Peace Forum Members,
In the course of my research I have come across a very old book, first published in 1924, called ?Ideas of God In Israel?. The persistent ?ways of the ancients?, paganism and man-made concepts of God, practiced by the Jews discussed in this work have some amazing and sinister parallels to many of the rituals and misconceptions found in corrupted Islam and Christianity. The so-called monotheists among the Jews, Christians and Muslims have imbibed these same practices such as, worship at sacred places, sacred stones and sacred waters, religious dressing/badges of honor, repetition of phrases, etc. These practices are included in the meaning of shirk. This scholarly research is presented with references, in a very straightforward manner and asks some provocative questions of the reader as to its inferences in relation to modern ?theology?. (I have deleted the references in this post but I?ll send them to anyone who asks. They are mainly biblical chapter and verse.) Anyone who has not read the Bible will get a clearer picture of the message and the admonitions in the line of Prophets/Reformers sent by God to the Bani Israel and why they were needed. Each time the message was the same to the self-claimed monotheists?God Alone, leave off what men concoct and serve Me in the manner given to you in the Law and each time it was corrupted. The exalted Messenger bought the same message, this time to all of mankind.
(wasala- to connect, join, unite, combine, link, interlock something with, attach something to = connecting scriptures)
2851 Now, indeed, We have caused this Word to reach mankind step by step, so that they might take it to their heart. (?Wassalna? embraces ?step by step?).
2852 As for those whom We have given the Scripture before (and who understand that this reading is a Divine Revelation like the ones before it) come to believe in this one as well.
2853 And whenever it is conveyed to them, they say, "We believe in it, for it is the Truth from our Lord. Indeed, even before it we have been of those who submit (to a Supreme Authority).?
It reminded me of reading a book called ?16 Crucified Saviors? thirty years ago and wondering how any sensible educated person could read it and still profess belief in the crucifixion. The difference is this time I found myself looking in a mirror and asking of myself the same question. Have I not broken God?s Law of Guidance? Have I used my reason and intellect and verified for myself? Have I not been arrogant in my knowledge/understanding and a blind follower?
I think I?ve mastered the use of my scanner and little by little I?m transferring this book into a computer text file. Anyone interested, just ask and I?ll send it along.
622 On the Day We assemble them, We will ask the idolaters, ?Where are now those partners of Allah that you conceived??
623 They will hardly have a response, but they will swear," By Allah, our Lord, WE NEVER WERE IDOLATERS (MUSRIKEEN).?
624 Imagine how they LIE against themselves, and how their fabricated gods abandon them.
Here are a few excerpts
PREFACE
THE following pages do not attempt to give a comprehensive account of religion in Israel, but rather to isolate for study that element in religion which is of primary importance, namely belief in a God whose nature and
character are known to his worshippers. This belief, as it takes form and shape in the mind of the worshippers, is their idea of God.
In Israel, as indeed in all nations, there was not a single uniform type of belief, nor was there one and only one idea of God. As there is more than one cultural level in any given nation, so there is more than one religious level, though the lines of demarcation in the two spheres do not necessarily coincide. What is commonly called the religion of Israel is in fact the religion of a spiritual aristocracy which was often in sharp opposition to the majority of the people.
It is maintained in what follows that throughout the history of Israel different types of religious belief, resulting in different ideas of God, existed side by side within the nation. Attention is directed to the lower as well as to the higher types. The literature of Israel has been handed down to us by those who stood on the higher spiritual levels, but, nevertheless, it contains many traces of the beliefs and practices of those who did not attain to those levels.
It is of much importance for a sincere and candid interpretation of-the Old Testament and the rest of the literature that these traces should be frankly recognized for what they are, and that we should not try by forced and unnatural methods to incorporate them into the religion of the prophets and sages. If, on the contrary, we can distinguish and hold apart the higher and lower types of belief, and approach with sympathy the latter as well as the former, we may learn from both not only something concerning the mind of man in its gradual development towards a more perfect understanding, but also something concerning the God who reveals himself by divers portions and by divers manners, according as men are prepared to apprehend him. If we try to follow this human development and divine self-revelation historically, we shall learn the more.
It is hoped, therefore, that this book may be helpful to the reader in that it attempts to present in their historical setting both the higher and the lower types '-. of the idea of God, and to set them in a clearer perspective by limiting the study of religion in Israel to this one part of the subject.
Some of the inferences drawn in Part A of this book from facts recorded in the Old Testament may seem at first sight to be 'precarious. It may be freely admitted that such would be the case, if these facts stood alone. But they do not. Parallels may be found in other literatures and among other peoples, and when it is seen that the same inferences may be drawn in many similar instances, the probability that these inferences are true is greatly increased. Some of these parallels have been mentioned in the text, but since then my colleague, Bertram Colgrave, M.A., Lecturer in English in the University of Durham, has brought to my notice numerous examples from Northern Europe. A summary account of the worship of sacred groves and springs among the Teutonic tribes is to be found in the article on "Germanic Heathenism," by Miss Phillpotts, in the Cambridge Modern History, vol. ii, p. 489, and reference may also be made to the article on "Teutonic Religion" in th,e Encyclopcedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. xii. Sacred stones in the British Isles and elsewhere are well described by T. Eric Peet . in Rough Stone Monuments.
My thanks are due to Mr. Colgrave, not only for supplying this information, but also for reading the proof sheets of this book; to Dr. W. O. E. Oesterley for advice and criticism with regard to its arrangement for the press; and to my wife for her help in compiling the index.
I owe more than I can say to Canon J. T. Fowler, M.A., D.C.L., F.S.A., Hebrew Lecturer in this University for forty-seven years (I870-I9I7). He was my earliest teacher of Hebrew, and the first to turn my thoughts to Old Testament studies. Senem adulescens ita dilexi, ut aequalem. For more than twenty years we have shared the same enthusiasms, though we have not always held the same opinions. He has read with affectionate interest the whole of this book in proof, and his many illuminating comments would have enriched it, had space allowed their inclusion.
HATFIELD COLLEGE, DURHAM, November 1923.
Page 43
CHAPTER I
EXAMPLES FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT OF WORSHIP AT SACRED PLACES, STONES, TREES, AND WATERS
MASSEBOTH AND 'ASHERIM
In explaining the method to be adopted in this inquiry we showed that the evolution of ideas may be regarded as dispersive, and may be represented by lines radiating from a point. We suggested the probability that some lines may stop short at an early stage, indicating the impossibility of further progress in that direction. Such an end-stopped line seems to represent very well the nature religion of the Syrian peasant, which is now essentially what it was as far back as we can catch sight of it. Progress along this line seems to have stopped short at a time before the date of the earliest of the Old Testament records.
