefore be preserved
for as long a time as possible. Its shadowy existence in
the nether world was an exact reflex of its previous life in
the upper. It ate, drank, enjoyed, laboured, and accepted
service precisely as it had done on the soil of Egypt.
Hence images of all kinds in careful abundance were
placed in the Mastaba, or with the mummy, and were then,
by the customary magical formulae, endued with life and
intelligence, that they might act as servants or companions
to the double in his life, at once new and old, underground.
Moreover, the soul of the dead became at once divinized,
and as a god he made his perilous journey to the great
tribunal where Osiris, and Thoth, and the goddess of the
two truths awaited him.
The Book of the Dead represents him as assimilated
to the Deity, and enacting in turn the parts of the primordial
creating and preserving god.
" I am," the soul says, " the great god who has given his
form to himself, that is to say, the Water or Noun, father of the
gods. Who is he? It is Ra, creator of his members, which
become the gods who follow Ra. I am he whom no god opposes.
Who is he ? It is Toum in his disk, or Ra in his disk, rising on
the Eastern horizon. I am Yesterday, and I know To-morrow.
Yesterday is Osiris, and To-morrow is Ra in the day when he
destroys the enemies of the Lord who is above all." *
When the soul arrives at the first of the halls of Osiris
it describes itself as the Only One ; and when it arrives at
the second, where live " the mysterious gods who live on
the offerings made them," it asks to be allowed to pass,
" that it may be prepared to see the Only One and the orb
* Ch. xvii.

ON ANCESTOR- WORSHIP. 123
of Ra in the midst of those who make him offerings."*
When the soul comes to the Hall of Truth, and answers to
the guardian of the door that his name is "He that
knoweth the hearts and trieth the reins," and has replied
to the questions of Thoth : " I am pure from all evil ; I am
pure; I am protected from the evil-practices who are in
their day ; I am not among them," he is bidden by Osiris r
" Advance ! Having been interrogated, there is bread for
thee in Oudja ; there is drink for thee in Oudja ; there
are funeral offerings for thee in Oudja. Osiris t is true
eternally." J.
Nothing can show more clearly how closely identical
was the ancestor-worship of Egypt with that of India,
Greece, and Rome. In all alike the dead were, in early
days at least, conceived as attached to their bodies in some
vague way ; in all they were divinized ; in all they were
regarded as passing a life akin to their earthly life ; in all
they were fed on offerings, and in all they were invoked
with prayer.
Another very remarkable feature of ancient ancestor-
worship is found in the sacred fire kept continually burning
on the family altar — a sort of perpetual chapelle ardente.§
M. de Coulanges, in his luminous work on " La Cite- Antique,"
while depicting accurately the rites attending this sacred
fire, and while regarding it as intimately connected with
the worship of the dead, yet gives no explanation of
the reasons which induced the ancients to associate fire-
worship with ancestor- worship. || Given, however, an early
* Ch. cxlvii. t i.e. the dead man. X Ch. cxxv.
§ " We may well believe that the domestic altar was originally but the
Bymbol of the worship of the dead ; that under its stone an ancestor reposed ;
that the fire was lighted in his honour; that this fire seemed to maintain
him in life, or represented kis soul as always wakeful " (Fustel de Ooulangess,
" La Cite' Antique," p. 30).
|| The relation of the worship of the domestic fire to that of the dead is-

124 ORIGINES JUDAICM.
menotheistic creed ; given the belief amongst the primitive
Aryans that the One Spirit and the central fire were
closely connected, and the association of the Manes with
the altar-fire is obvious. It is not necessary to believe
that every master of a household had preserved, with a
knowledge of the sacrificial formulae of words and acts,
a clear conception of their philosophic base; it is only
necessary to admit that the sanctity and force attributed
to the exact recitation of the mystic word's were due to
a traditional belief carried into Italy and Greece, and de
posited with the head of the family as the natural priest,
and what was before obscure becomes perfectly clear.
The ancestral stock believed in a Universal Spirit, of
whom fire was the most suitable manifestation ; it devised
magical words and acts by which men were brought into
relation with that Spirit. These rites were familiar to the
people, and were taken by them wherever they went.
Hence the fire on the hearth, the symbol and means of
maintenance of the soul of the departed, who had gone
into the unseen and become one with the pure, all-pene
trating Spirit of the universe. This makes such a prayer
as that of Alcestis before her death clear and convincing : —
" Oh goddess, mistress of this house," she says to her hearth,
" this is the last time that I bow before thee and address to
thee my prayers, for I am about to descend to the house of the
dead. Watch over my motherless children; give my son a
tender wife, to my daughter a noble husband. Let them not
die, as I do, before their time, but let them, in the midst of
happiness, enjoy a long life." *
The very way in which this fire was procured shows
the connection of the dead with the central fire. On the
given by the grammarian Servius when he says that it was an ancient custom
to bury the dead within the house, and in consequence of this is the custom
of worshipping within the house the Lares and Penates.
* Euripides, Alcestis, 162-168.

ON ANCESTOR-WORSHIP. 125
first of March in each year every Roman family extin
guished its fires, and rekindled the fire on its sacred altar.
But no ordinary fire would do; it must come straight
from the soul of the universe, and be produced under the
observance of strict rules. No iron or flint must be used.
Either the sun's fire must be concentrated so as to kindle
wood, or two pieces of wood, usually of oak, must be
rubbed together till fire came from them.* Thus this fire
was pure, sacred, divine, meet emblem of the departed in
his close connection with the spirit of fire.
Similarly the Hindu had his sacred fire, to which he
offered the wine called soma, and the first-fruits of his
rice-harvest and of butter and milk. He addressed this
domestic god as Agni, calling him the life, and protector
of man, and imploring him to give the father of the
family glory and riches, and abundant fruits of the ground,
long life, health, and wisdom, and forgiveness for wrong
doing. If Herbert Spencer contends that ancestor-worship
is among the Aryans precedent to the worship of nature
personified in Brahma, Zeus, Dionusos, he is undoubtedly
right. But it should be observed that the root idea, both
of ancestor-worship and of these deities, is the same, viz.
worship of the one central Spirit, of whom fire is the
purest symbol and manifestation, and of whom Brahma,
Zeus, and Dionusos were, at all events originally, but
personifications, t
We are not able, it is true, to put our finger on the
exact point of time when Agni was regarded as the embodi
ment of the One Spirit. Originally he was the fire which
* Plutarch, Numa, 9.
t Cf. the Rig-Veda prayer: ''Before all other gods Agni must be
invoked. We will pronounce his venerable name before that of all other
immortals. O Agni, whoever may be the god honoured by our sacrifice,
always to thee is it that the holocaust is offered." On this whole subject the
earlier chapters of the admirable work of M. Fustel de Coulanges, " La Cite
Antique," may be studied with advantage.

126 ORIGINES JUDAIC <2E.
" scarce born filled the two worlds." He was the heavenly
fire imprisoned by his own consent in wood, and sharing
more than any other god in the toils of man. Agni's two
births, the old birth from the clouds, and his new birth
from the wood, and the way he had of mounting upwards
from earth to heaven, suggested to man the role assigned
him of messenger of the gods. It was he who summoned
the gods to feast at the altar, and it was he who took to
heaven the smell and smoke of the sacrifice.* Accordingly,
when special honour was sought for the remains of a
warrior chief, or tribal hero, it was to Agni's gracious care
that they were entrusted by our Aryan ancestors. The
custom of burning the dead seems to have been introduced
by them, either for the reason just stated, or by way of
analogy to the funeral of the sun, as conceived in the
stories of the tempestuous death of Herakles on Mount
Q3ta, and in that of the Norse-god Balder, whose funeral
pile was his burning ship drifting out to the sea in the
West. It would seem most probable, therefore, that where
earth-to earth burial was the practice, the connection that
the fire-burial had established between the soul and Agni
was still maintained. The undying hearth-flame in Greece
and Italy was still the messenger of the gods ; it still kept
up the connection between the living and the soul of the
ancestor. For the fire was heaven-born, and the mighty
dead had joined the immortals, who all alike were fed from
the one central fiery source of life.
When we turn to Assyria and Phoenicia we enter into
an entirely different atmosphere. The' relations between
ancestor-worship and nature-worship in the three Aryan
countries referred to above and in Egypt are reversed
among the Semites. It is not so much that there is no
* Cf. Keary, " Outlines of Primitive Belief," pp. 101, 283 ; (1882).

ON ANCESTOR-WORSHIP. 127
theoretical belief in existence after death, and no care for
the body of the dead ; it is rather that nature- worship has
absorbed the thoughts, and moulded the religious institu
tions of the people, and the cult of ancestors occupies a
relatively small space.
" The Chaldeans had not such clear ideas," says Professor
Maspero, " as to what awaited them in the other world as the
Egyptians possessed; whilst the tomb, the mummy, the per
petuation of the funereal revenues, and the safety of the double,
were the engrossing subjects in Egypt, the Chaldean texts are
almost entirely silent as to the condition of the soul, and the
living seem to have had no further concern about the dead than
to get rid of them as quickly and completely as possible. They
did not believe that everything was over at the last breath ; but
they did not on that account think that the fate of that which
survived was indissolubly associated with the perishable part,
and that the disembodied soul was either annihilated or sur
vived, according as the flesh in which it was sustained Was
annihilated or survived in the tomb. The soul was doubtless
not utterly unconcerned about the fate of the larva it had
quitted; its pains were intensified on being despoiled of its
earthly case if the latter were mutilated, or left without
sepulture, a prey to the fowls of the air. This feeling was
not, however, sufficiently developed to create a desire for escape
from corruption entirely, and to cause a resort to the mummi
fying process of the Egyptians." *
When we turn to the Jews, we find that their regards
for their ancestors resemble those of the Assyrians, and not
those of the Egyptians. Indeed, so little reference to life
after death is made in the Old Testament, that Bishop
Warburton, in a well-known work, argues that Moses
designedly kept it in the background, that he might wean
the minds of his fellow-countrymen from the hero-worship
so familiar to them in Egypt. Another inference is possible,
and, taken in conjunction with others, e.g. the absence of
* " The Dawn of Civilization," p. 683.

128 ORIGINES JUDAICM.
Egyptian names among the Israelites, and the presence of
Babylonian, not improbable, viz. that the Israelites in
Egypt were not so much affected by Egyptian customs and
modes of thought as has been commonly supposed.
Moreover, when we take into account the fact that
traces of the influence on the Jews of Babylonian ideas, or
of ideas of nations who were pupils of Babylon, such as
Phoenicia and Canaan, are continually being discovered,
we shall be predisposed to come to the conclusion that, if
Israel was at all indebted to other nations for any views of
the other life, it is not Egypt, but Babylon that is its-
creditor. Facts will, it is thought, warrant us in saying
that the beliefs of the Jews in a future state were
strikingly like those held in Babylonia, and singularly
unlike those held in India, Egypt, Greece, and Rome.
In the first place, it is worth notice that, though the
word for soul (t?Bj) occurs some 450 times in the Old Testa
ment, yet in three only * is the word clearly used of the
soul as a separated substance. In five or six other places t
the use of the word is doubtful ; it may describe the soul
as animating the body, or the soul as separated from it.
In the Apocryphal books the latter use of the word is
much more definite and much more frequent,! and ac
cordingly shows a more developed belief. But the Jews
never resorted to cremation; their practice, as Tacitus
notes, was rather corpora condere quam cremare. § They
did not share the Persian belief, which led that nation to
avoid defilement of the corpse from earth-contact by
smearing it with wax, or giving it to the vultures, or the
* Ps. xvi. 10 ; Ps. xxx. 3 ; Ps. xlix. 15.
t Gen. xxv. 18; 1 Kings xvii. 21; Job xxiii. 13; Prov.' xxiii. 14; Isa.
Ivii. 16; Ezek. xviii. 4.
X Cf. Wisd. iii. 1 ; Baruch ii. 17 ; Song of the Three Children, 64 ; Wisd.
ix. 5, and xvi. 14.
§ Hist. v. 5.

ON ANCESTOR- WORSHIP. 129
wolf. On the contrary, nothing was more repellent to
their notions than that the bodies of their dead should be
given to the beasts of the earth and the fowls of the air, or
that they should be buried with the burial of an ass. But
in their funeral rites we can trace nothing of a pantheistic
character, hardly anything even of religious. Sorrow for
loss, ritual mourning, and reverence for family unity
cluster round the tombs of their fathers, nothing more. It
would almost seem that the Jews had no practical belief in
the other world at all.
"The real religion of the Jews, as it is represented and
taught in Genesis, and in all the historical books to the end of
Chronicles, is the rudest of all religions, because the only one
which has no doctrine of immortality at all, nor any trace of
it." *
The law of Levirate marriage, as laid down in Deut. xxv.
5-10, may be supposed to testify to a veneration for the
dead, similar to that of India, Greece, Rome, and Egypt.
Its object is clearly to avoid the extinction of a man's
house and name. But its similarity to Roman customs
vanishes on examination. In Rome a son alone was
competent to offer the funereal sacrifices by which the
ancestors lived. But in Israel, as is clearly expressed in
Num. xxvii. 1-11, a daughter would do as well as a son, and
the object of a child being the father's representative is that
the latter's inheritance may not be absorbed in another's,
and his name be " done away from among his family." t
It might be supposed, too, that the second enactment of
the Jubilee Law, by which fields reverted in the Jubilee
year to their original owner, was similar to the right of
private property which grew round the Roman hearth.
But Lev. xxv. 13-34 is silent as to any implicit idea of this
* Schopenhauer, Paral. i. p. 137.
t But see Dr. Driver's remarks in loco in the "International Critical
Commentary," p. 282 (1895). K

130 ORIGINES JUDAIC JE.
nature, and indeed the reason actually assigned is incon
sistent with the whole spirit of the Roman cult : " The
land shall not be sold for ever : for the land is mine ; for ye
are strangers and sojourners with me." * The enactment,
therefore, had no relation to the desire of prolonging the
existence of ancestors, but was part of the merciful pro
vision by which life was rendered less harsh for the poor,
the slave, and the weak. The man who was vanquished
in the struggle of life might have another chance afforded
his family in the Jubilee year : if he had been sold as a
slave he might regain his liberty. The Sabbath day and
the Sabbatical year eased the pains of the living, and not of
the dead.
In addition, it may be observed that the Jews do not
appear to have ever cherished a domestic altar, or shown
any inclination to worship Lares or Penates, t Indeed, the
strictness with which worship was restricted by the later
law to a single spot, and the fact that it was the nature-
gods of Canaan who are always represented as a standing
danger to the worship of Yahveh, and not any private
ancestor-gods of their own, make it sufficiently clear that
the hero-cult of Rome, Greece, Egypt, and India had no
place in the religious aberrations of the chosen people.
The absence of this worship, joined to its prominent
position among the Egyptians, is one of the most striking
facts in the history of the Jews. Three explanations are
possible : (1) That the Jews were a despised and isolated
body in Egypt, and hence either were ignorant of its
worship, or learned to loathe it as that of their cruel
oppressors. Against this supposition is the fact that they
were sufficiently acquainted with another side of that
worship, and had no great aversion to indulging in it on
* Lev. xxv. 23.
t Rachel's and Micah's teraphim were of an entirely different character.

ON ANCESTOR-WORSHIP. 131
occasion, as, e.g., when they put pressure on Aaron to make
them a golden calf.
(2) The second explanation is that it was the design of
Moses to prevent by anticipatory legislation any leaning
of the Jews towards the ancestor-cult of Egypt, and that
the silence of the Old Testament with regard to the future
life is but a proof of the thoroughness with which he carried
out his design. The great difficulty in accepting this
explanation is that it is not of a piece with the careful
precautions taken against the other side of early worship
found in Egypt as well as elsewhere. The Israelites are
warned against following the nations round about them in
their worship of the sun and moon ; they are never once
warned against ancestor-worship. Besides, it seems un
worthy of the supernatural guidance afforded the Jews to
suppose that it should buy them off from one great system
of error by suffering them to remain in entire ignorance of
one great department of truth. Even so did Mohammed give
his followers over to some sins they were inclined to by
damning others they had no mind to. They might not
drink, but they might look forward to a plentiful supply
of houris in Paradise.
(3) The third explanation seems to be the only one that
fully satisfies all the facts of the case. It is that the Jewish
religion took its rise from the Chaldean source, as indeed
the narrative of the call of Abraham expressly declares,
and that, therefore, its main features bear the character of
Chaldea and not of Egypt.* In Chaldea little was made
of the worship of the dead ; nature- worship in some form
or other was almost all in all. We need not be surprised,
therefore, if the daughter resembles the mother.
* This, of course, does not negative the influence of Egypt in toto, but
only requires us to conclude that, while Chaldean religion was the stock,
Egyptian customs were but shoots engrafted, and so incorporated in the
main stock.

132 ORIGINES JUDAICJE.
Nor need it be any cause of offence that so important
a class of truths as those relating to the life after death
should remain in the background of revelation, if the
gradual character of the education of the Jews be borne in
mind. It was reserved for the days between the two
Testaments to bring into clear and bold relief so vital a
truth as the advent of a Messiah, and it need not be thought
strange, therefore, if the doctrine of the future life was also
developed at a later stage.
In fact, on the assumption that Egypt's was the main
heathen influence brought to bear on the Hebrews, the
striking absence of all reference to ancestor-worship in
their extant records is so remarkable as to be inexplicable.
But, on the assumption that they were also exposed to
other influences, such as those brought to bear by Phoeni
cians and the more northern Semites, we can understand
how their religious development absorbed from each what
was most congenial, and rejected the elements for which
it had little aptitude. This would be a singular, because
undesigned, coincidence, affording a convincing proof of the
unsuspected Divine guidance which, by bringing the Jewish
religion into sympathetic contact with many divergent
creeds, was fitting it to be the mother of the universal
religion of Jesus Christ.
To this positive inference may be added a negative one,
drawn from the prevalence of menotheistic forms of thought.
The striking absence of ancestor-worship among the Jews
is explicable only on the assumption that some other
worship fully occupied the field. If that worship were the
worship of nature, it is intelligible that it left no room for
ancestor-worship; and I do not see any other adequate
explanation of so singular a phenomenon as the general
neglect of ancestry. But this absence is an additional
argument for menotheism. I am not, be it noticed, arguing

ON ANCESTOR-WORSHIP. 133
from the first to the second, and then from the second to
the first, which would be a circular argument, but I am
pointing out that the edges of the Jewish system of popular
devotion, left ragged by the absence of ancestor-worship,
are filled up by menotheism. If two pieces of a puzzle fit
into each other, their harmony is a practical proof of the
truth of the result. With the Jews —
" the soil, the fruitful soil, is the object of religion ; it takes
the place alike of heaven and of hell. Jehovah gives the land
and its produce ; He receives the best of what it yields as
an expression of thankfulness, the tithes in recognition of His
seignorial right. The relation between Himself and His people
first arose from His having given them the land in fee; it
continues to be maintained, inasmuch as good weather and
fertility come from Him." *
That this religion satisfied the Jews for so many centuries
is the strongest possible proof of the Divine wisdom which
was over-ruling that nation with a view to the evolution
from its religion of Christianity.
* Welhausen, " History of Israel," pp. 91, 92.

134 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.

CHAPTER VI.
ON SOLAR WORSHIP.
It is needless to say much about solar worship in general.
It has received almost an extravagant amount of attention
lately, and the sun has been set forth as the first great
object of worship, as the king of the gods, the pure, the
brilliant, the all-enlightening.
" The religion of the sun was inevitable. It was like a
deep furrow which that heavenly luminary drew, in its silent
procession from east to west, over the virgin mind of the gazing
multitude ; and in the impression left there by the first rising
and setting of the sun there lay the dark seed of a faith in a
more than human being, the first intimation of a life without
beginning, of a world without end." *
It is difficult, no doubt, to exaggerate the space occupied
in ancient religions by sun-worship, but the caution here
again is necessary, that the sun was worshipped, not merely
as a bright, but chiefly as a beneficent being. He was the
chief and most glorious exhibition of the great generative
spirit whose fiery nature is seen alike in the sun, the flame
on the sacred hearth, in the lightning and the need-fire. In
a sense the whole Indo-European race in all the ages in
which we can trace its history and its religion was a race
of fire- worshippers. But they were so because Menotheism
was their creed. Whence the Aryan race derived its
menotheistic belief it is impossible to determine with
* Max Miiller, " Selected Essays," ii. 239 (1881).

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 135
certainty. Its equal prevalence at an early date amongst
the Semites, shows that it is either the explanation that
the phenomena of nature, as affecting man, suggest spon
taneously to human thought; or that it prevailed in the
cradle of the race before it separated in sections from the
tableland of Central Asia, or that it was borrowed by
the Indo-Europeans from the Semites.
Movers * has a long and unconvincing argument for the
identity of the Hebrew Yahveh with the Greek Dionusos
or Iao, or the Phoenician Adonis. His argument rests
partly on the testimony of later writers, such as Plutarch,
Macrobius, Hesychius, Philo, Diodorus, etc., to the common
character of the gods denoted by these names. Unfor
tunately, they all lived at too late a date for us to accept
their evidence as to the original character of these deities.
Phoenician intercourse with Europe, the conquests of
Alexander, and the melting down of distinct creeds under
the Roman Empire, are quite sufficient forces to have
brought them all into a unity.
More weight, however, may be attached to the argu
ments of Movers, derived from the similarity of names
between Yahveh and Iao, Adonis and Adonai, and the
common title of Most High applied to Yahveh and Adonis.
But here, again, the inference from similarity of names
needs to be handled with great care. For though no
argument is more conclusive when once a common origin
is established, yet none is more fruitful of error while that
origin is still being sought. We may fully admit that Iao
is the sun-god, and especially the sun-god in his beneficent
form, "A/3/ooc ' law, and that Adonis shares the same cha
racter. We may also detect a similarity between the early
worship of Yahveh and that offered at Antioch and Byblus,
the holy town of Adonis. We may note, too, that both
* " Die Phonizier," i. 542-550.

136 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
Adonis and Iao had their secret names, apprira. We may,
with Lydus, see Iao as the Chaldean equivalent of the
Greek Dionusos, and accept He-causes-life as the inter
pretation of his name, and yet reject the assertion that
Plutarch* warrants us in concluding any interchange
between the terms Iao and Yahveh. We might even go
further and say with Movers, that the mysterious littera
trina Iao is evidently Y'hoo, the apocopated Hiphil of
Yahveh, er macht leben, formed as are so many names in
Hebrew, and quite corresponding to the tetragrammaton,
mrv and to the names ^K3*h, \ip>, ^>soe«, etc., and yet be
sceptical whether an analogy warrants us in concluding
identity. Nothing is so hazardous as to argue from
analogy, and only a nice sense can discriminate the-exact
spot when a number of analogies converging on a point
are sufficient ground for a positive conclusion, in the
absence of corroborating evidence.
If we can, then, on other grounds establish a case for
the early conception of Yahveh as a God similar to the Iao
of Phoenicia, then the analogies on which Movers relies
may be accepted as subsidiary proofs strengthening the
conclusion otherwise arrived at. It is unnecessary to
insist beforehand that we are endeavouring to discover,
not what conception the Jews, ought to have attached to
the name Yahveh, nor what they learnt to understand by
it afterwards, still less what was implicitly contained in
its revelation in Exod. vi. 3, or what was understood by
the writer of Gen. iv. 26, but what was the idea upper
most in the minds of those who first used the name. We
have to deal, that is, with the Jewish conceptions before
revelation took them in hand.
If we appeal to later days — that is to say, when they
were under the tutelage of the Old Dispensation — it will
* Symp., I. iv.

ON SOLAR WORSHIP.

137

only be because older ideas overlap newer developments,
and enshrine themselves in a people's customs. We have,
for instance, among us even now, customs which are
anachronisms, such as those which show themselves on
Valentine's Day, on the first of April, in the mistletoe and
other evergreens of Christmas, and in the nailing of horse-
•shoes over our doors. They bear testimony ^ not so much
to the Christian belief of the nineteenth century, as to the
pagan beliefs of pre-Christian times. Similarly, we may
detect in the history of the Jews customs and modes of
worship which are out of keeping with the revelation
made to them, but which carry us back to earlier modes
of thought. For instance, we find enshrined in the law of Leviticus *
provisions for a celebration of the Feast of the New Moon
on the first day of the seventh month. This festival was
to be a national holiday, sacred to Yahveh, a "feast of
trumpets," and New Year's rejoicing. But that this sprang
out of an earlier observance of the new moon is obvious
from 1 Sam. xx. 5, where David alludes to that festival
as entailing attendance at the king's table, and from
2 Kings iv. 23, where the husband of the Shunamite
expresses surprise at his wife's proposal to make a journey,
seeing it was neither " new moon nor the sabbath." More-
over, Isaiah's reference to the new moons as festivals not
pleasing to Yahveh t seems to show that the feast of the
first day of the seventh month had not absorbed the feasts
of the other new moons, but that the precepts of Num.
xxviii. 11-15 were carefully obeyed.
The late survival of this festival, and its incorporation
into the law of Moses, have a close bearing upon the
question of the early meaning of Yahveh to the Hebrews.
* Lev. xxiii. 24 ; Num. xxix. 1. ",
t i. 13, 14 ; cf. Ezek. xiv. 17 and Hosea ii. 11.

138 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
It is agreed that the observance of moon-festivals is the
special mark of a pastoral people, such as the Israelites
bore before their occupation of Palestine. If, then, when
they made the momentous change from a pastoral to an
agricultural life they carried over some of their previous
customs connected with the moon, it is not surprising that
we should be able to trace in another portion of their
history a similar survival of earlier conceptions.
In the three great festivals we can plainly discern
relics of the customs which preceded their legal institution.
In the first we can distinguish the earlier belief, out of
which the offering of the firstlings of the flock sprang,
from the enactments which are proper to the institution
of the Passover. But the belief which prompted such
offerings was part of a menotheistic conception which
regarded the firstborn as endowed with an extra share of
nature's vital force.*
In the Feast of Weeks we have a purely agricultural
festival, similar to the pastoral nature of the festival which
preceded the Passover, and expressing the same idea on a
higher plane. Similarly, the Feast of Tabernacles sprang
out of an autumn feast of the vintage, which appears to
have been, as with our harvest thanksgivings, a genuine
nature-festival, celebrated with hallelujahs.t
A surer proof of the earlier nature of the Hebrews'
conception of Yahveh is afforded by the facility with
which they confused Baal and Yahveh, applying to
Yahveh the epithet of Baal or Lord, and sometimes pass
ing freely from the one worship to the other. They could
not have done this had they not seen some close similarity
at least between the two deities as they conceived them.
The difficulty of determining the exact meaning
attached to Baal-worship in the Old Testament partly
* Cf. Gen. xliv. 3. t Of. Judg- xxi- 19-21-

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 139
arises from the ambiguity of the word Baal or Baalim,
and partly from the variations in its use brought about
by the change of ideas which we might expect to take
place during one thousand years. Thus the word " God,"
though used of the same Person, and with a substantial
identity of meaning, by men of the eighth century of our
era and of the eighteenth, yet has a much richer connota
tion now than it could possibly have had among our rude
forefathers.* We still speak, too, of God and gods, and
long use has enabled us to avoid any confusion of ideas in
the two words.
A similar use of Baal and Baalim, not always with the
same clear distinction, seems to have prevailed among the
Hebrews, at least in the earlier part of their history.
Indeed Baal t seems to have been even used sometimes as
an equivalent for Yahveh. Thus in 2 Sam. v. 20 we have
an account of a victory of David over the Philistines, and
a note that "therefore he called the name of that place
Baal-Perazim," i.e. because "Yahveh hath broken forth
upon mine enemies before me, as the breach of waters."
Even if, as Oort supposes, the original name of the place
was Baal of Perazim,£ at all events in the mind of the
narrator there is no incongruity in attributing to Yahveh
the epithet Baal. Again, the same attribution seems clearly
hinted at in Hosea ii. 16 : " And it shall be at that day,
saith Yahveh, that thou shalt call me Ishi (my husband) ;
and shalt call me no more Baali (my lord)." In the earlier
part of the chapter Yahveh is represented as saying that
Israel had forgotten Him in the feasts of the Baalim, and
* " Once the children of Israel said unto Moses, ' Speak thou to us, and
we will hear thee; but let not the Lord speak unto us, lest we die.' This,
O Lord, is not my prayer, but with humility and with fervour I say to Thee,
as Samuel the prophet says, ' Speak, Lord, for Thy servant heareth ' "
( " The Imitation of Christ ").
t = IiOrd. X le. of the family of Perez.

140 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
had not known that corn and wine and oil prepared for
Baal were from Him, and goes on to say that He would
visit on her] the days of the Baalim, and would take away
the names of the Baalim out of her mouth. Thus, in the
same chapter, we have evidence of two facts — that the title
Baal was applied to Yahveh, and that " the Baalim " was
also the proper name of a god or gods whose worship was
a rival to that of Yahveh.
That " Baal " did not always denote anything disloyal
to Yahveh is also obvious from its use as part of the names
of men which were given by those whose loyalty was
unquestionable, e.g. Saul had a son named Esh-baal*
= Baal's-man, which, if the identification of Ish-bosheth
with him be correct, was changed by a shocked writer in
later times into Ish-bosheth = Man-of-shame. Jonathan,
too, had a son, Merib-baal,t similarly changed into Mephi-
bosheth. David also had a son called Baal-yadah J = Whom
Baal-knows, which in 2 Sam. v. 16, and 1 Chron. iii. 8,
appears as El-iada. According to 1 Chron. ix. 36, Saul
had a great-uncle named Baal ; David had an officer named
Baal-hanan the Gederite § and a leader Baal-yah,|| a
Benjamite in whose name Baal and Yahveh are used
together. It is worth noticing, too, that the same feeling
of revulsion against theaword Baal in later times, which led
to Esh-baal, Merib-baal, and Baal-yadah being improved
on, led to a similar change from Jerub-baal in Judg. vi. 32
to Jerub-besheth in 2 Sam. xi. 21.1T From these remark
able facts one of two inferences seems necessary : either
the worship of Yahveh was not accepted by the Israelites
in general in their early history and that of Baal was, or
else the words Baal and Baalim had an adjectival signifi
cation of such a character as to make it not incongruous
* 1 Chron. viii. 33. t Ibid. viii. 34. % Ibid. xiv. 7.
§ 1 Chron. xxvii. 28. || Ibid. xii. 5. f Unaltered in 1 Sam. xii. 11.

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 141
to apply them to the God of Israel. The quotation from
Hosea given abov#, together with the derivation given of
Baal-Perazim, lend countenance to the latter as the more
likely solution.
But there is no doubt, from other passages, that the
words Baal and Baalim had a definite substantival signifi
cation, as well as an indefinite adjectival one. Not only
is the worship of Yahveh contrasted with the worship of
the Baalim, but there are indications that there were two
branches of this latter worship, or two deities whose worship
had to be denounced and destroyed. One of these may be
provisionally styled the Baal of Syria, and the other the
Baal of Tyre. It is true that a multitude of distinct Baals
may be included under the former head, but it is also true
that the differences between them were probably like the
differences in the characters of the Jupiters and Heraklai
of Greece and Italy. They were the same god locally dis
tributed with small local differences, but substantially
identical. Thus we have Baal-Berith in Judg. viii. 31
and ix. 4 (changed into El-Berith in Judg. ix. 46 — a further
proof either that revision has taken place, or that in early
and late times alike Baal was generically equivalent to El),
Baal of the Covenant, the origin and worship of whom are
altogether unknown ; * Baal-zebub, Baal of the Flies at
Ekron ; t Baal-Peor, the Midianite Priapus.$
In addition to this we have a number of places, mostly
heights where the worship of some Baal was established.
Thus Josh. xv. 9, 10, speaks of Baalah which is Kirjath-
Jearim, while xv. 60 and xviii. 14 identify it with Kirjath-
Baal; in xv. 11, moreover, it is called Hor-Baalah. From
* May it be that this word rvna has any connection with the Phoenician
rvna, Hebrew tsfi-p, cypress, and that the symbol of the God was an Asheiah
of cypress-wood ? Or was Baal-Berith merely the god worshipped in common
by a number of federated towns ?
t 2 Kings i. 2, 3, 16. X See Creuzer, ii. 411.

142 ORIGINES JUDAIC 'JE.
these notices we gather that (1) it was a height ; (2) it
was at one time the seat of Baal- worship ; and (3) that
when Baal- worship fell into disrepute the name was changed
to Kirjath-Jearim. That the change was effected at a late
date seems obvious from the fact that in 2 Sam. vi. 2,
when Samuel went to fetch the ark, the place is called
simply Baale of Judah, in spite of the name Kirjath-Jearim
occurring in the account of 1 Sam. vi. 21, which relates! the
despatch of the ark to this sacred hill by the panic-
stricken men of Bethshemesh. It is more than probable,
therefore, that this hill-top continued a spot sacred to Baal
for some time after the settlement of the Israelites.
Baal- Gad was the name of another city under Mount
Hermon.* This place was well known in the days of
Joshua, and was apparently named after Baal, God-of-
Fortune, whom Lajard has shown good reason for identify
ing with Venus. If Banias, or Csesarea-Philippi, a city ,
which was for many ages the head-quarters of a worship
of Pan, be rightly identified with the Old Testament Baal-
Gad, we have confirmatory proof that the Baal worshipped
here was the god of fertility and of good-luck. Baalath-
Beer, Baal of the Holy Well, Baal-Hamon, Baal-Hazor,
Baal-Hermon (which was probably on Mount Hermon
itself), Baal-Meon (changed later into Beth-Meon t), Baal-
Tamar, Baal-Shalisha, and Baal-Zephon are names to us,
and little else.
On the whole there seems good reason for saying that
the worship of the Baalim of Syria flourished in the land
of Israel, among the people, in defiance of any Mosaic
legislation. Dr. Oort's opinion, that Baalim and Yahveh
were interchangeable terms up to the Exile, can only be
maintained by the practice his theory compels him to
resort to, viz. the excision in the earlier historical books of
* Josh. xi. 17 ; xii. 7. t Jer. xlviii. 23.

