Part 22

In the 19th century the modernizing tendency continued to grow, though always side by side with a strong conservative opposition, and the most prominent names on both sides are those of scholars rather than literary men. Among them may be mentioned, Akiba ('Aqibha) Eger (d. 1837), Talmudist of the orthodox, conservative school; W. Heidenheim (d. 1832), a liberal, and editor of the Pentateuch and Mahzor; N. Krochmal, of Galicia (d. 1840), author of _Moreh Nebhukhe ha-zeman_, on Jewish history and literature; his son Abraham (d. 1895), conservative commentator and philosopher. One consequence of the Mendelssohn movement was that many writers used their vernacular language besides or instead of Hebrew, or translated from one to the other. Thus Isaac Samuel Reggio (d. 1855), a strong liberal, wrote both in Hebrew and Italian; Joseph Almanzi, of Padua (d. 1860), a poet, translated Italian poems into Hebrew; S. D. Luzzatto, of Padua (d. 1865), a distinguished scholar and opponent of the philosophy of Maimonides, wrote much in Italian; M. H. Letteris, of Vienna (d. 1871), translated German poems into Hebrew; S. Bacher, of Hungary (d. 1891), was a poet and moderate liberal; L. Gordon (d. 1892), poet and prose-writer in Hebrew and Russian, of liberal views; A. Jellinek, of Vienna (d. 1893), preacher and scholar; Jacob Reifmann (d. 1895), scholar, wrote only in Hebrew. The endeavour to bring Judaism into relation with the modern world and to change the current impressions about Jews by making their teaching accessible to the rest of the world, is connected chiefly with the names of Z. Frankel (d. 1875), the first Jewish scholar to study the Septuagint; Abraham Geiger (d. 1874), critic of the first rank; L. Zunz (d. 1884) and L. Dukes (d. 1891), both scholarly investigators of Jewish literary history. Their most important works are in German. The question of the use of the vernacular or of Hebrew is bound up with the differences between the orthodox and the liberal or reform parties, complicated by the many problems involved. Patriotic efforts are made to encourage the use of Hebrew both for writing and speaking, but the continued existence of it as a literary language depends on the direction in which the future history of the Jews will develop.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Only the more comprehensive works are mentioned here, omitting those relating to particular authors, and those already cited.

Introductory: Abrahams, _Short History of Jewish Literature_ (London, 1906); Steinschneider, _Jewish Literature_ (London, 1857); Winter and Wunsche, _Die judische Literatur_ (Leipzig, 1893-1895) (containing selections translated into German).

For further study: Graetz, _Geschichte der Juden_ (Leipzig, 1853, &c.) (the volumes are in various editions), with special reference to the notes; English translation by B. Lowy (London, 1891-1892) (without the notes); Zunz, _Gottesdienstliche Vortrage der Juden_ (new ed., Frankfort-on-Main, 1892); _Zur Geschichte und Literatur_ (Berlin, 1845). The _Synagogale Poesie_ has been mentioned above. Steinschneider, _Arabische Literatur der Juden_ (Frankfort-on-Main, 1902); _Hebraische Ubersetzungen des Mittelalters_ (Berlin, 1893).

On particular authors and subjects there are many excellent monographs in the _Jewish Encyclopaedia_ (New York, 1901-6), to which the present article is much indebted.

Bibliographies of printed books: Steinschneider, _Catalogus libr. Hebr. in Bibl. Bodleiana_ (Berlin, 1852-1860) (more than a catalogue); Zedner, _Catalogue of the Hebr. Books in the British Museum_ (London, 1867; continued by van Straalen, London, 1894). Of manuscripts: Neubauer, _Catal. of the Hebrew MSS. in the Bodleian Library_ (Oxford, 1886), vol. ii. by Neubauer and Cowley (Oxford, 1906); G. Margoliouth, _Catal. of the Hebr. ... MSS. in the British Museum_ (London, 1899, &c.). Of both: Benjacob, _Ozar ha-sepharim_ (Wilna, 1880) (in Hebrew; arranged by titles).

Periodicals: _Jewish Quarterly Review_; _Revue des etudes juives_; _Hebraische Bibliographie_. (A. Cy.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The dating of these documents is extremely difficult, since it is based entirely on internal evidence. Various scholars, while agreeing on the actual divisions of the text, differ on the question of priority. The dates here given are those which seem to be most generally accepted at the present time. They are not put forward as the result of an independent review of the evidence.

[2] See especially A. Jellinek's _Bet-ha-Midrasch_ (Leipzig, 1853), for these lesser midrashim.