We find at all periods back to the time of Israel's first settlement in Canaan the same places and objects of worship, the same religious practices that appear now. We may infer that the ideas of God embodied in these outward facts have remained substantially the same.
We shall proceed, therefore, to set out examples from the Old Testament of these facts, and to draw from them conclusions with regard to the conceptions of deity which prevailed in the popular religion throughout the period under study. We shall look for references to local shrines, sacred stones, trees, and waters, to the worship of animals, to the cult of ancestors and holy men, and to the other features which we have seen surviving in the peasant religion of modern Palestine and Syria. We have called this part of our study a retrospect simply, since it is impossible to trace development where progress has ceased long before our earliest records begin.
WORSHIP AT SACRED PLACES, ETC.
Page 44
LOCAL SHRINES.
The local shrines of whose existence in modern Palestine travellers afford abundant testimony were resorted to by Jewish worshippers in the latest times to which the Old Testament makes reference.
They had been disestablished by the Deuteronomic legislation I of the seventh century B.C., and destroyed by the reformation of King Josiah.2 A century before, the prophets had denounced them as seats of idolatry and immorality.3
Even later than the Old Testament period a passage in Maccabees leads us to suspect that Judas and his brethren, whose zeal for the Law is beyond suspicion, still cherished feelings of reverence for one at least of the old" high places." "They gathered themselves together to Mizpeh, over against Jerusalem; for in Mizpeh was there aforetime a place of prayer for Israe1." 4 There they fasted, and brought the priests' garments, and the first fruits, and the tithes. To-day Mizpeh is Nabi Samwil, five miles north-west of Jerusalem, and still a holy place, as its name testifies. It is the Mizpeh of the times of the Judges, where the" congregation was assembled as one man unto Y ahwe," 5 and where" Samuel took a sucking lamb, and offered it for a whole burnt-offering unto Yahwe," 6 and where Saul was chosen by lot as Israel's king.7
Jeremiah's earliest denunciation 8 of the high places may refer to a time before Josiah's reformation; but the reformation had been accomplished, and Jehoiakim was on the throne, when the prophet complained "They have built the high places of Topheth . . . to burn their
WORSHIP AT SACRED PLACES, ETC.
Page 45
sons and daughters in the fire." 1 This complaint seems to refer to present practices rather than past.
In Ezekiel's days, shortly before the fall of Jerusalem, the local sanctuaries still stood to call forth Yahwe's message through the prophet "Behold, I, even I, will bring a sword upon you, and I will destroy your high places." 2 And in chapter xx. 29 the prophet plays upon the name "What meaneth the high place (bama) 3 whereunto ye go (ba'im) ? "4 And he comments " So the name thereof is caned Bamah unto this day."
The Trito-Isaiah, writing probably about 450 B.C., describes a party which clearly maintains the old Palestinian worship, and frequents the high places, and is in friendly relations with the Samaritans, descendants in part of the survivors of the Northern Kingdom, which had never accepted the law of the single sanctuary.5
Abundant evidence shows that down to the time of Josiah, or at least to that of Hezekiah, the high places not only existed, but were not regarded as inconsistent with the highest standard of religion. The Deuteronomic editor of Kings admits that they continued throughout the period of the Hebrew kingdoms until Josiah, though, believing, as he did, that the centralization of sacrificial worship was a Mosaic institution, he regards as an anomaly their retention by pious kings of Judah.6 As for the kings of Israel, the Deuteronomist tells us that they built" high places" and" houses of the high places," i.e. temples, in all their cities, and the people worshipped there, as did also the mixed population after the Exile.7
In the days of Samuel and David the people ascended to the high places and offered sacrifice on them.8 Eli was priest of a temple at Shiloh; 9 Jephthah spake all his words" before Yahwe, " i.e. at his sanctuary at Mizpeh; 10 and Gideon set up a place of worship at Ophrah. II
WORSHIP AT SACRED PLACES, ETC.
Page 46
The early documents of Genesis mention as holy places Shechem, Beersheba, Beth-el, and Galeed, and their sanctity is explained by the fact that the patriarchs worshipped at them. 1
The legislation of the E document contemplates the erection of altars at every place sanctified by a theophany.2.
We find, therefore, in the earliest, as in the latest, Old Testament writings evidence of divine worship at a plurality of sacred places. What is the significance of this fact?
To the modern educated Christian, who regards it as fitting and necessary that each local group of worshippers should have its house of God, it means little; but to the reformers of Josiah's day a plurality of sanctuaries signifies plurality in the Godhead. It is not without reason that we have from one and the same writer, or from two writers of closely kindred spirit, the emphatic declaration.
" Yahwe our God is one Yahwe," 3 and also the solemn warning "Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest." 4 We may surely accept the judgment of contemporaries, confirmed, as it is, by the evidence of survivals already cited, and may conclude that the worshippers at the local sanctuaries, while in theory acknowledging the one Yahwe, Israel's God, in practice brought their sacrifices to the god of their own place, whom they felt to be somehow different from the God of Jerusalem, or the god of a neighbouring place.
Such a localizing and multiplying of the Godhead was, perhaps, inevitable, when material sacrifices were offered at the altar, and were believed to be conveyed then and there, in whole or in part, to the deity.
The Deuteronomic writers 5 and the Prophets,6 indeed, roundly accuse the people of offering their sacrifices to the Canaanite gods, the Ba'alim. The people might have repudiated the charge; but when they called Yahwe a
WORSHIP AT SAGRED PLACES, ETC.
Page 47
ba'al,I and approached him at sanctuaries which had once belonged to the Canaanites, with rites which were essentially the same as theirs, they lay open to the charge.
SACRED STONES.
Connected in many cases with the" high places" were the sacred stones, trees, and waters that are mentioned so often in the Old Testament.
Chief among the sacred stones is the pillar that Jacob set up at Beth-el, calling it a " god's house." 2
At Gilgal, another of Israel's famous sanctuaries, were the stones 3 which tradition explained as a memorial of the crossing of the Jordan by the host of Israel.
At Shechem there was a great stone under the oak by the sanctuary of Yahwe, which the E document 4 asserts to have been set up by Joshua.
Eben-ezer, according to the Deuteronomic editor of the books of Samuel,5 was a stone set up as a memorial of Israel's victory over the Philistines; but the older material (E) 6 mentions Eben-ezer as Israel's camping place at the earlier battle in which Israel was defeated.