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 143
all condemnatory notices of the worship of Baalim and
Ashtaroth as being puzzle-headed interpolations of the
later compilers. But understanding the practice of the
Jews as yielding to Canaanitish influences, we may sub
scribe to his statement that —
" the whole religious life of the Israelites was a fearful con
trast with the Law. Upon every high hill and under every
green tree altars were erected, on which and by which were
placed pillars (Asheras) and sun-images (Chammanim). Me
morial stones were to be found everywhere, sprinkled with
oil, and honoured with sacrifices. Countless deities were
worshipped as private gods and mediators with Jehovah. Rude
and arbitrary was the worship. Priests of the tribe of Levi
might minister at Shiloh and other renowned sanctuaries ; any
one who chose sacrificed besides wherever he pleased. Invoca
tion of the holy flame and the altar incense were coupled with
processions round the altars." *
That the Jews recognized a difference between the
indigenous worship of the Syrian Baalim and that of the
Tyrian Baal introduced by Ahab is abundantly manifested
by the short-lived character of the latter. It does not
appear that Ahab introduced the worship of Ashtaroth,
and Elijah's great controversy at Mount Carmel was ex
clusively with the four hundred and fifty priests of this
Tyrian Baal, the four hundred prophets of the Ash&rahs
which eat at Jezebel's table taking no part in it. More
over, when Jehu set about the destruction of the worship
of Baal that Ahab had introduced, nothing is said about
any inquiries made after the worshippers of the Asherahs.
The two cults differed apparently as the cults of Siva and
Vishnu in India — one was stern and implacable, and the
other soft and voluptuous. At all events the reformation
that Elijah was commissioned to undertake does not seem
to have extended beyond the new danger to Israel arising
* " The Worship of the Baalim in Israel," p. 53.

144 ORIGINES JUDAICjE.
from this new worship. The time was not ripe for the
extinction of the older and the more deeply rooted worship.
It is generally assumed that the sin by which Jeroboam
made Israel to sin consisted more in its schism than in its
idolatry. But it is at least open to question whether it
was not both, and the latter equally as much as the former.
For Josiah is related * to have destroyed Jeroboam's altar,
and the high place and the Asherah, as well as the high
places built by Solomon for Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and
Milcom. Jeroboam's object had been to prevent his
subjects from going to Jerusalem to worship, and as both
Solomon and Rehoboamf countenanced an idolatrous
worship like that of the surrounding Canaanites, Jeroboam
had every inducement to make his worship as much like
that of the heathen as Solomon had already done, and as
Rehoboam did shortly afterwards.
When we come to answer the question, " What was the
character of this Baal who exercised so powerful an attrac
tion over the Israelites ? " we are tempted to reply that
any answer beyond a non liquet is audacious. But still
the little we can gather goes to make it most probable that
he was the sun as supreme generating power. The bull is
a well-known emblem of the sun in this character, and it
was calves that Jeroboam selected as representative of the
god of the northern kingdom. Moreover, the " high place "
was universally chosen by early races, not as nearer to
heaven, which was too abstract an idea at first, but as
nearer the great orb of the sun. Moreover, when we find
an Asherah — a recognized phallic emblem of the sun as
fructifier — constantly accompanying the altar of the high
place,J the conjecture that the Baal worshipped there was
* 2 Kings xxii. 15. t Cf. 1 Kings xiv. 22-24.
X Cf. Exod. xxxiv. 13 ; Deut. vii. 5 ; xii. 3 ; 1 Kings xiv. 23 ; 2 Kings
xvii. 10-16 ; xxiii. 14 ; Micah v. 13, 14.

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 145
the generating sun becomes almost certain. When, too,
we know that the Tyrian Baal was equivalent to Herakles,
and that Herakles was the sun; when we learn from
Josephus* that Hiram built on the sites of the old
sanctuaries temples for Herakles and Astarte, and that
he was the first who celebrated the Feast of the Resurrec
tion of Herakles, we shall not be far wrong in supposing
that sun-worship was what Baal-worship in reality was.
We should be wrong, however, if we supposed that this
worship was directed, like Parsee fire-worship, to the
glorious orb of day as such. Everything points to the con
clusion that the aspect of the sun taken by the Canaanites,
and adopted by the Jews, was that in which he appears as
the productive power, by whose influence nature wakes to
life and light, t
This conclusion seems unavoidable on a review of the
facts cited. But its evidential value to Judaism may not
be so obvious. No doubt the scoffer may readily turn it,
as he often has done, into an argument against revelation.
But he is using a double-edged weapon. It is much more
consonant with the whole facts — with the final result, that
is, as well as the initial stages — to say, that if revelation
found the soil so fully occupied with the rank growth of
the weeds of nature-worship, it is a further powerful proof
* Antiq., viii. 3.
f It is for this reason, among others, that I cannot subscribe to the
opinion of Tiele that menotheism was a monopoly of the Aryans. I should
be more inclined to the belief that, if it were borrowed at all, the Aryans
owed it to the Semites : " It is not till Jeremiah that utterance is given to
the thought that Yahveh is the eternal God, besides whom there exists no
other, and in contrast with whom the other gods are nothing but emptiness ;
and the Babylonian Isaiah, with more emphasis and genius, develops the
same conception. The pantheistic monotheism of the Aryans, which regards
all deities simply as names of the One, the Ail-Embracing and Infinite,
remained unknown to them; and to the universalist monotheism of the
gospel, which has entirely broken down the bounds of nationality, not even
the noblest of them was able to rise " (C. P. Tiele, " Outlines of the History
of Eeligion," p. 89). L

146 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
of its Divine character that it was able to educe so fine
and lofty a religion as that which was the immediate fore
runner of Christianity. The best and the clearest proof of
the inspiration of the Old Testament is that it records so
accurately the various stages through which God led His
chosen people to a progressive knowledge of Himself.
Menotheism was the soil out of which sprang the fair
flower of Monotheism.
Is it possible to draw any historical conclusion from
the notice in Exod. vi. 3 : "I appeared unto Abraham,
unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty
(El-Shaddai), but by my name Yahveh was I not known
to them " ? According to this, the name Yahveh of the
Mosaic period was to supersede the El-Shaddai of the
patriarchal. But a change of name denotes a change of
ideas, and a change of ideas takes its rise in 'changed
circumstances, such as foreign influences or higher culture.
It is strange to find orthodox commentators like Havernick
and Hengstenberg forced to do violence to this text in
Exodus so as to save other texts in Genesis. Thus the
former declares that when Yahveh said that He was not
known by that name to the patriarchs, He meant that the
name was known, but not its meaning : —
"The name of God, Yahveh, is evidently presupposed as
already in use, and is only explained, interpreted, and applied.
It is certainly not a new name that is introduced; on the
contrary, the n.inx *IB>N rvnx (I am that I am) would be un
intelligible if the name itself were not presupposed as already
known. The old name of antiquity, whose precious significance
had been forgotten and neglected by the children of Israel,
here, as it were, rises again to life, and is again brought home
to the consciousness of the people." *
Of course the occurrence of the term Yahveh in Genesis
proves nothing until the date of the composition of it, or
* " Introduction to the Pentateuch," p. 61. In loco.

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 147
of its incorporated documents, has been decided. It is
generally assumed as self-evident that the phrase "I am
that I am" must be merely an interpreter of the term
Yahveh, and not its companion. But in the " polyonomous "
stage language is rich in homonyms, and nin? and "few n;rtjs
?W£ may oe on their higher ground as cognate as Varuna
and Dyaus on theirs. * But assuming that Exod. vi. 3 is
the record of a higher conception of God, whatever the
date of the origin of the name njir, we ask: "What is the
difference of ideas that the change of name signifies?"
which is equivalent to asking what the names in question
respectively mean. The first, Shaddai, has been derived
from a root, which gives the powerful, or the violent, as its
radical meaning.t De Vogue has identified the word with
Set, worshipped by the Egyptians, first as the burning sun-
god, then adopted by the Hyksos, and finally transformed
into the equivalent of Typhon, He has not been able to
secure the unanimous support of scholars for this con
jecture, but it is, at least, remarkable that the substantive
D^E' (idols) appears in the Old Testament as the degenerate
descendant of VJK>, just as Set in Egypt appears in later
times as a demon instead of a god. Moreover, Set in
Egypt was originally like Herakles or Ares in Greece, the
fiery, burning sun, — a character that may be not dissimilar
* " The very imperfection of all the names that had been chosen, their
very inadequacy to express the fulness and infinity of the Divine, would keep
up the search for new names, till at last every part of nature in which an
approach to the Divine could be discovered was chosen as a name of the
Omnipresent. If the presence of the Divine was perceived in the strong
wind, the strong wind became its name ; if its presence was perceived in the
earthquake and the fire, the earthquake and the Are became its names " (Max
Miiller, " Lectures on the Science of Eeligion," (1882), p. 203).
t " Their ancient national god bore the name of El-Shaddai. Undoubtedly
this deity, by whatever name they may have designated him, was the dread
ful and stern god of the thunder, whose character corresponded to the nature
which surrounded them and the life which they lei " (C. P. Tiele, " Outlines
of the History of Eeligion," p. 85).

148 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
to that designated by the root of the word ^g\ If we
follow Havernick in seeing a resurrection of the term njn*
in Exod. vi. 3, it will be quite consistent with his method
to see both in Shaddai and Yahveh a double evolution.
We should in this case have the former of these two terms
taking its rise from the burning sun of the Eastern desert,
then gradually purifying itself, and coming to denote the
personal deity whose attribute is almighty power rather
than incommunicable majesty. When the Hebrews were
ready for a fresh revelation because they had risen above
their former lower conception of God, they were offered a
new name, and therefore a new and higher object of
worship. It is possible, too, that Set, or Sutech, is the Egyptian
equivalent of the Phoenician Ciidiiq, the father of the eight
Cabiri, the founders of navigation. Movers identifies him,*
but wrongly, with Vulcan. Sanchoniathon interprets his
name to mean "the righteous," but this is manifestly an
anachronism. According to Fiirst, \>y$ means "rectitudo,
planitudo, veluti viarum, deinde justitia sive judicialis, sive
civilis, sive imputativa, et sic porro, virtute latissime
patente, etiam de salute justitiam vel insequente vel con-
ferente." Ciidiiq was the god moving straight forward,
before he was a god of righteousness, just as right denoted
what was physically straight before it was applied to
moral rectitude. Hence Ciidiiq, or Sutech, seems to be a
name originally applied to the sun in his straight course
across the heavens.
What, however, seems clear is that Set was of Semitic
origin, was worshipped by the Kheta, and was adopted
through the Hyksos into the Egyptian Pantheon. The
identification of him with Shaddai the powerful, has the
authority of Emmanuel de Rouge. It is worth observation
* " Die Phonizier," i. 651-655.

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 149
that the Babylonian Merodach was styled " the herald of
the gods," the intermediary between Ea and man. His
planet Jupiter watched over the course of justice, and
received among the Jews the name of Cedeq, He-who-
walks-before-Ea. None the less he was originally a solar
deity borrowed by the Semites from the Accadians.*
We may draw another inference from Havernick's
suggestion that the name Yahveh was not absolutely new
at the period of the Exodus, viz. that the name was
originally applied to the sun as the giver of life — he that
makes things to be. This betrays obviously a higher con
ception, containing more religious feeling, than any which
regards the sun as violent. If this early use of the term
were in later times transformed into one denoting the
national god of the Hebrews, it would be but following the
genius of the Semitic race, which, as we have seen else
where,! was apt, differing herein from the Aryan, to
evolve a personal god, jealous for the good of his people,
out of a nature-god such as man worshipped in his
childhood. The importance, then, of the revelation contained in
Exod. vi. 3 can hardly be over-rated. It marks a new
departure in the development of the religion of the chosen
people. It declares explicitly that God is not merely the
ruler of the physical universe, but their God, the Giver of
all good things, among which Canaan is immediately
mentioned as an earnest.^ It is just because commenta
tors have assumed that Exod. vi. 3 must necessarily be
* " The name Sutech, applied to Set, seems to me an attempt to reproduce
in Egyptian form the Semitic divine name, Sedeq, ' the righteous.' At any
rate, if the form Sutech is older, the reason why the Arabians made choice
of this particular Egyptian god as their own, must be sought in tho
resemblance of this name to Sedeq " (C. P. Tiele, " Outlines of the History
of Eeligion," p. 55).
t Page 96. } Exod. vi. 4.

150 ORIGINES JUDAIC^:.
explained by Exod. iii. 14, that they have been unable to
see the logical connection between the Sacred Name in
Exod. vi. 3 and the gift of Canaan in Exod. vi. 4.
It may not be without value, as bearing on this point, to
notice that the fruitfulness of the land is not the good
sought for from El-Shaddai by the patriarchs, but numerous
and powerful offspring. Thus, Isaac's valedictory blessing
of Jacob, in Gen. xxviii. 3, runs : " And El-Shaddai bless thee
and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest
be a multitude of people." Similarly, in Gen. xxxv. 11, God
Himself pronounces a blessing on Jacob : " I am El-Shaddai :
be fruitful and multiply ; a nation and a company of nations
shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins."
Jacob, at the end of his life, repeats these words to Joseph.*
This blessing is one more consonant with the feelings and
aspirations of a pastoral people, whose wealth consists in
the abundance of their herds — whose pecunia is literally in
their pecus.
It is natural, too, that a pastoral people should, in
appraising the kindly mildness of the moon above the fiery
heat of the sun, regard the latter not so much as a bene
factor but as a destroyer, whose fiery mid-day rays were to
be avoided. Accordingly, when the Israelites passed from
the pastoral to the agricultural state of life, they were
ready for a new and a more refined conception of the nature
of their God, and it was this predisposition that God utilized
for a higher revelation of Himself — a revelation which had
to fight its way upwards through the grosser conceptions of
nature-worship before it issued in the lofty teaching of the
prophets. The earlier developments in the meanings of
Shaddai and Yahveh are contained implicitly only in
Exod. vi. 3, but that there were such developments is
certain from the double argument drawn from the etymology
* Gen. xlviii. 3, 4.

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 151
of the terms and from the gradual course of God's educa
tion of the Jewish race which we are able to trace from
this time forward, and which we are justified, therefore,
in projecting backwards to the point indicated by that
etymology. The conjecture just noticed, that there is an etymological
kinship between the words Shaddai and Set, receives some
confirmation from history. This revelation was made
known to Moses in Egypt just before the chosen people left
for Canaan. Their Exodus took place, it is generally
agreed, under Meneptah IIS. of the nineteenth dynasty.
The Hyksos kings had been expelled before the eighteenth
dynasty, and their god Set was already beginning to fall
into disfavour. It is not necessary to conclude, however,
that the Jews had been worshippers of Set. But what
would appear is that recent events in Egypt had been such
as to pave the way for the next upward step in the develop
ment of the Jews' religion. They must have known and
felt the growing aversion to Set among their masters, and
by a reflex action they were led to feel also that their own
conception of their God as El-Shaddai was insufficient. At
that moment Moses is sent to give point and moment to
their impulse towards a higher faith, and henceforward
they know their God under the more tender name of
Yahveh. If we transfer the character of the " dreadful God " to
El-Shaddai from Yahveh, we may accept the following as
substantially accurate : —
" To the conception of Yahveh, as the dreadful god of the
desert, there were slowly added various traits borrowed from
that of the beneficent Baal, the god of blessing and abundance.
By this process the representation of Yahveh was gradually
softened, without, however, losing its original character. There
was no longer any reason for supplementing his worship with

152 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
that of the Canaanite god of agriculture; Yahveh was now
sufficiently like the latter to be able, even alone, to satisfy the
wants of the nation when it was civilized and settled." *
Nowhere is this progressive character of the Jewish
revelation so clearly marked as in the growth of the con
ception of the character of Yahveh. Throughout the history
He is a "holy God;" there is none holy as Yahveh. t
" Thou continuest holy, 0 Thou that inhabitest the praises
of Israel;"* "I Yahveh your God, am holy;"§ "Holy,
holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts ; " || " Worship at His foot
stool, for He is holy; "IT "Yahveh is holy in all His works." **
Accordingly, whatever is connected with Him partakes of
His character ; it, too, is holy. '' Preserve my soul, for
I am holy ; " ft " They be holy chambers where the priests
eat ;"%% "The place whereon thou standest is holy ground ;"§§
"The tithe of the land is holy unto Yahveh;" |||| "Ye are
holy to Yahveh, the vessels are holy also ; " "HF " the holy
mountain at Jerusalem ; " *** " if one bear holy flesh ; " ftf
" He put upon Aaron the holy crown ; " J % ± " I perceive
that this is an holy man of God." §§§
Akin to these are the passages where Yahveh is spoken
of as a jealous God, e.g. Exod. xx. 5, xxxiv. 14 ; Deut. iv. 24,
v. 9, vi. 15 ; Josh. xxiv. 19; Nahum i. 2; Num. xxv. 11;
Deut. xxix. 20 ; Zeph. i. 18. To these must be added the
whole circle of Levitical ordinances about uncieanness,
whether in the matter of food, or in cases of blood-contact
or other material impurities, or distinction of sacrificial
offerings. When we come to examine the passages where holiness
* C. P. Tiele, " Outlines of the History of Eeligion," p. 87.
t 1 Sam. ii. 2. J Ps. xxii. 3. § Lev. xix. 2. || Isa. vi. 3.
IT Ps. xcix. 5. ** Ps. cxlv. 17. tt Ps. lxxxvi. 2.
tt Ezek. xlii. 13. §§ Exod. iii. 5. |||| Lev. xxvii. 30.
tf Ezra viii. 28. *** Isa. xxvii. 13.
ttt Hag. ii. 12. XXX Lev. viii. 9. §§§ 2 Kings iv. 9.

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 153
is predicated of Yahveh, or of persons or things connected
with Him, we see that there is a later and an earlier con
ception. Under the prophets and psalmists holiness is
synonymous with moral purity which is exclusive of every
conceivable taint. It is on one of its sides equivalent with
righteousness. But it is remarkable that righteousness is a
conception that may be said to belong to the later period.
The word "righteous," or "righteousness," is of compara
tively infrequent occurrence before we reach the age of
the psalmists and prophets. The same remark is true of
" iniquity." It occurs, indeed, in the early historical books,
but its true home is in the later and more spiritual writings.
A still more pertinent distinction may be drawn between
the earlier and later conception of what constitutes right
eousness, iniquity, sin and holiness. The Psalmist, for
instance, in a typical passage, traces sin to an innate dis
parity between the nature of God and man : " Behold, I
was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother con
ceive me." * Accordingly he places spiritual health above
ceremonial perfectness : " Thou desirest not sacrifice, else
would I give it; Thou delightest not in burnt-offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit ; a broken and
contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." f On the
other hand, the legal spirit sees righteousness, or holiness,
in the scrupulous observance of prescribed acts : " It shall
be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these command
ments before Yahveh our God, as He hath commanded us." +
If the law were strictly obeyed, it was declared that " it
-sJbad be righteousness unto thee before Yahveh thy God," §
The more lofty moral perception which transmuted
ceremonial accuracy into moral purity, and compulsory
obedience to external law into spontaneous action in
* Ps. li. 5. + Ps. li. 16 and 17. t Deut. vi. 25.
§ Deut. xxiv. 13.

154 ORIGINES JUDAIC JE.
conformity with an inward love of righteousness,* had its
counterpart in the changed conception of the nature of
Yahveh. If we can establish from the Jewish records
and from analogous heathen beliefs that the earlier idea
of His character was of a lower kind, we shall be at the
same time affording a presumption that a still earlier
development of which we have lost the record took place,
and that we are, therefore, justified in the attempt made
above to determine what the earliest attributes of Yahveh
were in the minds of the Jews.
The first fact that strikes us as remarkable is the con
nection between uncieanness and holiness in the Levitical
legislation. To attribute the regulations about food and
material impurities to utilitarian motives is to ignore
the whole spirit of that legislation. It may be quite
true that those regulations carried with them incidental
advantages to health, but those advantages were no more
than fortunate accidents that fastened on to the provisions
made by the Law. The Law was the outcome of religion,
not of sanitary science. If we begin with some of the
material impurities of Leviticus we find chief among them
dead human bodies and human blood, especially in the
form of certain issues. These latter are prescribed for in
Lev. xii. and xv. ; the former in Num. xix. The Law
is consistent in assigning the cause why purification from
these and from leprosy was necessary. A sin-offering or
a burnt-offering was prescribed, so that an " atonement "
might be made. This word atonement occurs forty-three
times in the Pentateuch. To us it naturally suggests the
idea of a reconciliation between God and man after an
estrangement caused by a habit, or acts, or both, whereby
a wall of moral separation had been interposed. Are we
justified in assigning to the Jews in their Law so lofty a
* Jer. xxxi. 32-34.

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 155
conception of the cause of separation, or must we attribute
the separation to legal aberrances ? A careful collation of
the passages in the Pentateuch where the word atonement
occurs will show in a few minutes that in no single case
is there any conception of sin, in our sense of the word, as
causing the separation;* the atonement is throughout
the divinely appointed mode whereby Yahveh may be
appeased for breaches, whether voluntary or involuntary,
of his ceremonial Law. We have, moreover, atonement
made for inanimate things — for the altar ; t for a house ; i.
for the holy place ; § for the holy sanctuary. || From these
passages three inferences may be safely drawn: (1) that
the Law regarded Yahveh not as a tender God, full of
lovingkindness and mercy, but as a God quick to anger,
and needing to be appeased for every breach of the Law,
whether it was great or small ; (2) that its provisions did
in fact so separate Yahveh, and all that specially belonged
to Him, from common things, that a feeling of intense
awe and dread of Him was created in the breasts of the
Israelites, whereby preparation was made for a subsequent
veneration of Him for His moral holiness ; (3) that at the
time of the promulgation of the Law, the separation made
between the Israelite and Yahveh was ceremonial. Certain
* So, too, among the Chaldeans there was a sense of sin, but it sprang
from " the eating of forbidden things, the treading on forbidden ground."
"That which was forbidden by my God I ate without knowing. That
which was forbidden by Istar, my mother, I trampled on without knowing "
(cf. Sayce, "Assyria: Its Princes, Priests, and People," p. 71). With this
reservation, compare Erancois Lenormant's words : " II est a remarquer que
chez les Chald&ns et les Assyriens leurs disciples, au moins a partir d'une
certaine epoque, la notion de la nature du peche et de la necessite de la
penitence se retrouve d'une maniere plus precise que chez la plupart des
autres peuples antiques, et par suite il est difficile de croire que le sacerdoce
de la Chalde'e, dans ses profondes speculations de philosophie religieuse,
n'ait pas cherche une solution du probleme de I'origine du mal et du peche "
(Francois Lenormant, " Les Origines de l'Histoire," i. 94).
\ Exod. xxix. 37, and Lev. xvi. 18. t Lev. xiv. 53.
§ Lev. xvi. 16. || Lev. xvi. 33.

156 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
places, certain times, certain things, certain persons were
" holiness unto Yahveh," i.e. they were separated from all
others with a view to accentuate the greatness of Israel's
God. The separation was not moral, but ceremonial.
Can we now carry this separation further back, and
ascertain what were the popular beliefs on which the
Jewish legislator had to build his elaborate code of
holiness, i.e. ceremonial separation? It is just here that
the objects specified as causes of uncieanness help us.
That the sanctuary, the altar, the priests should be clothed
with a certain amount of reflex sanctity is perfectly
intelligible. But that certain natural organic functions,
and contact with dead bodies, should disqualify a man for
the worship of Yahveh, and for intercourse with his
fellows, is not explainable by modern notions. Neither is
it explainable by any theory, such as Ewald's, which
carries us back to social customs, nor by any which sees
in rules of taboo nothing but superstitious fetishism. The
only theory which does seem capable of explaining the laws
of uncieanness is that of menotheism. Even Robertson
Smith seems to admit this when he says —
" The mysterious superhuman powers of the god — the
powers which we call supernatural — are manifested, according
to primitive ideas, in and through his physical life, so that
every place and thing which has natural associations with the
god is regarded, if I may borrow a metaphor from electricity,
as charged with divine energy, and ready at any moment to
discharge itself to the destruction of the man who presumes to
approach it unduly. Hence, in all their dealings with natural
things men must be on their guard to respect the divine
prerogative, and this they are able to do by knowing and
observing the rules of holiness, which prescribe definite
restrictions and limitations in their dealings with the god and
all natural things that in any way pertain to the god." *
* " Eeligion of the Semites," p. 140 (1st series, 1889).

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 157
Where I should differ from Robertson Smith is in the
meaning attached to his phrase "primitive ideas." The
belief in the possession of " electrical " powers presupposes
a belief in " electricity," and belief in that evinces a com
paratively high conception of nature and her powers. For
it is not artificial objects, or relics, such as hair, bones,
thread that appear before us as charged with that
"sympathetic magic" which in its degree fills all things
that are ; it is the corpse, or the product of certain natural
and organic functions, which are regarded as dangerous to
him who touches them and hateful to his god. It is a
menotheistic belief, conjoined to a fear of menotheistic
forces, which sufficiently explains this phenomenon.
This inference is put beyond doubt when we notice
that in Japan it was held that the Mikado " profaned his
sanctity if he so much as touched the ground with his
foot," or if he exposed his sacred person to the open air,
or let the sun shine on his head. " The prince who was
to become Inca of Peru had to fast for a month without
seeing light." In South Africa, in New Ireland, in New
Guinea, in Vancouver Island and elsewhere girls at puberty
were subject to the same two taboos — that they might
not touch the ground nor see the sun.* In both of these
cases there is the same superstitious dread that seems to
lie at the root of the similar provisions in Lev. xv.
" This uncieanness and the sanctity of holy men do not, to
the primitive mind, differ from each other. They are only
different manifestations of the same supernatural energy which,
like energy in general, is in itself neither good nor bad, but
becomes beneficent or maleficent according to its application." f
It is obvious that the belief which unifies the forces of
the sun, the ground, of decaying corpses, and of puberty
is no primitive belief, in the usual sense of primitive, but
* Cf. Prazer, " Golden Bough," ii. 225-238. t Ioid-> ii- 242-

158 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
presupposes a belief in one single all-pervading Spirit, which
belief is here called menotheism. Mr. Frazer seems to
forget the comparative lateness of explicit menotheistic
modes of thought when he writes : " There is good reason
for believing that sympathetic magic is one of the earliest
means by which man endeavours to adapt the agencies of
nature to his needs." *
The customs of other nations, and especially of the
Egyptians, would seem to warrant us in coming to the same
conclusion with regard to clean and unclean, or holy and
common animals among the Jews. The only beasts sacri
ficed by the Jews were of their flocks and herds — the goat,
the sheep, the cattle. From the purely rationalistic point
of view, it may be urged that the easiness of access to
these animals is the obvious explanation of the selection
of them. Putting aside the retort that in religious beliefs
and customs the furthest from the truth is generally the
rationalistic supposition, it may be remarked that the last
of the three was certainly sacred to the Jews, as is shown
by the worship of Bethel and Dan. In Deut. vii. 13
the phrase, the " Ashtaroth of thy sheep," seems to contain
a reference to the sacred character of that animal, as the
rites of the great Day of Atonement appear to do in the
case of the goat. When we know that all three animals
were sacred among the surrounding Gentiles, as was the
dove, which, with the pigeon, was the only sacrificial bird
that was allowed to the Jews, it seems difficult to resist
the conclusion that the sacrificial precepts of the Jewish
Law are a Divine adaptation of earlier ideas which regarded
the sacrificial animals as sacred because each, in its way,
gave indications of the possession of some signal amount
of the central force that fills all things.
The same chain of ideas seems to enclose the precepts
* Cf. Frazer, "Golden Bough," ii. 134.

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 159
as to unclean animals in Lev. xi. According to Deut
xii. 15, the Israelite might kill and eat flesh in all his
gates, whatsoever his soul lusted after; the unclean and
the clean might eat thereof, as of the roebuck and
as of the hart. In Lev. xvii. 3, however, it is enjoined
that if any man of the house of Israel killed an ox, or
lamb, or goat without bringing it to the door of the
tabernacle of the congregation he was to be cut off from
among his people. Rosenmiiller's comment on this anomion
is — " Abrogatur hoc loco * lex de carne non comedenda nisi
in epulis sacrificalibus ; " and then explaining ^K3} 'aya
sicut gazellam et cervum, he says : " i.e. ut cibum vulgarem.
Hla enim animalia munda quidem erant ad privates usus,
sed in sacrifices ea offerre non licebat." But is there any
conflict of laws? The one and the earlier legislation allows
the Jews to kill and eat any animal anywhere, provided
they did not eat the blood, which would be a sacramental
act. The other, and the later, enactment forbids any sacri
ficial animal to be killed apart from the tabernacle. As
one is a social and the other a religious enactment they
are not in pari materia, and hence there is no conflict, and
so no abrogation.t
But is there any conflict between Deut. xii. 15 and
Lev. xi. ? Are we to assume here that the former is
repealed by the later and more stringent enactment ? If
we are to take the word &?fcrj, ye shall eat, in its primary
meaning, we must admit that the Levitical line is drawn
tighter than the Deuteronomic. But the provisions in
verses 23-28, which make a person unclean who touches
the carcase of any prohibited animal, would seem to
connect Lev. xi. with Lev. xii. and xv., and to justify the
inference that it is the same motive which covers the
* Deut. xii. 15.
t So Driver on Deut. xii. 15 in the " International Critical Commentary,"
p. 145 (1895).

160 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
precepts of all three chapters. But we have already seen
that, in the case of these last two chapters, it is a super
stition based on a menotheistic belief which lies behind
their provisions. Accordingly, the same necessity gives
rise to Lev. xi. The menotheistic power might be bene
ficent or maleficent. In the case of the animals specified
in Lev. xi., it is regarded as the latter, and the pro
hibition of them as articles of food is not a sanitary but
a religious act. It may disclose a low view of religion,
but it will not surprise any one who regards the Jewish
religion as like other religions in progressing from low to
high, and as unlike them in its results, and in the way it
attained them.
If this reasoning be correct the class of animal that
might not be eaten points us to the character of holiness
or uncieanness as attaching to them. This supposition is
confirmed by what we know of contemporary, or homologous,
beliefs. Thus the camel, which was the first unclean
animal specified, was sacrificed by the Arabians.* The hare
was a corn-spirit among the Germans,t and is connected
with Venus and the moon elsewhere. The pig was sacred
to Osiris, and was sacrificed to that god once a year.
" The pig was one of the sacred animals of the Syrians. At
the great religious metropolis of Hierapolis pigs were neither
sacrificed nor eaten, and if a man touched a pig he was unclean
for the rest of the day. Some people said this was because the
pigs were unclean ; others said it was because the pigs were
sacred." %
The restriction of clean water animals to those having
fins or scales seems intended to exclude all that resembled
the sacred serpent. § The carnivorous birds, such as the
* Professor W. Eobertson Smith, " Eeligion of the Semites," p. 320 (1st
series, 1889).
f Frazer, "Golden Bough," ii. 10. J Ibid., ii. 50.
§ Cf. Ewald, " Antiquities of Israel," p. 14.

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 161
vulture, hawk, and different kinds of eagle, together with
birds like the ibis, all seem to show a connection with
Egyptian zoolatry. Among creeping things the mouse is
well known for its sacred character. The horse, which
would be included under unclean animals under the
provisions of Lev. xi. 3, was, as we know from 2 Kings
xxiii. 11, also a sacred animal. On the whole, then,
the prohibitions as to unclean animals point to the same
conclusion as those with regard to unclean things. They
both testify to the existence of menotheistic beliefs, which
are wisely made subservient by the legislator to his_
purpose, viz. to educate the Jews for the reception of a
pure monotheism.
These considerations seem sufficient to warrant us in
concluding that a further development of the Israelites'
conception of Yahveh is indicated. With the later prophets
He is the God who is morally holy ; under the Law He is
a separated God whom it is dangerous to approach. Ac
cordingly He is hedged round with numerous precautions,
lest He should be wrath, and His people injured. His Ark
must not be handled, nor must He be approached by those
who are unclean by contact with abnormal manifests of
the menotheistic spirit, nor must any but His own heavenly
fire be brought near to Him. We recognize, in a more
advanced form, the conception that met us in Egypt.
There Yahveh is the God, who manifests Himself as the
Giver of all good things, and especially to His chosen people
of the land of Canaan.
If, then, we may venture to put together the fragments
of what we know, we may construct the ladder of the
Jews' ascent towards the pure monotheism of the prophets
somewhat in this way : (1) Before Holy Writ describes
them they worshipped the sun, under one of his aspects as
The Violent, or the fiery mid-day sun of the desert. Side
M

162 ORIGINES JUDAIC JE.
by side with this worship they had another, which was
directed to the same object regarded as kindly and life-
giving. (2) When their history as a nation opens, both
of these worships seem to be in existence under a higher
form. The worship of the powerful sun has given place
to the worship of God under the name of El-Shaddai;
the worship of the kindly ruler of nature is denaturalized,
and, at the Exodus, is raised to a higher power as the
worship of Yahveh. (3) The response, however, to the
monotheistic revelation of Exod. vi. 3 was delayed by
the Jews for centuries. Meanwhile the Law entered as a
TraiSaywybg, which should by stern regulations lead the
pupil by slow stages towards the conception given implicitly
in Exod. vi. 3.
The mode by which the Jews passed from a conception
of God as immanent in nature presents little difficulty on
the menotheistic theory. Just as henotheism presupposes
a more or less indefinite belief in an underlying substratum
on which all the gods rested, so that any single one of
them could for the time being be easily conceived as
drawing from that common ground the force which was
at the disposal of them all alike ; or, again, which many
now think, as fetishism, or the worship of non-natural
objects, is of late and corrupt date, as being the concentra
tion in one special object of the power that menotheism
regards as universally diffused ; so, by a similar limitation,
the powers of God as the God of nature were conceived as
exercised only in favour of the Jews. The wants of other
nations were relegated to the care of other deities, whose
connection with the God of the Jews is shown plainly
enough by the facility with which that nation turned
from one to the other. In 1 Sam. xxvi. 19, David ex
presses this belief when he complains that his enemies
have severed him from Yahveh by bidding him go elsewhere

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 163
and serve other gods. When Ruth offers to accompany
Naomi she recognizes that those who change their
country change their god.* The Deuteronomist, even in
the full light of monotheistic knowledge, declares that
Yahveh had assigned the sun, moon, and stars, even all
the host of heaven unto all nations, t There is distinction,
not antagonism, in the earlier passages. Hence the pro
cess by which the conception of a national God was
obtained was not so much by selection from a crowd of
polytheistic competitors, as by compression of the one
immanent Spirit into a form which, while not denying its
immanence, yet treated it as specially favourable to the
Jews. Here, again, the purer monotheism of later days
was secured out of the early menotheism by a temporary
degradation of the latter. If " the mass of the Israelites in
their local worship of Jehovah identified Him with the
Baalim of the Canaanite high-places, and carried over into
His worship the ritual of the Canaanite shrines, not
deeming that in doing so they were not less truly Jehovah-
worshippers than before," this is only because they were
at the time content with their menotheistic religion and
worship. The history of the Jewish religion, then, is the record
of the slow harmonization of the two ideas of God as stern,
and of God as the life-giver, and their final emergence into
the idea of God as at once tender and holy. " Our God is
a consuming fire," expresses one side, and "Thy loving
kindness is better than the life itself " is the other.
It is this double side to the religion of the Jews (as
distinct from that put before them by God), which explains
the inconsistence in their worship and beliefs. Sometimes
they display the sterner side ; as when, in the cases of the
sacrifice of his daughter by Jephthah, and of the proposed
* Euth i. 14. f Deut. iv. 19, and Driver's comment in loco.