[3] That on Genesis was edited for the first time by Schechter (Cambridge, 1902).

[4] In Hebrew [Hebrew: rashi], from the initial letters of Rabbi Shelomoh Yiz[h.]aqi, a convenient method used by Jewish writers in referring to well-known authors. The name Jarchi, formerly used for Rashi, rests on a misunderstanding.

[5] So Bacher in _J.Q.R._ iii. 785 sqq.

[6] For the history of the very extensive literature of this class, Zunz, _Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie_ (Berlin, 1865), is indispensable.

[7] See the edition of them in Harkavy, _Studien_, iv. (Berlin, 1885).

[8] Two different texts of it exist: (1) in the ed. pr. (Mantua, 1476); (2) ed. by Seb. Munster (Basel, 1541). There is also an early Arabic recension, but its relation to the Hebrew and to the Arabic 2 Maccabees is still obscure. See _J. Q. R._, xi. 355 sqq. The Hebrew text was edited with a Latin translation by Breithaupt (Gotha, 1707).

[9] On the various recensions of the text see D. H. Muller in the _Denkschriften_ of the Vienna Academy (_Phil.-hist. Cl._, xli. 1, p. 41) and Epstein's ed. (Pressburg, 1891).

[10] A fragment of such a work, probably emanating from the school of Hivi was found by Schechter and published in _J.Q.R._, xiii. 345 sqq.

[11] See M. Friedlander in _Publications of the Society of Hebrew Lit._, 1st ser. vol. i., and 2nd ser. vol. iv.

[12] The fullest account of them is to be found in Steinschneider's _Hebraische Ubersetzungen des Mittelalters_ (Berlin, 1893).

[13] See H. Gollancz, _The Ethical Treatises of Berachya_ (London, 1902).

HEBREW RELIGION (1) _Introductory._--To trace the history of the religion of the Hebrews is a complex task, because the literary sources from which our knowledge of that history is derived are themselves complex and replete with problems as to age and authorship, some of which have been solved according to the consensus of nearly all the best scholars, but some of which still await solution or are matters of dispute. Even if the analysis of the literature into component documents were complete, we should still possess a most imperfect record, since the documents themselves have passed through many redactions, and these redactions have proceeded from varying standpoints of religious tradition, successively eliminating or modifying certain elements deemed inconsistent with the canons of religious usage or propriety which prevailed in the age when the redaction took place. Lastly it should be recollected that the entire body of the fragments of tradition and literature belonging to _northern_ Israel has come down to us through the channel of _Judaean_ recensions.

The influence of the Deuteronomic tradition in redaction is seen in such passages as Genesis xxxiii. 20 (cf. xxxi. 45 fol.); Josh. iv. 9-20, xxiv. 26 fol.; 1 Sam. vii. 12, where the _massebhah_ or stone symbol of deity (forbidden in Deut. xii. 3, xvi. 22) is in some way got rid of (in Gen. xxxiii. 20 the word "altar" in Hebrew is substituted). Similarly in Gen. xiii. 18, xiv. 13, xviii. 1, the Septuagint shows that the singular form "terebinth" stood in the original text. But the Massoretes altered this to the plural as this form was less suggestive of tree-worship (see Smend, _A. Tliche Religionsgesch_. i. p. 134, footnote 1; Nowack, _Heb. Archaol._ p. 12, footnote 1). Many other examples might be cited, as the "suspended _nun_" which transforms the pronunciation of the original Mosheh (Moses) into Menashsheh (Manasseh) owing to the irregular practices of his descendant, Jonathan ben Gershom (Jud. xviii. 30). It is not improbable that in 2 Kings iii. 27 the words "from Kemosh" stood after "great wrath" in the original document, as the phraseology seems bald without them, and the motives for their suppression are obvious.

So far as concerns the critical problems which stand at the threshold of our task, it must suffice to say that the main conclusions reached by the school of Kuenen and Wellhausen as to the literary problems of the Old Testament are assumed throughout this sketch of the evolution of Hebrew religion. The documents underlying the Pentateuch and book of Joshua, represented by the ciphers J, E, D and P, are assumed to have been drawn up in the chronological order in which those ciphers are here set down, and the period of their composition extends from the 9th century B.C., in which the earlier portions of J were written, to the 5th century B.C., in which P finally took shape. The view of Professor Dillmann, who placed P before D in the regal period (though he admitted exilic and post-exilic additions in Exod., Levit. and Numb.), a view which he maintained in his commentary on Genesis (edition of 1892), has now been abandoned by nearly all scholars of repute. In the following pages we shall not attempt to do more than to sketch in very succinct outline the general results of investigation into the origins and growth of Hebrew religion.