We may regard the stone as a sacred object of unknown antiquity, which the Deuteronomist rendered harmless from his point of view by describing it as a simple memorial erected by Samuel.
Gibeon was a high place of acknowledged sanctity, and we are told incidentally that there was a great stone there.7 Adonijah sacrificed" sheep and oxen and fatlings by the stone of Zoheleth," 8 and it is conjectured by Robertson Smith that this stone with the sacred spring near by En-Rogel-marks the site of the original sanctuary of Jerusalem. 9
As late as the middle of the fifth century B.C. there
WORSHIP AT SACRED PLACES, ETC
Page 48
were those who still resorted to the sacred stones, for we read in the Trito-Isaiah "Among the smooth stones of the valley is thy portion even to them hast thou poured a drink offering, thou hast offered an oblation." I
Thus the Old Testament writers allow us to see not only that there were in Canaan sacred stones of immemorial antiquity, but also that the veneration of them among sections of the peopIe continued to a time long after the Exile. Indeed, we may be sure that it never ceased at any time, since, as we have learned, it goes on even now among the inhabitants of Israel's ancient land.
SACRED TREES.
Sacred trees are mentioned in the Old Testament1 even more often than sacred stones, and again the references are to many different periods of the national life.
In the passage of Trito-Isaiah just cited, worship at the sacred trees is charged against the same people who were offering their oblation to the smooth stones of the valley; for" they inflamed themselves among the terebinths under every luxuriant tree,"
But they were introducing no novelty their ancestors had done the same in the last days of Judah's kingdom, and Ezekiel had protested in vain.3
A century before that time Isaiah declares 4 that the Judreans of his time should be ashamed of the oaks (or terebinths) which they had desired; and not many years earlier, in Northern Israel, Hosea 5 denounced the sacrifices under oaks and poplars and terebinths.
The Deuteronomic reform sought, indeed, to banish the sacred trees from legitimate religion,6 but until then they were apparently regarded as without offence, and their sanctity was accounted for by their connection with the patriarchs and heroes of old time.
For example, a writer of the Northern Kingdom in the time of Jeroboam II invokes upon the tribe of Joseph the
WORSHIP AT SACRED PLACES, ETC.
Page 49
? good will of him that dwelt in the bush," referring obviously to the theophany to Moses in Midian.1
The early stratum of narrative in the books of Samuel (J?) mentions the balsam trees which, "like the oaks of Dodona, gave oracles, and the sound of marching was heard in their tops when Yahwe went out before David against the Philistines.2
It was by the oak that was in Ophrah that the angel of Yahwe appeared to Gideon.3 "By the oak of the pillar that was in Shechern "the men of Shechem made Abimelech king 4; and, when they rebelled, and Abimelech marched against them, one of his companies came by the way of the" Augurs' Oak." 5
Deborah dwelt under the" palm tree of Deborah" between Ramah and Beth-el ; 6 and the sanctity of the oak at Beth-el is attributed to the fact that another Deborah, Rebekah's nurse, was buried beneath it.7
Most famous of all the sacred trees were the oaks of Mamre, where, according to J,8 Abraham dwelt, and built an altar to Yahwe.
The old worship survived here into Christian times, and the Church historian Sozomenus records that Jews and Greeks and Christians took part in it. "Each after the manner of his faith does honour to the place, some praying to the God of all, some invoking the angels, and pouring wine, or offering incense, or an ox, or a goat, or a sheep." 9
Abraham planted also a tamarisk in Beersheba, according to JE,10 and there called on the name of Yahwe, the everlasting God.
The oak at Shechem, which figures in the story of Abimelech, was clearly regarded as an ancient 'sanctuary. E II explains that under it Jacob buried the strange gods of his household. But other explanations were current, and
WORSHIP AT SAGRED PLACES, ETC
Page 50
the same oak is mentioned by J1 and called by him the "oak of Moreh," Le. of the Seer. The name suggests that there was an oracle connected with the tree, and J claims sanctuary and oracle for Israel by attributing its foundation to Abraham. It was there that Yahwe appeared to him, and there he built an altar.
These examples warrant the assertion that the sacred trees were intimately connected with the popular worship from the earliest times, and did not lose their sanctity even after Christianity became the nominal religion of the country.
SACRED WATERS.
The Old Testament refers less frequently, but still unmistakably, to sacred waters.
In the days of Amos the Israelites swore by the well of Beersheba, and possibly also by the waters of Dan, where one of the sources of the Jordan bubbles up from the ground in a couple of wells.2
When Adonijah sought the succession to David's throne, he held his sacrificial feast at the fountains of En-Rogel. Here was the Serpent's Stone,3so that we may reasonably identify these waters with the Dragon's Well 4 towards which Nehemiah rode as he made his circuit of the ruined walls of Jerusalem.
Gihon was another fountain at Jerusalem,5 and of special sanctity, since it was chosen for the place of Solomon's coronation.
Kadesh-Barnea was an important station of the tribes in the time of the Wandering, and there was the" Fountain of Judgment" (En-Mishpat) and the" Waters of Controversy" (Meribah) 6-names which leave little doubt that here was an oracle or a priesthood that gave judgment at the sanctuary.
The well at Beersheba to which Amos refers was clearly of long-standing sanctity, dating back, according to E,
WORSHIP AT SACRED PLACES, ETC.
Page 5I
to the day when Abraham and Abimelech swore to a covenant there, and hence arose the name" Well of the Oath." J
J give a more probable etymology, when he connects the name (V_tf"i_f = "Well of Seven") with the seven lambs given in token of Abraham's right to the waters.'
J has, however, another tradition to the effect that Isaac names the well,3 when the strife between him and Abimelech had ended, and a covenant had been made. It is evident that the well was regarded as sacred, and that when the origin of its sanctity was forgotten or rejected, divergent traditions were formed to account for the fact.
Beer-Iahai.roi was another well, whose sacred character was accounted for in like manner by bringing it within the Abrahamite cycle of legends; but it?s impossible etymology 4 again clearly shows that the legend is a comparatively late one invented to explain a fact whose real origin had long been forgotten.
The examples cited are mostly in the early literature, but when we remember that in our Lord's day there was a pool at Jerusalem-Bethesda-to which the people still resorted for healing,5 we cannot doubt that the paucity of examples in the Old Testament is accidental, and that the sacred waters had throughout a place in the popular religion of Israel.
MASSEBOTH AND ?ASHERIM.
Finally, we have to consider the Masseba and the 'Ashera. The Masseba is a pillar or obelisk of stone set up,6 as its name implies, for some special purpose. It may be a monument such as Absalom erected,7 or the sign of an agreement, as when Jacob set up a masseba in token of his covenant with Laban,8 but usually it is mentioned in association with the altar.