164 ORIGINES JUDAIC A
sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, we see that human sacrifices
were not unfamiliar practices. When Manasseh " made
his son to pass through the fire,"* when Micah asks
whether Yahveh requires that a man should give the fruit
of his body for the sin of his soul,t we find the explanation
in the current conception of Yahveh as a stern God who
demanded to be appeased by the sacrifices of rwv (piXrariiiv
Tiva — that is, one of kindred life to the sacrificer. The two
declarations of Ezekiel, " Thou hast taken thy sons and thy
daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast
thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy
whoredoms a small matter, that thou hast slain my chil
dren, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the
fire for them ? " % and, " When they had slain their children
to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanc
tuary to profane it," § joined with the similar words of
Jeremiah, "They have built the high places of Tophet,
which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their
sons and their daughters in the fire," || and, " They have
built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with
fire (for burnt offerings unto Baal)," % and his similar
declaration in chap, xxxii. 35, that they had done the
same unto Moloch, joined with the indignant words of
Yahveh that He had not commanded it, neither had it come
into His mind, show clearly (1) that the practice of human
sacrifices among the Jews, even down to Exilic times,
was no exceptional event called forth by circumstances of
special emergency ; (2) that these sacrifices were not offered
to heathen gods known as Baal or Moloch, but to Yahveh,
under the designation of their King or Lord, and justify
(3) the observation of Professor W. Robertson Smith,** that
" wherever we find the doctrine of substitution of animal
* 2 Kings xxi. 6. t Micah vi. 7. J Ezek. xvi. 20.
§ Ezek. xxiii. 39. || Jer. vii. 31. f Jer. xix. 5.
** " Eeligion of the Semites," p. 347.

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 165
life for that of man we find also examples of actual human
sacrifice, sometimes confined to seasons of extreme peril, and
sometimes practised periodically at solemn annual rites."
That the stern aspect of Yahveh is emphasized in the
later human sacrifices of the Jews seems incontestable. In
the times of Micah the sacrifice of the firstborn was regarded
as expiatory ; it was the means by which the wrath of
Yahveh at sin was appeased, a means that the more
spiritual insight of Micah declared as wholly unsatisfactory.
But there is no reason for assuming that the same feelings
were operative in similar earlier sacrifices. The sacrifice
most pleasing to the Deity is not necessarily the same
thing with that which is a man's nearest and dearest. In
fact, the identification of these two distinct ideas presumes
an advanced state of spiritual perception, where external
sacrifice is separated from its original characteristics and is
converted into self-abnegation. Self-sacrifice as the atone
ment for selfish misdoing is a conception that is lacking in
primitive times. Accordingly, a different explanation must
be sought for early human sacrifices. And since the sacri
fice of animals is the substitute for earlier sacrifices of
human beings, the ideas that underlie the one will be iden
tical with those that underlie the other.
There are features of the Jewish sacrifices which it
shares with the analogous sacrifices among the heathen,
which show with sufficient clearness their object. Fore
most among these is the prominent part that is assigned to
the blood of the slain victim. The importance of this is
wholly unexplainable by Ewald's reasons for the preference
given in the Jewish law to animal sacrifices over corn-
offerings. The warlike character of the Jews, and their
" warm, young, healthy life " cannot account for their " love
of the dread blood sacrifice," and for the predominance given
to it. It was not " a life for a life " that they said when

166 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
they killed their animal in sacrifice, or when they fed
together on his flesh, or when they poured out his blood.
That idea was of later growth, and was not indigenous to
the days of Barak or David. That the life of an animal
is in its blood, that its most signal manifestations are con
nected with certain parts as nerve-centres as it were, is an
idea that gives the clue to the root-meaning of animal
sacrifices. It was the same idea which made men drink the warm
blood of their enemies, and sometimes of the newly slain
victim ; which ratified a treaty over a bowl of blood taken
from the veins of the two contracting parties ; which gave
validity to the adoption of a stranger into a clan ; and
which, in Judg. xix. 29, caused the Levite to send the
divided remains of his concubine to the twelve tribes of
Israel, and Saul, in 1 Sam. xi. 7, to do the same with a
yoke of oxen. The prohibitions of the Levitical law
against the drinking of blood show it to have been the
earlier custom, based on the same idea. When for it we
find substituted a pouring out of blood before Yahveh,
or a sprinkling of it on objects consecrated to Him on the
one side, and on the other a consumption in common
of the sacrificial flesh, we have practices that all start from
the same idea. He who partook of the blood of an animal
drank its life; he became as it were sacramentally one
with it. If God also received some of the same sacrificial
blood, then there was a communion established also with
Him. God, the victim and the worshipper were partakers
of the same life. Speaking of the annual burning of Baal at
Tarsus, Professor W. Robertson Smith says, quite accurately,
that it —
" must have had its origin in an earlier rite, in which the
victim was not a mere effigy, but a theanthropic sacrifice, i.e.
an actual man or sacrificial animal, whose life, according to the

ON SOLAR WORSHIP. 167
antique conception now familiar to us, was an embodiment of
the divine-human life." *
But when, in discussing the ancient hair-offerings, both of
Semites and Aryans, he says —
" they have indeed an atoning force whenever they are used
to renew relations with a god who is temporarily estranged,
but this is merely a consequence of the conception that the
physical link which they establish between the divine and human
parties in the rite binds the god to the man as well as the man
to the god," t
he fails to draw the conclusion which all his facts suggest,
viz. that all the facts of animal sacrifices spring from a
menotheistic creed. The link that bound man to God was
in no case physical but psychical. Man had attained a belief
that the life which coursed in his veins was similar to that
which appeared in animals, and also that both were but
special manifestations of the one Divine life. Hence
certain animals, which offered special tokens of possessing
this life in a pre-eminent degree, became invested with
sanctity in his eyes. If, on the one hand, he drank their
blood, he reinforced his own failing powers ; if, at the same
time, he also offered some to the Deity, either by pouring
it out before Him, or by sprinkling it on His image, or
at His altar, then he also was brought by the medium
of the sacred animal into communion with his God.
Accordingly, the offering of the blood was always the
salient feature of the sacrifice, and the sacramental feast
which sometimes succeeded it was of secondary importance,
though moving in the same line of thought.
From these remarks it will appear that we are not
at liberty to say that the earlier Jewish conception of
Yahveh was that of a stern and jealous God, or that the
human sacrifices offered to Him at all times evinced a
* " Eeligion of the Semites," p. 354. t Mi, p. 318.

168 ORIGINES JUDAIC^®.
superstitious dread of Him. No doubt this conception
did obtain in a later age, and indeed it is difficult to see
how the crowning conception of Him as a God of utter
holiness could have been otherwise attained. But if the
sacrifices of earlier times were not so much expiatory,
or piacular, as sacramental, in accordance with menotheistic
belief, then they do not differ in character from the meriy
sacred feasts of joy and thanksgiving which gave expres
sion to the worshippers' appreciation of nature's procreative
beneficence. The statement, then, that Jewish history from the time
of the Exodus is characterized by two divergent views of
Yahveh, one stern and one benignant, is in accordance
with the facts of their history. It needs only to be
supplemented with the further remark, that the prior and
cruder worship of the Godhead, which we thought we
detected in the origin of the name El-Shaddai, contained
within it the germs of the ethical majesty of Yahveh
which attained their full growth only after a period of
storm and stress, during which the benignant character
of Yahveh seemed to be eclipsed. When that time of
trouble was over, Jewish religion emerged, but no longer
menotheistic. What was true in that creed had been
concentrated in the distant dwelling-place of the all-holy
God; what was true in the severer aspect had assumed
the supremacy through suffering over all that menotheism
contained. Accordingly, the days of Jewish history
preceding Christianity show us a God who is not so
much in Nature, as Ruler over nature ; and who is
separated from man, not by material hedges, but by His
moral perfections.

( 169 )

CHAPTER VII.
ON SERPENT AND TEEE WORSHIP.
The worship of the serpent (with which must be con
sidered the worship of trees) is so peculiar as to deserve
a little longer notice. It seems to have prevailed among
all nations of Turanian birth, starting from the early
settlement of the race on the banks of the Euphrates and
Tigris, and travelling as the race travelled to all parts of
the known world. It certainly is found among people
of non-Turanian origin, such as the Jews, the Greeks, and
the Scandinavians, but in these cases it was not, Fergusson
thinks, indigenous, and its existence betrays the presence
of Turanian influence.
In Egypt serpent-worship existed, and the serpent as
a symbol is of frequent occurrence. It would be incorrect,
however, to say that the serpent held a prominent place
in the Pantheon of Egypt, any more than the sacred
tree did.
Epiphanius describes the ceremonies of the serpent-
cult of his day in the following terms : —
"They keep a living serpent in a chest, and at the time
of the mysteries entice him out by placing bread before him.
The door being opened he issues forth, and having ascended
the table folds himself above the bread. This they call a perfect
sacrifice. They not only break and distribute this among the
votaries, but whosoever wishes it may kiss the serpent. This
the wretched people call the Eucharist. They conclude the

170 ORIGINES JUDAIC JE.
ceremonies by singing a hymn, through him, to the Supreme
Father."* Wilkinson gives an illustration of a cippus representing
Horus on the Crocodiles with the head of Bes, and on
one of the upper compartments is figured the snake-god
TJser.f In Aphophis, slain by Horus, we find the serpent
the enemy of mankind, the prototype of the Grecian
Python slain by Apollo.}
Herodotus tells us that§ in the neighbourhood of
Thebes there are some sacred serpents which are perfectly
harmless. They are of small size, and have two horns
growing out of the top of the head. These snakes, when
they die, are buried in the temple of Jupiter, the god to
whom they are sacred. At Athens —
"the Athenians say that they have in their Acropolis a
huge serpent, which lives in the temple and is the guardian
of the whole place. Nor do they only say this, but, as if the
serpent really dwelt there, every month they lay out its food,
which consists of a honey cake." ||
The temple here referred to was that of Minerva Polias,
and the whole passage reminds us of the similar custom
of the Babylonians, as recorded in the Apocryphal Bel
and the Dragon. The dragon-ensign of the Assyrians
was also borne by the Parthians, Scythians, Danes, and
Saxons, and was adopted by the Byzantine Emperors.
Eusebius has preserved a passage from Sanchoniathon
* Epiphanius, Hseres, lib. i. xxxvii p. 267, et seq.
t " Ancient Egypt," i. 153, pi. xxxiii.
X "According to popular Arabic faith it (the serpent) is no ordinary
¦creature, but a Ginn ; among the Eomans, too, anguis was an image of the
genius, and in vidav serpent and demon are united, just as in Hebrew,
also, Mm is a homonym for serpent and witchcraft" (Delitzsch on Gen. iii. 1,
p. 150). § ii. 74. |] Ibid., viii. 41.

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 171
which brings out clearly the feeling of the ancients towards
the serpent : —
" Taautus attributed a certain divine nature to dragons and
serpents, an opinion which was afterwards adopted both by
the Phoenicians and Egyptians. He teaches that this genus
of animals abounds in force and spirit more than any other
reptiles, that there is something fiery in their nature; and,
though possessing neither feet nor any external members for
motion common to other animals, they are yet more rapid in
their motion than any others. Not only has it the power of
renewing its youth, but in doing so receives an increase of
size and strength, so that after having run through a certain
term of years it is again absorbed within itself. For these
reasons this class of animals was admitted into temples and
used in sacred mysteries. By the Phoenicians they were called
the good daemon, which was the term also applied by the
Egyptians to Kneph, who added to him the head of a hawk
to symbolize the divinity of that bird." *
From this passage we may gather one class of ideas
which led the ancients to connect the serpent with sun-
worship. Its activity and habit of casting its skin and
so renewing its youth, together with its deadly bite, were
easily seen to have their counterpart in the heavens above.
The serpent, accordingly, being regarded as the emblem of
the sun, like him it took two different characters. The
sun was iEsculapius the healer, but he was also Phoebus
Apollo whose arrows are destructive. Similarly the serpent
was the symbol of the good spirit, the Agatho-dsemon, the
type of wisdom, life, and power ; a characteristic attendant
on Demeter, Hermes, and Bacchus. He also represented
the powers of darkness, so intimately connected with the
history of the sun, the sea-dragons who slew Laocoon and
his sons Typhon and Ahriman, and the forces of evil in
general. But as in the case of his anti-type, the sun, so
* Praep. Evang., i. 9.

172 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
was the conception of the serpent as the symbol of good,
the dominant one, and this conception survived through
the early centuries of Christianity till the Ophites and
the Gnostics in general were overcome by the stronger
power of Christianity.
The explanation of the double character of the serpent
receives some corroboration from the transformation which
took place in the history of the Egyptian Set. Originally
he was a sun-god, and the companion of Horus, and the
special object of worship of the intruding Shepherd Kings.
He was also adopted as the presiding deity of the Nubians
when they took over the Egyptian religious system. But
in much earlier times he was ranked with the Osirian
gods, placed between Isis and Horus, and married to
Nephthys. But withal he was the sun in his destructive
aspect rather than in his beneficent; his character was
cruel, not kindly. This was probably why the warlike
Hyksos, and the less cultivated Nubians selected him as
their special and most appropriate divinity out of the
many offered to their choice by the Egyptian Pantheon.
In later times, the cultivated priesthood, particularly of
On, set themselves against Set, and he underwent a severe
persecution, during which his name was erased from the
monuments, and out of which he emerged as the adversary,
instead of the companion, of Horus, as the lord of all that
is evil in nature, the monster who in eclipses swallows
the one eye of Horus, the slayer of Osiris, the Typhon
of the Greeks, the being whose fittest emblems are the
hippopotamus, the crocodile, and the pig.
After the Persian invasion Set becomes the exact
counterpart of Ahriman, the centre of evil in the uni
verse, the originator of all ill in the world of morals.
His fall is due, it is evident, to two causes — one, his own
original nature of cruelty, which became odious to a higher

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 173
civilization ; and the other, historic accidents, such as his
adoption by alien races and the influence of foreign thought.
Set having monopolized evil, and the serpent not being
selected as his emblem, there was no obstacle to the
attribution to the serpent in Egypt of those good qualities
with which he is universally credited.
Perhaps it may not be amiss to interpose the caution
that the serpent may have attained his prominence in
different ways among different peoples.
" There is an Aryan, there is a Semitic, there is a Turanian,
there is an African serpent, and who but an evolutionist would
dare to say that all these conceptions come from one and the
same original source, that they are all held together by one
traditional chain ? " *
But this is only half the truth. There is too much
resemblance between forms of the serpent-cult, geo
graphically separated, to allow us to rest content with
irreconcilable differences. They show a tendency to cluster
round the same idea, or the same small circle of ideas, and,
at the period, at any rate, that we are considering here,
they lend themselves easily to the supposition that they
are various forms of a common menotheistic creed.
It is very doubtful, however, whether the connection
pointed to by Sanchoniathon as existing between the
serpent and the sun is not a later development. It was
the birth and growth of things that first powerfully
attracted man's attention, because of their close relation
ship to his own daily wants. He would very soon, too,
learn to establish a difference between himself, the animal
world, and the vegetable world. Hence arose gradually a
threefold worship — that of trees, as the noblest specimen
of the last ; of the serpent, as the most mysterious inhabi
tant of the second ; and of the phallos, as the creative
* Max Miiller, The Academy, 1874, p. 548.

174 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
organ of his own existence. Side by side with these
incipient cults, grew up, by an equal necessity, the worship
of the glorious orb, the dispenser of light and life.
The next step in the evolution of religious thought was
reached when sun-worship was regarded as the genus of
which tree-, serpent-, and phallic- worship were subordinate
species. A further stage was marked when these three
latter were graded among themselves, and phallic worship
was, in its turn, raised to the dignity of a genus, with tree-
worship and serpent- worship as its two subdivisions.
We have now an ascending scale. The spirit from
whom the generative force proceeds is worshipped as
supreme, its heavenly manifestation is through the sun,
its chief earthly is in man by means of the phallos, and in
the animal and vegetable worlds it is symbolized and
summarized in the tree and the serpent. This accounts
for the two latter being sometimes emblems of the phallos,
and sometimes of the sun, according as the proximum
genus, or the summum genus, was under consideration.
When we turn to Babylonia the same connection holds
good. Tree- and serpent-worship are prevalent, as might
have been expected in a country where the worship of
the sun was the predominant religious rite. Mr. Fer-
gusson conjectures, from the prevalence of serpent-worship
among the Turanians, and of tree-worship among the
Semites, that the former is to be looked for among the
Chaldeans, and the latter among the Assyrians. At all
events, Sir Henry Rawlinson's identification of Hea as a
serpent-god seems well founded. Hea, or Hoa, the third
god of the Babylonian triad, answers to Neptune, though
not in his character of god of the sea. He was the pre
siding deity of " the great deep," or " the abyss," and is
called "the King, the Chief, the Lord, the Ruler of the
Abyss, the King of Rivers," but never the " King of the

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 175
Sea." He is regarded, as the serpent universally was, as
the source of knowledge. He is the " intelligent fish," the
"teacher of mankind," the "lord of understanding." He
answers to Oannes, the"Q»j of Helladius, the mystic animal,
half fish, half man, who came from the Persian Gulf, and
taught astronomy and letters to the dwellers on the banks
of the Tigris and Euphrates. The word Hea, too, is
probably connected etymologically with the Arabic Hiya,
which denotes both life and a serpent, for Hea is at once
lord of life and lord of knowledge. " There are very strong
grounds indeed for connecting him with the serpent of
Scripture, and with the Paradisiacal traditions of the tree
of knowledge and the tree of life." *
Diodorus Siculus f tells us that in the temple of Bel,
at Babylon, was —
" an image of the goddess Rhea sitting on a golden throne ;
at her knees stood two lions, and near her very large serpents
of silver, thirty talents each in weight. In the same temple
was also an image of Juno, holding in her right hand the head
of a serpent."
In this case the serpent appears in the lower rank of a
religious symbol.
In Persia " they all worshipped the first principles under
the form of serpents, having dedicated to them temples in
which they performed sacrifices, and held festivals and orgies,
esteeming them the greatest of gods and governors of the
universe." $
Faber, writing of the Persians, says : —
" The first principles were Ormuzd and Ahriman, the good
and evil deity, whose contention for the universe was repre
sented, in Persian mythology, by two serpents contending for
* Herodotus (Eawlinson's edit., 1875), vol. iii. pp. 621, 622.
t Lib. ii. § 70.
t Eusebius, Prsep. Evang., i. 42.

176 ORIGINES JUDAIC JE.
the mundane egg. They are standing upon their tails, and each
of them has fastened upon the object in dispute with his teeth.
The egg for which they contend represented the universe in
the mythologies of India, Egypt, and Persia. An engraving of
this may be seen in Montfaucon. But the evil principle was
more particularly represented by the serpent, as we may infer
from a fable in the Zenda Avesta, in which that deity is de
scribed as having assumed a serpent's form to destroy the first
of the human species, whom he accordingly poisoned." *
Mr. Fergusson thinks that this worship in Persia, was
previously peculiar to the race of Zohak, whom all Moham
medan historians represent as having two snakes growing
at his back, and that the conquest of Ahriman by Ormuzd
is but an historical fact in a mythical form, the fact being
the conquest of a Turanian race by an Iranian, of Zoh&k
by Zoroaster.f What makes this improbable as an ex
planation of Persian worship, is that the serpent is the
representative of both the good and the evil principle, and
that in the earliest cosmogony of other countries, as well
as of Persia, the serpent represents the active generating
power of nature, as the egg does the matter on which this
power is exercised.
In the hierogram, consisting of the circle, wings, and
serpent, which is found in Babylonia, Egypt, Persia, Greece,
Italy, China, and even in Britain, we have a common
example of the prevalence of ophiolatreia. According to
Mr. Stukeley, the Druidical ruins at Avebury, in Wiltshire,
formed a temple built in the form of the central globe, from
which, on either side, ran the wavy line of the serpent, a
mile long in either direction.^
* Hor. Mos., i. 72.
t " Tree and Serpent Worship," p. 45, edit. 1873.
t Mr. Fergusson's reasons for deriding this belief are neither conclusive,
nor consistent with his own admissions. He refers the monuments of Stone-
henge and of Avebury to the Arthurian age, but does not tell us at what
period we are to look for that age. He thinks that because the Druids were

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 177
Serpent-worship among the Druids is also portrayed
in " The Elegy of Uther Pendragon," a Bardic poem given
in Owen's " Dictionary " (art. " Draig ") : —
" With solemn festivity round the two lakes,
With the lake next by my side ;
With my side moving round the sanctuary ;
While the sanctuary is earnestly invoking
The gliding king, before whom the fair one
Retreats, upon the veil that covers the huge stones ;
Whilst the dragon moves round over
The places which contain vessels
Of drink-offering ;
Whilst the drink-offering is in the golden horns ;
Whilst the golden horns are in the hand ;
Whilst the knife is upon the chief victim ;
Sincerely I implore thee." *
What the golden horns here mentioned were like we
can conjecture from the celebrated horn found near
Tundera, in Denmark, in the year 1639. It is embossed
with seven parallel circles, and in five of the compartments
thus made a serpent is figured.
The serpent was sacred to iEsculapius, and at Epidaurus
given to tree-worship, it is unlikely that they should be addicted to the
worship of serpents, in spite of the numerous examples connecting the two.
He sees numerous sculptures in Pictland testifying to the presence there of
serpent-worship, and regards them as testifying to " the extreme western
limit of this Oriental superstition." He is in error, also, in concluding from
the presence of the cross on them, that these sculptures must be not anterior
to the introduction of Christianity into that region by Columba. The use of
the cross as a religious symbol is almost coeval with our oldest records of the
world's religions. Even if he be right in his supposition that the Picts bor
rowed this worship directly from Scandinavia, it is most unlikely that the
southern parts of the island should have remained exempt from it. Moreover,
he admits that it may have been learned in prehistoric times. If so, it is,
again, unlikely that it should have been stamped out.
* It is true that the Bardic poems first appear in their present dress not
before the twelfth century, but they probably embody much older traditions,
and Mr. Fergusson allows that serpent-worship probably lingered on among
the Welsh hills long after it had ceased on the English plains. N

178 ORIGINES JUDAICJS.
was a famous temple where he was worshipped under the
form of a serpent. The caduceus of Hermes was formed
of two serpents homologously intertwined round a staff,
and the serpent was sacred to Demeter, Proserpine, and
Dionusos. The island of Crete and the sacred isle of
Samothrace were both centres of serpent-worship. The
Bacchic basket, with the serpent creeping in and out, is
of frequent occurrence on Cretan coins. The priestess of
Apollo, at Delphi, delivered her oracles from a tripod of
which the base was a three-headed brazen serpent, whose
body twisting round the pillar, and running towards the
ground, formed a conical column. This serpentine column
was removed to Constantinople by Constantine the Great,
and set up in the Hippodrome.* In the Bibliotheque du
Vatican is a statue of white marble representing a winged
human figure, marked with the signs of the zodiac, standing
on a globe, and encircled by a serpent. A figure similarly
encircled is in the Villa AlbanLt In the Musee du Vatican
are also two marble representations of Mithras sacrificing
the Heavenly Bull, and at the base of each is a serpent
gazing intently at the sacrificing knife. J
The worship of the serpent in India is too well known
to need more than a passing reference. He is a customary
adornment of Siva, for whom however his chief function
seems to be to strike terror into the spectator. The
serpent, too, is a constant companion of the Lingam.
Before closing this part of our subject, it may be worth
while to mention the possibility of the double character of
the serpent, as good and evil, being partly due to historical
events — such as the conquest of a serpent- worshipping race
* Gibbon, iii. 21.
t Lajard, " Eecherches sur le Culte de Mithra," pi. Ixxii.
t For an interesting illustration of the place of serpent-worship in
antiquity, the reader should turn to Plate L No. 1, affixed to Lajard's
" Eecherches sur le Culte de Venus," together with his dissertation on it.

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 179
by a nation of another cult. If the sacred urseus sym
bolized the beneficent Giver of life, Aphophis, at all events
after the expulsion from Egypt of the Shepherd Kings,
became the symbol of the evil counterpart of the good and
visible creator of the early cosmogonies. In the Semitic
dialect, used by the Chaldeans of Assyria, this evil principle
has been said to have been named Sitna, a name which may
have etymological affinity with the Hebrew Satan.
It is worth observation, also, that among the Egyptians
the serpent of good is represented as upright, and the
serpent of evil as crawling. It would be interesting to
inquire whether the obliteration of all traces of the worship
of Set, which took place on the expulsion of the Hyksos
kings, has any connection, and if so what, with the curse
pronounced on the serpent that he should change from the
erect to the crawling mode of motion.*
We have seen that Mr. Fergusson suggests that the
myth of Ormuzd and Ahriman may enshrine a conquest
of Accadians by Semites. It is certainly significant that
in Greece we may trace very clearly a change of opinion
with regard to the Serpent. The earlier legends treat the
Serpent as an evil being overcome by its heroes, such as
Herakles. After the return of the Heraclidae the Serpent
presides over the oracle, and is sacred to iEsculapius, the
healing god. Whatever truth may be contained in this
•explanation, it does not alter the fact that throughout the
heathen world the worship of the serpent as a symbol and
•embodiment of the beneficent principle of nature was
universal, and perfectly familiar to the Jews.
It is not difficult to understand something of the
process of thought which led the serpent to be worshipped
as the embodiment of the ideas contained both in solar
* Cf. " The Serpent Myths of Ancient Egypt," published in Transactions
¦of Victorian Institute, vol. vi. (1872).

180 ORIGINES JUDAIC JE.
and phallic rites. When, however, we try to understand
how he became connected with the winds, with wisdom,
and healing, we have to go back to an earlier stratum
of thought. The origin of the serpent as a religious
emblem has to be sought in mythology.
The early imagination of the races of India and Arabia
was struck by the resemblances of the clouds, the lightning,
and the rain to the serpent, or dragon. As the black
cloud slowly drew its long train from beneath the horizon,
or as the lightning darted its dazzling light in much the
same way that the serpent darts its tongue rapidly back
wards and forwards, or as the rain in wavy lines fell on
the earth, primitive man told of the fight of Indra and
Ahi, or Vrita, which ends in Ahi, the concealer, being
compelled to surrender his treasures of "the all-gleaming
water for the use of men."
Here we have the mythological stage where the Serpent
is regarded as the evil being maliciously keeping back
the rain from man. His connection with water is thus
established. We have the same connection in Grecian
mythology. Apollo fights with the Python and Herakles
with the Hydra of Lernsea, just as, in Scandinavia, Thorr
fights with Jormungandr. In the story of Apollo and the
Python, it is the nymph Telphusa who hopes to get rid
of Apollo by sending him against the Python, who dwells
in a cleft of Parnassus. Apollo dries up the mountain-
torrent — that is, mythologically, he slays the serpent and
defies Telphusa's fountain. Here the connection between
the serpent and the river is obvious.
The Norse Jormungandr seems to have a different,
though rigidly cognate origin. To the ancients the world
was surrounded by a sea or river, Oceanos, which was
figured by a serpent formed in a circle with its tail in
its mouth. This was the Midgard River, which later times

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 181
changed into the River of Death, just as later times trans
formed Persephone into the goddess of the underground
realm which imprisoned the dead. As the sun was seen
by one looking over the Western Sea to sink beneath the
waters, it was natural that he should be described as being
swallowed by the mid-earth serpent. Now, just as the
Serpent's mythical power over the winds seems to have
arisen from his connection with his power to keep back
the rain, and as when the rain does come from the clouds
wind-driven it was natural to say that the Serpent had
let loose the winds which brought the rain — i.e. that he
was gifted with power over the winds, — so when the sun
disappeared in the darkness beyond the ocean, a connec
tion was established between him and the Serpent.
Again, whatever may have been the reasons which
induced our ancestors to attribute wisdom to wells and
rivers, the fact that they did so is incontestable. Apollo's
priestess stood by the fountain of Parnassus. Odin, the
wisest of all the gods, gained his prophetic powers by
drinking of the Well of Wisdom which the giant Mimir
guarded — but for this he had to give one of "his eyes as
the price ; and wells were supposed to have the power
of giving efficacy to wishes uttered at them. From this
it was not far to attribute the wisdom lodged in the rivers
to the serpent, who was"supposed to lie mysteriously con
cealed at their bottom. And so the serpent became " more
subtle than any beast of the field."
The attribution to him of healing powers must be
of later date than the legend which makes iEsculapius
the son of Apollo, and later also than the date when the
serpent had become a solar emblem. For, unless, with
Mr. Fergusson, we see a triumph of a serpent-worshipping
race over one that despised the serpent, it is impossible
otherwise to account for the transference of the Serpent

182 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
from the ranks of Apollo's enemies to those of his sup
porters. But if the serpent had first become recognized
for other reasons as a sun-emblem, — if iEsculapius was
Apollo's son, and if he was the healing god, — then the
connection of ideas which makes the Serpent a healer
is obvious. Tree Worship.
If ancestor-worship among the Aryans was inextricably
mixed up with fire-worship the same is true of tree-
worship. " Trees," says Pliny, " were the first temples. Even at
this day the simple rustic, of ancient custom, dedicates his
noblest tree to God. And the statues of gold and silver were
not more honoured than the sacred silence which reigns about
the grove." *
Of all trees the oak ranked first, indeed it may be said
to have been the chief object of worship among the Celts
and Slavs.t In Greece and Italy the same worship was
prevalent. $ Romulus had a sacred fig-tree in the Forum
and a sacred cornel-tree was found on the Palatine. Zeus
had a sacred oak at Dodona, and Balder's life was con
nected with the mistletoe growing on the oak. The oak-
worship of the Druids is well known to every one.§ In
Sweden, Upsala, the old religious capital, had its sacred
grove. The prevalence of this worship points to a time
when the oak was more common than now. It does not
seem likely that the oak was to be found in the original
home of the Aryan race, but still tree-worship, as in the
case of the sacred bo-tree of India, the Ficus sycamorus of
Egypt, and the tree that so often occurs in Babylonian art,
* H. N., xii. 2. t Cf. Frazer, " Golden Bough," ii. 291.
t Botticher, " Der Baum Kultus der Hellenen."
§ Pliny, Nat. Hist., xvi. § 249.

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 183
is well established in the East. In Buddhist literature we
have, too, the sacred palm — the tree of life of the Hindu
paradise; in almost every part of Africa the banyan is
venerated; * in Scandinavia we have the Yggdrasill. When,
too, in India " the bo-tree is united in marriage with the
palm," we find a parallel to the two trees of the Hebrew
paradise. In Egypt we not unfrequently find the goddess Nut
represented as standing in the sycamore fig-tree, pouring
a liquid from a vase, and also presenting the dead with a
basketful of fruit from the sacred tree. " It is to Nut that
the sycamore is dedicated ; and the number of instances I
have met with of Nut in this tree leave no doubt of the fig
which gave the name of Hierosycaminon to a town of Nubia,
being sacred to the mother of Osiris." t Plutarch says that
Osiris was supposed to be buried at Memphis, and that at
certain times the priests cross over to the little island of
Philse, offer the sacrifices for the dead, and crown the
monument, which is overshadowed by the plant /uriOiBri,
which exceeds the size of any olive-tree.| We cannot
doubt that this tree was regarded as a sacred tree, but
whether connected with the worship of the dead, or with
that of the sun, does not clearly appear.
How are we to account for the origin of so widespread
and, in some places, so predominant a cult ? If we are to
follow the lines laid down by writers like the late Professor
Robertson Smith and Mr. Keary as to the origin of tree-
worship, we shall agree that, like the worship of the river
and the mountain, the worship of the tree was originally
part of that " fetish worship " through which all progressive
nations have passed. Doubtless in very early times, times
* See Dr. Livingstone, " The Zambesi and its Tribes," p. 188.
t Wilkinson, " Ancient Egypt," iii. 64 ; of. pi. xxiv.
t " De Iside et Osiride," § 20.

184 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
to which the only guides we have are language and popular
traditions, man did not carefully distinguish between the
nature of his own life and that of the moving, growing tree
whose branches afforded a welcome shade from the mid-day
sun. There may not be sufficient grounds for questioning
Professor Robertson Smith's conclusion that totemism was
not unknown among early tribes — that is, that they attri
buted their origin to some animal, or tree, or river. But
this belief could have been neither primitive nor late. It
could only have arisen when the glow of early feeling had
begun to give way to speculative thought, nor could it,
have survived at a time when man had made some progress
in self-analysis or in the study of his surroundings.
The force, however, exerted by totemism on religious
thought has probably been much exaggerated, and it is,
moreover, likely that many instances quoted in support
of this theory will be found on further inquiry to lend
themselves equally well to an explanation which refers
the origin of the name of a tribe, not to descent from its
supposed totem, but to worship of it. For example, in the
case of the serpent totemism is quite unable to account for
all the circumstances incidental to its worship. A single
tribe might call themselves Nagas, and believe that a
serpent was their earliest ancestor, but this theory will
not account for the almost universal honour in which the
serpent was held.
Professor Robertson Smith bases his argument for
Jewish totemism on (1) the fact that elsewhere totemism
is bound up with the system of exogamy and polyandry,
and consequent reckoning of relationship through the
mother ; (2) the further fact that Deut. xxiii. 1, and Ezek.
xxii. 11, between them show by their prohibition of three
forms of incest that these three were once recognized
customs, i.e. that relationship by female kinship was

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 185
admitted. He then refers to various names, such as Caleb,
Nahash, Eglon, Ephah, Oreb, Zeeb, etc., to prove that
families were in the habit of calling themselves after the
names of animals. Hence he infers they worshipped them,
and also that they attributed their origin to them. The
whole argument rests on a series of probabilities which,
when multiplied together, make the probability of the
conclusion very much less than that of the various pre
mises. Indeed, Professor Smith admits that —
" we have very little direct information connecting these facts
with animal-worship, and it is also true that the greater part
of the information which we do possess about Arabic poly
theism points rather to the worship of stones, trees, and
heavenly bodies."
It may be admitted, rather, that it is a fair inference
from the frequency of the description of a tribe or sub-tribe
by the name of an animal that that animal was held sacred
by them. But there is no necessity which compels us to
admit that they went further, and attributed their physio
logical origin to the animal. In fact, such phrases as sons
and daughters of Khemosh in Num. xxi. 29, and the
description by Malachi of a heathen woman as the
daughter of a strange god (Mai. ii. 11), and such names
as Shamsi, "solar," make for the direct opposite. The
word "father," with all its conjugates, originally denoted
potestas rather than generation, and accordingly "son"
would denote "servant," or "subject." Professor Smith
has not allowed sufficient place for the play of early
imagination. Early man was not literal or prosaic; he
did not think in syllogistic modes, but felt as a poet.*
Men, even in early times, knew perfectly well how men
come into this world, and they were not so foolish as to
* Cf. Journal of Philology, vol. ix. (1880), pp. 75-100.

