112 lines
379 KiB
HTML
112 lines
379 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
|
|
<html><head>
|
|
<script src="../../js/basepath.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
|
<script src="./js/nav.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
|
<script src="./js/MainHeader.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
|
<script type="text/javascript">
|
|
isbe = [];
|
|
|
|
isbe[4701]='Ismaiah`is-ma\'-ya.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISHMAIAH">ISHMAIAH</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4702]='Ispah`is\'-pa.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISHPAH">ISHPAH</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4703]='Israel`iz\'-ra-el.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JACOB">JACOB</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4704]='Israel, History of, 1<B>`INTRODUCTORY</b><P>1. Sources<P class="in15">(1) The Old Testament<P class="in15">(2) Josephus<P class="in15">(3) The Monuments<P>2. Religious Character of the History<P><b>I. ORIGINS OF ISRAEL IN PRE-MOSAIC TIMES</b><P>1. Original Home<P>2. Ethnographical Origin<P>3. Patriarchal Origins and History<P class="in15">(1) Patriarchal Conditions—<span class="noTag">Genesis 14</span><P class="in15">(2) Ideas of God<P class="in15">(3) Descent into Egypt<P><b>II. NATIONALITY UNDER MOSES</b><P>1. Israel in Egypt<P class="in15">(1) Chronology<P class="in15">(2) Moses<P>2. Historical Character of the Exodus<P class="in15">(1) Egyptian Version of the Exodus<P class="in15">(2) Geographical Matters<P class="in15">(3) The Wilderness Sojourn<P class="in15">(4) Entrance into Canaan<P><b>III. PERIOD OF THE JUDGES</b><P>1. General Character of Period<P>2. The Different Judges<P>3. Chronology of the Period<P>4. Loose Organization of the People<P><b>IV. THE KINGDOM: ISRAEL—JUDAH</b><P>1. Samuel<P>2. The Kingdom of Saul<P>3. David<P>4. Solomon<P>5. Division of the Kingdom<P>6. Sources of the History of the Kingdom<P>7. Chronological Matters<P><b>V. PERIOD OF THE SEPARATED KINGDOMS</b><P>1. Contrasts and Vicissitudes of the Kingdoms<P>2. The Successive Reigns<P>3. The Literary Prophets<P><b>VI. TIME OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE</b><P>1. Influence of the Exile<P>2. Daniel<P>3. Elephantine Papyri<P><b>VII. RETURN FROM THE EXILE AND THE RESTORATION</b><P>1. Career of Cyrus<P>2. First Return under Zerubbabel<P class="in15">(1) Building of the Temple<P class="in15">(2) Haggai and Zechariah<P>3. Ezra and Nehemiah<P>Malachi<P><b>VIII. THE JEWS UNDER ALEXANDER AND HIS SUCCESSORS</b><P>1. Spread of Hellenism<P>2. The Hasmoneans<p>3. Herod<P><b>IX. THE ROMANS</b><P>1. Division of Territory<P>2. Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans<P class="in15">Later Insurrection of Bar-Cochba<P>3. Spiritual Life of Period<P>Appearance of Jesus Christ<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>Introductory.<P>1. Sources:<P>The chief and best source from which we can learn who this people was and what was its history is the Bible itself, especially the Old Testament, which tells us the story of this people from its earliest beginnings.<P>(1) The Old Testament.<P>The origins of Israel are narrated in Genesis; the establishment of theocracy, in the other books of the Pentateuch; the entrance into Canaan, in the Book of Joshua; the period preceding the kings, in the Book of Judges; the establishment of the monarchy and its development, in the Books of Samuel, and the opening chapters of the Books of Kings, which latter report also the division into two kingdoms and the history of these down to their overthrow. The Books of Chronicles contain, parallel with the books already mentioned, a survey of the historical development from Adam down to the Babylonian captivity, but confine this account to theocratical center of this history and its sphere. Connected with Chronicles are found the small Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which probably originally constituted a part of Chronicles, but which pass over the Exile and begin at once with the story of the Return. Then, too, these two books contain only certain episodes in the history of the Return, which were of importance for the restoration of the Jewish theocracy, so that the story found in them is anything but complete. With the 5th century BC the Biblical narrative closes entirely. For the succeeding centuries we have nothing but some scattered data; but for the 2nd pre-Christian century we have a new source in the Books of the Maccabees, which give a connected account of the struggles and the rule of the Asmoneans, which reach, however, only from 174 to 135 BC.<P>The historical value of the Old Testament books is all the greater the nearer the narrator or his sources stand in point of time to the events that are recorded; e.g. the contents of the Books of Kings have in general greater value as historical sources than what is reported in the Books of Chronicles, written at a much later period. Yet it is possible that a later chronicler could have made use of old sources which earlier narrators had failed to employ. This is the actual state of affairs in connection with a considerable number of matters reported by the Biblical chroniclers, which supplement the exceedingly meager extracts furnished by the author of the Books of Kings. Then, further, the books of the prophets possess an extraordinary value as historical sources for the special reason that they furnish illustrations of the historical situation and events from the lips of contemporaries. As an example we can refer to the externally flourishing condition of the kingdom of Judah under King Uzziah, concerning which the Books of Kings report practically nothing, but of which Chronicles give details which are confirmed by the testimony of Isaiah.<P>(2) Josephus.