WORSHIP AT SAGRED PLACES, ETC
Page 52
The Deuteronomic Code 1 forbids the erection of a masseba beside the altar of Yahwe, and the Deuteronomic editor of Kings 2. emphatically condemns both Israel and Judah because they did set up masseboth "upon every high hill and under every green tree."3 The prohibition of the code and the condemnation of Kings imply that they had previously been part of the sacra of the local sanctuaries. E, indeed, records the fact that Moses himself set up twelve masseboth by the altar at Sinai.4 Hosea, also, counts them among the normal apparatus of worship in his day. 5
It is, however, in the story of Jacob at Beth-el that we have the most instructive account of a masseba. The E document preserves the tradition that Jacob set up the stone on which his head was resting when God appeared to him for a masseba, and that, not merely as a memorial of his vision, but as a " God's house"; and on the stone itself he poured his libation.6 When he returned from Paddan-Aram he built an altar there, for where" the gods had appeared to him" there they might be found again. 7
It may be conjectured that at Beth-el was a stone a masseba-which was the most sacred object in the sanctuary; to it the name Beth-el specially belonged; upon it were poured libations of oil according to the traditional ritual of the place. Among the priests at Beth-el the maintenance of the rite and the application of the name were" petrified customs," whose meaning was forgotten. Therefore they accounted for the rite and the name by a legend; it was Jacob who had so named the stone, and first poured oil upon it. The editor of E preserved the legend, and incidentally the evidence of contemporary custom.
This conjecture cannot, of course, be proved, but it becomes probable when we consider how many myths and legends elsewhere have arisen in a similar manner as explanations of traditional rites and customs.
WORSHIP AT SACRED PLACES. ETC.
Page 53
Konig, it is true, rejects such a conjecture, and argues that the text of Genesis does not warrant our regarding the stone as more than a memorial; that the pouring of oil upon it is no more than its consecration by anointing as a memorial, or as an altar, or foundation stone. Further, he insists that it is the place and not the stone which is called" God's house."
This is undeniably the fact in Genesis xxviii. 19; but his argument that a correct rendering of the text in Genesis xxviii. 22 (" und deiser Stein, den ich als eine Massebe aufgestellt habe, solI ein Gotteshaus werden") supports the conception of the stone as a memorial, not a .. fetish," seems scarcely justified. Whatever be the tense of the verb, the conception of the stone as a divine abode is present in the words.
The final argument of Konig is that one and the same narrator (E) cannot have reported that Jacob caused his household to put away the images of their gods I while he himself worshipped a fetish." .
We may admit that the Elohist himself did not regard the stone at Beth-el as a fetish," but as, a memorial of a theophany; yet this did not prevent him from preserving clear traces of the older belief that the stone was the abode of a divinity who inspired Jacob's dream, and that this was the reason why the stone became a masseba, and continued to be an object of popular veneration. We are not now dealing with the theology of the Elohist; we are looking for hints and allusions in his writings which show that his idea of God was not the only one held in Israel, and that among the people the idea of a special divinity-an -el-in particular places, and connected with particular sacred objects, was tenaciously maintained throughout the historical period, even as it persists to this day.
Konig admits, grudgingly, that the belief that trees are the abode of divine beings may be discovered in modern Syria and Palestine, but he denies that the belief is to be earned back into antiquity; .. for popular belief is often degenerate exempla sunt odiosa 3.
What, however, is properly meant by degeneration in religion? Is it not that the adherents of a higher faith have taken up into their religion elements from the lower culture of their environment? If, then, popular belief in modern Palestine is degenerate, the degeneration proves our point that the crude ideas of animism" were always there in the environment, alongside, it may be, the conceptions of Islam, of Christianity, of the Law and the Prophets.
WORSHIP AT SAGRED PLACES, ETC
Page 54
The' ashera, like the masseba, is mentioned frequently in connection with the altar, and inasmuch as it is " planted," I ?cut down," 2, or "burnt," 3 it may be regarded as a sacred tree, or pole, standing near the altar.
The A.V. translates the name as "grove," and sacred groves are known to us among many peoples. This meaning, however, does not suit the context in some places where the name occurs, nor does it agree with the archaeological evidence.4 The RV. merely transliterates the Hebrew word as Ashera (plural Asherim}, and explains in a note to Exodus xxxiv, I3 that the Asherim were "probably the wooden symbols of a goddess Ashera."
.
Stade, Wellhausen, and Robertson Smith think only of the sacred pole, and reject the evidence offered for the existence of the goddess.
Probably, in some cases, the goddess or her symbol may be denoted by the name,6 but in others it is a general term like masseba, and denotes one of the ordinary sacra of the Canaanite sanctuaries. As such the ashera is condemned by Kings and prohibited by Deuteronomy, but Hosea does not mention it as being, like the masseba, part of the ordinary apparatus of worship in his day. Feeling may have been roused against it at a time when the masseba still gave no offence. If so, this may be due to the identification of the ashera with the symbol of a heathen goddess.
In general, however, we may regard the 'ashera as a substitute for the naturally occurring sacred tree, just as the masseba was a substitute for the natural rock.
CONCLUSIONS.
What is the conclusion to be drawn from this abundant evidence of the existence in many parts of Israel's territory, and throughout the national history from the settlement in Canaan till long after the Exile, of sacred stones, trees, and waters connected with the local sanctuaries?
WORSHIP AT SACRED PLACES, ETC
Page 55
We have seen that in the judgement of the Deuteronomist the multiplication of sacrificial altars involved a multiplication of gods, and that in effect the Israelite who brought his offering to the altar of his village sacrificed not to Yahwe but to the village god, the local Ba'al whom the Canaanites had worshipped before Israel took possession of the land together with its holy places. Jeremiah also complains "According to the number of thy cities are' thy gods, 0 Judah." 1
But if, before the reformation of Josiah, the majority in Israel associated deity with stones, trees, and waters, and after the reformation a minority continued to do so, we may draw inferences from this fact as to the ideas of God entertained by them.
We have learned that the modern Syrian peasant believes that his sacred stone or tree or fountain is the habitation of a divine spirit. His belief is no isolated phenomenon. Tylor 2 and Frazer 3 (to mention no others) have collected instances from all parts of the world of the worship of spirits or deities embodied in natural objects or resident in them. These instances are taken not only from nations in the lower stage of culture, but also from the state religion of China, and the nature religions of Greece and Rome, and they linger on in Christendom to modern times as superstitious survivals.