2. _Pre-Mosaic Religion._--Can any clear indications be found to guide us as to the religion of the Hebrew clans before the time of Moses? That Moses united the scattered tribes, probably consisting at first mainly of the Josephite, under the common worship of Yahweh, and that upon the religion of Yahweh a distinctly ethical character was impressed, is generally recognized. The tradition of the earliest document J ascribes the worship of Yahweh to much earlier times, in fact to the dawn of human life. A close survey of the facts, however, would lead us to regard it as probable that some at least of the Hebrew clans had patron-deities of their own.

(a) Both Moab and Ammon as well as Edom had their separate tribal deities, viz. Chemosh (Moab) and Milk (Milcom), the god of Ammon, and in the case of Edom a deity known from the inscriptions as Kos (in Assyrian Kaus).[1] From the patriarchal narratives and genealogies in Genesis we infer that these races were closely allied to Israel. That in early pre-Mosaic times parallel cults existed among the various Hebrew tribes is by no means improbable. It would be reasonable to assume that Moab, Ammon, Edom and kindred tribes of Israel in the 15th and preceding centuries were included in the generic term Habiri (or Hebrews) mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna inscriptions as forming predatory bands that disturbed the security of the Canaanite dwellers west of the Jordan. Lastly pre-Mosaic polytheism seems to be implied in the Mosaic prohibition Ex. xx. 3, xxii. 20.

(b) The tribal names Gad and Asher are suggestive of the worship of a deity of fortune (Gad) and of the male counterpart of the goddess, Asherah. Under the name Shaddai (which Noldeke suggests[2] was originally Shedi "my demon") it is possible to discern the name of a deity who in later times came to be identified with Yahweh. On the other hand, the connexion of the name Samson with sun-worship throws light on the period of the Hebrew settlement in Canaan and not on pre-Mosaic times. Nor is it possible to agree with Baudissin (_Studien zur semit. Religionsgesch._ i. 55) that Elohim as a plural form for the name of the Hebrew deity "can hardly be understood otherwise than as a comprehensive expression for the multitude of gods embraced in the One God of Old Testament religion," in other words that it presupposes an original polytheism. For (1) Elohim is also applied in Judges xi. 24 to the Moabite Chemosh (Kemosh); in 1 Sam. v. 7 to Dagon; in 1 Kings xi. 5 to Ashtoreth; in 2 Kings i. 2, iii. 6, 16 to Ba'al Zebul of Ekron. (2) It is merely a plural of dignity (_pluralis majestatis_) parallel to _adonim_ (applied to a king in 1 Kings xviii. 8, whereas in the previous verse the _singular_ form _adoni_ is applied to the prophet Elijah). (3) The Tell el-Amarna inscriptions indicate that the term _Elohim_ might even be applied in abject homage to an Egyptian monarch as the use of the term _ilani_ in this connexion obviously implies.[3]

The religion of the Arabian tribes in the days of Mahomet, of which a picture is presented to us by Wellhausen in his _Remains of Arabic Heathendom_, furnishes some suggestive indications of the religion that prevailed in nomadic Israel before as well as during the lifetime of Moses. It is true that Arabian polytheism in the time of Mahomet was in a state of decay. Nevertheless the life of the desert changes but slowly. We may therefore infer that ancient Israel during the period when they inhabited the _negebh_ (S. of Canaan) stood in awe of the demons (Jinn) of the desert, just as the Arabs at the present day described in Doughty's _Arabia deserta_. We know that diseases were attributed by the Israelites to malignant demons which they, like the Arabs, identified with serpents. The counterspell took the form of a bronze image of the serpent-demon; see Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 426; and I Sam. v. 6, vi. 4, 5 (LXX. and Heb.) as well as Buchanan Gray's instructive note in _Numbers_, p. 276. The slaughter of a lamb at the Passover or Easter season, whose blood was smeared on the door-post, as described in Ex. xii. 21-23, probably points back to an immemorial custom. In this case the counterspell assumed a different form. Westermarck has shown from his observations in Morocco that the blood of the victim was considered to visit a curse upon the object to whom the sacrifice is offered and thereby the latter is made amenable to the sacrificer.[4] It is hardly possible to doubt that in the original form of the rite described in Exodus the blood offering was made to the plague demon ("the destroyer") and possessed over him a magic power of arrest.