186 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
literally suppose, contrary to all their experience, that they
were the offspring of a serpent or an oak. But they
revered such objects as seats of a divine spirit, and then
they very naturally prided themselves on bearing the
names of the god whom they worshipped. If men really
believed themselves to be Herakleidse, i.e. descendants of
Herakles, it was only because they had ceased to regard
Herakles as the sun, but had instead euhemerized his life.
The stories which have led to belief in totemism have
arisen in later times, when men have forgotten the origin
of the name they bear, and have jumped at any plausible
explanation. But it is not improbable, on the contrary
it is a fact familiar to everybody, that trees, together with
other natural objects, have in early days received divine
honours. We may see something of the primitive feeling which
led to this. The early house appears to have been built
round a tree as a central pillar, just as our circular chapter
houses show a fan-roof branching out from the central
shaft. Odusseus proves his identity to his wife by de
scribing the chamber he had built round a thick-leaved
olive-tree in the court.* The Teuton built his early home,
in the same way round a tree. The house of Vblsung in
the story was supported by a tree, Branstock ; and so the
world was conceived as a magnified edition of the home,
and had its central supporting tree, Yggdrasill — Odin's
Ash. In savage Scandinavia and Germany the Teuton's
little world was shut in by trees ; in Arabia, on the
contrary, the tree when found was the centre of a little
oasis, the companion of underground water, a benefactor by
the pleasant shade it afforded from the rays of a hot desert
sun. In more temperate climes the tree was less imposing,
and therefore less worshipped. But yet in countries like
* Od., xxiii. 187 et seq.

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 187
Greece, Italy, and Egypt, tree-worship held no inconsider
able place, though it could not compare with the similar
worship of Arabia, and still less with that that flourished
in central and northern Europe. The Germans built no
temples ; their forest was their temple, and the trees in the
forest were worshipped with fetish worship.* The Celts
went hand in hand with the Germans in their veneration
of trees, and these two tribes may be said to be the tree-
worshippers of antiquity par excellence.
We are not without traces in the Old Testament of the
honour in which trees were held in early times. Thus, in
Gen. xii. 6, we are told that Abram passed through the
land unto the place of Sichem (rqto fh$ Ti) to the oak of
Moreh, or oak of the Prophet, and under it (as it appears)
he built an altar unto Yahveh. Rosenmuller's comment
on this is : " Sicat olim quercus a Grsecis, Celtis et Germanis,
ita terebinthi ab Orientalibus propter ipsarum longsevitatem
colebantur tanquem arbores sacrse, sub'quibus sacra facie-
bant." Similarly, in Gen. xiii. 18, Abram is represented
as living under the oak of Mamre, and there building an
altar. When Joshua " took a great stone and set it up in
Shechem under an oak that was by the sanctuary of
Yahveh," he probably chose the same tree, and certainly
he regarded it with some veneration, t In Judg. ix. 6, the
men of Shechem are said to have made Abimelech king
" by the oak of the Matzebah that was in Shechem," where
probably reference is to Joshua's stone and oak. Similarly,
in Judg. ix. 37, " the oak of the soothsayers " is spoken of.
A little earlier Deborah is said to have " dwelt under the
palm-tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel." % There
is no doubt that the tamarisk-tree planted by Abraham § in
* This is evident from the survival of sacrifices to trees at Upsala in the
eleventh century, as described by Adam of Bremen, iv. 27.
t Josh. xxiv. 26. t Judg. iv. 5. § Gen. xxi. 33.

188 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
Beersheba, under which " he called on the name of Yahveh
the God for ever," was a sacred tree.
" Quia in verbis quaa sequuntur cultus divini mentio fit,
nonnulli existimant lucum hie designari talem in quo Abraham
Deo sacrificia offerret; quod ante Mosaicum interdictum non
illicitum, et antiquissimis temporibus valde usitatum erat uti
Plinius H. N., xii., 1 testatur." *
Some trace of the close connection between God and trees
may also be seen in 2 Sam. v. 24, where Yahveh's will is
made known by the rustling of the mulberry leaves, as
that of Zeus was supposed to be by the murmuring of the
oak-leaves at Dodona.
These passages, taken in connection with the many
others which testify to the sacredness attaching to certain
stones,f are witnesses to a previous worship of trees and
stones, if not one existing at the time. Such worship is
entirely in accord with the stage of religious development
which prevailed in Canaan in the patriarchal times and
under the Judges, and it is worthy of note that when the
worship of the Asherah was in vogue in later times we do
not hear anything of tree-worship. This amounts to a
proof that Canaan had passed from the fetish stage to that
higher stage which I have called menotheistic, and which
prevailed after the times of Solomon, until the high and
pure monotheistic worship of Yahveh dispersed the clouds
of error and ignorance which had previously hidden its
truth. Some support for this view is derived from the use in
Assyria of the fir-cone as a religious emblem. It fre
quently occurs on the monuments in the hand of gods
and genii, who hold it out with the point in advance.
* Kosenmiiller, in loco.
t Eg. Gen. xxxi. 45-54; Josh.iv. 20; xxii. 10, 34; xv. 6; 1 Sam. vi. 14,
15 ; vii. 12 ; 2 Sam. xx. 8 ; 1 Kings 1, 9.

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 189
M. Baudissin regarded it as "un symbolfe phallique;"
M. Heuzey as one of the objects " qui avaient le pouvoir
de detourner les sortileges et les maladies." It is agreed,
however, that it was either a symbol or an instrument
of life. " Et quand les fruits de ce genre garnissent la
plante sacree, ils la caracterisent encore plus formellement
comme l'arbe de vie." * Francois Lenormant also holds
that the essential character of the tree of life is that from
its fruit can be extracted an intoxicating liquor, a draught
of immortality. We have now shown that the worship of trees in greater
or less degree was prevalent in all parts of the ancient world
of which we have any record, including Canaan. We have
now to point to two curious combinations into which trees
enter within the period with which we are dealing which
are deserving of special notice, inasmuch as they go to
support the main contention of this work, viz. that during
the time of the Jewish occupation of Palestine human
thought was sufficiently advanced to have reached the
stage when a single spirit, similar to man's own spirit, was
seen to pervade the world, and was worshipped under
various forms. One of these was that of trees, but we
should not be justified in assuming this, were it not that
the close connection of tree-worship with fire-worship on
the one hand, and tree-worship with serpent-worship on
the other, leave no doubt as to the menotheistic character
of these cults.
We have already had some indications of the connecting
ideas which were common to tree-worship and fire-worship.
We saw that the sacred fire on the hearth could be kindled
by friction only ; similarly the need-fires, Balder's bale-fires,
and midsummer fires were kindled in the same way, and,
as it appears, always from oak wood. Sometimes, too,
* Francois Lenormant, " Les Origines de l'Histoire," i. 84 n.

190 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
solar worship is introduced as part of the same circle of
ideas by the use of a wheel in the frictional process. This
allusion to sun-worship occasionally takes the form of
swinging a burning tar-barrel round a pole, or throwing
sun-shaped, blazing disks into the air.* Moreover, the
ashes of the wood thus burnt at midsummer are scattered
over the fields, or mixed with the seed-corn, to assist in its
germination, just as in other places part of the Yule-boar,
and in others the feathers of the cock representing the
corn-spirit, are treated in a similar way.t
In all the underlying idea is the same. The spirit
which animates nature is one and the same throughout.
It lives in the oak, survives in winter in the mistletoe,
makes the corn to spring, and becomes visible in the fire
forcibly produced by friction. The conception is the same
wherever tree-worship is found, though a different tree
may be selected in different countries.^ The spirit which
animates the worship is identical in Europe, Asia, and
Africa, but the form it takes differs according to the local
circumstances — in this case it depends on the nature of the
flora ; and the intensity of the worship of trees depends on
the proportionate place they occupy in daily life and daily
thought. There appears to be little trace of a similar connection
between fire-worship and tree- worship in Canaan. Beyond
the sacredness attaching to the fire in the temple, which
descended from Heaven, and was kept constantly burning
like the vestal fire and hearth fire in Rome, it does not
seem that the Semite race in Canaan was tempted to give
* Frazer, " Golden Bough," ii. 268, 293.
t Ibid., ii. 10, 30, 294.
t That in Europe the oak was once more prevalent than now is evidenced
by the universality of its worship, and by the traditions which made its
earliest inhabitants live on acorns. Hor. Sat. I. iii. 100 ; Helbig, " Die
Italiker in der Poebene," pp. 16 seq., 26, 72 seq.

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 191
its nature-worship this direction. Perhaps the idea which
underlay the practices in other countries, just referred to,
was too subtle, too abstract, for the air of Canaan. From
the very beginning of their history the Jews show a strong
tendency to give a definite personal character to the object
of their worship, and when fire-worship did for a short
time dominate them, as e.g. in the days of Ahaz, their
worship took the form of human sacrifices which through
fire passed into the presence of the deity.* Hence it is not
surprising if tree- and fire-worship found little place among
them. When we turn to the second combination into which
trees enter, we find that Egypt affords a singular proof of
the close alliance existing between tree- and serpent-
worship. Where one existed the other existed, and the
vigour of the one is proportioned to the vigour of the
other. Serpent-worship, as we have seen, was not the pre
dominant feature of Egyptian worship, and tree-worship
occupied much the same relative position to other devotional
forms, e.g. the cult of the dead,
Tyrian coins frequently represent a tree with a serpent
coiled round it, or an altar with two serpents proceeding
from its base, or a serpent erect on three folds of its tail,
with head surrounded by rays, worshipping a sacrificial
flame, or erect at the left hand of Herakles, the cornucopia
being at his right, or coiled round a tree trunk lopped
short, having a tree in the left and the cornucopia in the
right of the coin.t In fact, so common is the connection
that it is more necessary to account for it than to prove
its existence by an array of authorities. The setting out
the steps by which the primitive ideas attached respectively
to the serpent and the tree first became combined, and
* 2 Kings xvi. 3.
t Cf. Maurice, " Indian Antiquities," vol. vi. p. 272, pi. v., ed. 1801.

192 ORIGINES JUDAIC^:.
then transferred in combination, forms one of the most
curious chapters in the history of religious development.
Mr. Keary, arguing from the fact that trees and streams
go together in nature, and from the myths which connected
streams and serpents, supposes that in much the same way
serpents and trees became allied in worship. But against
this is the fact noted by himself* that —
"the fetish river is nearly always a life-giving power; it is
the predecessor of the fontaine de Jouvence, it is the Urdar
fount from which were watered the roots of the world tree
Yggdrasill. The serpent is, on the contrary, often a destructive
and evil power, as was that 'subtle beast' of Genesis, and
Jormungandr himself, with all the dragons his descendants."
But at the same time it should be noted that, if the
serpent was a beast of evil knowledge, it also is connected
with what is good. The serpent of Genesis is close to the
Tree of Life — entwined round it, say some — Ladon guards
the apples of the Hesperides, and NfShdgg lies at the roots
of Yggdrasill. The apparent contradiction here seems to arise from an
incongruous blending of opposite conceptions of the serpent
drawn from myths of different countries. If in the early
myths of all countries the serpent became the representative
of the clouds, the wind, the storm, the rain, or the river,
he would be regarded as good or evil according as rain or
the river was a blessing or a curse. A flood in Egypt
would be of a different character to one among the marshes
of Surrey, and rain in the desert of Arabia would be
received with warmer welcome than it would be in
Germany. Hence, on the whole, the serpent as the dis
penser of rain was more commonly regarded as a good
genius in hot countries than in cold or wet. And the
contradictory characters he receives seem to depend largely
* "Outlines of Primitive Belief," p. 77 (1882).

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 193
on the character of the country from which they emanate.
It was the underground water of Arabia that was the cause
of the flourishing of the palm-tree, and hence in the East
we can understand how the water-god came to be so closely
connected with the tree.
But this view does not represent more than the early
stage of the alliance between the tree and the serpent as
objects of worship. In proportion as urban life tended to
usurp the place formerly occupied by agricultural life, as
the city took the place of the village community, so would
the close connection between man and trees tend to
diminish. In towns, even in primitive towns, trees bulk in
the thoughts of men much smaller than they do when men
are living amongst them or under them. What, then, was
man to do ? Was he to surrender his cult of the serpent
and the tree ? But religion is far too sternly conservative
to allow of so revolutionary a measure as that. Accordingly
what always takes place where changed circumstances
stand in the way of long-established observances, took
place here. A compromise was made. The tree was
assigned a surrogate in the pole, or stake, or Asherah so
familiar in later times. The natural beauty which adorned
the monarch of the woods was replaced by the bare upright
pole, which, like children's dolls, depended for its sanctity
far more on the attributes it received from its worshippers'
imagination than on any native attractiveness of its own.*
When the serpent and tree, which mythology had been
the first to bring into such close religious connection, had
received this modification of expression under the pressure
of changed modes of living, it is clear how they acquired
* I agree with Professor Eobertson Smith, that the worship of the living
tree preceded the worship of the dead stump (" Eeligion of the Semites,"
p. 172), rather than with Sir G. W. Cox, that the dead stump afterwards,
like Aaron's rod, budded and blossomed out into the tree such as nature
produces. 0

194 ORIGINES JUDAIC J5.
the meaning which they uniformly bear in times later than
the very earliest known to us. The conception of nature
as a living and generative being was familiar from the
first; nay, it was uppermost among early religious ideas,
and from very early times the phallos was chosen, as we
have seen, as a not unsuitable earthly emblem of the great
celestial or telluric mystery. When,1 then, the tree assumed
the form of the aravpoQ it easily lent itself to the phallic
representation, and it was only necessary that the Serpent
should somehow fit in with this dominant idea for the old
mythologie conceptions of tree and serpent to be replaced
by the newer ones. And this the serpent very complacently
did. The train of thought which led to the lopped tree, or
(rravpoQ, being adopted as a phallic emblem quickly led to
the same distinction being conferred on the serpent. He
has a curious way of collecting himself when ready to
strike which, to the imaginative mind of earlier mankind,
would quickly suggest the required resemblance. The
resemblance once seen would, as every one can see, quickly
find favour and soon become general. All this seems then
to point to the conclusion that the serpent and tree are,
when found together in ancient worship, so allied because
they have been each selected as a fitting emblem of phallic
worship. What the serpent had done for the animal world,
the upright stake — the Hebrew Asherah — did for the
vegetable. And thus in the serpent and tree as emblems
of the phallos we have the human, the animal, and the
vegetable kingdoms conjoined.
The perfect naturalness of the evolution of the serpent-
and tree-mythology, through tree-worship and serpent-
worship to phallic worship under the form of "tree and
serpent," may be estimated by the persistency of the cult.
The maypole is for us now an unmeaning piece of wood,
interesting no doubt for its history, but still, like Guy

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 195
Fawkes's celebration, harmless because an anachronism.
It does not appear to have been so in the Merrie England
of great Elizabeth. According to Stubbes* the maypole
was the centre of a devotion not inferior to that of the
East two thousand years earlier., This is how he describes
the Mayday Eve and May Morning festivities : —
" They goe some to the woods and groves, some to the hills
and mountains, where they spend the night in pleasaunt pastime,
and in the morning they return, bringing with them birche
boughes and branches of trees to deck their assemblies withal.
But their chiefest jewel they bring thence is the maypole,
which they bring home with . great veneration, as thus : they
have twentie or fourtie yoake of oxen, and everie oxe hath a
sweet nosegaie of flowers tied to the top of his homes, and
these oxen drawe the maypoale — the stinking idol rather ... I
have heard it crediblie reported that of fourtie, three score, or
an hundred maides going to the wood, there have scarcely the
third part returned as they went."
The following from Fergusson may be finally quoted
as a transfigured edition of the ancient veneration of
the Tree. The old world had honoured the tree for
menotheistic reasons, the new world in honouring the
" tree " t on which the Saviour was hanged was but
showing its sense of the sacredness of all that had been
connected with the life of God on earth. But the legends
which grew around the Cross are not inconsistent with
pre-existing ideas as to tree-worship.
" The ' Legend of the True Cross,' is a curious example of a
cognate superstition. Like most mediaeval legends, it is so
childish that it would be hardly worth while to allude to it,
but it contains an earlier oriental element, which may be
considered as throwing some light on the old form of worship.
The legend relates that when Adam was on his deathbed, he
sent Seth to try and regain admission to Paradise. This, of
* " Anatomie of Abuses " (1595). t Acts v. 30.

196 ORIGINES JUDAICM.
course, was impossible, but he was allowed by the angel who
guarded it to look in at the gate. He saw, among other things,
the tree which had borne the fatal fruit, its roots then extending
to hell, but its upper branches reaching to heaven. The angel
gave him three seeds, recommending him to place them in
Adam's mouth when he died. He did so, and they produced
three trees, a cedar, a Cyprus, and a pine. These afterwards
united into one, and their branches performed many miracles.
Solomon cut down the tree, and tried in vain to use its trunk
to support the roof of his palace. It disdained such a use,
and was consequently thrown across the Brook Cedron to be
trodden upon. It was rescued from this ignominy by the
Queen of Sheba, and buried below the pool of Bethesda, which
owed its healing properties to its virtues. It came to the
sacrifice when wanted for the Cross, and afterwards was buried
in Calvary, where it was recognized by the Empress Helena
in consequence of its miraculous healing powers. It was taken
to Persia by Chosroes and recovered by Heraclius, and after
wards, as is well known, throughout the Middle Ages a piece
of the wood of the True Cross was prized by emperors and
kings beyond all other earthly possessions. So great, indeed,
was the demand that it was endowed with the property of
self-multiplication, but even this did not suffice to bring it
into contempt, and as late as 1248 Philip Augustus erected the
Sainte Chapelle to enshrine a morsel of the wood of the tree
of Paradise. The Sainte Chapelle may thus be considered as
the last, as it probably is amongst the most beautiful temples
ever erected to Tree Worship." *
It now remains to inquire what light the facts detailed
here throw upon the references of the Old Testament to
the serpent as a sacred object. I say as a sacred object,
because it is obvious that any references to the serpent as
an ordinary denizen of the animal world are devoid of any
special meaning.
* The following authorities for the legend are quoted by S. Baring
Gould, in his "Myths of the Middle Ages," from which the above is
abridged; "Vita Christi " (Trojes, 1517); "Legenda Auiea de Jacques de
Voraigne," etc.

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 197
In the Old Testament we have seven words, B>m, n-iaby,
;rjs, f[% f&w, yas, nsjax, used to denominate the serpent.
The first, B>m is used thirty-one times, and is etymo
logically connected with the word for enchantment,
divining, and witchcraft ; the second is used only in
Ps. cxl. 3, "Adder's poison is under their lips;" the
third occurs six times, and is rendered asp and, in the
Psalms (twice), adder; the fourth is used five times
certainly to denote a serpent, and also, in Isa. vi. 2
and 6, to denote the winged beings called Seraphim in
our version, who veiled their faces in the presence of the
Most High ; flB'Sip only occurs in Gen. xlix. 17 ; f?S occurs
only in Isa. xiv. 29, and nj?s$ three times, being rendered
on each occasion by viper. It is obvious that the second,
third, fifth, sixth, and seventh of these terms are interesting
to the student of Biblical natural history only, and have
no relation to the question of serpent-worship, or serpent-
symbolism. It is possible, as some have conjectured, that
the &$"& of Isaiah's mystic imagery may have been winged
human figures with the head of a spb> * and have some
remote relation to the Egyptian worship of the god Kneph,
who was worshipped under the form of a serpent. But
the " fiery flying serpent " of Numbers and Deuteronomy
has not yet been successfully identified by any naturalist,
though there is a consensus theologorum which interprets
fiery of the painful effects of the bite. It might be worth
while, however, to inquire whether it be not the colour
which gave rise to this description of burning; this
* Cf. C. P. Tiele, "Outlines of the History of Eeligion," p. 57: "It lis
uncertain whether it was the first or the second Ptolemy who introduced
the god Serapis from Sinope in Asia Minor. Plew regards the deity as
of Babylonian origin. The name signifies ' serpent,' and is [the same as
that of the Hebrew Seraphim. As the name can only be explained from the
Indo-Germanic (serpens), the god was probably derived by the Semites from
the Aryans.'

198 ORIGINES JUDAIC 'M.
suggestion moreover would explain how the serpent of brass
also could be suitably described as burning.
It is a curious fact that, just as among Saul's family we
find names compounded with Baal, so in David's history
have we names that appear to show some connection with
the serpent. Thus an ancestor of his, Nahshon (fiBTQ,
serpent), occurs in the genealogy of 1 Chron. ii. 10,
where he is described as Prince of the Children of Judah.
He was brother of the wife of Aaron, and his son Salmon
married Rahab, from whom in the fifth generation came
David. Again, according to 1 Chron. ii. 16, it appears
that Abigail and Zeruiah were sisters of David, and that
Abigail was daughter of Nahash, and mother of Amasa.
The Rabbins get over the difficulty here by identifying
Jesse and Nahash, while the LXX. make Nahash brother
to Zeruiah. Whether Nahash was Jesse, or was the
King of the Ammonites who was on such friendly terms
with David, or was the mother, and not the father, of
Abigail it is impossible to say. But it is certainly not
a little remarkable to find names in David's family which
give countenance to the supposition that either totemism
had not fully exhausted its vital powers, or that the
serpent was once held in honour by the clan to which
David belonged. That heathen practices were not
unknown in his household is evident from the image
put into his bed, by which Michal saved his life from
Saul's vengeance.*
There remain the two leading passages, that of the
Fall and that of the brazen serpent just referred to, which
form the palmary texts from which to determine the

* 1 Sam. xix. 13. The stone Zoheleth of 1 Kings i. 9, where Adonijah
slew sheep and oxen, may be used in the same line of thought as one of its
meanings, and perhaps the correct one is serpent-stone. But it may be»
" stone of the conduit " or " rolling-stone."

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 199
relation of the Hebrews to the prevalent serpent-worship
of their day.
A striking light is thrown on the former from the
Hindu mythology, which has a legend of the Fall that
offers some striking parallels to the account in Genesis.
It is the Divine Brahma, an individual man, and not
mankind in general, who is tempted, and his temptation
comes from Siva, the Supreme Being. Siva —
" drops from heaven a blossom of the sacred vata, or Indian fig,
a tree which has always been venerated by the natives on
account of its gigantic size and grateful shadows, and invested
alike by Brahmin and by Buddhist with mysterious significa
tions, as the tree of knowledge or intelligence (bodhidruma).
Captivated by the beauty of the blossom, the first man
(Brahma) is determined to possess it. He imagines that it
will entitle him to occupy the place of the Immortal, and hold
converse with the Infinite ; and on gathering up the blossom
he at once becomes intoxicated by this fancy, and believes
himself immortal and divine. But ere the flush of exaltation
has subsided, G-od Himself appears to him in terrible majesty ;
and the astonished culprit, stricken by the curse of heaven,
is banished far from Brahmapattana, and consigned to an abyss
of misery and degradation. From this, however, adds the
story, an escape is rendered possible on the expiration of some
weary term of suffering and of penance. And the parallelism
which it presents to sacred history is well-nigh completed
when the legend tells us further that woman, his own wife,
whose being was derived from his, had instigated the ambitious
hopes which led to their expulsion, and entailed so many ills
on their posterity." *
The great difference between the Edenic serpent and
his heathen parallels is, that in the former he is condemned
as the imparter of knowledge better unknown, and in the
latter of knowledge useful to men. In these, when he is
associated with the tree, he is, like it, the object of
* Hardwicke, " Christ and Other Masters," i. pp. 305, 306.

200 ORIGINES JUDAICJE.
worship. In Babylon the serpent was the symbol of Ea,
as the god of wisdom and the giver of life, the chief seat
of whose worship was at Eridu, the holy city, " near which
was the sacred grove or ' garden,' the centre of the world,
where the tree of life and knowledge had its roots." *
There can be no doubt, therefore, that the substance of
the story of the Fall is Babylonian, while its form in the
Bible is entirely new. The narrator has a distinct purpose
in view, a purpose learnt from Israel's later history, and
he boldly uses whatever material lies ready to his hand,
and skilfully moulds it in accordance with that purpose.
It should not be difficult to come to a conclusion on a
review of the circumstances already detailed. A story of
the Fall of Man, after a Golden Age, is common to the
human race. The prose Edda of the Scandinavians made
this last till a woman came out of Jotunheim, the land of
the giants. The Chinese, too, attributed original sin to a
woman, who overthrew her "husband's bulwarks by an
ambitious desire of knowledge." The Mexicans represent
the first woman as accompanied by a great male serpent.
The people of Madagascar had a story about man being
made of the dust of the earth, placed in a garden of
delights, forbidden to taste of its fruits, and caused to fall
by his great enemy. We have, in short, a world-wide
myth, which probably sprang up, partly independently,
and was partly handed on from nation to nation, embodying
the reflections of man, long before the time of Moses, on
his condition, and attempting to explain it by the story
of a Fall. This myth was found in possession of men's
minds by the Biblical writer, t It was admirably adapted
* Cf. Eawlinson's " Herodotus," vol. i., 600 ; Sayce, "Assyria: its Princes,
Priests, and People," p. 59 ; and Fr. Lenormant, " Les Origines de l'Histoire,"
i. 106. t " La le'gende chalde'ene et phe'nicienne sur le fruit de l'arbre paradisiaque
devait se rapprocher beaucoup du cycle des vieux mythes, communs a

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 201
for its purpose, for it described in a parable the lesson of
which he was inspired to write the earliest chapter. God
had taught man by his natural faculties to discover that
he was a discrowned king. It now remained to lead him
a step higher, and to instil the hope that the crown might
one day be regained through a promised Redeemer.
In other words, the story of the Fall in Genesis is not
an account of an historical occurrence, but the delineation
of a wide spiritual fact conterminous with human nature
itself. The earlier legends taught that man was the child
of the gods, made in their androgynous image, and that his
most fitting worship was that of his Father through the
suitable phallic emblems of the serpent and the tree. The
Biblical writer takes the material ready to his hand, and,
in using it, transfigures it with a divine glory* Man is
still made in the image of God, but it is no longer the god
worshipped by the Babylonians ; the generative act, figured
toutes les branches de la race aryenne. Ce sont ceux qui ont trait a l'inven-
tion du feu et au breuvage de vie ; on les tronve & leur dtat le plus ancien
dans les Vedas, et ils ont passe, plus ou moins modifies par le cours du temps,
chez les Grees, les Eomains, et les Slaves, comme chez les Iraniens et les
Indiens. La donnee fondamentale de ces mythes, qui ne se montrent
eomplets que sous leurs plus vieilles formes, represente l'univers comme un
arbre immense, dont les racines embrassent la terre et dont les branches
forme la vonte du ciel. Le fruit de cet arbre est le feu, indispensable a
1' existence de l'homme, et symbole materiel de l'intelligence ; ses feuilles
distillent le breuvage de vie. Les dieux se sont reserves la possession du
feu, qui descend quelquefois sur la terre dans le foudre, mais que les hommes
ne doivent pas produire eux-memes" (Fr. Lenormant, "Les Origines de
l'Histoire," i. 96).
* " If we regard the narrative as history clothed in figure (and to a certain
extent we may let this pass, if it is held to be really a history of the all-
decisive first sin, and not with Eeuss, as a representation of the genesis of
sin in general, and therefore a myth in the proper sense) this question of
astonishment is obviated, and the talking of the serpent stands on a level
with the talking of the animals in fables. In no case is the position of the
narrator with regard to the matter of this mythic kind. He is consciously
reproducing a tradition which, transmitted to the nations from the original
home of the human race, underwent among them transformations of all kinds.
He reproduces it in the fashion which stood the criticism of the spirit of
revelation " (Delitzsch on Gen. iii. 1, p. 148).

202 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
by the eating the fruit of the forbidden tree, is no longer
an act of religion, as in the worship of Mylitta, but is
associated with ideas which tend to limit it to the case of
necessity. The serpent especially is no longer regarded as
the symbol of wisdom that is heavenly, but of craft that
is subtle. Considered as a religious object it is cursed, and
deprived of the reverence with which its association with
the phallic cult had invested it. The teeming earth
symbolized by Ashtaroth, or Mylitta, or Venus, or Baaltis,
is no longer a goddess to be worshipped, but a severe foster
mother, whose very harshness is to wean her child from
earth for heaven. Labour is nobler than the easy enjoy
ment of nature's gifts, and the bearing of pain a holier act
than the satisfaction of bodily instincts. Above all, the
nature-god of the older faith gives way to the pure Spirit
who is the Father of all spirits; the change of worship
hinted at by the Biblical account of the Fall is the infinite
change which is expressed by the difference between body
and spirit.
It would be difficult to exaggerate the greatness of the
step now taken forward in the development of man, or to
find throughout the Bible a clearer example of the Divine
superintendence which watched over its writers.
The view I have taken here is not substantially different
from that taken by Fergusson.
"When the writers of the Pentateuch set themselves to
introduce the purer and loftier worship of the Elohim, or of
Jehovah, it was first necessary to get rid of that earlier form
of faith which the primitive inhabitants of the earth had
fashioned for themselves. The serpent, as the principal deity
of that early religion, was cursed ' above all cattle, and above
every beast of the field ; ' and in future there was to be for
ever enmity between the serpent and 'man of woman born.'
The confusion of ideas on this subject seems to have arisen
from the assumption that the curse was directed at the reptile

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 203
as such, and not rather at a form of worship which the writers
of the Pentateuch must have regarded with horror, and which
they thought it necessary to denounce in the strongest terms
and in the form they believed would be most intelligible to
those to whom it was addressed.
" The tree it was not necessary should be cursed ; the fruit
of the tree of knowledge had been eaten, and no further result
could be obtained by access to it, while the tree of life was
guarded by a cherub with a flaming sword, and all approach
prevented. Its fruits could not then be obtained, nor have
they to the present day. The two chapters which refer to this,
however, — as indeed the whole of the first eight of Genesis —
are now generally admitted by scholars to be made up of
fragments of earlier books or earlier traditions belonging,
properly speaking, to Mesopotamia rather than to Jewish
history, the exact meaning of which the writers of the
Pentateuch seem hardly able to have appreciated when they
transcribed them in the form in which they are now found.
The history of the Jews and of the Jewish religion commences
with the call of Abraham, and from that time forward the
worship of serpents and trees took an infinitely less important
position, though still occasionally cropping up, often when least
expected, but apparently not as a religion of the Jews, but as a
backsliding towards the feelings of the pre-existing races among
whom they were located." *
The worship of the brazen serpent set up by Moses, and
destroyed by the reforming zeal of Hezekiah, may perhaps
be understood from the sketch of the similar worship in
other countries that has just been given. The two texts
which mark the beginning and the ending of this worship
are Num. xxi. 9 : " And Moses made a serpent of brass,
and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass that if a serpent
had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass
he lived;" and 2 Kings xviii. 4, where it is told of
Hezekiah that he " brake in pieces the brazen serpent that
* Fergusson, " Tree and Serpent Worship," pp. 6, 7.

204 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
Moses had made; for unto those days the children of
Israel did burn incense unto it." From this it is evident
that the worship of this Serpent was of long-standing
among the Israelites, and on the record we might safely
carry it back, at least, as far as the reign of Solomon. Can
we determine anything more definitely about it ? If it is
lawful for critics to give the rein to their imagination and
to construct a " concatenated narrative " from the scattered
hints that occur in our records, they might evolve the
following explanation without much difficulty. The priestly
redactor of the Books of Kings evidently found a record
in his materials of the destruction of a sacred serpent by
Hezekiah. The origin of this serpent was attributed by
tradition to Moses. It was impossible for him to believe
that Moses had so far yielded to the demands of the half-
civilized hordes that he was leading as to permit them to
transfer from Egypt the worship of a serpent, and establish
it as a recognized cult. Accordingly, when he came to pen
the " semi-historical " narratives of Numbers, he inserted a
story of a murmuring of the people punished by fiery
flying serpents, and of the erection of a similar serpent in
brass which resembled in form, but contradicted in nature,
the serpent plague from which the Hebrews were suffering.
Accordingly, our critic, having published this plausible
explanation, concludes that the Israelites from the time of
the Exodus were serpent-worshippers. He would find, no
doubt, confirmation of his theory in the facts already
alluded to, which seem to point to some connection of
David's family with the serpent, and which go to show
that the ruling race themselves were as partial to its
worship as to that of the sun evinced in 2 Kings xxiii. 11.
All this may hang together very well, and the only answer
to it that is possible, or necessary, is quod gratis dicatur
gratis negatur. Its chief fault is lack of evidence. I

ON SERPENT AND TREE WORSHIP. 205
content myself, therefore, with assuming what the record
justifies us in assuming, viz. a long-standing and, so far as
we can tell, an unrebuked worship of the serpent openly
established among the Jews.
The chief question then left is as to its nature. What
were the ideas from which this worship sprang, which
recommended it to the Jews ? We shall not be far wrong
if we assume, apart from any influence exerted by the
Mosaic origin of this particular serpent, that the familiarity
of the Jews with serpent-worship in Egypt and in
Phoenicia was a predisposing cause to its adoption by
them. That they burnt incense to it is a proof that they
paid it Divine honours. Assuming, too, that they retained
a recollection of its Mosaic origin, those honours must have
been paid to it, not as the personification of an evil, but
of a beneficent principle. Did they then regard it as a
fetish, or as a symbol of the life-giving spirit in and
behind nature ? In the absence of any direct evidence,
we can only rely on the indirect testimony supplied by
the nature of their contemporaneous worship of other
objects. We know that from Solomon's to Josiah's time
Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Milcom were publicly worshipped
in Jerusalem. We know also from 2 Kings xxiii. that
Baal and Asherah, the sun, the moon, the stars, and all
the planets were also honoured with incense, and that the
kings of Judah maintained a stable of horses in Jerusalem
sacred to the sun. The very least, therefore, that we can
conclude from this diversified worship is that the Jews
were at this period advanced polytheists. But we know,
at the same time, that they saw no hostility to Yahveh in
admitting side by side with His worship the worship of
other gods. He had His high places in Jerusalem, nor
was any successful stand made against this syncretistic
worship before the reformation of Josiah, and when he

206 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
was withdrawn it stepped again into its old place. At
the same time, Yahveh was recognized as Israel's own
special God, but he was not as yet regarded as a jealous
god who would brook no comparison. The conception of
Jeremiah that Yahveh was the only God, that he had
chosen Israel to be His own people, and had assigned the
other nations to idols, had not yet gained currency. The
Jews were past the fetish state, they had not yet reached
the monotheistic. It is clear, too, that their ideas were not
of an elementary polytheism, such as we find when dryads
and "river-serpents" are worshipped. They were suffi
ciently cultivated, in the days of Hezekiah, to adopt an
elaborate syncretism, and if this does not involve a
menotheistic mode of thought, it at all events leaves
them on the border-line where polytheism gives way to
menotheism. If this reasoning be valid, then the worship of the
serpent in Hezekiah's time was the outward and visible
sign of a belief in the spirit of nature, who was symbolized
by that mysterious animal whom so many lands have
worshipped as his embodiment under a striking form. The
description of this worship as rendered by the burning
of incense is in favour of this. If it were fetishism or
polytheism, that was the creed of the worshippers, we
should by analogy expect it to express itself in some less
refined way than incense-burning, or even "burning of
flesh," as a devotional act.