Worship of natural objects is the outcome of the primitive theory known as Animism, according to which man's conception of himself as a body with an indwelling soul is extended to the world about him. As the soul in himself was the cause of life and action, so things which lived and moved had souls. By an extension of this analogy influenced, perhaps, by the fact that, when souls appeared in dreams, they brought objects with them-souls were attributed also to what we recognize only as lifeless thlngs.4 Further, as the souls of men may exist apart from their bodies, and appear to the primitive beholder as free spirits, so free spirits existed in the natural world, and were able
WORSHIP AT SACRED PLACES, ETC
Page 56
at their will to take up their abode in tree or rock, in fountain or stream.
The two conceptions of animating souls and presiding spirits are developments from the same fundamental idea Nature throughout is animated.
Now, if animism is universal at a certain stage of culture, and if its prevalence cannot be due to borrowing by one people from another-two suppositions which the evidence accumulated by anthropologists makes highly probable then animism may be taken as a theory by which, reasoning from experience by analogy the normal human mind, at a certain level of culture, seeks to rationalize the world around.
The presumption, then, would be that Israel, or its component elements, passed through an animistic stage, and that the belief in nature-spirits, at one time universal, was gradually abandoned in the higher religious thought, while it maintained its hold on the less progressive portions of the community. ,
The only question would be whether this stage had been left-behind before Israel became a nation. However, the outward signs of animism, the sacred tree, stone, and well, are found in Israel throughout the historic period. The denunciations of prophets and lawgivers prove that worship was paid to them, and the conclusion must be that many of the people, and at times, perhaps, the majority of the people, thought that a divine spirit might, and did, exist in the well or fountain that brought fertility to their fields, in the green tree whose shade gave refreshment, in the rock that cast its shadow on a weary land. And when the village community set up its altar to worship the god who gave increase to the products of their land, they set up beside it a stone-the masseba-and a tree or tree-stump -the' ashera-to be the home of the god, to which he might resort, and where his worshippers might seek and find him. Stone, tree, and living waters, or in their place the artificial masseba and ashera, are not mere symbols, as a cross might be in a Christian church, but they are the permanent visible object, at which and through which the worshippers came into direct contact with the god." I
I Robertson Smith Religion of the Semites, ed. 2, p. 166.
WORSHIP AT SACRED PLACES, ETC
Page 57
SUMMARY.
References to the existence of local sanctuaries are found in documents of every period, e.g. in I Maccabees, 3 Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Kings, Samuel, the J and E documents. They were forbidden by the legislation of Deuteronomy. The Deuteronomic writers and the prophets regarded sacrifices at these" high places" as offered to the Ba'alim. Sacred stones are referred to in 3 Isaiah, I Kings, I Samuel, joshua, and Genesis. Sacred trees are frequently mentioned, e.g. in 3 Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, judges, J and E. Sacred waters are less often noticed, but references are found in Amos, Kings, J and E. The masseboth and 'asherim were pillars and trees (or poles) set up by the altars as substitutes for the naturally occurring stone or tree. They were forbidden by Deuteronomy, but were regarded as legitimate in earlier times. The conclusion from the evidence is that some Israelites at all times worshipped local deities, whom they associated with notable stones, trees, and waters. Such worship is the outcome of animism-the belief that nature throughout is animated, and that men may enter into relations with the spirits which animate or preside over natural objects.
Page 78
CHAPTER III
THE WORSHIP OF THE HEAVENLY BODIES
(ASTRAL WORSHIP)
IN view of the unquestionable worship of what we should call the minor powers of nature, we cannot fail to ask whether in Israel divine attributes were assigned to those sublime objects which we most readily associate with nature gods, namely sun, moon, and stars.
To us, perhaps, it seems a little less unreasonable to regard as a god the sun whose rays illumine the whole earth than to find divinity in stones and trees. But the thoughts of the ancient Israelite were not as our thoughts, and he seems to have turned his mind more readily to the power that was at hand, and therefore able to be touched by his appeal, than to powers which, if greater, were more remote and less likely to respond to the approach of any particular group of worshippers. Be this as it may, signs of astral worship are few in the earlier periods of Israelite history, and do not become unmistakable until the time is reached when the nation is in close contact with foreign empires.
Sinai and the Desert of Sin, regions famous in the early history of the Hebrews, bear witness by their names to the cult of the moon-god Sin, who was zealously worshipped in the most ancient times in Syria, Babylonia, and Southern Arabia. Greek and Latin writers testify to the continuance of the cult in Arabia Petrrea, and Doughty I tells us that the appearance of the new moon is still greeted by the Bedouin. But it would be unsafe to argue from these facts alone that Israel practised the cult. 1
1 A l'abia Desel'ta, i. 366.
. Cf. G. F. Moore in E.BI., col. 3355. 711
WORSHIP OF THE HEAVENLY BODIES
Page 79
More important is the fact that the day of the new moon 1 and, in a lesser degree, that of the full moon 2 were festivals in the calendar of Israel, celebrated with religious rejoicings and sacrifices. The Sabbath also, which is often mentioned in connection with the new moon,3 may have a lunar origin, the week corresponding to each of the four quarters of the moon.
One indubitable reference to the worship of the moon is found in Job xxxi. 26-28, where the writer alludes to the superstitious custom of throwing kisses to the sun and moon. This custom would correspond to the actual kissing of an idol.4 The passage is, however, post-Exilic and poetic, and we cannot be sure whether it is a deliberate archaism or a reference to contemporary heathenism within or without Israel.
In the very ancient Song of Deborah 5 we read, indeed, that" the stars in their courses fought against Sisera," but the words are hardly more than a poetic hyperbole, and seemingly so understood by the writer of the prose parallel,6 if we may assume that he based his narrative on the poem. It would be unsafe, therefore, to draw any doctrinal inference from the words of the Song.
From Amos v. 25 f. also no conclusion can be reached. Text and interpretation alike are uncertain,? and even if the reference were to star-worship (which is disputed), the prophet does not necessarily carry back that worship to earlier times than his own.
There is evidence of sun-worship among the Canaanites. The place name Beth-Shemesh 8 (House of the Sun) may preserve the tradition of an ancient temple of the Sun-god there. Moreover, Beth-Shemesh is in the region to which the exploits of Samson are assigned, and this fact favours the view that the story of the hero contains elements which are derived from solar myths. His name
WORSHIP OF THE HEAVENLY BODIES
Page 80
Sltimshon 1-is a derivative from She mesh 2 (Sun), and comparison may fairly be made between some of his exploits and those of the Babylonian hero, Gilgamesh. The fact that Gilgamesh is a solar hero may be taken as proved, and accordingly it is highly probable, as many scholars now hold, that Samson also has incorporated into his legend certain solar elements.
