Prophetic and Pre-prophctic Religion.

165

dential circumstances; but the truth to be developed was already there.

These two points being admitted, however, there still remains for the new theory the difficulty of explaining the prophetic ideas apart from an antecedent revelation of them to the nation. The modern historians, in their negation of a pure pre-prophetic religion, are ever faced with the task of explaining the rise of pure prophetic religion. They do not allow themselves a sufficient starting-point for the development; for the prophetic religion, when we meet it, is not of a germinal or elementary character. They are forced to make sudden transitions and assume such extraordinary changes, as invest the theory with difficulties much greater than those attending the Biblical view.

I confess that it is extremely difficult for me, not only to believe the position that is taken up, but even to apprehend it as a possibility. That Israel, with nothing distinctively peculiar to start with beyond the bare belief that Jahaveh was their only national God, should have adopted and absorbed elements the most diverse, and still have remained Israel; that the elements absorbed should have been the most distinctively heathenish and low, and yet that the result of it all was not an eclecticism, but a product sui generis; and that all the time this transmutation was going on, a body of men, whose official basis rested on heathenism, should have lashed their countrymen with invective and threatening for forsaking the religion of their fathers, all this is to me as great a psychological and moral miracle as any of the miracles recorded in Scripture. Before we can accept it as a

true account of Israel's religious development, we must be satisfied on three points.

First, It must be shown by clear proofs that before the time of the writing prophets the religious beliefs and observances of Israel were on the same level as those of their neighbours, and that this state of things was accepted by the enlightened men of the time as the normal and authorised religion.

Second, Some differentiating element must be pointed out sufficient to explain the fact that Israel remained Israel all this time. In other words, a national religion sufficient to mark off the people as a nation must be exhibited.

Third, The process of development must be pointed out in the historical stadia, through which, from the rudimentary stage, Israel arrived at the "ethic monotheism" of the prophets.

The chapters that follow will be devoted to a consideration of these points. In chapters vii. to x. the main points relied upon to prove the low tone of pre-prophetic religion will be discussed. Chapter xi. will treat of the Jahaveh religion; and in chapter xii. we shall consider in what way it is alleged the pre-prophetic passed into the prophetic, and Israel arrived at the ethic monotheism of the prophets.

CHAPTER VII.

PRE-PROPHETIC RELIGION-NAMING OF THE DEITY.

Statement of the critical position as to the low tone of the pre-prophetic religion, and various lines of proof indicated-Subject of the present chapter: Consideration of the argument drawn from the names of Deity-It is argued from the free use of the name of Baal in the formation of proper names, that the persons so employing it had no aversion to the Baal worship—Argument examined: Baal as a common appellative name-Condition of Israel in Canaan described-Parallel cases of syncretism at the present day-No case can be cited of undoubted names of heathen deities being so used-The argument drawn from the correspondence of Hebrew names with those of Babylonian deities-The argument proves too much, and the mode of bestowing names is different from the usual Hebrew custom-This whole mode of reasoning proceeds on a false system of mythologising, and fails to furnish the historical proof which is wanted.

THAT the religion of Israel before the time of the writing prophets was on the level of the religions of neighbouring peoples, and that these prophets first taught the truth of monotheism, are positions so confidently asserted in modern times that the ordinary reader is apt to take them as truths that cannot be disputed. Thus Pfleiderer says it may be taken as tolerably certain that the Hebrews in their prehistoric period participated in the polytheistic nature-religion of the rest of the Semites. 'Die Geschichte der Religion (1869), p. 273.

And with more definiteness of detail, and indicating more precisely what period of time is referred to, Kuenen says: "At first the religion of Israel was polytheism. During the eighth century B.C. the great majority of the people still acknowledged the existence of many gods, and, what is more, they worshipped them. And we can add that during the seventh century, and down to the beginning of the Babylonish exile (586 B.C.), this state of things remained unaltered. Jeremiah could say to his contemporaries, without fear of contradiction,' According to the number of thy cities are thy gods, O Judah' (Jer. xi. 13; ii. 28). This polytheism of the mass of the people cannot be regarded as a subsequent innovation; on the contrary, everything is in favour of its originality. In the accounts of the preceding centuries we never seek for it in vain. But-and this is decisive-the prophets' conception of Jahveh's being and of His relation to Israel is mexplicable, unless the God whom they now acknowledge to be the only one was at first only one of many gods. The relation in which Jahveh stands to Israel is the same as, for instance, that of Chemosh to the Moabites; Jahvel would never have become Israel's special property, as it were, and would never have come to dwell exclusively in Canaan, if he had been held from the beginning to be the only true God. That limitation is, on the contrary, extremely natural, if he was originally Israel's tribal God, who, as such, had many other gods beside him."

The proofs which are adduced in support of this position are many and various. It is maintained, for example, that the Israelites spoke of their God in the same way as their neighbours spoke of their gods, and even applied to Him the names of Gentile deities, or regarded those 1 Religion of Israel (Eng. tr.), vol. i. p. 223 f.

Low Stage of Pre-prophetic Religion.

169

deities as possessing similar powers and attributes; that they regarded Him as limited to one place or certain places, and powerful only or chiefly in His own territory; that they thought it not derogatory to His dignity to make visible representations of their deity; that moral qualities were not prominent, or even essential, in the conception of His character; or even, as some critics maintain, that they considered it a religious duty to offer to Him human sacrifices.

All these points are held to be capable of proof from the writings to which we have restricted ourselves, and, as features of the religion of Israel, they are maintained to be distinctly visible in the period of which we have undoubted historic knowledge. Not only so; but it is asserted also that we have conclusive proof that these religious beliefs rest upon and grow naturally out of a more primitive stage of religious culture, the lower condition of animism or fetishism which characterises the most savage peoples. Says Kuenen: "To what one might call the universal, or at least the common rule, that religion begins with fetishism, then develops into polytheism, and then, but not before, ascends to monotheism that is to say, if this highest stage be reachedto this rule the Semites are no exception;" and Stade proceeds elaborately to prove that, in the documents before us, we have clear indications of the survival of these primitive conceptions and beliefs to historic times.

To the proofs brought forward in support of these positions, we must therefore now turn our attention; and in this chapter we consider primarily the argument based upon the Hebrew mode of naming the Deity.

We have to consider, first of all, the argument drawn

1 Religion of Israel (Eng. tr.), vol. i. p. 225.