It is therefore certain that belief in demons and magic spells prevailed in pre-Mosaic times[5] among the Israelite clans. And it is also probable that certain persons combined in their own individuality the functions of magician and sacrificer as well as soothsayer. For we know that in Arabic the _Kahin_, or soothsayer, is the same participial form that we meet with in the Hebrew _Kohen_, or priest, and in the early period of Hebrew history (e.g. in the days of Saul and David) it was the priest with the ephod or image of Yahweh who gave answers to those who consulted him. How far _totemism_, or belief in deified animal ancestors, existed in prehistoric Israel, as evidenced by the tribal names Simeon (hyena, wolf), Caleb (dog), Hamor (ass), Rahel (ewe) and Leah (wild cow), &c.,[6] as well as by the laws respecting clean and unclean animals, is too intricate and speculative a problem to be discussed here. That the food-taboo against eating the flesh of a

## particular animal would prevail in the clan of which that animal was the

deified totem-ancestor is obvious, and it would be a plausible theory to hold that the laws in question arose when the Israelite tribes were to be consolidated into a national unity (i.e. in the time of David and Solomon), but the application of this theory to the list of unclean foods in Deut. xiv. (Lev. xi.) seems to present insuperable difficulties. In fact, while Robertson Smith (in _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_, as well as his _Religion of the Semites_, followed by Stade and Benzinger) strongly advocated the view that clear traces of totemism can be found in early Israel, later writers, such as Marti, _Gesch. der israelit. Religion_, 4th ed., p. 24, Kautzsch in his _Religion of Israel_ already cited, p. 613, and recently Addis in his _Hebrew Religion_, p. 33 foll., have abandoned the theory as applied to Israel.[7] On the other hand, the evidence for the existence of ancestor-worship in primitive Israel cannot be so easily disposed of as Kautzsch (_ibid._ p. 615) appears to think. We have examples (1 Sam. xxviii. 13) in which _Elohim_ is the term which is applied to departed spirits. Oracles were received from them (Isa. viii. 19, xxviii. 15, 18; Deut. xviii. 10 foll.). At the graves of national heroes or ancestors worship was paid. In Gen. xxxv. 20 we read that a _massebah_ or sacred pillar was erected at Rahel's tomb. That the Teraphim, which we know to have resembled the human form (1 Sam. xix. 13, 16), were ancestral images is a reasonable theory. That they were employed in divination is consonant with the facts already noted. Lastly, the rite of circumcision (q.v.), which the Hebrews practised in common with their Semitic neighbours as well as the Egyptians, belonged to ages long anterior to the time of Moses. This is a fact which has long been recognized: cf. Gen. xvii. 10 foll., Herod. ii. 104, and Barton, _Semitic Origins_, pp. 98-100. Probably the custom was of African origin, and came from eastern Africa along with the Semitic race. Respecting Arabia, see Doughty, _Arabia deserta_, i. 340 foll.

It is necessary here to advert to a subject much debated during recent years, viz. the effects of Babylonian culture in western Asia on Israel and Israel's religion in early times even preceding the advent of Moses. The great influence exercised by Babylonian culture over Palestine between 2000 and 1400 B.C. (_circa_), which has been clearly revealed to us since 1887 by the discovery of the Tell el Amarna tablets, is now universally acknowledged. The subsequent discovery of a document written in Babylonian cuneiform at Lachish (Tell el Hesy), and more recently still of another in the excavations at Ta'annek, have established the fact beyond all dispute. The last discovery had tended to confirm the views of Fried. Delitzsch, Jeremias (_Monotheistische Stromungen_) and Baentsch, that monotheistic tendencies are to be found in the midst of Babylonian polytheism. Page Renouf, in his Hibbert lectures, _Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by that of Ancient Egypt_ (1879), p. 89 foll., pointed out this monotheistic tendency in Egyptian religion, as did de Rouge before him. Baentsch draws attention to this feature in his monograph _Altorientalischer u. israelitischer Monotheismus_ (1906). This tendency, however, he, unlike the earlier conservative writers, rightly considers to have emerged out of polytheism. He ventures into a more disputable region when he penetrates into the obscure realm of the Abrahamic migration and finds in the Abrahamic traditions of Genesis the higher Canaanite monotheistic tendencies evolved out of Babylonian astral religion, and reflected in the name El 'Elyon (Gen. xiv. 18, 22). Further discoveries like Sellin's find at Ta'annek may elucidate the problem. See Baudissin in _Theolog. lit. Zeitung_ (27th October 1906).