Burney 3 makes the further suggestion that in the name of Samson's tribe, Dan, there is an ancient title of the Sun-god as the divine Judge.4 He holds that Dan was settled in Canaan before the coming of the Joseph tribes under Joshua, and was incorporated later into Israel. If, then, we may assume that the ancient patron-deity of the tribe of Dan was the Sun-god under his aspect of divine Judge, we shall not be surprised if we find relics of solar mythology surviving in a euhemerized form among the folk-traditions of the tribe." 5
There appears, however, to be no ground for supposing that the narrator of the story in Judges (probably J) had any consciousness of a solar myth as part of the sources of his story. It is, however, worthy of note that the later northern home of the tribe of Dan is a district where sunworship has prevailed from time immemorial, and where to-day many ruins of sun-temples still remain.6
It is not until we are within the Assyrian period that clear evidence of the worship of the heavenly bodies appears, and then it is first as a fashionable cult under royal patronage rather than as a popular form of devotion.
Assyrian influence became predominant in Judah during the reign of Ahaz, and soon began to affect the outward forms of Teligion,7 but it was not until Manasseh came to the throne that the astral worship of Assyria and Babylonia was introduced into Jerusalem. Then, however, it came in full flood. The book of Kings records that Manasseh worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them," 8
WORSHIP OF THE HEAVENLY BODIES
Page 81
and even that" he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of Yahwe." I This testimony of the historian is confirmed by the prophet 2 and the lawgiver. 3
Stade 4 raises the question how the relation of Yahwe to the Assyrian deities was conceived, and Budde,5 in opposition to Stade, concludes that Yahwe was believed to be suzerain over them.
It may seem strange to suppose, as Budde does, that while Judah was subject to Assyria, Judah's God should have been exalted as supreme over the gods of the seemingly all-powerful empire. It must be remembered, however, that Judah's national pride had been greatly intensified by the deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib. Yahwe then had intervened to defend his city and his house, and had smitten the Assyrian- army. He could do so again, if he willed. Therefore Manasseh could grant a place in Yahwe's temple for the worship of the host of heaven-a place of honour, but yet a subordinate one. In this way Manasseh acknowledged his political allegiance, and at the same time the superstitious among his people could make friends with the gods of Assyria without hurt to national pride.
No doubt the prophets regarded Manasseh's innovation in a far different light, but it is probable that the people in general accepted the king's point of view. It was polytheistic, indeed, but it exalted Yahwe above the Assyrian pantheon.
Under Josiah the prophetic party triumphed at court, and the astral-worship in the Temple was suppressed.6 But it retained its hold upon the people, and after Jerusalem had fallen in 586 B.C. they, or some of them, attributed its overthrow to the cessation of the worship of the Queen of Heaven.8
The Queen of Heaven was probably the AssyroBabylonian goddess Ishtar, who was identified with the planet Venus. St. Isaac of Antioch (died circa A.D. 460)
WORSHIP OF THE HEAVENLY BODIES
Page 82
speaks of the worship of Venus from the roofs of houses by Syrian women in his own day.
Ezekiel mentions the worship of the sun among the idolatrous rites practiced in the Temple in Zedekiah's reign,_ and its association with the" weeping for Tammuz " -an undoubtedly Babylonian rite, and closely connected with the cult of Ishtar-is another sign of the foreign origin of this worship at Jerusalem.
We regard, therefore, the worship of the heavenly bodies as having no important place in the popular and traditional religion of Israel during historical times,3 though the new moon and Sabbath festivals suggest the survival of some astral ideas. The prevalence of this worship during the last days of the Judrean kingdom was due to the influence of the court. I t retained a hold on the people in dark days of distress, when faith in Yahwe failed, and help was sought from other gods whose power had not been involved in so signal an overthrow as was Yahwe's, when his own city was destroyed and his house defiled by strangers.
SUMMARY.
There are few signs of the worship of the heavenly bodies in the earlier period of Israel's history. judges v. 20 and Amos v. 25f. should not be quoted. The Sabbath and the new-moon festivals may, however, have had a lunar origin. The legend1 of Samson contains elements which are derived from solar myths, and the place-name Beth-Shemesh testifies to the early worship of the sun in Canaan. Clear evidence of astral-worship appears in the reigns of Ahaz and Manasseh. The latter" worshipped all the host of heaven." Josiah suppressed this worship, but it retained its hold upon the people even after the fall of Jerusalem. But astral-worship had no important place in the traditional religion of Israel.
CHAPTER IV
Page 83
THE METHOD OF WORSHIP-SACRIFICE
THE institution of sacrifice holds so important a place in the religious life of Israel from the earliest times to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 that it should throw much light upon the idea of God.
Ought it, however, to be treated here as part of that popular religion which has survived in the superstitious customs of modern Palestine and Syria, and not rather as part of the" legitimate" religion which we find in its full development in the time of Jesus? It must, indeed, be considered in both places, but in this most certainly, for sacrifice was a primary institution among all the Semitic peoples before the formation of the nation of Israel or the promulgation of the earliest Mosaic legislation; and it has held its place to this day among the people. On the other hand the legal religion dispensed with sacrifice during one of its most vigorous constructive periods the Exile-and Judaism, the heir to Pharisaic legalism, has lived and prospered for well-nigh nineteen centuries without the sacrifices of the Law.
We have, therefore, to consider sacrifice as an institution inherited by Israel from its Semitic origins, apart from the modifications introduced into it by the legal codes.
Frequent reference has been made, indeed, to sacrifice already. It has been shown that the offering of sacrifice at local sanctuaries indicated a belief in a plurality of gods, and that sacrifices in connection with funeral feasts were among the tokens of ancestor-worship and the cult of the dead; but here we have to consider the significance of sacrifice in itself.
THE METHOD OF WORSHIP-SACRIFICE
Page 84
All the rituals of primitive peoples have their centre in sacrifice, which seems to find a natural place in the animistic scheme of thought. "As prayer is a request made to a deity as if he were a man, so sacrifice is a gift made to a deity as if he were a man." I It is a gift (minlta) 2 which is brought by an inferior to a superior, in order that the superior may be favour ably disposed to the giver. This is the simplest form of the Gift Theory of sacrifice.