( 207 )

CHAPTER VIII.
ON PHALLIC WOESHIP.
It would be derogatory to the dignity of truth to pass
over unnoticed a branch of ancient worship which is so
out of harmony with all modern ideas of religion that
writers on the world-religions frequently shrink behind
a shield of silence from contemporary prejudices.* But the
historical imagination which can transport itself to other
times will have little difficulty in seeing here a fitting
application of the saying, "To the pure, all things are
pure." Nowhere is it so difficult to transport ourselves to
early ages so as to understand their thoughts, as here. To
us such worship is inexpressibly revolting ; to them it was,
at least originally, free from all grossness. They had the
same problem to solve that we have ; but they were able
to use a symbol which would be impossible for us, and
their patriarchal simplicity saw no evil where we should
see nothing but what is shameful. It is impossible,
however, to give any faithful picture of ancient belief and
worship if this is omitted, and, great as is the temptation
to pass it by, truth compels that it should receive the
notice that its importance demands.
The ancients were face to face, as we are, with two
mysteries; the mystery of the origin of the cosmos and
* Professor Maspero and Mr. Baring Gould, for example, may be cited
among writers who paBS by this subject on the other side.

208 ORIGINES JUDAICM.
the mystery of human birth, and they used the human
instruments of the latter as types and symbols of the
plastic process by which in the former all things become,
and by which they are annually reproduced. Undoubtedly
such worship degenerated, as might have been expected,
but in its origin it was pure as nature is pure ; that is to
say, it was, like nature, and every pantheistic form of faith,
neither moral nor -immoral, but unmoral.
The difficulty, however, of dealing with this subject
consists, not so much in the nature of it, as in its ubiquity.
It underlay and intertwined itself with all ancient cults.
It is to be found in Egypt as well as in India, in the West
as well as in the East, in Babylon, Phoenicia, in Greece,
and in Rome. Ptah presiding over the birth of the
universe, Khem over that of man, Priapus degraded to the
position of a common garden scarecrow, and a subject for
scurrilous lampoons, are representatives of the fruitful
powers of nature. The sacred Linga of India, the obelisks,
the round towers of Syria, Gaul, and Ireland, the Petrse
Ambrosise, the Hermetic stone heaps, the pillars on which
the priests of the " Assyrian Juno " lived suspended between
heaven and earth, the fylfot of Thor, the cross of Serapis,
the trident of Poseidon, the triangle as a heathen symbol,
the serpent, are all emblems of an emblem which itself
represents the mysterious, beneficent, and awful principle
by which all things live.
On the popular view that early men worshipped natural
objects under an intellectual concept, this worship and that
of Dionusos are inexplicable. But when we recollect
that religion belongs to the domain of the feelings, and
that the sensations sacred to Eros and Dionusos stir the
feelings, especially of elementary man, as few other
sensations do, then the popularity of these worships is
intelligible.

ON PHALLIC WORSHIP. 209
"All through the history of belief we shall find one or
both of these two gods — the god of love or the god of wine —
possessing a mighty power. For one class of people and for
one climate, the one indulgence, for other sorts the other.
Aphrodite for the Southern Greeks and the Greeks of the
islands, and for the Asiatic people of warm Semitic blood.
Dionysus for Thrace and the shepherds of the north, and
chiefly, too, for the Aryan, Indian, and Persian. Wine for
the German, love for the Celt, ' for beauty and amorousness the
sons of Gasdhil.' " *
From the point of view taken here, however, both these
cults were variants of the same menotheistic theology.
Circumcision, which will be dealt with directly, was a
blend of this worship with that which takes the form of
sacrifice. The divining rod, the hazel fork, with which gold
or water was found, the plough, were all connected with
the same root-idea.
Obviously, too, this idea was bound to bifurcate. All
things are double one against another, and the active
principle in nature is ever accompanied by the passive.
As one sex supplied the symbol for the former, so the other
contributed its own symbol to the latter. The sun was
worshipped under the form of the Linga, the teeming earth
under that of the Yoni. The ark of Egypt and Babylon,
the crescent moon, the lotus flower, the cup, the cornucopia,
the Piscis Vesica, even the horse-shoe and the lucky
slipper, carry us back to a time when man thought,
spake, and understood as a child.
The rite of circumcision is one of those singular rites
which, widely, if not almost universally, spread, and lost as
to their origin in the mists of antiquity, lend themselves
to interpretations varying with the bent of the inter
preter. Philo mentions four reasons for it — the avoidance
* Keary, " Outlines of Primitive Belief," p. 52.

210 ORIGINES JUDAICM.
of disease, the symbolizing purity of heart, the attainment
of a numerous offspring, and cleanliness.* Herodotus
mentions the latter.f It only requires, however, a careful
notice of the widespread character of the rite, and of the
circumstances under which it is practised, to assure us that
none of these four is an adequate explanation. Nor yet
can that be called more satisfactory which attributes its
origin solely to a desire for increased sexual pleasure ; nor
that of J. A. Dulaure,J that " its object was evidently to
render the sexual act easier, and to get rid of all, even the
feeblest obstacle;" nor with Dr. Westermarck's, § which
makes it due to the desire to attract the other sex. The
analogous rite among women is incompatible with the first
of these two explanations.
Circumcision is practised among the Bechuanas, —
" and for that purpose youths are selected from ten to thirteen
years of age ; these retire from the towns, the place in which
they are being considered sacred till the season of seclusion, a
month or more, is over, when they are allowed to return to
their friends, and are looked on as men ready to go to war." ||
Among the Malagasy there is a general feast at circum
cision times, which occur every few years by royal
command. The Papuans and inhabitants of the New
Hebrides practise it, and it is found on the banks of the
Amazon. In ancient times it was common to the Egyptians,
who performed it at an age between six and ten ; to the
Arabians, at the entrance into puberty ; to the Babylonians,
who called it arlu ; and apparently to the Canaanites, if
we may argue from the contemptuous epithet applied to
the Philistines alone.
* Opera (ed. Mangey), ii. 210. The first and two last of these are
those given in Larousse's " Dictionnaire TJniversel du Dix-Neuvieme Steele."
t ii. 37. t " Histoire des Differens Cultes," torn. ii. p. 184.
§ " History of Human Marriage," p. 205.
|| " Encyclo. Brit.," sub voce " Bechuana."

ON PHALLIC WORSHIP. 211
Among the Jews, Abraham and his descendants were
bidden to perform it on their children at the eighth day,
a circumstance peculiar to this nation; Zipporah circum
cised her son, and by so doing founded a marriage-union
of blood between herself and Moses, and Joshua circumcised
the Israelites at Gilgal. Whatever the rite may have
originally meant, or have come to mean among other
nations, it is invariably referred to in the Bible as con
nected with religion.
If we accept the most plausible hypothesis which
ascribes the origin of circumcision to a religious motive,
we are then faced with a further double solution. Was it,
as Dr. Cheyne * thinks, part of the system of substitutionary
sacrifice, standing on the same leVel as the paschal lamb,
the redemption of the firstborn, and the slaughter of oxen
and sheep ? Was it " an economical recognition of the
Divine ownership of human life, a part of the body being
sacrificed to preserve the remainder " ? The early date to
which it can be traced would seem to indicate that it was
older than this later conception of sacrifice. Perhaps it
was older even than the still earlier conception of its being
a suitable sacrifice to the god of celestial generation. As
Gruppe says of libations among primitive Indo-Euro-
peans : t —
"The cult was not merely associated with a revel,
it actually was the revel; the gods were worshipped by
the intoxication of the worshipper; the enjoyment of the
intoxicating drink constituted the act of devotion." J
* "Encyclo. Brit.," sub voce " Circumcision."
t " Die Griechischen Kulte und Mythen," p. 277.
X " Men do not analyze their complex feelings into their different elements ;
they do not recognize that fire is a symbol of the passion, or that the wine
is only a cause of the tumultuous feelings which they feel. The wine or the
fire they believe enters into them, and itself constitutes the mental condition
which they know. Therefore, in worshipping the wine, men did in fact

212 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
Similarly among races in a state of untutored simplicity
before civilization had taught them to make a hierarchy
of natural actions, the generative act itself was an act of
worship, and the rite of circumcision in the case of one
sex and of excision in the case of the other was, if we take
the low view, intended to render the sacrifice more easily
offered, and if we take the high view, to make it more.
complete, or else was intended to evoke the blessing of the
god of celestial generation on the homologous acts of his
earthly counterpart. In any case, it would be connected
with that, to us, incongruous worship of the productive
powers of nature which is found through all antiquity, and
which degenerated in later times into the licentiousness
to which the Satires of Juvenal and the denunciations of
St. Augustine bear sorrowful witness.
But while there is no question that among the Jews
circumcision was invested with a religious character, and
so placed on an equality with the Sabbath as one of the
covenant signs, the question may fairly be asked whether
we may not expect that it underwent the same evolutionary
process that we have seen elsewhere to pervade the Jewish
ideas and institutions. Arguing from analogy, we should
conclude that, as other Jewish rites had their forerunners
in pre-revelation customs, so also had circumcision. And
this expectation seems to be put beyond doubt by the
curious episode of Exod. iv. 24-26, just referred to. It is
not necessary to suppose, with Welhausen, that Moses
himself was uncircumcised, for this is highly improbable,
whether we consider the institution of Jewish circumcision
as related in Gen. xviii. 12, or the Egyptian training of
Moses. We may admit the interpretation which refers the
worship the strength of their feelings, and these produced in them that
emotional state which is necessary to belief, and which lies at the foundation
of all religions" (Keary, "Outlines of Primitive Belief," p. 233).

ON PHALLIC WORSHIP. 213
wrath of Yahveh to the neglect of the father in regard
of his son's circumcision. But this explanation does not
account for Zipporah's words, " Surely a husband of bloods
art thou to me," and again, " a husband of bloods, because
of the circumcision." These words indicate clearly that
she understood Moses as betrothed to her by a bloody
ceremonial, and are quite inconsistent with any explana
tion which limits the force of the incident, at any rate in
the mind of Zipporah, to a neglect of the command to
circumcise children on the eighth day. What she refers to
is the older rite of circumcision, which was antecedent to
marriage.* Its motive, as thus performed, is to be found
in the circle of ideas which, finding the life in the blood,
brought men into alliance, or affinity, or kinship, through
the medium of blood shed, and then in one way or another
applied to the contracting parties. In the instance before
us, Zipporah regarded the bloodshedding of her son as the
means by which Moses became betrothed to her, a D^pTIPin
i.e. a husband made hers by a blood ceremony. Doubtless
something of a mother's horror is manifested in her indig
nation that the affinity should need to be contracted by
her child's sufferings. The whole narrative clearly is
surrounded with an atmosphere of Arabian or Egyptian
ideas, and refers us to the menotheistic belief in the one
life of which blood-participation makes contracting parties
sharers.! Nor is the old Testament without other record of the
influence on the Jews of this reverence for natural genera
tion. The mode in which Eliezer, Abraham's servant, took
the oath his master required of him,$ which, in the Autho
rized Version, is translated by a euphemism, is a proof of
* Cf. Gen. xxxiv. 15, 16.
t Cf. Welhausen, "History of Israel," p. 340; and W. Eobertson Smith,
" Eeligion of the Semites," p. 310.
X Gen. xxiv. 2. Cf. Gen. xlix. 29.

214 ORIGINES JUDAIC^®.
the contemporary honour in which man's uncomely parts
were then held.* Asa t is praised for having removed from
the land the " effeminate," who were connected with the
idols that his father had made. Maachah, too, his mother,
was deprived for worshipping an idol in a grove — which
there is little doubt was an idol of Asherah, the Phoenician
Venus. The prophet Ezekiel J reproaches Jerusalem with
acts of similar worship. It is also a matter for constant
complaint by the sacred writers that the "high-places"
were not taken away.
The mention of high-places and groves makes it con
venient to examine in this place whether the rites connected
with them throw any light on the contemporary customs
of the Canaanites, and will enable us to judge the more
easily of the effect they had on the Israelites. The word
translated grove or groves in the Authorized Version is now
generally admitted to stand for an image of some sort. An
attempt has been made to hold the opinion that it is
another name for Ashtoreth. It is impossible, however, to
suppose that the same people had two similar names for
the same goddess, and it is equally impossible to suppose
that one can be derived from the other, for Ishtar is a non-
Semitic name, while rntste is of undoubted Semitic origin.
But although it is impossible to connect the two words, it
is not impossible to show that the wooden image called
Asherah had the same connection with the worship of
Ashtoreth as terrestrial generation has with celestial.
Professor Sayce § proves from the absence of any early
knowledge of Ishtar among the early Semites, and from
the absence of any feminine affix from her name, that
* Cf., for a modern parallel, an extract from a letter of Adjutant-General
Julien to Citizen Geoffroy, in the "Memoires sur l'Egypte," published during
the campaigns of Buonaparte : second part, p. 195, where a native takes an
oath in the same manner that he is no friend of the Mamelukes.
t 1 Kings xv. 12. X xvi. 17. § "Hibbert Lectures," p. 252.

ON PHALLIC WORSHIP. 215
Ashtoreth was of Accadian origin. He also points out
that the Semites sometimes made her a male god, and even
the sun-god himself, and that she has a more independent
character than any other of the Semitic goddesses, being
something more than "the mere reflection of the male
divinity." It is no doubt true that she was of Accadian
origin,* but this last fact — that of her vigorous individu
ality — may be explained in another way, viz. by the place
she occupied in the Babylonian cosmogony, which has been
described already. Moreover she was the divinity of the
morning star, as well as of the evening ; she was worshipped
as the moon,t and, in later times at all events, was wor
shipped with impure rites.J
Lajard has shown that Mithra, Mylitta, Venus were the
same goddess, or god, whose function it was to preside over
the productive power of nature. This productive power
was twofold, celestial and terrestrial. At first the same
deity presided over both, but afterwards it was split into
two: one, the more ethereal, for heaven; and the other,
the more gross, for earth. Ishtar became Ashtaroth and
Asherah. Again, this particular aspect of terrestrial
nature-worship naturally took two directions, the worship
of the male or active element, and the worship of the
female or passive, each represented by its appropriate
symbols. Now, Mr. Poole, following Gesenius, attributes
rpE># to the root "ib>k, erigere, vel rectus esse, and hence, he
says, to be fortunate. The close connection of the worship
* " Ashtoreth is no other than Ishtar with a feminine termination, in
accordance with the Phoenician idiom. Asher and Ashera correspond
tolerably well with the Assyrian Asir and Asirat, the first being probably the
original form of the name of the god Asur (the ' propitious,' the ' giver of
prosperity'), and the second a surname of Ishtar. But I do not offer this aa
more than a conjecture " (C. P. Tiele, " Outlines of the History of Eeligion,"
p. 82). t Cf. Selden, " De Dis Syris," ch. viii.
X St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, ii. 3.

216 ORIGINES JUDAIC JE.
of the Asherah with that of the Syrian Baal, and of that
again with the worship of Ashtoreth, will leave little doubt
that in the primary meaning of rrws, we have the key
to the meaning of the worship of the " groves."
Francois Lenormant, however, connects rpsw. with the
Assyrian Scherouya, spouse of Asshur —
" deesse qui a Babylone, gardait son vieux nom accadien de Ki-
schar, 'la Terre productrice, la Terre feconde,' tandis qu'en
Assyrie on la designait par le nom semitique de Scherouya, tire
de la me'me racine que Asschour avec elision de la premiere-
radicale. Nous retrouvons ainsi le prototype et en meme temps
I'origine du nom de l'asche"rah, ce pieu plus ou moins enrichi
d'ornements, qui constituait le simulacre consacre de la deesse
chthonienne de la fecondite et de la vie dans le culte Kenaneen
de la Palestine, et dont il est si souvent parle dans la Bible." *
This derivation confirms the view taken above of the nature
of the Asherah-cult, and besides gives the goddess a more
definite existence. Fiirst also gives, as the meaning of
n~}W$, " ea quae beatitatem seu felicitatem confert de planeta
et numine Veneris, hinc de ejus Dese simulacris, sive lucis*
qui apud statuas et fana Deorum inter gentes plantari
solebant." On turning to the triliteral root, "ie>k, we find
a double meaning assigned to it : (1) gradiri, ire, cognate
to the Sanscrit sri and the root ser in de-ser-ere; (2) rectum,
erectum esse ; and hence (3) figuratively felicem, beatum
esse (6p0ov avai), succedere. The second of these clearly
contains the root idea ; for even if ire be the earlier form,
the core of the word lies in the conception of straightness
rather than motion, and we shall be justified in assigning
straightness as the root idea throughout.
With this agrees Movers,! who sees the same idea of
"Odia or 'OpOoo-ta in Asherah, but attributes it to the erection
* "Les Origines de l'Histoire," i. 89.
t " Die Phonizier," i. 566.

ON PHALLIC WORSHIP. 217
of the statue — quoting with approbation the words, " vr\W.
enim statuam notare possit ab erigendo dictam."*
Two facts clearly emerge from the Biblical references
to Asherah. One, that whatever the word denotes, it is
something distinct from Astarte or Ashtoreth. This is
evident from 2 Kings xxiii. 6, compared with vers. 13, 14,
15 of the same chapter. The Asherah was in this case
something that Josiah found in the house of Yahveh, dis
tinct from the Ashtoreth to whom Solomon built a temple
" on the right hand of the mount of corruption."
The second fact is that Asherah is used in the Old
Testament for the idol, or representation, rather than for
the goddess herself.t But, on the other hand, this distinction
is of little account, because no distinction was, as a matter
of fact, made between a god and his idol — the idol was the
god in popular belief, because through the idol the god
worked, and in the idol he was conceived to dwell. When
an Asherah was erected, a focus was supplied for the god's
'activity, and when a king like Josiah or Hezekiah burnt
an Asherah, he destroyed that god's power in that particular
locality. The frequent mention of the Asherah in conjunc
tion with an altar, or with the Baalim, lends support to the
opinion of Movers, that " the Asherah was a irapeSpog of
every other idol," and that, " at least after Ahab's time,
Asherahs were allowed to exist as o-vfifiu/Aoi, side by side
with the idolatrous worship of Yahveh."
A conclusion we have come to previously as to the
early character of Yahveh among the Jews receives
singular support from the references to Asherah worship.
Solomon established it apparently, as well as the worship
* Cf. iw'sn, " arbor procera, spec, cedri species," Isa. xli. 19, lx. 13.
f In 1 Kings xviii. 19 ; 2 Kings xxi. 7, xxiii. 4 ; 1 Kings xv. 13 ;
2 Chron. xv. 16 ; Judg. iii. 7, the word may, and, in two of these cases,
probably does, stand for the goddess as distinct from her idol.

218 ORIGINES JUDAIC JS.
of Ashtoreth;* Manasseh placed an Asherah in the
Temple of Yahveh,f and the children of Israel worshipped
Asherah on every high hill and under every green tree,
and apparently saw nothing in it inconsistent with the
worship of Yahveh as their own peculiar Deity. Clearly
then, as they conceived it, there was some point of contact,
some resemblance between the two worships, which made
the worship of both deities, the true and the false, not
incongruous in their eyes. It is incontestable that the
Asherah was the symbol of the fertility of Nature, and
hence the connection of her worship with that of Yahveh
is a further proof of the earlier (and surviving) nature
of the Jewish conception of Yahveh. And this being so,
each supports the other in the witness it bears to a current
menotheistic creed.
Since, then, we find that the hill-tops were chosen for
places of worship, not merely because they were farthest
from the dull level of earthly things, but as being nearer
the life-giving sun, the active beneficent god, and since
with hill-top worship we get Asherah worship, we have
an additional proof that the two were a union of the
worship of the generative power of nature, which Was
sometimes manifested under the form of the sun and moon,
and sometimes under equally appropriate, and equally
mysterious, symbols drawn from human life. It says
much for the immense spiritual superiority of the Israelite
that he was able to. withstand, as he ultimately did, the
inevitable tendency of a worship of this kind to degenerate
into gross licentiousness. So far as we know, it held the
Canaanites with undisputed sway, but, in spite of its
fascination when considered abstractedly, it never per
manently conquered the Jew, and the protests of Asa,
Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah, and their destruction
* Cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 13, 14. t 2 Kings xxi. 7.

ON PHALLIC WORSHIP. 219
of the high places with the approbation of at all events
a not inconsiderable section of their subjects, show how
early a hold the purer conception of Yahveh had over
at least a portion of this chosen nation.
Unfortunately we are not in a position to lay down
positively what were the rites with which the Asherah
was worshipped. From the mention in 2 Kings xxiii. 7
of "the women who wove hangings for the Asherah" it
would seem that some sort of drapery was provided for
it, or that it was curtained off from the common gaze.
In an Assyrian monument from Khorsabad figured by
Layard, we are shown an Asherah beside an altar. Before
it -are priests worshipping, who seem to be anointing it.
If so, we have a ritual act similar to the anointing of
the baitulia, which is so well-known a feature of the stone-
worship of antiquity*
The view taken here is not materially different from
that of Kuenen, who attributes to the Asherah an indi
viduality which Robertson Smith denies. According to
the latter, wherever the Old Testament places the Asherah
in conjunction with the Baalim, it is a proof of the mis
taken ideas of the later compilers of the historical books,
who were so ignorant as to confound Asherah and Ash
toreth. Kuenen, however, does arrive at the same result
as these later compilers by a distinction between Ashtoreth
and Asherah, somewhat parallel to that which the Greeks
made between Athene and Aphrodite. He regards Ash
toreth as the pure moon-goddess, severe, chaste, UapOivog
' Aotojoti/, a sort of Aphrodite Urania, the Queen of Heaven,
who, chastely worshipped herself, has left Asherah to
collect round her all the ideas which the ancients usually
associated with the worship of the telluric goddess of
generation. She is thus the female counterpart of Baal,
* Cf. Gen. xxviii. 18.

220 ORIGINES JUDAICM.
regarded as Dionusos, or the earth-god. If Kuenen be
right, we are able to understand the opposition with which
Ahab's introduction of the Tyrian Baal was met. The
Tyrian Baal and Ashtaroth as celestial deities were far
more dangerous rivals to the God of Israel than the
telluric deities of Syria, Baal and Asherah.*
An interesting passage from the " Journal of the Pales
tine Exploration Fund" will show the prevalence and
vitality of this hill-top worship : —
" It is not too much to say," writes the head of the exploring
parties, " that every isolated, round or conical mountain-top in
Palestine was once a seat of sun-worship. Thus at Sheik
Iskandu, west of the plain of Esdraelon, on a conical, volcanic
peak, we find the shrine of a prophet who is described as
contemporary with Abraham, and as having ram's horns like
the sun-god Jupiter Ammon. Neby Duhy is a similar conical
peak north-east of the last, and has a domed shrine on the top.
"The legend attached states that the bones of the Saint
were carried there by his dog, which reminds us of the Parsi
veneration of dogs (the companions of Mithras), who, to the
horror of Greek writers, were permitted to devour the bodies
of the most noble among the Persian fire- worshippers.
" The translation of bones is a common Moslem tradition.
" Thus on Ebal we have the sacred shrine of ' The Pillar
of the Faith,' and near it the sacred cave of Sitti Islamujeh, who
gives her name to the mountain, and whose bones were carried
through the air to this spot from Damascus. . . .
" North of Jerusalem by the village of SVafat is the gene
rally recognized site of Nob, where the Tabernacle once stood :
and this Nob, is Neby, or Nebo, the Assyrian Mercury. This
deity was symbolized by a stone or a stone-heap, and he was
one of the gods of the pre-Islamite Arabs who worshipped
stones (boetuli, or stone-heaps, as representing Allah) and sacred
trees, and the Asherah, or grove, of the Canaanites. . . . The
worship of Mercury included the throwing of stones on a heap
* Cf. Kuenen, " Eeligion of Israel," vol. i. ch. i., note 2 ; and Spencer, " De
Legibus Hebrseorum," lib. ii. cap. xxvii. 4.

ON PHALLIC WORSHIP. 221
as mentioned in the Talmud (Sanhed., vi. 7), and also by classic
authors ; and it is of interest to point out, that there is a most
remarkable natural monument such as was understood by the
name Zikr or Ed — a high conical rock-peak immediately east
of the road to Jerusalem at Sh'afat." *
All that need be added to what has been now said
pf the nature-worship of the Northern Semites is that,
all dominant though it was among them, it does not
appear to have been indigenous, but to have been borrowed
to some extent from an earlier civilization, and then
moulded in accordance with racial and climatic demands.
On this there is a substantial agreement among Orien
talists. For example, Professor Sayce says the Semitic
Babylonians held —
" a form of creed in which the old Accadian faith was bodily
taken over by an alien race, but at the same time profoundly
modified. It was Accadian religion interpreted by the Semitic
mind and belief. Baal-worship, which saw the sun-god every
where under an infinite variety of manifestations, waged a
constant struggle with the conceptions of the borrowed creed,
but never overcame them altogether." f
So, too, C. P. Tiele :—
" Only of the worship of Sin and Nabu do any clear traces
present themselves around and in Canaan; but these deities
appear to have been already the property of the Semites before
their entry into Mesopotamia. The names Ba'al and Ba'alith,
however, applied to their principal gods — Ashtoreth, perhaps
also Asher and Ashera and Anath — can only have been brought
by Canaanites and Phoenicians from Chaldea." |
The story of Dagon, as given in 1 Sam. v., is an excel
lent example of the phallic worship of Canaan at the
* Art. " Sun Worship," Palestine Exploration Jour., April, 1881 ; Tent
Work, i. p. 175.
t Sayce, ¦• Assyria : Its Princes, Priests, and People," p. 84.
t " Outlines of the History of Eeligion," p. 82.

222 ORIGINES JUDAIC^.
time of the Israelitish invasion. This god was formerly
identified with Oannes or Ea, the fish-god of Babylon,
from the statement of 1 Sam. v. 4, that, when the palms
of the hands and the head of the idol fell to the ground,
"only Dagon was left to him," and from the supposed
derivation of the name from a fish. As to the first, the
Biblical account is sufficiently patent of the meaning that,
his head being removed, a shapeless torso only was left ;
while, as to the second, it is true that Gesenius regards
fiJT as a diminutive of JT ; yet i% fish, tin, little fish, and
Ijn, corn, are alike derivatives of n^, to cover, or be
numerous, and Dagon may be derived as well from dagan,
corn, as from dag, a fish. Indeed, Dr. Nicholson, in
"Kitto's Bible Dictionary," while admitting that the de
rivation from UT is more consistent with the full facts of
the case, yet pronounces for that from ST because of the
phrase " only Dagon was left to him," and because, as he
says, the five golden piles would not apply to him as a
god of corn. He does not attempt, however, to show how
they are any more consistent with the derivation from
st that he favours.
Philo Byblius says that Dagon is the finder of corn,
and the plough is called Zeus Arotrios, and Bochart and
Beyer follow him in connecting Dagon with corn and not
with fish.
In short, the identification of Dagon with Oannes is
purely arbitrary, and not consistent with all the circum
stances of the Biblical narrative. That the lords of the
Philistines should offer five golden mice as propitiary
offerings to the God of Israel, might show that they
thereby admitted His destructive power by the mice He
had sent, as superior to that of their own god, who had
been unable to preserve for his worshippers their corn.
But why did they offer five golden emerods as well ? It

ON PHALLIC WORSHIP. 223
is not the grotesqueness of the gift which calls the usual
conception of it into question, for perhaps it is no more
grotesque than the disease itself. It is rather the apparent
incongruity of the disease with the character of Dagon,
either as a fish-god or as a corn-god. The mice had some
relation to him in this latter capacity. Can it be said,
then, that the " tumours," as the Revised Version renders
the word bpV, can be shown to have any meaning also
consistent with the character of Dagon as the god of corn ?
Gesenius sub voce gives the meaning of bs^ as tumuit,
and hence ?sV, tumulus. In Pual it has the metaphorical
meaning of superbus fait — swollen with pride, and in
Hiphil of tumide egit. The secondary meaning of the
noun he gives as " tumour," quoting Deut. xxviii. 27, and
1 Sam, v. 6, seq., and adds the Arab parallels as meaning
tumor in ano vi/rorum vel in pudendis mulierum. From
this latter we may perhaps arrive at a nearer conception
of what the word really does mean. No student of the
different worships of mankind will use the word " impos
sible " of any, even the most bizarre, practices. But if any
act could justify that term, it would perhaps be the
offering that the Authorized Version represents the Phili
stines as making to the God of Israel. It is possibly true
that the word has the meaning assigned to it by the
Authorized Version in Deut. xxviii. 27, and a similar
meaning in the disease of 1 Sam. v., but if the radical
meaning of h^S, as given in Gesenius, be kept in mind
there will be little difficulty in coming to the conclusion
that the gifts in 1 Sam. v. have a specific meaning, not
altogether remote from the meaning of Asherah as given
above. General Forlong * says : —
" Inter barbaros mos semper obtinuit quo similia similibus
curari existimarentur. Hsemerrhoidos credibile est factos esse
* "Eivers of Life," vol. i. 52.

224 ORIGINES JUDAICJE.
in Sacris Scripturis obscuros. Non tamen est dubium quin illi
quidam tumores pudendorum sint, ab area, signo muliebri,
producti. Constat Athenienses, quod Bacchum neglexissent,
phallos offerre debuisse." And again : * " Doctores se nihil de
hsemerrhoidis constituere posse confitentur praeter tumores.
Quum tamen praeterea tradatur eos in pudendis fuisse, dicunt
bubones esse potuisse. Quum enim poenas omnium aliarum
gentium, in areas suas speculantium, meminerimus, non pos-
sumus non credere signum semiapertum esse."
General Forlong does not attempt any more than other
writers of the same school to give proof of his assertions.
But his statements are useful as pointing us in the direction
where proof may be found. If Dagon be the god of corn,
then he was the symbol of the generative power of nature
as the celestial Venus was above, and as Demeter, Bacchus,
Khem, Ishtar, and Venus also were. And in this capacity
he would naturally receive that nature-worship under
human symbols, and be appeased with those representations
of the organs of terrestrial generation which we know to
have been so common a gift to the generative gods of
antiquity. And when this god of the Philistines proved
himself unable to save his worshippers from a painful and
shameful disease, they immediately transferred to the more
powerful God of the Jews the offerings they had been in
the habit of making to Dagon. t
What lends support to the view taken above, is the
fact that the mouse was, among the ancients, not merely
a troublesome pest, but was invested with qualities which
made him sacred to Priapus.
* " Eivers of Life," vol. i. p. 150.
t For an interesting example of a similar custom lingering down to
modern times, see the curious little description of the gifts to SS. Cosmo
and Damian in Southern Italy, given in a letter written by Sir William
Hamilton. Possibly the form that David's dowry of Michal took may have
had its root in similar early nature-worship.

ON PHALLIC WORSHIP. 225
" Mures flagranti libidine dicunt esse, testemque Cratinum
afferunt dicentem in Fugitivis : — • Age nunc tibi
De sereno adversus mollitiem muris fulgarabo Xenophontis.'
" Et femineam quidem murem majore veneris rabie flagrare
dicunt ; et rursus Epicratem citant in dramate, quod inscribitur
Chorus : — ' Postremo subiit lena detestabilis
Per Phersephattam, per Dianam dejerans,
Esse hanc puellam, virginemque, et integram
Pullus ut indomitus : at cavus erat murium.'
Voluit autem extreme libidinosam dicere ' cavum totum muri-
num ' earn appellando. Et Philemon : —
' Mus albus, illam si quis (at fari pudet)
Clamavit adeo lena mox turpissima,
Latere nusquam licuit.' " *
In Moor's " Hindu Pantheon," Plate XX. shows Maha-
deva seated on a rug, turning towards Parvati on his
right, and being fanned by their elephant-headed son,
Ganesa, on his left. Ganesa's Vahan, or Vehicle, is in the
foreground, viz. "a rat of very small dimensions" = a
mouse, and in front of it is a serpent. The whole design
is of a phallic character.
At Butos, mice-mummies have been found, thus show
ing this little animal to be sacred to the goddess worshipped
there. Maimonides t says that the Harranians sacrificed
field-mice. In Lev. xi. 29 the mouse is included among
the Y\%? who were unclean, i.e. the consumption or touch
of whose dead bodies caused a ceremonial taint.
The close connection between " sanctity " and " un
cieanness" has already been noticed. In both the object
so regarded was forbidden to man's ordinary use. A thing
was holy because "separated" for the god; a thing was
* CEliani, " De Natura Animalium," xii. 10. Cf. Selden, " De Dis Syr.
Syntag," i. c. 6; Frazer, "Golden Bough," ii. 131 ; De Gubernatis, "Zoo
logical Mythology ; " Juvenal, Sat., vi. 339.
t Ed. Munk, iii. 64.

226 ORIGINES JUDAICJE.
unclean because it was originally conceived as dangerous
to man, and, in later times, regarded as hateful to the god.
The uncieanness attaching to things tabooed among savages,
is due to that belief in " sympathetic magic " which was so
common among races of a low stage of civilization. Women
at certain periods, corpses, and objects under the special
favour of a god, were regarded as being, as it were, sur
charged with an electric force proceeding from the heart
of nature, which made it highly dangerous to come into
contact with them. Many of the animals declared unclean
in Leviticus were sacred animals in heathen religions, and
might not be eaten, e.g. the pig in Egypt. There swine
herds, like the paraschites, were an unclean caste with
whom no outsider would intermarry. If a man happened
to touch a pig, he would at once walk into the river,
clothes and all. Yet, once a year, the pig was sacrificed
to Osiris, and sacramentally eaten.* Similar precautions
were taken when man came into contact with( his god ;
when, e.g., the Jew touched the book of the Law he had
to wash his hands. In Jehu's destruction of the worship
of the Tyrian Baal, the mention of the vestments for the
worshippers f reminds us of the custom which made taboo
the clothes worn at worship, and which, therefore, necessi
tated special vestments. The same feeling seems to have
been the origin of the custom of putting off the shoes before
entering holy ground. From all this it may be safely
inferred that the distinction between clean and unclean
animals was analogous to the heathen taboo, and that the
mouse, therefore, like the pig, was unclean to the Jews
from its associations with heathen sanctity. And this
* Other examples of the same kind may be found enumerated in Frazer,
" Golden Bough," ii. 49-60, and Eobertson Smith, •' Eeligion of the Semites,"
pp. 427-435.
t 2 Kings x. 22.