3. _The Era of Moses._--We are now on safer ground though still obscure. Moses was the first historic individuality who can be said to have welded the Israelite clans into a whole. This could never have been accomplished without unity of worship. The object of this worship was Yahweh. As we have already indicated, the document J assumes that Yahweh was worshipped by the Hebrew race from the first. On the other hand, according to P (Ex. vi. 2), God spake to Moses and said to him: "I am Yahweh. But I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El Shaddai and by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them." According to this later tradition Yahweh was unknown till the days of Moses, and under the aegis of His power the Hebrew tribes were delivered from Egyptian thraldom. The truth probably lies somewhere between these two sharply contrasted traditions. So much is clear. Yahweh now becomes the supreme deity of the Hebrew people, and an ark analogous to the Egyptian and Babylonian arks portrayed on the monuments[8] was constructed as embodiment of the _numen_ of Yahweh and was borne in front of the Hebrew army when it marched to war. It was the signal victory won by Moses at the exodus against the Egyptians and in the subsequent battle at Rephidim against 'Amalek (Ex. xvii.) that consolidated the prestige of Yahweh, Israel's war-god. Indications in the Old Testament itself clearly point to the celestial or atmospheric character of the Yahweh of the Hebrews. The supposition that the name originally contained the notion of permanent or eternal being, and was derived from the verbal root signifying "to be," involves too abstract a conception to be probable, though it is based on Ex. iii. 15 (E) representing a tradition which may have prevailed in the 8th century B.C. Kautzsch, however, supports it (Hastings's _D.B._, extra vol. "Rel. of Isr." p. 625 foll.) against the other derivations proposed by recent scholars (see JEHOVAH). That the name also prevailed as that of a god among other Semitic races (or even non-Semitic) is rendered certain by the proper names Jau-bi'-di (= Ilu-bi'di) of Hamath in Sargon's inscriptions, Ahi-jawi (mi) in Sellin's discovered tablet at Ta'annek, to say nothing of those which have been found in the documents of Khammurabi's reign. It has generally been held that Stade's supposition has much to recommend it, that it was derived by Moses from the Kenites, and should be connected with the Sinai-Horeb region. The name Sinai suggests moon-worship and the moon-god Sin; and it also suggests Babylonian influence (cf. also Mount Nebo, which was a place-name both in Moab and in Judah, and naturally connects itself with the name of the Babylonian deity). Several indications favour the view of the connexion in the age of Moses between the Yahweh-cult at Sinai and the moon-worship of Babylonian origin to which the name Sinai points (Sin being the Babylonian moon-god). We note (a) that in the worship of Yahweh the sacred seasons of new moon and Sabbath are obviously _lunar_. Recent investigations have even been held to disclose the fact that the Sabbath coincided originally, i.e. in early pre-exilian days, with the full moon.[9] (b) It also accords with the name bestowed on Yahweh as "Lord of Hosts" (_sebaoth_) or stars, which were regarded as personified beings (Job xxxviii. 7) and attendants on the celestial Yahweh, constituting His retinue (1 Kings xxii. 19) which fought on high while the earthly armies of Israel, His people, contended below (Judges v. 20).

The atmospheric and celestial character which belonged from the first to the Hebrew conception of Yahweh explains to us the ease with which the idea of His universal sovereignty arose, which the Yahwistic creation account (belonging to the earlier stratum of J, Gen. ii. 4b foll.) presupposes. How this came to be overlaid by narrow local limitations of His power and province will be shown later. It is probable that Moses held the larger rather than the narrower conception of Yahweh's sphere of influence. While the ark carried with Israel's host symbolized His presence in their midst, He was also known to be present in the cloud which hovered before the host and in the lightning ('_esh Yahweh_ or "fire of Yahweh") and the thunder (_kol Yahweh_ or "voice of Yahweh") which played around Mount Sinai. Moreover, it is hardly probable that a great leader like Moses remained unaffected by the higher conceptions tending towards monotheism which prevailed in the great empires on the Nile and on the Euphrates. In Egypt we know that Amenophis IV. came under this monotheistic movement, and attempted to suppress all other cults except that of the sun-deity, of which he was a devoted worshipper. We also know that between 2000 and 1400 B.C. the Babylonian language as well as Babylonian civilization and ideas spread over Palestine (as the Tell el Amarna tables clearly testify). The ancient Babylonian psalms clearly reveal that the highest minds were moving out of polytheism to a monotheistic identification of various deities as diverse phases of one underlying essence. A remarkable Babylonian tablet discovered by Dr Pinches represents Marduk, the god of light, as identified in his person with all the chief deities of Babylonia, who are evidently regarded as his varying manifestations.[10]