F. B. Jevons 3 severely criticizes this theory, and declares that according to it " there was no religion in the earliest manifestation of religion." But his own description of the purpose of the offerer does not seem to be essentially different "Thus man approaches, bearing with him something intended to please the god that he draws near." 4
Surely we should call that" something" a gift. The offerer may be acting on the principle" do ut des," and yet it would be hard to describe the transaction as "commercialized" or non-religion 1.ls. He does not calculate a sacrifice of such and such value and so much advantage in return. He believes that his god is generous, and that his gift is small in comparison with what he himself receives; but he gives, hoping that he may receive more than he deserves.
In most elementary schools we may see in summer the teacher's desk decorated with flowers, the children's gift. The teacher knows they are a token of affection, otherwise she would not accept them; but is she unaware that they embody also the principle" do ut des" ?
So, according to the Gift Theory, the sacrifice is at once a tribute of gratitude and affection, and an appeal for favour. If this theory is true, sacrifice would not be without true religion, although that religion would not be completely ethical, and its conception of God would be anthropomorphic.
The Gift Theory is clearly implied in the language of the Old Testament. The word minha (gift, tribute, offering) occurs one hundred and fifty-three times, and in
THE METHOD OF WORSHIP
Page 85
more than a hundred instances it is applied to a sacrificial offering made to God. In other instances it means a present given to a man or a tribute paid to a sovereign. I In all cases the idea of giving is essential. Now, the first sacrifice in the Old Testament is recorded in the primitive document].2 Cain and Abel both bring a minlJa-a gift. God regards Abel's gift with favour, but not Cain's. The reason seems to be that the material of Abel's sacrifice, a shepherd's gift, was acceptable, but Cain's gift, the husbandman's, was not. Anyhow, God does not disdain a gift of the right kind duly offered. The J document clearly retains the notion that Yahwe is a Being who is pleased with a gift, and the notion, though childish and anthropomorphic, has some religious value. It remained in the consciousness of Israel throughout its history.
But a sacrifice, if it is a gift, is more than a gift. Not every kind of material is used for offerings to Yahwe. Almost all the Old Testament offerings are in the form of food, nearly always a clean animal, and they have the usual accompaniments of a meal-salt, oil, wine.
It should be observed that in modern Palestine the material is the same, and the feast which follows the sacrifice is regarded as one at which the weli is host. The man who brings the offering says "This feast does not belong to us, it belongs to the saint. . . .
This feast is given at his expense." 3 Here we have both the rite and its rationale.
Robertson Smith and Wellhausen hold that the primary significance of sacrifice is to be found in the sacred meal. According to the former the sacrifice was a sacred meal at which an animal was devoured, which was akin both to the god and his worshippers. "The actual life of the sacred and kindred animal is actually distributed among all the participants, each of whom incorporates a particle of it with his own individual life." 4 , Among the Arabs the idea is universal that in the sacrifices a
THE METHOD OF WORSHIP
Page 86
bond or covenant of brotherhood is made with the deity." J
The special form of Robertson Smith's theory depends on its association with totemistic modes of thought, the survival of which in Israel is doubtful. In the more general form of the theory, as expressed, e.g., by Wellhausen above, the sacrifice knits the god and the worshippers together by the bonds created by the interchange of hospitality. This has been called the Table Bond Theory._
Konig maintains 3 that sacrifice is simply a tribute, and is not a sacramental communion with the deity, and that the phrase" to eat before Yahwe "is not the equivalent of " to sacrifice," for the sacred meal is only an accessory, not an essential part of the rite.
Jevons's view seems to be similar, since he says " The sacrificial meal, then, is not a means by which reconciliation is effected, but the outward expression of the conviction that the end has been attained." 4 The meal, that is, is secondary, an accessory.
This latter view hardly serves to explain the ritual of the older and more popular forms of sacrifice in Israel. One of the most primitive records of sacrifice is contained in I Samuel xiv. 32-35. Here we are told that Saul's victorious soldiers were slaying and eating the captured animals without previously offering the blood to Yahwe. Saul rolls up a great stone for an altar, by which the animals are to be slain, and the blood poured out "the same was the first altar that he built unto Yahwe." 5 The sacrifice appears plainly as a common meal in which the flesh is consumed by the worshippers, while the blood was the portion of the deity. In eating with the blood the people had defrauded 6 Yahwe of the share due to him.
The feast to which Samuel invited Saul is another example of a primitive sacrifice. Saul and his servant are told "As soon as ye be come into the city, ye shall
THE METHOD OF WORSHIP
Page 87
straightway find him, before he go up to the high place to eat for the people will not eat till he come, because he doth bless the sacrifice; and afterwards they eat that be bidden." I The eating here seems to be the essential feature of the sacrifice, and the most natural interpretation of the rite is that it is a communion feast, strengthening the bond between Yahwe and his worshippers.
This type of sacrifice was the common one in Israel throughout pre-Exilic times, and so long as sacrifice remained a popular institution. The name for such a sacrifice is zeba J;, 2_(root zabab" to slaughter)-with which shelem 3 is often used in apposition. The meaning of the latter term is in dispute. B.D.B. translate "sacrifice for alliance or friendship, 'peace-offering.'" The word in this case would be derived from shalem 4 = "to be whole, or at one," and would fitly be applied to a feast of communion with the deity through joint participation in a common meal. Others derive from a cognate verbal form shillem 5 in the sense of requite, and regard the shelem as a thank offering.
The second explanation agrees very well with the Gift Theory of sacrifice, but is less probable than the first, since the idea of a gift to the deity is more prominent in another form of offering-the 'olli 6 or "burnt-offering." This is "that which goes up" (from the root 'iilii),? and its special character is that it is wholly made over to the deity, no part being retained "by the worshippers. It seems to be primitive equally with the peace-offering, with which it is indeed, more often than not, connected. It was offered at times of special solemnity or danger, e.g. at the beginning of a war, on the arrival of the ark from the Philistine country, or when Solomon approached Yahwe at Gibeon.8
We may, therefore, regard the burnt-offering as essentially a tribute, while the peace-offering is the means of communion.
THE METHOD OF WORSHIP
Page 88
Human sacrifice is probably to be looked upon as an extreme form of the burnt-offering, the victim chosen being the most valuable possible. The gift is of the highest worth, and the act of renunciation on the part of the worshipper reaches its utmost limit. Human sacrifice was not unknown in Israel, though it was unusual during the earlier historic period. I Archreology has proved that among Israel's predecessors in Canaan it must have been common. Human remains in a building attest the .. foundation-sacrifice," and examples of the burial in jars of infants of about a week old in the vicinity of a sanctuary point in all probability to the" sacrifice of the firstborn."