ON PHALLIC WORSHIP. 227
conclusion is confirmed by the mention of the mouse, in
Isa. lxvi. 17, as a sacrificial animal ; and by the declaration,
in Ezek. viii. 10, that every form of creeping things and
abominable beasts, among which the mouse was un
doubtedly included, were portrayed upon the wall round
about.* Additional testimony to the view taken here of this
peculiar incident is afforded by Bochart in his " Geographia
Sacra." t In rebutting the opinion that Bacchus was the
Moses of the Phoenicians and Egyptians, he takes occasion to
quote from the " Dionysiacs," J a parallel to Shamgar's feat
recorded in Judg. iii. 31, derived from the sixth book of the
" Iliad ; " and from the " Dionysiacs " § he cites a struggle
of Bacchus against Pallen, which ended as did the wrestling
of Jacob with the angel. Pausanias, in the " Achaica,"
writes that the Greeks found at Troy an ark, Xapvaica,
sacred to Liber, and when Eurypilus had looked into it,
and seen the statue of Bacchus there concealed, he was
smitten with madness. Bochart then goes on to quote
from the "Acharnenses" of Aristophanes (v. 262 et seq.)
an account of the anger of Bacchus with the Athenians
because they had failed to receive his sacred rites with
due reverence, when brought from Boeotia to Attica by
Pegasus. For this they were smitten by the god with a
sore disease — "Bacchus illos in pudendis afflixit gravi
morbo ; " for this they found no remedy till they obeyed the
oracle which bade them offer images of the parts afflicted to
the angry god — " Nulla fuit salus donee ab oraculo moniti
Deo se morigeros prsebuerant et phallos, hoc est, imagines
illarum partium quas afflixerat, in ejus honorem erexerant."
* Cf. also, as bearing on this subject, the mention, in 2 Kings xxiii. 11,
of the horse as sacred to the sun, just as our Scandinavian ancestors held it
sacred to Odin ; whence came the abhorrence in which horseflesh is held by
us down to the present time.
t Lib. 1, cxviii. vol. i. ed. 1707. X Lib. xx. § Lib. xlviii

228 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
Bochart's conclusion, in which Bishop Patrick follows
him, is that as one egg is like another, so is this story
fabricated by the Greeks from the Biblical narrative. He
supposes Cadmus to have brought it from Phoenicia, and
makes him a contemporary of Joshua. Whatever may be
the connection, the one story illustrates the other. How
ever, as Maurice observes,* there is no reason for supposing
any direct parentage on either side since "the ancient
heathens consecrated to their gods such memorials of their
deliverance as best represented the evils from which they
were liberated ; " and, in fact, among the Hindoos, accord
ing to Tavernier, it is a custom at this day, that when any
pilgrim goes to a pagod for the cure of any disease, he
should bring the figure of the member affected, made either
of gold, silver, or copper, according to his rank and ability,
as an offering to the god. It is related, too, of a race of
devotees, whose vices Siva descended from heaven to punish,
that, in revenge, they induced Heaven to send a consuming
fire, which destroyed the genitalia of the god. Siva would
then have destroyed mankind, had not Vishnu persuaded
him to accept the worship of images of the parts
destroyed.! We conclude, therefore, that there is eveiy reason, from
the nature of both the gifts offered to Dagon, for concluding
that he was a Priapic deity. Nor will this inference be
shaken if the derivation which makes Dagon the corn-god
be rejected in favour of the other derivation which makes
him, Dagon, the fish -god. For water was universally
recognized as the passive element out of which the universe
was produced by the action of fire, the active principle,
and the only difference in this latter case would be that
* " Indian Antiquities," ii. 167, ed. 1806.
t Crawford, "Sketches Eelating to the Customs of the Hindoos,"
p. 177.

ON PHALLIC WORSHIP. 229
Dagon was the god of the passive principle in nature
instead of the active. His nature, however, as a Dionysian
god being assumed as proved, the analogy of other religions
would go to make us class him with the active gods, rather
than the passive, and so we get a reflex argument for
deriving his name from the word for corn rather than from
that for fish.
It has been asserted repeatedly and unwaveringly by
the writers of the school of modern gnosticism that the
Jews had a class of sacred women attached officially to
their national worship. Thus Inman * says roundly : —
" Amongst the Jews there were Kedeshim attached to the
temple, with whom the votaries could indulge their animal
instincts; and we conclude that the organization of prosti
tution, however repugnant it may be to Christians, is a duty
which has the sanction of the Bible."
He here makes two assertions : (1) that the sacra mere-
trix was allowed by the Jewish law ; (2) that high politics
were concerned in sanctioning it as one way of dealing
with a thorny social problem. He fails, in the first place,
to notice the difference between a practice obtaining among
the Jews, and its having the sanction of their Law as con
tained in the Bible. In the second place, he is guilty of
an inexcusable anachronism in attributing to the Jews, at
so early a period of their development, what is always the
product of a civilization in its later stages, when luxury
has gained ground, when classes are sharply divided, when
commerce has superseded agriculture as the staple industry,
and when the pressure of demand on supply leaves one
class submerged by the rising tide of necessity. The Jews
were under no obligation to organize prostitution, still less
was there any reference to this unhappy social phenomenon
* " Ancient Faiths embodied in Ancient JJames," vol. ii. p. 177.

230 ORIGINES JUDAICJ3.
in their law. Whatever may be the meaning of the
passage under question, the explanation given by Dr.
Inman is the farthest possible from the truth.
The analogy of heathen rites is often quoted as lending
presumption to this, and especially the following description
given by Herodotus of the worship of Mylitta at Babylon : —
" The Babylonians have one most shameful custom. Every
woman born in the country must once in her life go and sit
down in the precinct of Venus, and there consort with a stranger.
Many of the wealthier sort, who are too proud to mix with the
others, drive in covered carriages to the precinct, followed by a
goodly train of attendants, and there take their station. But
the larger number seat themselves within the holy enclosure
with wreaths of string about their heads, — and here there is
always a great crowd, some coming and others going ; lines of
cord mark out paths in all directions amongst the women, and
the strangers pass along them to make their choice.
" A woman who has once taken her seat is not allowed to
return home till one of the strangers throws a silver coin into
her lap, and takes her with him beyond the holy ground.
" When he throws the coin he says these words, ' The god
dess Mylitta prosper thee.' (Venus is called Mylitta by the
Assyrians.) " The silver coin may be of any size ; it cannot be refused,
for that is forbidden by the law, since.'once thrown, it is sacred.
The woman goes with the first man who throws her money, and
rejects no one.
" When she has gone with him, and so satisfied the goddess,
she returns home, and from that time forth, no gift, however
great, will prevail with her.
" Such of the women as are tall and beautiful are soon
released, but others who are ugly have to stay a long time
before they can fulfil the law. Some have waited three or four
years in the precinct.
" A custom very much like this is found also in certain parts
of the island of Cyprus." *
* Herodotus, i. ch. 199, pp. 323-325 (Eawlinson's transl.) ; cf. Baruch,
vi. 43.

ON PHALLIC WORSHIP. 231
In Armenia, according to Strabo,* the sons and
daughters of the aristocracy were consecrated to the
service of Anaitis. Astarte in Syria received the same
homage. Adonis at Byblos was honoured during his fetes
with the sacrifice of the hair, or person, of each of his
female worshippers. There is little doubt that the fetes of
Isis had a similar accompaniment in Egypt.t
Bishop HeberJ describes the Bayaderes of Southern
India as fulfilling the same functions in that country at
the present day.§
It is necessary here, perhaps, to warn the reader again
against the supposition that these rites, revolting as they
are to us, were necessarily licentious or impure in their
origin. || Whatever they may have degenerated into
* Book 2, Melpom. 172.
t Sir Gardner Wilkinson's scepticism, based on the unlikelihood of
nobly born women thus degrading themselves, is (like most a priori objections)
easily removed by a single example to the contrary. Here we have many,
drawn from the parallel usage in every country of Western Asia. Herodotus
excepts Egypt and Greece from the countries where this practice ruled. -
But the worship of Venus Pandemos at Athens, and the similar worship
at Corinth, dispose of the negative statement of Herodotus as to Greece.
Moreover, Strabo's assertion that a class of persons called pellices were
dedicated to the service of the patron deity of Thebes, and were permitted
to cohabit with whom they chose, joined to the well-known aversion of
Herodotus to tell all he knew of the secrets of Egyptian worship, sufficiently
dispose of his statement about Egypt.
X " Journey," iii. 219.
§ Cf. also St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, lib. iv. cap. 10.
|| " The national enthusiasm of the prophets was produced by an intense
antipathy to the foreign elements, which confronted them chiefly in the idea
of Elohim, common to Israel and Canaan, and including all the abominations
of the Canaanitish worship, and all the laxity of manners introduced from
foreign parts into the higher ranks of society. With the Canaanites, dis
solute forms of worship were results naturally developed out of the previous
history of their religion, and could be traced backwards to their origin in
mythology. Being such, they could not have so ruinous an influence on
morals and character as among the Hebrews, who seized on the immorality
as such, without having had any share in the previous historical stages
which led to it." If for unbelief we substitute absence of historical prepara
tion, the correct observation made by Constant (" Du Polytheisme Eomain,"
ii. 102, quoted by Buckle, "History of Civilization," ii. 303) on Soman

232 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
afterwards, there is little doubt that early worshippers
regarded such worship as the earthly counterpart of the
heavenly mysteries by which corn, and wine, and oil were
produced to gladden the heart, and maintain the life of man.
Before reflection had taught man to distinguish between the
relative grades of spiritual and corporal acts, every natural
act was a sacrifice, and it was performed in obedience to
an instinct implanted by the heavenly powers.
The question now before us is whether : (1) we have
traces of this worship in the Old Testament, and (2) is it
true that it formed an integral part of the worship of
Israel The Hebrew equivalent s?Ta, with its feminine n^Tj?,
occurs eleven times in the Old Testament, three of which
are in the account of the incident of Judah and Tamar.*
The others are Deut. xxiii. 17 (18) bis; 1 Kings xiv. 24,
xv. 12, xxii. 46 (47) ; 2 Kings xxiii. 7 ; Job xxxvi. 14,
and Hosea iv. 14. Three of the four passages in Kings
record the attempt made to get rid of the WTp by Asa,
Josiah, and Jehoshaphat, and the fourth mentions their
presence under Rehoboam with reprobation. The passages
in Job and in Hosea are of a similar character to the last
named. Gen. xxxviii. 21, 22 merely records the fact that
Tamar assumed the familiar distinctive dress of a riB>Ta.
The moral condemnation contained in Deut. xxiii. 17 (18),
has been sought to be evacuated, as if the verse merely
forbade a Jewish woman to be so consecrated, which
betrays an ignorance of Hebrew idioms, and of the jealousy
with which Hebrews at that time rejected strangers from
the more sacred rites of their worship. These passages,
Polytheism is applicable to this case also : that indecent rites may be
practised by a religious nation without detriment to purity of heart; but if
unbelief takes hold of the nation, such rites are the cause and the pretext
for the most revolting corruption (Goldziher, "Mythology among the
Hebrews," p. 303).
* Gen. xxxviii. 21.

ON PHALLIC WORSHIP. 233
therefore, go to show (1) that the Israelites were, as a
matter of fact, attracted by this form of Canaanitish
worship, and (2) that their surrender to it was directly
contrary to the precepts of Yahveh as contained in the
Law. Another passage, which, so far as I am aware, has
escaped the notice of writers of the school of modern
Gnosticism, is 1 Sam. ii. 22. That Eli's sons are here con
demned for either licentiousness or a breach of sacerdotal
rule is obvious. But it is not so obvious who are meant
by the women who are described as " assembling at the
door of the tabernacle." Dean Plumptre, in Smith's " Dic
tionary of the Bible," conjectured that they were the wives
and daughters of the Levites. The Hebrew xix, used here
to describe the assemblage of women, is a term that radi
cally denotes to go forth (Furst colligere) ; thence it
acquired its customary meaning of "go forth in bands
for war." In one or two places, however, it is transferred
from the army to the temple.* And in this sense it is
applied to the sons of Gershon in Num. iv. 23, f who are
there spoken of as " entering in to perform the service, to
do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation."
In two other passages, and in two only, is the word
«2X applied to women, in the passage in 1 Sam. ii. 22,
under consideration, and in a closely parallel passage in
Exod. xxxviii. 8 : " And he made the ewer of brass, and
the foot of it of brass, of the looking-glasses of the women
assembling, which assembled at the door of the tabernacle
of the congregation." In 1 Sam. ii. 22, the LXX. omit the
latter clause; in Exod. xxxviii. 8 they translate it by
* "Transfertur ad militiam sacram, i.e. cultum divinum in sacrario
ad quern militum instar per ordines procedere solebant" (Gesenius, sub
voce). t Cf. Num. viii. 24.

234 ORIGINES JUDAIC JS.
vnoTEuttv. In the former, the Vulgate has observantium ;
in the latter, excubantium*
It has been urged that these women must have been
the devout women who, like Anna the prophetess, loved
to spend much of their time within the temple precincts,
and that these mirrors were their special gift. But the
precise way that they are described seems to mark them
off from the pious men and women who, in Exod. xxxv. 22,
are related to have brought " bracelets, and ear-rings, and
rings and tablets, all jewels of gold." " -1K3V, non simpliciter
agminatvm convenire notat, sed per vices advenire ad
ministeria obeunda : cf. Num. iv. 23 ; viii. 24, ubi dicitur
de Levitis in tabernaculo sacro ministeria obeuntibus, quia
perinde ut milites certum ordinem et tempus observare
tenebantur." t
It is possible, however, that the explanation of the
passage lies in the key-word "mirrors." Sir Gardner
Wilkinson speaks of the mirror as one of the principal
objects of the toilet in Egypt, and gives seven engravings
of known specimens, i Of these, four seem to be connected
with Hathor, the Egyptian Venus, and perhaps two others.
It is known, too, that amongst Western Asiatic Mussul
mans the mirror shares with the cup the honour of taking
part in the mysteries of magic,§ over which Venus, as
goddess of Fortune, presides. But, besides this, there are
obvious reasons for the mirror being regarded as specially
connected with the votaries of Venus, and the oval shape
that prevailed among the Egyptians is in favour of this
supposition. * The LXX. text in both books was clearly a corrupt one, as is shown
by their translation in 1 Sam. ii. 24, from 12JJT, SouXeia, instead of 12%, to
transgress, and from their translating in Exod. xxxviii. 8, from ras, to fast,
instead of sji^ to assemble.
t Eosenmuller ; in Exod. xxxviii. 8.
X "The Ancient Egyptians," ii. 350, 351. § Cf. Gen. xliv. 5.

ON PHALLIC WORSHIP. 235
Ewald's interpretation of niXTP3, that it cannot be under
stood otherwise than as " with the mirrors," * is deserving
of some consideration. The meaning accepted by the LXX.,
who render it e'k ti2v kcwotitpwv, and by Jonathan, ex
speculis, is followed by all the Rabbinical commentators
as given in " Critici Sacri." It is certainly defensible, for
the preposition 3, with, as equivalent to }p, ex, occurs in
Lev. viii. 32, where the meaning is undoubted. Moreover,
we should expect, instead of niKTM, if Ewald's interpreta
tion be correct, niJOpTiKl, so as to be on the same con
structional lines as the previous part of the verse.
Following Ewald, the translation would be literally : " And
he made the brazen laver, and its brazen foot, together
with the mirrors of the women," etc. Where grammar is
neutral, history may assist, and a fact cited by Rosen-
muller may perhaps throw some light on the subject.
" It was the custom," he says, " for the Egyptian women,
which the Israelitish women borrowed, to go to the temple
carrying a mirror, as is proved from a passage of Cyril in his
' De adorat. in spirit, et in lit.' L ii. p. 64, ed. Paris, which runs :
' It was the custom, therefore, of the Egyptians, especially
among their women, when they went to their temples, to be
ceremonially adorned : they were dressed in linen garments,
and carried in their left hand a mirror and in their right a
sistrum. Even the noblest and the initiated obtained this
honour with some difficulty.' "
If we find that the Jews adopted other Egyptian
customs, the balance inclines in favour of this being
another: if not, not. We shall see presently that the
Thummim display an Egyptian origin ; the ark had its
counterpart in Egypt; the prescription of linen garments
for the priests, the use of bells on the High Priest's dress,
* "Antiquities of Israel," p. 285, n.

236 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
the sacerdotal vestments, and the priestly tiara had all
their analogues in Egyptian worship. It is not improbable,
therefore, that Ewald's interpretation may be correct, and
the mirrors may have been made for the women whom
we have seen were a recognized guild of servants of the
sanctuary of Yahveh.
This is confirmed by the notice in Judg. xxi. 21, where
" the daughters of Shiloh," who come out to dance in
dances, are evidently attached to the temple worship
there ; also by Ps. lxviii. 25, where the damsels who play
on the timbrels are part of the officiants at the sanctuary.
It is probable, therefore, that Miriam and her maidens, who,
in Exod. xx., are related to have answered Moses and the
children of Israel in song and with timbrels and dances,
already were an organized body of worshippers of Jehovah.
That they should use a mirror as well as a timbrel for a
religious instrument is quite consistent with other portions
of the Jewish worship, which adopted and modified what
ever seemed likely to lead towards the end in view, viz.
the future worship of Yahveh as a Spirit in spirit and in
truth. On the whole, perhaps, it must be said that the balance
of evidence is in favour of these women being a religious
guild attached to the sanctuary, and that they were the
Israelitish counterpart of the similar guilds among the
Gentiles. In instituting them, we are free to infer that
Moses acted as he did when he left Egypt, he spoiled the
heathen and made them contribute to a purer worship.
The mixed multitude could be controlled, not subdued, and
remained to the end a source of trouble.
In any case, there is no ground for the assertion that
the practice of having sacree meretrices was ever permitted
in Israel. The women who assumed that character in
other nations kept their religious character, but dropped

ON PHALLIC WORSHIP. 237
their sexual worship when they entered the courts of
Yahveh's house.
One other indication of the presence of a low nature-
worship in Canaan may be briefly noticed. In 1 Kings
xv. 13, Asa is said to have destroyed his mother Maachah's
¦"i^?P, which the Vulgate gives as simulacrum Priapi,
which is probably correct, as the idol was connected with,
or was an Asherah. So Movers —
" In the Old Testament we have one passage referring to
the idol Asherah which leaves no just doubt that it was a
phallus. The annalist of the history of the Kings speaks of
the worship of the Asherah introduced by Rehoboam, and of
the Sodomites connected with it (1 Kings xiv. 23, 24) ; and he
adds that the queen-mother Maachah made a figure of shame on
the Asherah, which Asa hewed down and burnt in the valley
of Kidron (1 Kings xv. 13; 2 Chron. xv. 16). What is here
translated literally ' figure of shame,' is, in Hebrew, nvSap,
properly, pudendum, verendum, as also Jerome explains it, who
translates the passage of Chronicles thus : ' Sed et Maacham
matrem Asa regis ex augusto deposuit imperio, eo quod fecisset in
luco (nTE'N^) simulacrum Priapi ' (comp. Jer. Com. ad Hosea iv.).
From the comparison of this passage, according to which the
wooden idol Asherah was a pudendum, with the other, according
to which it was a high pillar, it is plain that it was a phallus, a
symbol of the generative and fructifying power of nature." *
I do not propose to pursue the subject of this chapter
any further. What has been said may be sufficient to
show that a menotheistic creed (of which phallicism is
but a particular case) was familiar to the Jews. It seemed
the more necessary not to pass over this subject entirely,
inasmuch as no adequate work on it has yet appeared in
English. The works of Godfrey Higgins, Gen. Forlong,
Dr. Inman, and others, do indeed deal with it, but in so
* " Die Phonizier," i. 571.

238 ORIGINES JUDAICJE.
unscientific a way that I have found them practically
useless. At the same time, no sketch of any ancient
religion can be considered as adequate which ignores
customs, however repugnant, which occupy a much larger
place in the history of religion than most people would
suppose from the current books on the subject.

( 239 )

CHAPTER IX
ON SOME "ORNAMENTS OP THE CHURCH " OF THE JEWS.
This chapter will be devoted to the consideration of some
disconnected1 facts arising out of the Old Testament
narrative, which have a bearing, though less direct, on the
main subject of the essay. If we can show that such
objects as the Cherubim, or the Urim and Thummim, or
the Ark, or the Temple had their earlier analogues in
heathen religions, and if we know from other sources that
those religions were of a particular character, we shall be
afforded an additional presumption that at least there was
nothing in Israel's religion, at the time of the adoption of
these objects, that was regarded as wholly incompatible
with the underlying ideas on which these objects rested in
the land of their birth.
Although the influence of the Assyrian cosmogony may
be admitted by most students in the earlier narrative of
the Pentateuch, yet it has been too hastily assumed that,
if any of the world religions exercised a dominant influence
on it from the time of the Exodus onwards, that religion
must be the religion of Egypt. Egypt has been credited
with the origin of circumcision, of a ceremonial ark, of
sacrifices resembling the Jewish, and, in short, with all the
ritual and ceremonial enactments which are found in the
Levitical Code. Yet it is but what facts demand when
we assert that, not Egypt only, but Assyria also must be

240 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
turned to, if we are to ascertain the origines of the worship
of Yahveh. Authorities differ as to whether, supposing Assyrian
influence to be granted, it is to be assigned to traditions of
the beliefs held by Abram in TJr of the Chaldees ; or to
the effect of the contact of the Canaanitish tribes on their
Israelitish conquerors ; or even to the still later, and more
direct contact of Babylon itself on its Jewish captives.
Without entering on this thorny question, we may point
to one or two facts which show a connection between
Israel and Assyria, even in the early days of the national
narrative. The names of Saul, David, and Solomon have been
plausibly connected with Assyrian polytheism. There is
the well-known custom of kings naming themselves or
being named after the name of their god, which we see
in Nebuchadnezzar, Usertesen, Evil-Merodach, Belshazzar,
and many others. Knowing the special partiality of the
Edomites for connecting their gods and their kings in this
way ; finding in Gen. xxxvi. 37, the name of Saul as that
of an Edomitish king; and knowing that the sun-god of
Babylon had, as one of his names, Savul, or in Hebrew
Saul, there seems presumptive proof that this latter god
was known in some way, at all events to the people who
named the king of their asking, Saul.
Etymologically David, or D6d, or with its nominative
suffix Dodo, is the masculine of the name of a Phoenician
goddess who was the beloved spouse of Tammuz, the sun-
god of Carthage. It was supposed that this Phoenician
god was worshipped in Southern Canaan as well as in
Phoenicia. This conjecture has been established as fact
by a sentence in the Moabite stone. Mesha, the King of
Moab, in it recounts, in honour of his god Chemosh, the
victories he had won. From Ataroth he had carried off

"ORNAMENTS OF THE CHURCH" OF THE JEWS. 241
"the altar of Dodo and taken it before Chemosh," from
Nebo he had carried off " the altars of Yahveh and taken
them before Chemosh." We have here again a trace of
Assyrian influence through a Phoenician channel. Sallim-
manu, the "god of peace," was worshipped in Assyria, and
Shalman-eser embodies his name. An inscription on a
cylinder in the British Museum runs : " Solomon, the fish,
is king of the gods," and Professor Sayce conjectures that
this Assyrian god is identical with Ea himself.
At all events, Solomon, the King of Israel, bears a name
which was already known as that of an Assyrian god. To
this derivation of the names Saul, David, and Solomon,
we should perhaps add also that of Moses. It is certainly
notable that the Assyrian Masu, equivalent of the Hebrew
M6sheh, is a common epithet of Merodach and other local
sun-gods of Assyria, while the earlier explanation of
Josephus, that Mwuo-iJe is the one saved from the water, is
grammatically untenable. When, too, we recollect that
Assyrian religion is enshrined in the words Nebo, the
mountain where Moses died, while the moon-god Sin has
given his name to Mount Sinai, and that Jericho is
probably the city of the moon, there will be little difficulty
in believing that the name Moses was primarily of Assyrian
origin. It may be worth notice in passing, that Aaron is a
name that cannot be traced to any Hebrew root, but finds
its possible origin in the Assyrian aharu, to send; that
Wy, the crux of Hebrew scholars and the despair of
Gesenius, is now explained by the Assyrian ishtin, one;
that the sacred tetragram, never pronounced by the Jews
and not found in the New Testament, whose true pro
nunciation was lost, seems recovered for us in the Assyrian
Yahu : and that Ydm, sea ; hekal, a temple ; ir, a city, and
others are Accadian : and that Abrek, in Gen. xli. 43, is
R

242 ORIGINES JUDAICJE.
an Accadian word for a seer, and does not mean " Bow
the knee."
Similar ground, too, is trodden when we compare the
external worship of Assyria with that of Israel. The
offices of king and priest were not always kept distinct
in either kingdom. Solomon offered sacrifice, and Assur-
natsir-pal was the priest of Assur. Solomon's "sea of
brass" had its counterpart in the apsi or "deeps" used for
purificatory processes in Assyria. Herodotus, describing
the famous temple of Belos at Babylon, says : —
" Outside the shrine is a golden altar. There is also another
great altar upon which full-grown sheep are sacrificed, for
upon the golden altar only sucklings are allowed to be offered.
Upon the larger altar, also, the Chaldseans burn each year a
thousand talents of frankincense at the time when they keep
the festival of the god."
This is not unlike the two altars of Solomon's temple,
one for large and one for smaller offerings.* One of
Nebuchadnezzar's inscriptions runs : —
"Ka-Khilibu, the gate of glory, as well as the gate of
E-Zida within E-Sagila, I made as brilliant as the sun. The
holy seats, the place of the gods who determine destiny, which
is the place of the assembly (of the gods), the holy of holies
of the god of destiny, wherein on the great festival, at the
beginning of the year, on the eighth and eleventh days (of the
month of the divine king, Merodach), the god of heaven and
earth, the lord of heaven descends, while the gods in heaven
and earth, listening to him with reverential awe and standing
humbly before him, determine therein a destiny of long ending
days, even the destiny of my life ; this holy of holies, this
sanctuary of the kingdom, this sanctuary of the lordship of the
firstborn of the gods, the prince, Merodach, which a former
king had adorned with silver, I overlaid with glittering gold
and rich ornament." * 1 Kings viii. 64.

"ORNAMENTS OF THE CHURCH" OF THE JEWS. 243
The resemblances between this account and that of the
Jewish temple are no less striking than the differences.
Each had a holy of holies; within each of the shrines
heaven was consulted, and the divine oracles were pro
nounced; in Babylon Merodach descended at the time of
the great festival at the beginning of the year, as in
Jerusalem Yahveh manifested Himself between the
Cherubim. But in the latter city God was a jealous God,
One and unrivalled ; in the former, Zarpanit, the wife of
Merodach, and Nebo his son, had their shrines within his
temple, and according to Herodotus it contained also " a
great statue of Zeus [Bel] of gold in a sitting posture, with
a great golden table set beside it." Moreover, the temple
of Merodach had a lofty tower of eight stages three hundred
feet high, on a base of the same breadth.* This imposing
ziggurat, "the house of the foundation-stone of heaven
and earth," was evidently connected with the worship of
the sun-god Merodach, and had no counterpart in the
temple of Jerusalem.
We may, however, confidently conclude that the
resemblances between Solomon's temple and Assyrian
temples were still closer than indicated above. Even the
mode of building was identical. The Jewish king sent
carriers and hewers of stone into the mountains to bring
great stones, costly stones, and hewed stones for the
foundations. Sennacherib informs us by his inscriptions
that he set to work in precisely the same way. Solomon's
" porch before the temple," corresponds to the propylseum
such as existed at Khorsabad. The oracle itself was a
cube of twenty cubits, and hence, as the height of the
whole building was thirty cubits, it must have had an
upper chamber similar to such as the Assyrians built.
Solomon " carved all the walls of the house round about
* George Smith's letter to Athenseum, Feb. 12, 1876.

244 ORIGINES JUDAIC^!.
with carved figures of Cherubim and palm-trees, and open
flowers within and without." *
The mention of the cherubim brings before us one
of those curious features of the temple worship which
have so much exercised the ingenuity of commentators.
They deserve a careful notice in connection with what
we believe was their Assyrian analogue. Within the
oracle we read Solomon placed these mysterious figures,
of which our assured knowledge from the narrative is
limited to the facts that they were of olive wood, each
ten cubits high, with wings of five cubits ; that they stood
on their feet,\ not facing each other with outspread wings
as in the case of the golden cherubim of Moses, but
standing as guardians, one on each side of the ark, and
facing with outstretched wings the Holy Place. It may
be added, not as mathematically, but as morally certain,
that the normal type of the cherub involved the body of
an ox. This is inferred from the expression in 1 Chron.
xxviii. 18, "the chariot of the cherubim," i.e. the chariot
consisting of the cherubim, t A further confirmation of
the same inference is derived from the suspicious ignorance
of Josephus, who declares that no one could even guess
at their true form,§ in spite of the fact that, being " carved
round about the walls of the house," they had been
familiar to the priests, who saw them daily. His ignorance
must be supposed to be feigned through a shrinking
from a taunt that bovine figures were an adjunct of Jewish
worship. Keil, while rejecting the theories which treat the
cherubim as symbolical or mythical figures in favour
of that which makes them real, supramundane, spiritual
essences, admits that no Semitic derivation can be found
* 1 Kings vi. 29. t 2 Chron. iii. 13.
t Cf. De Saulcy, " Histoire de 1'Art Juda'ique," p. 29.
§ Antiq., viii. 33.

"ORNAMENTS OF THE CHURCH" OF THE JEWS. 245
for l-IT? and that it is probably connected with ypty*
Hengstenberg concludes, from the mention of the cherubim
in Gen. iii., that they belonged originally to the sphere
of natural religion. Bahr regards them as part of the
common possession of the entire ancient world which
identified the life of nature with the life of the Creator.
Dillman, supporting the mythical view, holds that the
" cherubim of the popular faith were strange animal-like
creatures with wings, which bore God through the air
on those occasions on which He appeared to men."f
Lenormant has deciphered the inscription on an Assyrian
amulet in which the hieroglyph for Sidu, the ox-god,
is rendered by Kirubu, cherub, while the characteristic
mark of a Divine being is affixed. J
It is worth consideration whether the explanation of
the cherubim is not to be sought further back. They
are represented in Gen. iii. 24, and in the various places
where they occur in connection with the ark, as guardians
of a precious and sacred object. On the other hand,
in the sublime imagery of 2 Sam. xxii. 11, and in the
second recension of the same poem contained in Ps. xviii.
10, the cherubim seemed connected with the phenomena
of the stormy sky. It is true that in the two latter
passages we are offered poetical images, but poetical
images were once in the early days of mankind realities.
* "L'ecole de la theorie aryenne avait cru trouver dans le nom des
Keroubim, une desimeilleures preuves de son systfeme. Ce n'est pas la un
mot Semitique, disait-elle ; c'est un terme aryen, le meme que le nom des
yointes ou griffons, dont la legende grecque faisait les gardiens de 1'or de la
Haute-Asie. Tout ceci s'est evanoui comme un nuage, depuis qu'on a trouve
le nom des Kiroubs dans les inscriptions cuneiformes ; et plus d'un philologue
pense aujourd'hui qu'au lieu d'avoir a rattacher le mot Hebrew Kerub a la
racine aryenne grabh, ' saisir,' l'introduction de la voyelle u dans le grec
ypinfi est l'indice d'une action du terme semitique sur le terme hellenique "
(Fr. Lenormant, " Les Origines de l'Histoire," i., iii.).
t In Schenkel's " Bibel Lex.," i. p. 509.
X " Choix de Testes Cuneiformes inedis " (Paris, 1873).

246 ORIGINES JUDAICM.
What we call poetry was to them fact. To their minds
God actually spoke in thunder, revealed His glory in the
lightning, and was concealed behind the threatening
storm-cloud. When, then, the Psalmist speaks of Yahveh
riding upon the cherubim, he is using as an image what
was originally the expression of a fact. We may take
it, then, that the Psalmist is not transferring to nature
temple imagery, which would be inconsistent with the
rest of his description, but is embodying the earliest
mythology which regarded the thunder-clouds as winged
cherubim. The idea that the thunder-cloud was the
sun's guardian would be almost akin to that which
regarded it as his chariot. When next the bull was
adopted as a symbol of the sun, it was easy to look upon
the clouds as his wings, and the cherubim then took the
form of winged oxen, to represent the guardians of the
sun. Finally, the Jewish religion followed its usual
practice when it adopted this symbolism to represent the
majesty and mysterious power of Yahveh. We can in this
way reconcile the apparent inconsistency of the two
images which represent the cherubim now as Yahveh's
chariot, and now as guardian of the place where He
vouchsafed to manifest Himself.
Fr. Lenormant, however, conjectures that since at the
time of Solomon Assyrio-Babylonian culture shared with
Egyptian the education of the Hebrews, and since the
Keroubim came from the former, therefore the image
in 2 Sam. xxii. 11 and Ps. xviii. 10 is posterior to
that of Yahveh dwelling between the ark cherubim. This
may be true for the Hebrews, but it still leaves open
the possibility that for the Chaldseans the Keroubim
descended from the celestial myth to the temple worship
on earth.* * Cf. " Les Origines de l'Histoire," i. 126 n.

"ORNAMENTS OF THE CHURCH" OF THE JEWS. 247
Now, this winged figure with human head, leonine or
bovine body, and eagle wings finds its exact counterpart
in Assyrian halls.* Moreover, the "palm-trees and open
flowers " have their parallel in the sacred tree and rosette
so common on Assyrian cylinders, and which again are
found in the sacred tree and lotus of Egypt. But the
same difference of design between Assyria and Judsea
appears here as we have seen elsewhere. The Assyrian
four-faced cherub was emblematic of the forces of nature,
and embodies the importance assigned at an early date to
the four elements, or the four quarters of the world. The
Jewish Cherubim, on the contrary, were representatives
of creation in strict subordination to the One supreme
Creator. Sir A. H. Layard's contrast between the spirit
of the two records is applicable to the whole narrative.
" There is," he says, " this marked difference between the
annals of Assyria and those of Judaea, that whilst the Assyrian
records are nothing but a dry narrative, or rather register, of
military campaigns, spoliations, and cruelties, events of little
importance but to those immediately concerned in them, the
historical books of the Old Testament, apart from the deeds
of war and blood which they chronicle, contain the most
interesting of private episodes, and the most sublime of moral
lessons." t
An early analogue of the idea of Yahveh dwelling
between the cherubim may be found in the ascription
of life to the Babylonian stone guardians who watched
over the dwelling at the door of which they stood. The
menotheistic creed of the Chaldseans easily enabled them
to believe that the life of the being represented dwelt
by " sympathetic magic " in its representation, just as the
same creed in Egypt endowed with life in the under-world
* See Fergusson's " Palaces of Nineveh," and Layard's " Nineveh and
Babylon," passim.
t " Nineveh and Babylon," p. 631.