Burney, who holds that" the Book of the Covenant 3 represents very largely the consuetudinary legislation of Canaan from a period long prior to the settlement under Joshua," thinks that the law of Exodus xxii. 29, .. The firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give to me," originally referred to actual sacrifice, but that an animal substitute was usually provided from an early period of Israel's history. The story of the un accomplished sacrifice of Isaac may be taken as an aetiological legend in this sense.4 Probably the custom lived on in an underground way, emerging into publicity in times of national stress and religious degeneracy, as in the days of Ahaz, Manasseh, and Jehoiakim.5
The normal form of popular sacrifice was, however, undoubtedly the peace-offering which was eaten before Yahwe (or the Ba'alim) at the sacred feast. This was in keeping with the predominantly confident and joyous tone of pre-Exilic religion.
That the feast might easily become the chief element of the popular worship, and the thought of communion with God fall into the background, is attested by the denunciations of the eighth-century prophets.6 The popular worship was rendered at the local sanctuaries,
THE METHOD OF WORSHIP
Page 89
which Israel had in many cases taken over from the Canaanites. At these the Israelites adored the Ba'al, the lord and owner of the land, and giver of its increase. 1
This Ba'al might be identified with Yahwe, more or less completely, but the cultus was that of the Canaanite Ba'alim. The worship of these Semitic nature deities as patrons of fertility was always associated with practices which to us are loathsome immorality. In their origin they may have been innocent in intention, as judged by the moral consciousness of the time, but as society developed. and the family became its fundamental institution, they remained as a noxious survival from an earlier stage. In the eighth century religion still sheltered them, while morality condemned them. In spite of the prophets these practices were not entirely rooted out, and something like them exists in the Palestine of to-day._
Two of the types of sacrifice met with in the Old Testament are not discussed at this point, viz. the sin-offering and the guilt-offering. They do not appear in pre-Exilic times, and though they have an important place in the post-Exilic ritual codes, it is unlikely that they ever counted for much in the religious life of the common people.
What, then, is the idea of God expressed in the sacrifices which have now been reviewed? It cannot be claimed that it is a lofty one, nor that it is by any means fully ethical.
To our mind the word ?sacrifice" immediately recalls the thought of atonement for sin, but this is conspicuously absent from the ritual of the peace-offering and even of the burnt-offering. True, the sacrifice may be offered to turn away divine wrath. but the wrath is not provoked by anything that we should call sin. Indeed, we shall find that when the idea of God as righteous emerges into prominence in the teaching of the eighth-century prophets, it is seen to be incompatible with the offering of material sacrifice.
Yet the primitive sacrifices were not without religious and moral value. Pater has sketched beautifully in
THE METHOD OF WORSHIP
Page 90
Marius the EPicurean I the kind of feelings with which an old Roman paid his devotion to the gods of field and garden. Something of the same feeling must have been present in the heart of the Israelite when he worshipped Yahwe as the Ba'al, the Giver of the corn and wine and oil.
If the Gift Theory explains in part the motive of the sacrifice, and if the Israelite said in his heart, do 14t .des, his idea of God was, indeed, anthropomorphic, and he measured the divine character by the moral stature of the great men he knew on earth. Yet he thought of God as the Giver of all good gifts, to whom he owed gratitude for the past, while he sought his future favour.
Again, if the Table-Bond Theory explains in part the motive of sacrifice, there is another element of no mean value. That God could be gratified by smelling the sweet savour of the burning victim" is an idea crudely anthropomorphic, it may be, and the blood ritual takes us into the region of primitive animism. Yet the idea that God, as kinsman and table-companion, condescended to enter into communion with his worshippers, was one that might conceivably have developed into the idea of a purely spiritual communion between God and man. It did not do so, and spiritual evolution proceeded on other lines than that of the cult us. Robertson Smith's last words in his Religion of the Semites give the reason why "A ritual system must always remain materialistic, even if its materialism is disguised under the cloak of mysticism."
SUMMARY.
Sacrifice as the central fact in worship throws light upon the idea of God. It depends ultimately upon animistic notions. There are various theories as to the meaning .of sacrifice, e.g. the Gift Theory, the Table-Bond Theory, and the Sacramental Theory according to which the god and his worshippers partake of a victim which is akin to both. The last theory is totemistic. The evidence of the Old Testament confirms the first two theories, but not certainly the last. The burnt-offering is essentially a gift, while the peace-offering is a common meal in which God and man participate. Human sacrifice was the extreme form of the gift-offering, and
THE METHOD OF WORSHIP
Page 9I
occurred sporadically in Israel, especially during the last days of the kingdom. The sacrificial feasts were contaminated with Canaanite rites, and sometimes degenerated into debauchery. They were denounced by the eighth-century prophets. Atonement for sin was not sought in the popular sacrifices. The idea of God expressed in sacrifice is anthropomorphic; but sacrifice as a gift is a grateful tribute to God as the Giver of all good things; and as a table-bond it is an attempt to express in a materialistic form the idea of communion between God and man.
CHAPTER V
Page 92
PRIMITIVE IDEAS OF GOD ILLUSTRATED BY HEBREW PROPER NAMES
BEFORE concluding this inquiry into the survival of primitive ideas, something ought to be said with regard to the significance of Hebrew proper names.
That many proper names in Hebrew and in the other Semitic languages have religious meanings is a commonplace. If we had a record of the names borne by individuals in all classes at all periods in Israel's history, important conclusions might, no doubt, be drawn as to the idea of God entertained in various sections of Israelite society. But the names of men and women actually occurring in the Old Testament scriptures are not drawn impartially from all sorts and conditions; they are mainly the names of those who for one reason or another have become prominent in the national story. The names of those who followed the traditional religion, -and were untouched by the currents of advancing thought, are the least likely to make their appearance in the record; yet they are the ones that would be of most use for our present purpose.
Today in quiet English villages old Biblical names like Abraham, Amos, Sarah, may still be heard, but they provoke a smile among those classes whose names appear in the records of the events of our day. The parallel need not be pressed, but it will serve to illustrate the point.
Something, however, may be learned from a consideration of the names occurring in the earlier periods of Israel's history before prophetic 'influence had made itself felt. What follows is drawn chiefly from G. B. Gray's Studies in Hebrew Proper Names.
HEBREW PROPER NAMES
Page 93
Names such as 'Abijah, Yo'ab, 'Abiel, 'E;li'ab, IAmmi'el, 'Eli'am,I ' Al;lijah, Yo'al;l, lJi'el,z prove. that at