248 ORIGINES JUDAICJE.
the little statues placed in the tomb. An inscription of
Esar-haddon, for instance, speaks of his stone colossi
as " overturning with fright the breast of the wicked, as do-
the beings they represent." *
Starting from this current conception, the Bible adopts
the belief,^ but purifies it in the process. The cherubim
no longer enshrine a menotheistic belief, but subserve one
that is monotheistic. The cherubim are not identified
with the Being worshipped; they are assigned the
humbler r61e of watching over the sacred spot where
Yahveh vouchsafes to dwell among his people. Here,
again, we see the same double process, as in so many other
places in the Bible. Its writers record the adoption of
current heathen beliefs. They see no reason why Judaism
should not be erected on the ground already prepared ; the
stones of heathen temples are built into the foundation
of Yahveh's sanctuary. While, however, they are thus
carried over, they undergo a course of cutting and carving
to fit them for their new home. But without some
knowledge of their first use it is impossible for us
to understand their character in the religion of the
Jews. Closely connected with the cherubim, and, in fact,
giving them their raison d'etre, is the "ark of the
covenant," an oblong chest carried on staves, overlaid with
gold, used as a reliquary, covered with a "mercy seat"
and symbolic of the awful, hidden majesty of Yahveh. Mr.
R. S. Poole is of opinion that all likeness to the idolatry
of Egypt would have been especially avoided in the Law,
and adds that he believes it was avoided as a fact because
"nothing would have been allowed to be borrowed from
heathen worship of any kind."t On the other hand,
* " Cuneif. Ins. West Asia," vi. 1, pi. 47.
t Kitto's "Bible Dictionary," sub voce Ark.

"ORNAMENTS OF THE CHURCH" OF THE JEWS. 249
Selden * quotes Clement of Alexandria on St. Peter, who
did not say, " Let us not venerate the same gods that the
Greeks do," but " we will change the modes of worship."
The facts that we now know of ancient pagan worship
leave no doubt that the latter is the more correct view.
Wilkinson, in his "Manners and Customs of the Ancient
Egyptians," thus describes the place that the ark occupied
in the Egyptian worship : —
" One of the most important ceremonies was the ' procession
of shrines,' which is mentioned in the Rosetta stone, and is
frequently represented on the walls of the temples. The
shrines were of two kinds : the one a sort of canopy ; the
other an ark, or sacred boat, which may be termed the great
shrine. This was carried with great pomp by the priests,
a certain number being selected for that duty, who supported
it on their shoulders by means of long staves passing through
metal rings at the side of the sledge on which it stood, and
brought it into the temple, where it was deposited upon a
stand or table, in order that the prescribed ceremonies might
be performed before it. The stand was also carried in pro
cession by another set of priests, following the shrine, by
means of similar staves ; a method usually adopted for carrying
large statues and sacred emblems too heavy or too important
to be carried by one person. The same is stated to have been
the custom of the Jews in some of their religious processions.
. . . Some of the sacred boats, or arks, contained the emblems
of Life and Stability which, when the veil was drawn aside,
were partially seen; and others presented the sacred beetle
of the sun, overshadowed by the wings of two figures of the
goddess Thmei, or Truth, which call to mind the cherubim
of the Jews." t
The most noticeable difference in the Jewish ark is
* « De Dis Syris," cvii.
f Third edition, pp. 271, 272, 275. See also the little woodcut in the
same volume, p. 183, where Ra and Ma, two winged figures, are worshipping
some central object.

250 ORIGINES JUDAIC;®.
the absence of the boat that carried the shrine, and
perhaps the absence of the canopy. It has been suggested,
however, that the mercy seat, instead of being a lid to
the ark, may have been the equivalent of the Egyptian
canopy, nor does there appear anything in Exod. xxv.
which can be said with certainty to make this impossible.
The canopy would be of the same dimensions as the
lid. Exod. xxv. 19, which directs the cherubim to be
respectively on one end of the mercy seat, might
equally well be said of the canopy end; and the two
wings outstretched above the canopy on Egyptian carvings
favour this.
Ewald conjectures * that the mercy seat was a plate
of pure gold suspended as a footstool over the ark, as a
second covering distinct from the proper lid of the ark.
The reasons he gives are not very weighty, and when he
quotes Exod. xxv. 17-21, as giving different dimensions
for the top of the ark and the mercy seat, that passage
is against him. It is true that the mercy seat is of
"special importance," but he quotes no passage which
shows it to be " separable." When he says —
" How deep was the space which separated this second covering
from the first we do not precisely know, but we may very
well suppose that there must have been room enough under
neath the ' footstool ' for the lid of the ark to have been opened
and shut,"
it is obvious to answer that we may quite as well sup
pose Moses to have modified the Egyptian shape as to
have adopted it in all points. In the absence of more
definite information we may suppose more than we can
prove. * " Antiquities of Israel," p. 124.

"ORNAMENTS OF THE CHURCH" OF THE JEWS. 251
Mr. Poole is not quite accurate in saying that the
cherubim stood upon the mercy seat, and therefore a lid
and not a canopy must be meant. They were over, and
not necessarily upon, the mercy seat. At all events while
there is a general similarity, there is also a specific
difference between the two shrines. But what has not
been sufficiently noticed is that Assyria had similar arks,
or " ships " as they had been called in earlier times, which
were also carried in procession, and were considered to
be "the visible abodes of the divinities to whom they
belonged." It is worth notice, too, that what in the
Babylonian account of the deluge is called a ship, in the
Old Testament record is, by a similar transformation,
become an ark. In all three the same sort of chest is
carried in the same way, by the same men, and for the
same purposes.*
The Urim and Thummim of Lev. viii. 8 have long
remained a problem in Hebrew worship as mysterious as
the ankh in Egyptian. Following the line insisted on
in this treatise, later writers have undoubtedly hit on the
explanation of their general nature. They were clearly
not identical with the breast-plate spoken of in Exod.
xxviii. '30: "And thou shalt put in the breastplate of
judgment the Urim and the Thummim." The word in
here is the indefinite Hebrew ba, which the LXX. trans
late by the equally indefinite Greek iiri. Also "Urim"
and " Thummim " were not names for the same thing, but,
as is distinctly implied in Exod. xxxviii. 30, the names
of two distinct entities. Moreover, whatever the Urim
was, it was something not too far removed in its nature
from the Teraphim to prevent the latter becoming the
unauthorized substitute for the former.")- They also were
* Cf. Layard, "Nineveh," pi. 65, and Sayce, "Hibbert Lectures," p. 66.
t Cf. Judg. xviii. 30 ; Hos. iii. 4.

252 ORIGINES JUDAIC JE.
a means by which Yahveh made known His will to His
people. It is only when we turn to foreign worship that
light is thrown on this mysterious subject. Sir Gardner
Wilkinson tells us that, at a period much earlier than the
Jewish contact with Egypt as recorded in the Bible, the
arch-judge of Egypt wore suspended from his neck a
figure of the goddess who was worshipped under the name
of Thmei, the goddess of the Two Truths (Thummim),
generally represented by two figures exactly alike, and
wearing on their heads two equal ostrich feathers. The
LXX., by their translation of Thummim as Truth, give
countenance to this as the correct meaning of the term.
Indeed, the breast-plate figured by Wilkinson, which gives
Ra on one side and Thmei on the other of a central
obelisk, has a resemblance to the Jewish Urim and
Thummim too close to be wholly accidental.
Dean Plumptre,* following this analogy, was led to
ask what in the Egyptian symbolism could be found
to correspond to the former member of the Jewish Light
and Truth. And he points with his well-known ingenuity
to the well-known scarabseus, the symbol of resurrection,
and the representative of the sun, the beneficent giver
of light and life. The scarabseus appears engraved on
many of the pectoral plates that, as in Judea, adorned
the breast of the high-priest in Egypt. In fact, the
scarabseus is used in that system of ideograms which was
used by the Egyptians to express ideas, by means of
symbols, and not by syllables joined in words. And as
such it was adopted by the Jewish Law, where it appears
as the Urim, to express the glorious truths that truth and
justice, light and life, all spring from the same source,
and have their real home in religion.
* Smith's "Diet, ofthe Bible," sub voce " Urim."

"ORNAMENTS OF THE CHURCH" OF THE JEWS. 253
This foreign derivation is confirmed by the fact that
Moses speaks of these two symbols as tlie Urim and the
Thummim, as if they were already familiar to the Jews, and
needed no explanation of their nature. Either, therefore,
the Jews had acquired this knowledge from Egypt, or
it had been brought by Abram from Chaldea, or it had
been learnt from the Canaanites between the times of
Abram and Moses.
The mention of Teraphim in the case of Laban, the
circumstances under which they were used in connection
with the graven image of Micah * — being spoken of as
distinct both from his molten image and his graven image
— the connection they always seem to have with oracular
inquiries and replies, the translation by the LXX., in
Hos. iii. 4, of Teraphim by SijXoi and Hosea's mention
of Teraphim without any blame as ordinary parts of
religious worship, and not as idols, all go to confirm the
conclusion of Spencer t that the Teraphim and Urim were
identical.^ In this case it is Assyria, and not Egypt, which
must be credited by the Jews with the first gift of Urim
as an instrument of religion, and an adornment of the
priesthood. Nothing, however, would prevent Assyria
being credited with the origin, and Egypt with the actual
form of the Urim among the Jews.
It will be necessary, therefore, to inquire whether we
have any evidence drawn from Assyrian, or cognate sources,
which would justify us in rejecting Dean Plumptre's
ingenious suggestion. What follows may not be held
conclusive, but it deserves consideration before the
* Judg. xviii. 20.
t " De Legibus Hebr." iii., diss, vii., pp. 920-1038.
{ Ewald, however, says that the Teraphim derived their name from the
masks put over their faces, and that they have no connection with the Urim
beyond their common relationship to the ephod. It is difficult, however,
to evacuate the force of Hos. iii. 4, and Ewald does not make the attempt.
("Antiquities of Israel," p. 224).

254 ORIGINES judaic^:.
question of the Urim and Thummim can be finally
answered. Lucian describes the statue of the Syrian goddess in
these terms : —
" The interior of the temple" is not everywhere of the same
level. Another section (0a.\ap,os) has been built, and is gained
by a small flight of steps. In this section are placed the
statues of Hera and of Zeus ; the latter, however, is called by
another name by the Assyrians. These two deities are of gold,
and are seated. Hera is carried on lions and Zeus on bulls.
The figure of the last resembles that god exactly, the same
costume, the same head, the same throne, so that no one could
mistake the identity. But when Hera is examined closely she
is found of a multiple form. As a whole she is undoubtedly
Hera, but at the same time she has something of Athene, of
Aphrodite, of Selene, of Rhea, of Artemis, of Nemesis, and of
the Fates. In one hand she holds a sceptre, and in the other
a torch. Her head is surrounded by rays of light and sur
mounted by a tower ; she is girdled with the ceste, the special
adornment, as a rule, of Urania. . Her robes are covered with
gold and precious stones. On her head is a precious stone
called a lychnis. This name is given it because of its brilliancy.
In the night it throws a light so intense that the temple (vaos)
might be supposed to be lighted by several lamps. In the day
its light is weaker, but it still preserves something of its fire." *
The attribute of light here applied to the Syrian god
dess is given also to the supreme god of the Persians,
according to Theodore of Mopsuestia, who describes him
as 'Avyrj, and in another place as Tux1!- Moreover, this
double attribution is paralleled by the phrase which the
books of Zoroaster connect with Ormuzd, " the way of
the two worlds." More frequently they apply to him the
description of raevat garenanghvat, or the Jbrilliant and
luminous. Again, the Arabs give to the planet Venus,
* De Dea, Syr., 31, 32.

"ORNAMENTS OF THE CHURCH" OF THE JEWS. 255
and also to the planet Jupiter, adjectives with the same
meaning. According to Plutarch, whose information was
probably derived from the memoirs of some soldier of
Alexander, Darius insisted on a eunuch of Statira taking
an oath before him " by the great splendour of Mithras."
An Orphic hymn gives the title of Avicaiva. to Aphrodite,
and Porphyry gives it to Artemis. The word Xukcu'oc was
applied in common to Zeus, Pan, and Apollo, and Xvksiog,
Xukioc and XvKttyevris to the latter. When Lucian, there
fore, tells us that the Syrian goddess was represented as
combining in herself the emblems of many other goddesses ;
when we know that Mylitta blends with Moloch in her
attributes ; when St. Cyril tells us that the latter bore on
his forehead a luminous stone; when Martianus Capella
adds that the lychnis was found also on an image of the
sun ; and when, lastly, the books of Zoroaster assign to
their supreme god, Zarouan, the epithet of rvxn, which is
one of the sides of the multiform character of Mylitta,
or Venus, or Ashtaroth, is there not some presumption in
favour of the hypothesis that the Urim, or Lights on the
breast of the Jewish priest, may have some connection
with the " Light " that adorned the Assyrian Mylitta ?
That Mylitta should preside over the fortunes of men, and
be consulted with a divining cup, and have the wheel of
fortune as one of her emblems, is no reason, but rather
the contrary, why Yahveh should adopt a similar method
of making known His will when properly consulted by the
high priest. These heathen rites were so many words
understood of the people, and hence suitable to express
without difficulty the new ideas that God would impress
on the chosen people.*
It is probable that the LXX. text in 1 Sam. xiv. 41
is more correct than the Hebrew ; it certainly gives a
* Compare Lajard, " Culte de Venus," 2nd Memoire, pp. 94-97.

256 ORIGINES judaic^:.
more intelligible meaning. " If the iniquity be in me or
in Jonathan my son, 0 Yahveh, God of Israel, then give
Urim ; but if it be in thy people Israel, then give Thum
mim." An additional piece of information is afforded here
by the fact that the oracle answered in one of alternative
answers, and that its reply thus limited was determined
in some such way as lots are drawn. If Urim came
forth, the answer might be " Yes ; " if Thummim, then it
would be " No." The close connection between the ephod
and the Urim and Thummim, while it does not warrant
us in identifying them in any way, does, when the above
facts are borne in mind, justify us in saying that the priest,
when consulted as the oracle of Yahveh, wore the holy
white ephod of his office, and gave his reply in the way
of casting lots. What the exact shape of the two objects
was, by which the lot was made known, can at present
be conjectured only, and the various theories to explain
it must be labelled as " probable," " more probable," " most
probable." Spencer argues that the Urim, being undoubtedly the
Teraphim, were images with the former heathen associa
tions removed. He then identifies Teraphim with Sera
phim, and Urim with the meaning of fire and not of light.
Hence he concludes that the Urim was the figure of an
angel worn on the breast of the high priest, through
which Yahveh answered inquiries put to him by the
high priest. The Thummim he identifies with the jewel
worn on the breast of an Egyptian judge to denote his
perfect impartiality and uprightness. He attributes the
origin of the Urim to the Assyrian, and that of the Thum
mim to the Egyptians, and certainly proves conclusively
that it was not these nations that borrowed from the Jews.
(The arguments he uses in the case of Egypt would apply
equally well to the Assyrians.)

"ORNAMENTS OF THE CHURCH" OF THE JEWS. 257
Few now will be found, perhaps, to follow Spencer in
his conclusion that the Urim was the figure of a speaking
angel. It is by no means certain that it wore a human
figure at all, or that the Teraphim did. An Asherah and
the Matzebah were both images, but not in human form.
If yet they could receive divine honours, there is nothing
to hinder the Teraphim and Urim from being similarly
employed, whatever their form. Even if Spencer's identi
fication of Teraphim with Seraphim be correct, there is
no reason why the primary meaning of burning ones
should not be retained ; nor is the difference between fire
and light so clearly defined as to force us to reject the
latter for the former.
There is no reason, then, why we should not adopt the
conclusion that the Urim was an oracular gem, or gems,
of great brilliancy, used in some unknown way to manifest
Yahveh's will. In this case it will be ejusdem generis
with the Thummim, if that be identified with the Egyptian
jewel denoting perfect truth. We should then be obliged
to assign distinct functions to the two objects. The
Thummim would be the ornament and instrument of the
high priest as judge, and the Urim the ornament and
instrument of the high priest as priest. This would
account for what Spencer cannot explain, except on the
ground of priority in time, viz. the reason why the Urim
is always mentioned first*
It is interesting to notice in this connection that the
Torah, as used in some places in the Old Testament, seems
to denote the case-law, as we should call it, laid down by
the Jewish priests, t This was codified by the labours of
successive generations, and there seems good ground for
* There is one exception in Deut. xxxiii. 8, and there the LXX. give us
reason for supposing the text of the Hebrew to be corrupt.
t Compare Exod. xv. 25. S

258 ORIGINES JUDAICJE.
the supposition that the Law in its final form was in
debted to these decisions of the high priests. If so, the
judicial functions of the high priest, and consequently
the value of the Thummim, are of more importance,
relatively, to his high-priestly functions and to the Urim
than is always allowed.
The analogy of heathen nations also would lead us to
see a distinction between a sacred and a judicial oracle.
The oracle at Delphi or at Dodona, for instance, might
be called on to decide between two disputants, whether
nations or individuals, or it might be invoked to decide
a case of conscience, or distress, or perplexity. Similarly,
Yahveh might be appealed to, as Samuel was by Saul,*
in a purely domestic affair; or to give directions for
action, as by David in 1 Sam. xxiii. 2 ; or in a case of
perplexity, as by Saul in 1 Sam. xiv. 18. All these
cases it is evident were non-judicial. When, on the
other hand, the daughters of Zelophehad were threatened
with the loss of their inheritance, and when Moses gave
sentence in the words, "This is the thing which the
Lord doth command," we have a judicial sentence from
Yahveh. On a review of the whole evidence, a provisional
conclusion may be come to, till other evidence may be
forthcoming : (1) that the Urim and Thummim were jewels,
the use of which was adopted in the one case from Assyria,
and in the other from Egypt ; (2) that their exact form and
size are unknown ; (3) that it is probable decisions were
given through them by some use of the lot ; and (4) that
one belonged to the high priest as priest, and the other
to the high priest as judge.t So far as our reliable
information goes, the Jews were certainly indebted for
* 1 Sam. x. 20.
t On the whole question, see Dean Spencer's elaborate dissertation in
the second volume of his " De Legibus Hebrseorum."

" ORNAMENTS OF THE CHURCH" OF THE JEWS. 259
their Urim and Thummim to heathendom, and hence their
indebtedness is a further link in the chain which connects
the two faiths, the earlier and the later, and, so far as it
goes, confirms the conclusions, already come to, that Jewish
belief and worship can only be fully understood from a
study of their heathen origins.

APPENDIX.

APPENDIX.

The scope of this essay forbids any discussion of the vexed
points of the "Higher Criticism." But it is obviously im
possible to neglect the question of the date of the various
books to which reference has to be made. The previous
custom of quoting proof-texts apart from their context, and
from any part of the Bible, so long as their contents were
favourable to the appellant's case, is now happily abandoned in
deference to the saner view which does not despise the human
element of the Bible as a useful clue to its meaning.* As the
period between Moses and Malachi is over a thousand years —
an interval as long as that which separates Bede from Freeman
— it would be nothing but confusing to quote some statement
or enactment of the earlier period, say of Samuel or Solomon,
to illustrate what transpired at Jerusalem in the days of
Zechariah. We are bound also to go farther than this. Although there
are many differences of opinion among the Higher Critics as to
the details of authorship and composition of the various books
of the Old Testament, as to the exact source from whence this
passage was incorporated, or the special person to whom that
psalm is to be attributed, or the exact circumstances under
* " There is a human factor in the Bible which, though quickened and
sustained by the informing Spirit, is never wholly absorbed or neutralized by
it ; and the limits of its operation cannot be ascertained by an arbitrary a
priori determination of the methods of inspiration ; the only means by which
they can be ascertained is by an assiduous and comprehensive study of the
facts presented by the Old Testament itself " (Driver, " Introduction to the
Literature of the Old Testament," p. xvii. ; 1891).

264 APPENDIX.
which this or that prophecy was spoken, yet there is substantial
agreement on the main points. Among these, where a consensus
judicum may be said to be established, is the gradual enunciation
of the so-called Law of Moses. It is now established that, as
the Roman jurisconsults attributed the whole of their vast system
of law to the Laws of the Twelve Tables, in the sense that it
was the development and expansion of them, so did later
Jewish writers, by the same natural feeling, attribute all their
later laws to Moses, and with equal truth. It was not that
Moses was the formal author of everything laid down in
Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but that what is found there is
but the later adaptation to later needs of the principles im
plicitly contained in the legislation of Moses. He was the
Jewish lawgiver par excellence, and his majestic name hal
lowed the whole after-birth of Jewish national and religious
law. In the Jewish code critics have been driven to see a three
fold division, in the place of the one, early, fixed system of
laws that was once supposed to be contained there. The Old
Testament itself bears witness to the fact that, in the earlier
days'of Jewish national life, the Levitical Law was unknown.
Till quite recently it has been supposed that this Law was given
in the wilderness, promulged to the Jews, but disobeyed wil
fully and constantly under the irresistible temptation of the
heathen rites of Canaan. By these they were induced to for
sake the worship of Yahveh at the one place he had selected,
i.e. where the ark was, and they learnt to offer sacrifices to
Baalim and Ashtaroth upon every high hill and under every
green tree.
It has always been difficult to harmonize this shocking
spiritual backsliding with the pure and passionate devotion to
the worship of Yahveh in His appointed place as revealed in the
Psalter. The facts that have led critics to come to a conclusion
more reverent to God and more just to the Jews are such as
the following. The Levitical Law lays down distinctly in
Exod. xxix. 42-46, and Lev. xxvi. 2, 11, 12, that the worship
of Yahvehwas to be offered where His sanctuary was, i.e. where
the tabernacle was. The tabernacle was the meeting-place where
Yahveh and His people came together. No other sanctuary of

APPENDIX. 265
Yahveh is contemplated ; * where the tabernacle was, and no
where else, was Yahveh to be worshipped.
What do we find, then, in the after history of the Jews ?
It is not so much that they acted as though this law was not ;
their breaches of it were committed by leaders chosen by God
and blessed by Him ; e.g. at Bochim the people were moved by
an angel to sorrow, and they sacrificed there unto Yahveh. t
Gideon was directed by God to build an altar, and sacrifice to
Him at Ophrah.J Jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt
offering in satisfaction of a vow made to Yahveh. § Samson's
sin was apparently, not intermarrying with the uncircumcised,
but cutting his hair. Samuel offered sacrifices to Yahveh on
the high places at Mizpeh |] and at Gilgal.T He covered his
visit to Bethlehem under the pretext of a sacrifice ; ** at
Bethlehem, too, was an annual sacrifice of the family of David.t|
Nay, so late as the days of Hezekiah, we find that Yahveh was
worshipped in the high places, and that one of the acts of that
king's reformation was to abolish this worship of the high places
in order that men might worship Yahveh in Jerusalem alone.
For Rabshakeh's taunt to the Jews was that they could not
safely trust to Yahveh, for it was He whose high places and
whose altars Hezekiah had taken away.Jf
All this time Yahveh has His regular sanctuary at Nob,
with eighty-five priests, and the ark was close by, at Kirjath-
Jearim. When they were united at Jerusalem by David, that
king showed no more knowledge of the Levitical Law than
had Samuel. That Law restricted sacrifice to the priesthood,
but David himself, though a layman, offered sacrifice, and gave
the priestly blessing.§§ David's sons were priests.|||| Moreover,
David instituted a bodyguard of Cretans, Philistines, and
Carians, six hundred in number ; 1T1F these carried for Rehoboam
the sacred shields into the temple.*** They were assembled by
Jehoiada in the temple to take an oath of allegiance to the
* Lev. xxvi. 31 seems to show a knowledge of a time already past when
the Jews had had other sanctuaries.
t Judg. xi. 5. X Ibid. vi. 25-26. § Ibid. xi. 30, 31, 39.
|| 1 Sam. vii. 9. f Ibid. x. 8 ; xi. 15.
** 1 Sam. xvi. 5. ft Ibid. xx. 6. XX 2 Kmg8 xviii- 22-
§§ 2 Sam. vi. 17, 18. liii Ibid. viii. 18. A.V. chief rulers.
1 1 2 Sam. xv. 18. *** 1 Kings xiv. 28.

266 APPENDIX.
young Joash.* When, then, Ezekiel complains that strangers,
uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, had been
brought into the sanctuary ; f when we know also that it was
the province of the king to provide the sacrificial beasts for the
daily and festal offerings,f and that Solomon did so,§ and
Hezekiah ; || and further, when we know that the title of the
chief of the bodyguard was chief slaughterer, and find
Zephaniah denouncing those that followed the Philistine temple
custom of leaping over the threshold,^ we are led to the con
clusion that, not merely Jewish laymen, but foreigners were
admitted regularly into the temple in defiance or ignorance of
the Levitical injunction that " the stranger that cometh nigh
shall be put to death." **
Again, it is mentioned in Jehoiada's time, as if it were a
perfectly regular custom and proper course of procedure, that
the trespass money and sin money were not brought into the
temple ; they were the priests'.tt But the Levitical Law, which
appointed sacrifices for sin and trespass, could but have regarded
this conversion of sacrifices into a money commutation as
grossly simoniacal.
To take one other point which shows clearly that the
Levitical Law was not then known. In 1 Sam. ii., Eli's sons
are condemned for not burning the fat of the sacrifice before
they had been given the priest's portion raw. But in Lev. vii.
30 this very practice of theirs is enjoined. The fat with the
breast of the peace offering was to be first waved, then the fat
was to be burned, and the breast given to the priest.J % Clearly,
then, the custom in the time of Hophni and Phinehas does not
belong to the time when the Levitical precept was in force.
From such facts as these, critics have come to see that the
" Law of Moses " has a threefold division, answering to a three
fold period in the national history.
1. We have first the written Law of Moses, properly so called,
in Exod. xx.-xxiii. This is a simple code of civil laws suitable
to an agricultural community ; its religious enactments are of
an equal simplicity: Yahveh alone is to be worshipped; He
* 2 Kings xi. 4. t Ezek. xliv. 7. J Ibid. xiv. 17.
§ 2 Chron. viii. 12, 13. || Ibid. xxxi. 3. f Zeph. i. 8, 9 ; cf. 1 Sam. 5.
** Num. iii. 38. ft 2 Kings xii. 16. XX Cf. ch. x. 15.

APPENDIX. 267
might be worshipped at altars of earth or of unhewn stone ;
firstfruits of the ground and of animals were to be offered on
the eighth day — necessarily, therefore, at some altar close to
where the owner lived ; and flesh torn of the beasts in the field
was not to be offered.
2. Under Josiah was produced the Deuteronomic code, which
embodied the indignant protests of the prophets against the
civil oppression and irregularity and the idolatrous worship of the
eighth century before Christ. It begins at Dent. xii. and ends at
Deut. xxvi. 16. Its civil enactments are greatly in advance of
the Mosaic Code, and testify to a very different state of society.
Its chief religious enactment is its restriction of the worship of
Yahveh to the place which He should choose out of all the
tribes. There all offerings were to be brought, and by this
enactment the local worships, such as we have seen in the cases
of Gideon, Jephthah, Samuel, and others, were done away with ;
the Mosaic permission to erect earth and unhewn-stone altars
anywhere was made void ; and with the now restricted national
worship came in such ceremonial changes as the centralization
of worship rendered necessary.
3. The Levitical Code, which is scattered throughout the
three middle books of the Pentateuch, marks a still further
development. It was not so much a new ritual, as a collection
of the traditional Torahs and customs which had grown up
since the days of Moses, and had become sanctioned by custom.
Just as the English Church at the present day has a system of
ritual varying greatly in details, but marked with a general
unity of outline — a ritual which is not fixed, because not pre
scribed in writing, — soothe sanctuaries where Yahveh had been
worshipped, and especially his chief sanctuary at Jerusalem,
had a traditionary body of ritual and ceremonial rules, and
customs, which were not reduced to order before they were
prescribed by the Levitical Code. There is little doubt that
the ritual system sketched out by Ezekiel, himself a priest, is
a sort of foretaste of the coming Levitical Code. The remark
of the writer of the article " Temple," in Smith's " Dictionary of
the Bible," that "notwithstanding its ideal character, the
whole * is extremely curious, as showing what were the
* Le. Ezekiel's temple-plan.

268 APPENDIX.
aspirations of the Jews in this direction, and how different
they were from those of other nations," and that " there can be
but little doubt but that the arrangements of Herod's temple
were in a great measure influenced by the description here
given," may be applied mutatis mutandis to Ezekiel's ritual.
Neither the temple, nor the ritual, was actually constructed
according to Ezekiel's plans, but as Herod's temple was
prepared for by Ezekiel's architectural sketch, so was the
Levitical Code by his ritual system. The chief feature of this
code was the thoroughness with which it hedged and doubly
hedged round the worship of Yahveh, so that no touch of an
impure heathenism should any more defile it. This explains
the exclusion of all but priests from the Holy Place, and the
emphasis laid on sacrifice as the nation's and not the individual's
offering. The national catastrophe of the Captivity explains,
too, the large place given to atonement and sin offerings, in the
place of the homage offerings and offerings of joy that had
before been uppermost.
It will be obvious how these results of the labours of
criticism place a more favourable light on the character of the
Jews. When all is said for them that can be said, enough
remains to show how readily they yielded to lower pagan cults.
But at least they may be acquitted now of the offence of setting
up rival altars to that at Jerusalem. Under the Mosaic written
law they were permitted to worship Yahveh wherever they
were, just as Jacob did at Bethel, and Abraham on Mount
Moriah and at Hebron. Their fault was not that they broke
away from the worship of the one sanctuary, but that they
introduced so much of heathen practices that they failed to
distinguish between the worship of Yahveh and that of Baalim
or Ashtaroth, and so tended to abandon the worship of the
former for that of the two latter.
To this it is necessary to add that the ascription of the
Levitical Law to Moses is not, as critics of the school of Graf
and Welhausen seem to assume, a literary fiction. It is a fact.
Even on Welhausen's own admissions, it may be urged that the
Levitical Law, as we have it now, is but the codified form of
the Torahs given by Moses. For that critic makes the Jews
go from Egypt to Kadesh, as "the original object of their

APPENDIX. 269
wanderings," and there spend " the forty years of their wander
ings in the wilderness." "The legislation at the seat of
judgment at Kadesh," he proceeds to say, " goes on for forty
years, and consists in the dispensation of justice at the sanc
tuary, which he begins, and the priests and judges carry on
after him according to the pattern he set. And in this way
the Torah has its place in the historical narrative, not in virtue
of its matter as the contents of a code, but from its form as
constituting the professional activity of Moses. It is in history
not as a result, as the sum of the laws and usages binding on
Israel, but as a process."* From this point of view Moses
was the author of the Customary Law of Israel, which assumes a
codified form in the Pentateuch, and the Law thus codified
may not improperly be called the Law of Moses, as tradition
has taught us to call it.

Since the above was written the first volume of an important
new series of English theological works, appearing under the
name of the " International Critical Commentary," has been
published, in the form of a commentary on the Book of Deu
teronomy. As this series is likely to remain for some time the
standard work in English on questions of the Higher Criticism,
and as some of the arguments in the body of this work depend
on the date assigned to the various books of the Old Testament,
it may be well to add a few words on the positions arrived at
by the Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
Speaking generally, the subsidiary conclusions arrived at
in this volume by a study of heathen cults are supported by
the critic from his study, of the date and authorship of Deu
teronomy. The influence of Professor Robertson Smith is con
spicuous at every point where Jewish rites, or heathen
contemporary rites, are noticed. The facts so laboriously
amassed by German critics are duly made use of, while the
wire-drawn theories which too often spoil the facts in the
using are avoided by the English common-sense of the native
commentator. * " History of Israel," p. 343.

270

APPENDIX.

Dr. Driver assigns the authorship of Deuteronomy to the
reign of either Manasseh or Josiah (b.c. 697-610), and at any
rate to a year prior to B.C. 621, the date of the discovery by
Hilkiah of the " book of the law " in the temple. Passing by
minute discordances between Deuteronomy and the earlier
books of the Pentateuch, which, in the absence of complete
knowledge, it would be impossible to regard as decisive, the
chief arguments for assigning this late date, and therefore for
rejecting the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy, are as follows : —
(1) In Exod. xxi. 2-11 we have laws laid down regarding
the manumission of Hebrew slaves. The Deuteronomic parallel
is in ch. xv. 12-18. But there is a significant difference : —

Exod. xxi. 2: "If thou buy an
Hebrew servant, six years he shall
serve; and in the seventh he shall
go out free for nothing."

Deut. xiv. 12 : " And if thy brother
an Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman,
be sold unto thee, and serve thee six
years, then in the seventh year thou
shalt let him go free from thee."

In the former enactment (ver. 7) a bought bondwoman was
not to be manumitted as a bought bondman ; in the latter she
is placed on an equality. The natural inference is, that when
the latter was made society was in a more advanced stage; and
the position of woman had been raised.
(2) In Exod. xxi. 13— explained by the succeeding verse —
Yahveh's altar is the sanctuary for the homicide ; in Deut. xix.
2-9, six — or, according to some, nine (cf. Deut. iv. 41-43) —
cities of refuge are appointed.
(3) In Num. xvi. 10, 35, and 40, a sharp distinction is
drawn between the priests and the Levites ; the former alone
are permitted to offer incense, and the claim of the latter is
signally punished in the person of Korah. In Deut. xviii. 1
(when properly rendered) all Levites are regarded as priests ;
" The priests, the Levites, even all the tribe of Levi " are to
have no inheritance in Israel, but are to live on Yahveh's fire
offerings and His inheritance. Even all ihe tribe of Levi is here
an explanatory apposition to the priests, ihe Levites. Accord
ingly Deut. xviii. 6-8 makes provision for permission to any
Levite dwelling in any part of the country to minister as a
priest when he paid a visit to Jerusalem. Assuming that
2 Kings xxiii. 9 is a contemporary record, it is difficult, however,

APPENDIX. 271
to reconcile the date assigned to Deuteronomy by Dr. Driver
with the treatment there meted out to the " priests " of the local
high-places who were disestablished by Josiah. In his view,
Deuteronomy was of the age of Josiah, and yet under him we
have a procedure contradictory of the Deuteronomic legislation.
Either Deuteronomy is earlier than Dr. Driver thinks, or the
priests at Jerusalem thought theory one thing and practice
another. (4) Exod. xx. 24 contemplates simple altars in many places,
and the practice of the judges, prophets, and kings has been
seen to be already in accordance with this. But Deut. xii.
restricts the worship of Yahveh to one spot only — the place that
He should choose. " Then there shall be a place which Yahveh
your God shall choose to cause His Name to dwell there " (ver.
11). Where Yahveh's name was, His nature was manifested ;
a single sanctuary befitted a monotheistic creed.
(5) Exod. xii. 3 orders a lamb to be the sacrificial victim at
the Passover Feast. Deut. xvi. 2, however, enacts, Thou shalt
sacrifice the Passover unto Yahveh thy God, (even) sheep and oxen.
The former is a later limitation of the latter.
(6) Lev. vii. 32-34 orders the breast and the right thigh to
be the priest's due from the peace-offerings. Deut. xviii. 3, on
the other hand, assigns to the priest " the shoulder, the two
cheeks, and the maw."
(7) In Num. xviii. 21, 24, 26, 28, the children of Israel are
ordered to render a tithe of their produce — whether animal as
well as vegetable is doubtful — to the Levites, and the Levites
in their turn are to render to " Aaron the priest " a tithe of the
tithes they have received. But in Deut. xiv. 22-29 the Israelites'
tithes are in two years out of three to be taken to the central
sanctuary, and there eaten by the offerer and his household, with
the Levite as an invited guest. An arrangement, similar in
nature to scutage under the feudal system, is made, whereby
those who lived at a distance from the central sanctuary might
commute their tithes for money, then take the money to the
sanctuary, and there reconvert it into kind, whatsoever their
soul desired, and then enjoy the feast, as if they had brought
the produce of their own fields. In the third year, however
(ver. 28), the feast was not to be consumed by the offerer and

272 APPENDIX.
his household, but by the poor, i.e. the Levite, the stranger, the
fatherless, and the widow. There is a third enactment under
this head in Exod. xxii. 29, which requires the offering of the
firstfruits only, and makes no mention of tithes. These three
codes are apt examples of the three documents which critics
think they recognize in the Pentateuch. The provision last
cited gives us the oldest legislation, that in Deuteronomy the
second, and that in Numbers the latest, the three belonging to
three documents labelled JE, D, and P for short — the earliest
composed of two original sources, one of which prefers the use
of Jehovah as the name of God, and the other Elohim ; the second
Deuteronomy; and the third, P, standing for the scattered
provisions in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, which are marked by
a strong priestly character,
These may be taken as a fair sample of the chief reasons
which have induced the Higher Critics to assign Deuteronomy
to a later date than that of Moses. But on the other hand are
some reasons which ought not to be passed over when forming
a judgment on the date. In Deut. xv. 4 we read, among pro
visions for the debtor : Howbeit there shall be no poor in thee, for
Yahveh will surely bless thee, etc. This is perfectly consistent
with a Mosaic authorship, and seems inconsistent with a later
date when the Israelites had had nearly a thousand years'
experience of the land of Canaan. Dr. Driver's remark on the
passage is that the verse can refer to an " ideal prospect " alone.
But ver. 11 runs : The poor shall never cease out of the land, which
is exactly contradictory of the verse under discussion. The
discrepancy is best explained by the supposition that the author
of Deuteronomy is not using either JE or merely oral tradition,
which are the two suppositions that Dr. Driver allows, but that
he has before him documents of an older code or codes, and
that he weaves these together into his own legislation, and occa
sionally, as here, omits to harmonize them completely. Dr. Driver
makes a similar remark on the severity of the laws against
idolatry contained in chap. xiii. : " In estimating these injunc
tions, it must, of course, be remembered that, in the age when
Deuteronomy was written, the time when they could be enforced
had long passed away; they had consequently only an ideal
value ; they bear witness by their severity to the intensity of

APPENDIX. 273
the author's convictions on the subject, and to the reality of the
dangers which he felt threatened Israel's religion from this
quarter " (p. xxxii.). We do not know at what date it would
have been possible to enforce the provisions of the Deuteronomic
law as to idolatry. Not at the time of Moses when Aaron made
a golden calf and lived, not under the Judges when every man
did what was right in his own eyes, not under Solomon who
established a syncretistic worship in Jerusalem, not under Ahaz
who worshipped all the Host of Heaven. No doubt the Deu
teronomic legislation was in a sense ideal; it was anticipatory of
what became possible only after the Exile. But the question
still remains whether he was the first idealist, or whether he was
transcribing the penal code of a still earlier idealist. The whole
circumstances of the case make it more probable that he was
using earlier materials, and, if so, both this case and the one
above go to show that the date assigned by Dr. Driver is the
date rather of the Book of Deuteronomy as it may have assumed
its final form, and not the date of the whole of the materials
incorporated into it. In other words, in the legislative part of
the book we may have the provisions of some Mosaic code,
distinct from either JE, or P, or any documents out of which
JE took its rise. And this consideration removes the inconclu
sive defence made by Dr. Driver for the use by the Deutero-
nomist of the august name of Moses. When all allowance is
made for the difference between ancient and modern conceptions
of literary honesty, the fact still remains that there is something
that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth in the statement that the
Deuteronomist ascribes his own words to Moses, and makes him
responsible for what one who lived a thousand years later wrote.
But if the Deuteronomist had before him fragments of what he
believed to be Mosaic legislation, the moral difficulty of imputed
authorship is removed. Nor would it be any objection to this
view that he developed what he found so as to fit it for the
needs of his own day. The common law of England is not in
legal theory altered, it is only applied and unfolded by statutory
enactments, and the Deuteronomist might have felt that he was
doing no otherwise when he adapted the Mosaic legislation
before him.
The early origin, if not the present form, of the legislative T

274 APPENDIX.
portion of Deuteronomy may be gathered also from its laws in
ch. xxiv. 10-13, on pledges and loans. "The terms of both
provisions show that commercial and monetaiy transactions are
still of a relatively simple character." But, if so, these laws
can hardly be born in the seventh century before Christ. They
must be the embedded fragments of an earlier legislation, in
harmony with the simple agricultural life of the fourteenth or
fifteenth centuries before Christ, and used by the Deuteronomist,
not so much as laws with sanctions, as directions what morality
and brotherly love required to be done. A preacher could give
the same counsel still, a legislator could not secure the same
end by any parliamentary laws.
The same remark holds good of the command in ch. vii.
1-5 to extirpate the inhabitants of Canaan and to destroy all
their religious symbols. Moses might conceivably have given
this command, but it is difficult to see how any later writer,
with the history of his country and his own experience
declaring a practice the exact opposite of the command, could
put into the mouth of Moses a command which existed only to
be broken, unless he had lying before him documents which
professed to have the authority of Moses himself. So, too, in
ch. xii. it is ordered that the Israelites should worship Yahveh
at one spot alone. But for centuries they worshipped Him
"upon every high hill and under every spreading tree." Was
any Jew, in the face of this continuous custom, likely to invent
a new and opposite practice, and then attribute to Moses the
discredit of issuing a command so little wanting in foresight
that it had been consigned to unbroken oblivion? We can
only assume that the Deuteronomist was reproducing commands
of Moses to us lost, which he believed to be genuine, and which
he put forth because the time seemed to have come for them.
Nor can any stress be laid on the absence of all allusion to
the worship of the Host of Heaven from all records of the
Jewish history prior to the days of Ahaz. For we have seen
the Nebo, Sin, Bel, and Ashtoreth were all solar deities, and
their worship was prevalent in Canaan long before the date
assigned by Dr. Driver to the Deuteronomist. And when he
draws a contrast between the two laws of seduction contained
in Exod. xxii. 16, 17, and Deut. xxii. 28, on the ground that in

APPENDIX. 275
the former we have a money payment to the father only, in the
second a money payment to the father in a command that
occurs among moral laws, it does not appear that the distinction
can be substantiated, or that any consequence follows from it
if it can. For there is no difference in the spirit of the two
laws, nor does the fact that the latter occurs among a series of
moral laws by itself prove it to be a moral enactment only.
The two verses that follow the first law in Exodus may be said
to contain moral precepts, and hence the preceding law of
seduction may be said to be moral. Even in the nineteenth
century in England — a century that does not regard itself as
primitive — we have by English law damages paid to the father
by the seducer of his daughter.
Nor does it appear either that any stress can be laid on the
different framing of the law of the Sabbatical year in Exod.
xxiii. 10, and that in Deut. xv. 1-6. The first is no doubt
agricultural, the second commercial; but there is no reason
why Moses (supposing them both to be his) should take the
trouble to point out that one was an addition to the other.
The Archbishop of Canterbury brought in a Patronage Bill
into the House of Lords recently, Mr. Hayes Fisher and others
brought in another in the same session into the House of
Commons. Both bills bore marks of common authorship, but
neither referred to the other.
On the whole, however, Dr. Driver's main contention, that
Deuteronomy in its present form, or, in other words, the existence
of the Deuteronomist, is to be assigned to a post-Mosaic date
seems to be completely justified by the evidence he adduces.
For the journal theory, which 'prima facie is the one warranted
by the Pentateuch as it stands, involves contradictions which
make it impossible to be maintained. Accordingly another
theory has to be sought. And the evolution theory — as some
have called it, though it is not a satisfactory description — is
one that does on the whole solve the difficulties that the
journal theory is powerless to account for. But with the
proviso stated above, viz. that the Deuteronomist, whoever he
was, was not an original legislator, we may accept Dr. Driver's
assignment of Deuteronomy to the seventh century before
Christ.

276 APPENDIX.
It will be interesting to compare with the lofty monotheism
of Deuteronomy the tone of a document, almost contemporary,
that has just been unearthed in Assyria. In Maspero's
" Recueil de Travaux," vol. xvi., Father V. Sheil publishes a
cuneiform text of a stele of an officer of Tiglath-Pileser's, named
Bel-Kharran-bel usur (Eponym in 741 B.C., and again in 727
B.C.). Although the chief interest of the text lies in the light
it throws on the position of the subordinate chiefs of the
Assyrian monarchy, yet it also reveals to us the religious
temper of the time. Exactly the same difference is observable
between Deuteronomy and this stele as we have seen before
between the account of the origin of things in Genesis and
in the Babylonian cosmogony. The following is the revised
translation of this text as given by Mr. C. H. W. Johns, in the
Academy for July 6, 1895, pp. 13, 14 : —
" 1. Marduk, great lord, king of the gods, holder of the ends
of heaven and earth,
"2. Populator of cities, establisher of towns, universal
ordainer of the temples of the gods ;
" 3. Nabu, scribe of the gods, wielder of the glorious tablet-
style, bearer of the tablet of the destiny of the gods,
"4. Director of the Igigi and the Anunnaki, donor of
sustenance, giver of life ;
" 5. Samas, light of the lands, judge of all cities, protection
of regions ;
" 6. Sin, bright shiner of heaven and earth, bearer of the
upraised horns, who clothes himself with brightness ;
" 7. IStar of the stars, brightness of heaven, to whom prayer
is universally good, who receives petitions.
" 8. The great gods, to all of them, hearers of his prayer,
his helpers, his lords :
"9. Bel-kharran-bel-usur, nagir of the palace of Tiglath-
Pileser, King of Assyria, venerator of the great gods,
" 10. There sent me forth the mighty lords with their high
commission and assured favour.
"11. A city in the wilds and the wastes I chose, from its
foundation to its roofs, verily I finished.
" 12. A temple I made, and the shrine of the great gods
therein I raised,

APPENDIX. 277
"13. Its temen, I like a piler of a mountain founded, I
settled its foundation for ever and ever,
" 14. Dur-Bel-kharran-bel-usur, in the tongue of the people
I called its name, I directed roads to it,
" 15. An inscription I wrote, and the image of the gods on
the top I made, in the dwelling of the divinity I set up
"16. Endowments, sacrifices, incense for those gods I
established for ever.
"17. Who ever hereafter that Assur, Samas, Marduk and
Ramman, shall graciously name and send there :
"18. Restore the ruins of the city, of this temple, the
endowments and sacrifices of those gods thou shalt not dis
continue, " 19. Of that city its freedom I made, its crops shall not be
torn up, its corn shall not be trodden down ;
" 20. And its waters to another canal he shall not divert,
border and boundary he shall not damage.
" 21. The young of the cattle and sheep he shall not seize,
on the people that dwell in its midst impost
"22. And service he shall not impose, nor anything else
upon them set forth,
"23. Mastery over them let him not exercise, and thou
shalt not remove the stele from its place,
" 24. In another place thou shalt not set, nor cause to enter
a place of seclusion nor break it :
"25. In the dust thou shalt not hide, in the waters thou
shalt not sink it, smear it with bitumen nor burn it with fire :
" 26. The inscription thou shalt not erase. The gods whose
names in the inscription of the monument are written
"27. In the commotion of conflict and battle, the storm of
slaughter, the overthrow of Lubaru, the bringer of death,
" 28. When thy hands are upraised shall hear thy prayers,
go as thy helpers.
"29. The alterer of my writing and name, may Assur,
Samas, Lubaru, Ramman
" 30." Great gods to nought (to annihilation) may they never
forgive him.

INDEX

Aaron, etymology of, 241
Accadians, 179, 241, 242
Adonis, 135, 231
^sculapius, 171, 177, 179, 181
Agatho-dsemon, 171
Agni, 125
Agricultural religion, 150
Ahriman, 171, 172, 175, 176,
179
Animals, unclean, 158, 160, 161
Animism, 77
Aphrodite, 97, 98, 103, 219
Apollo, 94, 111, 171, 180, 181
Arabians, circumcision among, 210
Aristotle and Christian thought, 5
Ark in Assyria, 209, 251
 in Egypt, 209, 249
Arnold, Matthew, definition of re
ligion by, 73
Asherah, 103, 105, 144, 193, 194, 205,
214, 216-219
Ashtoreth, 103, 144, 202, 214, 215,
219
Assent, degrees of, 21
Assyria, fir cone in, 188
 and Israel, 240
Assyrian and Jewish temples,
243
 words among Jews, 241
Atonement, 154, 155
Augustine, St., 5, 212, 231 n.
Ausonius, 99
Avebury, Druidical ruins at, 176

B
Baal and Yahveh, 102, 139, 140, 141,
144
Baal-Berith, 141
Baal-Gad, 142
Baal-Peor, 141
Baal-Perazim, 139
Baal of Tyre, 100, 105, 143, 145, 2 20
Baal-Yadah, 140
Baal-Yah, 141
Baal-zebub, 141
Babylon, circumcision in, 210
Bacchus, 171, 227
Balder, 98, 126, 182, 189
Balfour, A. J., 13, 16, 23
Bechuanas, circumcision among, 210
Bel, 175
Bible and myths, 43-45
Bleek, W. H. I., 46, 47
Blood sacrifices, 165, 166
Bo-tree, 183
Bochart, 227
Brahma, 112, 113, 125, 199
Brugsch, 102, 106, 107
Bunsen, 48 n., 101, 106
Butler, Bishop, on a priori theories
of revelation, 10, 18

C
Chabas, 101
Cherubim, 244-248
Cheyne on circumcision, 211
China, ancestor-worship in, 117

280

INDEX.

China, mythology in, 6 n.
 , story of Fall in, 202
Christianity and Paganism, 4, 23, 25
Chrysostom, St., 23
Chu-n-Aten, 103, 104
Circumcision, 209
Coulanges, Fustel de, 99 n., 123 n.
Crete, serpent-worship in, 178
 , sun-worship in, 97
Creuzer on symbolism, 64, 65
 and Kuhn reconciled, 66
Criticism, Higher, 7, 263-269
Cross, Legend of the True, 195
Ciidiiq v. Sutech
Cults, ancient, 113

D
Dagon, 221, 228
Darwin, Charles, and evolution, 15
David, etymology of, 240
Dead, Book of the, 90, 122
Delitzsch, 201 n.
Demeter, 97, 98, 103, 171, 178
Diodorus Siculus, 135, 175
Dionusos, 97, 125, 178, 208
Dispensation of Paganism, 4
Druids, oak worship among, 182
 , serpent-worship among, 176,
177
Dulaure, J. A., on circumcision, 210
Dupuis, J. A., 60
Dyaus, 67, 112, 147

E
Ea, 149, 174, 175, 200
Ebers, 33, 34, 102, 106
Egypt, ancestor-worship in, 119-122
 , circumcision in, 210
 , New Kingdom in, 33, 103
 , ritual in, 235
El-Shaddai, 146, 147, 150, 162, 168
Epiphanius, 169
Esh-Baal, 140
Fiusebius, 170, 175
Evolution and Christianity, 14, 17
 and Judaism, 16

Evolution and Puritanism, 22
Ewald, 1, 156, 160 n., 165, 235, 250,
253 n.

F
Faber, on worship in Persia, 175
Fall, story of, in India, 199
Fergusson, 169, 174, 176, 176 n., 179,
181, 195, 202, 203, 247
Fetishism, 78, 81, 84, 162, 206
Forlong, General, 223
Frazer, J. G., 3, 85, 157, 158, 160 n.,
182, 190 n.

G
Genesis, creation account of, 43
Gesenius, 215, 223
Gibbon, E., 33
Gnostics, modern, 18, 237
Goldziher on Hebrew mythology,
45, 46 n., 53, 231 n.
Gould, S. B., 196 n., 207 n.
Greece, ancestor-worship in, 120 n.,
124
 , serpent-worship in, 179
Gregory, St., his mystical interpre
tation, 59
Groves in Canaan, 214
Gruppe on primitive worship, 211

H
Hamilton, Sir William, 224 n.
Hapi, the Nile god, 104
Hathor, the Egyptian Venus, 234
Havernick, 146
Heber, Bishop, 231
Henotheism, 82, 162
Herakles, 54-56, 111, 112, 145, 147,
179, 180, 186, 191
Hermes, 97, 171, 178
Herodotus, 56 n., 170, 175, 200 n.,
210, 230, 242
Hierogram, 176
Holiness, 37, 160, 225
 and Yahveh, 39, 152, 153

INDEX.

281

Hooker and natural knowledge, 26,
27
Horse, a sacred animal, 205
Horus, 100, 172
Hyksos Kings, 33, 101,147, 151, 172,
179

Iao, 135
India, ancestor-worship in, 120, 121
 , nature gods in, 112
 , serpent-worship in, 178, 180
 , story of Fall in, 199
Indra, 112
Inman, Dr., 229
Inspiration, nature of, 5
Ishtar, 215

Jehovah. See Yahveh.
Jeroboam and nature-worship, 144
Jews, ancestor-worship among, 127,
130
 , circumcision among, 210-213
 , differentia of religion among,
28, 30, 37, 40
 , influence of Assyria on, 131
Jormungandr, 180
Josephus, 145
Jubilee law, 129
Judaism, its adoption of heathenism,
4,16
 not wholly new, 22, 24
K
Kant, 72
Keary, 47, 70 n., 192, 209, 211 n.
Kedeshim among the Jews, 229, 232--
234
Keil, 24, 25, 244
Kneph, 197
Kuenen, 1, 14 n., 24, 28, 30 n., 91 n.,
106, 106 n., 219, 220
Kuhn, system of mythology, 45, 64

Lactantius, 99
Lajard, 86, 93 n., 215, 255 n.

Layard, 247, 251 n.
Lenormant, F., 6, 43 n., 44, 98 n.,
155 n., 189 n., 200 n., 201 n., 216,
245, 246
Lepsiusonthe originof theEgyptians,
106
Lewes, "History of Philosophy,"
13, 74, 21 n.
Linga, 209
Luoian, 254
" Lux Mundi " and mythology, 7, 9
M
Maachah, 214, 237
Magic, Black and White, 3
 sympathetic, 3, 157, 158, 226
Maha-Deva, 225
Malagasy, circumcision among, 210
Manou, laws of, 29, 120, 121
Mariette, 83
Marriage, Levirate, 129
Martial, epigrams, 2
Maspero, 89, 107, 127, 207
Maurice, " Indian Antiquities," 191,
228
Maypole, its meaning, 194, 195
Melchizedek, 63
Meneptah III., 101
Menotheism, 2, 3, 34, 36, 77-80, 83,
88
Merib-Baal, 140
Merodach, 87, 149
Mirrors in worship of Venus, 234
Mithras, 178, 215
Moabite Stone, 240
Monotheism, 33, 81, 84
Moor, " Hindu Pantheon," 225
Moses, etymology of, 241
 and brazen serpent, 203
 and circumcision, 212, 213
 and customary law, 269
 and Kedeshim, 236
 and Urim and Thummim, 252,
253
Mouse, a sacred animal, 161, 225
Movers, 135, 148, 216, 237
Mozley, "Ruling Ideas in Early
Ages," 15

282

INDEX.

Miiller, F. Max, 5, 19 n., 29 n., 68 n.,
71, 82, 83, 95, 117 n., 134, 147 n.,
173
 , Otfried, 66
Mylitta, 86, 97, 202, 230
Mysteries, the, a practical revelation,
19
Mythology and the Bible, 45-64
N
Nahash, 198
Naville, Edouard, 32, 33, 88
Nebuchadnezzar, 245
Neith, 14
New Moon, feast of, 137
Nut, 183 O
Oak-worship, 182
Oannes, 175, 222
Odin. See Wuotan.
Odusseus, 186
CElian, 225
Oort, 139, 143
Ormuzd, 175, 179
Osiris, 183

Palestine, "Exploration Journal,"
220
Pantheism, 32, 34, 36, 81, 84
Papyrus Sallier I., 102
 II., 104
 , Harris, 109
Passover, feast of, 138
Pastoral religion, 49, 150
Persia, worship in, 175
Persians, burial among the, 128
Petrie on origin of Egyptians, 108
Phallos, 114, 173, 174, 180, 189, 194
Philo, 135
 on circumcision, 209
Phoenicians, 97, 106, 109
Pig, as a sacred animal, 160, 226
Pius IX. and toleration, 11
Plato and Christian thought, 5
Pleyte, 79 n.

Pliny, 182
Plumptre, Dean, 252
Plutarch, 136, 183
Polytheism, 78, 79, 81, 84
Poole, 109, 215, 248, 251
Proserpine, 178

E
Ea, 87, 88, 94, 104
Barneses II., 101, 102
 his hymn to Amon-Ea, 37
Eawlinson, H., 174
Eeligion, decadence of, 19
 defined, 69
 and morality, 76
 and science, 12
 and the scientific method, 20
 and theology, 75
Eenan on mythology, 42
Eenouf, Le Page, on Egyptian re
ligion, 35
Eevelation, a primitive, 18
Eeville, Albert, definition of " myth "
by, 9
 , definition of religion by, 68
Rig-Veda, 82
Eome, ancestor-worship in, 119
 , the sacred hearth in, 125
Eosenmuller, 159, 187, 188, 234, 235
Eouge, Emmanuel de, on Egyptian
religion, 34, 148

S
Sacrifice, 165
Sacrifices of blood, 165, 166
 human, 164
Sainte Chapelle and tree-worship,
196
Samothrace, serpent-worship in, 178
 , worship of the Cabiri in, 98
Sanchoniathon, 171, 173
Satan, 179
" Saul," etymology of, 240
Sayce, 14, 76 n., 89, 90, 96, 200 n., 214,
221, 241, 251
Scarabasus, 252

INDEX.

283

Schopenhauer, 129 n.
Scientific method, 20, 21
Selden on the gods of Syria, 225 n.
Seraphim, 197
Serpent, brazen, 203
 and mythology, 180
 , double character of, 172
 on Tyrian coins, 191
Set, nature of his worship, 102, 147,
148, 151, 172
Shaddai. See El-Shaddai.
Siva, 143, 199
Smith, George, 243
Smith, W. E., 27, 81 n., 86, 92, 96,
156, 160 n., 164, 167, 184, 193 n.,
213 n., 219
Solar worship, 71, 134, 162
" Solomon," etymology of, 241
Soma in India, 125
Spencer, Dean, 253, 256, 257, 258 n.
Spencer, Herbert, on ancestor-wor
ship, 115-118
 , definition of " religion " by, 73
Steinthal on Samson, 53-56
Strabo, 231
Sutech, 148
Syrian goddess, 254, 255
T
Tabernacles, feast of, 139
Teraphim, 251, 253, 253 n.
Thorr, 112, 180
Thummim. See Urim and Thum
mim.
Tiele, C.P., 101 n., Ill, 112 n., 145 n.,
147 n., 149 n., 152 n., 197 n., 215 n.,
221
Tolerance, growth of, 11
Torah, 257
Totemism, 93, 105, 184, 185
Tree-worship and Asherah, 193
 , its origin, 173, 183
 in Canaan, 187

Turanians, 100, 169, 176
Tylor, E. B., 42-44,58
Typhon, 87, 109, 147, 171
U
Uncieanness, its meaning, 154, 225,
226
Urim and Thummim, 10 n., 251, 258,
259

Varuna, 112, 147
Vincent of Lerins, 15
Vishnu, 143
Vogiie', De, 147 W
Wallace, Professor, and evolution, 15
Weeks, feast of, 138
Welhausen, 56, 212, 213 n.
Westermarck, 210
Wilkinson, 170, 183,231 n.,234, 249,
252
Wilson, Professor, 60
World-religions, effect of knowledge
of, 13
Wuotan, 94, 112, 113, 181

Yahveh, 37, 39, 136, 146, 148, 149,
163, 188, 205, 217
Yggdrasill, 183, 186, 192
Yoni, 209

Zeus, 67, 125
Zipporah, 211, 213
Zoolatry in Egypt, 161
Zoroaster, 176

PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES.

By Lieut.-Gen. McLEOD INNES, R.B., V.C.,
LUCKNOW AND OUDE IN THE
MUTINY.
A NARRATIVE AND A STUDY.
With numerous Maps, Plans, etc. Demy 8vo, cloth, 12s. net.

The Times says : " A most valuable contribution to the history of the
great crisis."
The Army and Navy Gazette says: "Eecent literature concerning the
Indian Mutiny has brought us nothing so valuable. . . . His knowledge of
India and her people is accurate and profound. . . . The facts are marshalled
with consummate skill. In this book General Innes has rendered invalu
able service in regard to the military history of the Mutiny and of the
Indian Empire."
The Athemeum says : " We rise from its perusal with clearer and better-
defined knowledge than we before possessed of the origin and spread of the
Sepoy Mutiny."
The Speaker says: "No previous account approaches that of General
Innes in charm of style, fulness of detail, and sound military judgment. . . .
The first five chapters are devoted to an admirable resume" of the great
Mutiny as a whole, in which the various stages are separately treated, and
strategic considerations presented with a, clearness attained by no previous
writer. A keen but never unkindly critic, General Innes has made a
notable contribution to military literature from a standpoint higher than
that of the mere soldier."
The Broad Arrow says : " A more truthful, instructive, and interesting
contribution to the history of the great Indian convulsion of 1857 than the
work before us has never before been made. Only authenticated facts are
used as the basis of all criticism ; the different springs of action are carefully
weighed and examined ; theories are subjected to closer examination ; and
finally the kernel of the work, namely, the defence of the Residency, is here
dealt with by one who played a conspicuous part in that defence."
The Scotsman says : " The story hae^never been told with the same fulness
and accuracy, or with equal clearness and precision. . . . Far and away the
completest and most satisfactory book on its subject."
The Pall Mall Gazette says : " A book full of the most interesting and
valuable matter — a book the only fault of which is the over-modesty which
has betrayed its author into ignoring almost entirely his own gallant per
sonality. The book comes nearer a comprehensive yet succinct history of
Mutiny than do treatises of much greater detail. The General Sketch of
the Mutiny is a masterpiece of lucid and pregnant condensation."
The Manchester Guardian says : " We have had many previous accounts
of the defence, but none so full, clear, and intelligible."
The Review of Reviews says : " A contribution to our knowledge of the
inner history of the rebellion whose value cannot be over-estimated."

London : A. D. INNES & CO., 31 & 32, Bedford Street, Strand.

By De. WILHELM BTJSCH, Professor at the University
of Freiburg, in Baden.
ENGLAND UNDER THE TUDORS.
Vol. I. Henry VII. (1485-1509). Translated from the German
by Miss Alice M. Todd and the Rev. A. H. Johnson, some
time Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, under the super
vision of, and with an Introduction by, Mr. James Gairdner,
Editor of the " Paston Letters." Demy 8vo, cloth, 16s.
The Times says : " A learned and scholarly work. ... No further testi
mony is needed to the intrinsic importance of Dr. Busoh's work, and the
merit of the translation is attested by the auspices under which it has been
produced." The Scotsman says : " A historian who has, both in his own country and
on the Continent generally, a high reputation as an authority on the diplo
matic history of the seventeenth century . . . deserves a cordial welcome."
The Realm says : " Will be welcomed by all students of English history.
His works on international relations during the sixteenth century, especially
his writings on the foreign policy of Wolsey, enjoy a European reputation."
The Daily Chronicle says : " Promises to be the authentic history of the
Tudor period in England."
The Morning Post says : " Bids fair to be by far the most important con
tribution to English history that has appeared of late years. The style of
the book is as attractive as its substance is weighty."
By ROBEKT K. DOUGLAS.
New and cheaper Edition.
SOCIETY IN CHINA.
An Account of the Every-day Life of the Chinese People.
Social, Political, and Religious. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6s.
Library Edition, with 22 Illustrations. Demy 8vo,
cloth, 16s.
Mr. Henry Norman, in " People and Politics of the Far East," says :
" Professor Douglas's book tells the truth about China in so indisputable and
entertaining a manner, and he speaks with so much authority, that there is
very little left for any one else to say. I have omitted from this volume
much of my material about China, and my experiences there, simply because
Professor Douglas's work has covered the ground finally."
The Times says: "Not only does Mr. Douglas's book supply a complete"
conspectus of the polity, institutions, manners, and sentiments of this petri
fied race, but it reviews clearly the history of foreign relations with China,
and points a moral which British diplomatists would do well to lay to heart
in future difficulties with China."
The Scotsman says : " It is an excellent book, perhaps the best and most
trustworthy on its subject. ... So easily accessible in its popular form, it
ought to have a wide circulation."
The Admiralty and Horse Guards Gazette says : " From beginning to end
' Society in China' is the most complete and intelligent work on China and
her people which has yet been published."
The Daily Telegraph says : " Every page of this admirable book teems
with interesting information."
The Daily Graphic says : " This book is one of the best that has ever
been written on Cljina. In addition to being a storehouse of knowledge, it
is one of the most entertaining works published for a long time."
London:- A. D. INNES & CO., 31 & 32, Bedford Street, Strand.

By ARTHUR D. INNES,
Author of " Seers and Singers," etc.
BRITAIN AND HER RIVALS.
1713-1789. A Study dealing chiefly with the Contests between
the Naval Powers for supremacy in America and India.
With numerous Plans, Maps, etc. Large Crown, cloth,
price 7s. 6d.
The Athenseum says : " Mr. Innes writes most pleasantly and agreeably,
and possesses the gift of selecting the right sort of details to illustrate the
points which he wishes to emphasize. . . . Mr. Innes's book is a good and
timely one, and we should be glad to know that it is being widely read."
The Spectator says : " This is a spirited, enthusiastic little book, full of
excellent reading."
The Pall Mall Gazette, in a review headed, " History as it Should be
Written," says : " The book is indeed just what was most wanted : . . . a
great deal more than a popular work in the usual sense of the term, seeing
that it is accurate and thoughtful, besides being eminently readable."
The World says : " Eeaders of this valuable and admirably written work
will recognize the skill and efficiency with which he has carried it out : the
lucid arrangement of the various portions of his subject, the attractive ease
and just proportion of his style, and the neat definiteness of his sketches
of the rulers, statesmen, generals, and other important personages of the
century." The Scotsman says : " Always marked by a fine regard for historical
perspective. . . . Should prove equally acceptable to professed students of
history as an introduction to more recondite works, and to general readers
who fmd in historical books a means of culture and entertainment."
The National Observer says : " Marked by clear insight ; . . . clearness is
indeed the leading characteristic of the work. ... As a text book of a most
important period^ 'Britain and Her Eivals ' may be strongly recommended.
It will prove extremely useful to the ordinary teacher, and ought to take a
prominent place in school teaching."
The Liberal says : " The book is one of great and permanent value.
One of the most interesting, as well as one of the most reliable, pictures of
the period we have ever read. We warmly commend it to our readers."
The Literary World says : " We congratulate Mr. Innes on a very complete
success. . . . For sustained interest we cannot recall any outline history
that surpasses ' Britain and Her Rivals.' "
The Cambridge Review says: " A most judicious combination of historical
detail and narrative generalization. The author evidently possesses the true
historical spirit."
The Schoolmaster says : " Always clear, vigorous, and to the point. We
have derived much pleasure and profit from the volume, and our recom
mendation has a large spice of gratitude in it."

London: A. D. INNES & CO., 31 & 32, Bedford Street, Strand.

By the Rev. Canon I. GBEGORY SMITH, M.A., LL.D.
CHRISTIAN MONASTICISM.
From the Fourth to the Ninth Centuries of the Christian Era.
Large crown 8vo, cloth, 14s.
Tlie Spectator says : " The authorities are exactly what they ought to be.
. . . The best English text book on the general subject of early monasticism.
... It will be long before another more exhaustive is required."
The School Guardian says : " As a book of reference the work cannot be
too highly praised."
The Manchester Guardian says : "A good outline of the early history of
a remarkable movement."
The Morning Post says : " The book is evidently the result of much
research, and its literary style is admirable." «.
Tke Church Quarterly says : " A contribution of real value to the
literature of its subject."
The Speaker says : " An excellent book."
SOME ASPECTS OF DISESTABLISHMENT.
Essays from varying points of view by Clergymen of the
English Church. Edited by Rev. H. C. S huttleworth, M.A..
Professor of Pastoral Theology in King's College,,and Rector
of St. Nicholas Cole Abbey. Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6c?.
JEREMY TAYLOR'S GOLDEN SAYINGS.
Being Selections from the Works of Jeremy Taylor, arranged
and with an Introduction by John Dennis. Crown 8vo,
buckram, gilt top, 3.s. 6d.
By the late Rev. E. B. PUSEY, D.D.
DANIEL THE PROPHET.
Nine Lectures delivered in the Divinity School of the University
of Oxford. With copious notes. Demy 8vo, cloth, 10s. 6d.

THE MINOR PROPHETS.
With a Commentary Explanatory and Practical and Introduc
tions to the several Books. Cloth, large 4to, £1 lis. 6d. (not
including Index). Index separately, cloth, 3s. ; sewed, 2s,

By Archdeacon A. M. WILBERFORCE.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION OF
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Crown 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6c?.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST.
Crown 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6d.

London: A. D. INNES & CO., 31 & 32, Bedford Street, Strand.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 05100 4308