<P>A connected account of the history of Israel has been furnished by Flavius Josephus. His work entitled Jewish Antiquities, however, as far as trustworthiness is concerned, is again considerably inferior to the Books of Chronicles, since the later traditions of the Jews to a still greater extent influenced his account. Only in those cases in which he could make use of foreign older sources, such as the Egyptian Manetho or Phoenician authors, does he furnish us with valuable material. Then for the last few centuries preceding his age, he fills out a certain want. Especially is he the best authority for the events which he himself passed through and which he reports in his work on the Jewish Wars, even if he is not free from certain personal prejudices (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSEPHUS">JOSEPHUS</a>). For the customs and usages of the later Jewish times the traditions deposited in the Talmud are also to be considered. Much less than to Josephus can any historical value be credited to the Alexandrian Jew, Philo. The foreign authors, e.g. the Greek and the Latin historians, contain data only for the story of the nations surrounding Israel, but not for the early history of Israel itself.<P>(3) The Monuments.<P>On the other hand, the early history of Israel has been wonderfully enriched in recent times through the testimonies of the monuments. In Palestine itself the finds in historical data and monuments have been, up to the present time, rather meager. Yet the excavations on the sites of ancient Taanach, Megiddo, Jericho, Gezer and Samaria have brought important material to light, and we have reasons to look for further archaeological and literary finds, which may throw a clear light on many points that have remained dark and uncertain. Also in lands round about Palestine, important documents (the Moabite Stone; Phoenician inscriptions) have already been found. Especially have the discovery and interpretation of the monuments found in Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia very materially advanced our knowledge of the history of Israel. Not only has the connection of the history of this people with universal history been clearly illuminated by these finds, but the history of Israel itself has gained in tangible reality. In some detail matters, traditional ideas have given way to clearer conceptions; e.g. the chronology of the Old Testament, through Assyriological research, has been set on a safer foundation. But all in all, these archaeological discoveries have confirmed the confidence that has been placed in the Biblical historical sources.<P>2. Religious Character of the History:<P>It is true that the rules applied to profane history cannot, without modification, be applied to the historical writings of the Hebrews. The Biblical narrators are concerned about something more than the preservation of historical facts and data. Just as little is it their purpose to glorify their people or their rulers, as this is done on the memorial tablets of the Egyptian the Assyrian, and the Babylonian kings. Looked at merely from the standpoint of profane history, there are many omissions in the Old Testament historical books that are found objectionable. Sometimes whole periods are passed over or treated very briefly. Then, too, the political pragmatism, the secular connection in the movements of the nations and historical events, are often scarcely mentioned. The standpoint of the writer is the religious. This appears in the fact that this history begins with the creation of the world and reports primitive traditions concerning the origin of mankind and their earliest history in the light of the revelation of the God of Israel, and that it makes this national history a member in the general historical development of mankind. Nor was this first done by the author of the Pentateuch in its present shape. Already the different documentary sources found combined in the Pentateuch, namely E (Elohist), J (Jahwist) and P (Priestly Code), depict the history of Israel according to the plan which the Creator of the world had with this people. Also, when they narrate the national vicissitudes of Israel, the writers are concerned chiefly to exhibit clearly the providential guidance of God. They give special prominence to those events in which the hand of God manifests itself, and describe with full detail the lives of those agents of whom Yahweh made use in order to guide His people, such as Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon and others. But it is not the glory of these men themselves that the writers aim to describe, but rather their importance for the spiritual and religious greatness of Israel. Let us note in this connection only the extreme brevity with which the politically successful wars of David are reported in 2 Samuel; and how fragmentary are the notices in which the author of the Books of Kings reports the reigns of the different kings; and how briefly he refers for all the other details of these kings to books that, unfortunately, have been lost for us. But, on the other hand, how full are the details when the Bible gives us its account of the early history of a Samuel or of a David, in which the providential guidance and protection of Yahweh appear in such a tangible form; or when it describes the building of the temple by Solomon, so epoch-making for the religious history of Israel, or the activity of such leading prophets as Elijah and Elisha. Much less the deeds of man than the deeds of God in the midst of His people constitute theme of the narrators. These facts explain, too, the phenomenal impartiality, otherwise unknown in ancient literatures, with which the weaknesses and the faults of the ancestors and kings of Israel are reported by the Biblical writers, even in the case of their most revered kings, or with which even the most disgraceful defeats of the people are narrated.<P>It cannot indeed be denied that this religious and fundamental characteristic is not found to the same degree in all the books and sources. The oldest narratives concerning Jacob, Joseph, the Judges, David and others reveal a naive and childlike naturalness, while in the Books of Chronicles only those things have been admitted which are in harmony with the regular cult. The stories of a Samson, Jephthah, Abimelech, Barak, and others impress us often as the myths or stories of old heroes, such as we find in the traditions of other nations. But the author of the Book of Judges, who wrote the introduction to the work, describes the whole story from the standpoint of edification. And when closely examined, it is found that the religious element is not lacking, even in the primitive and naive Old Testament narrative. This factor was, from the outset, a unique characteristic of the people and its history. To this factor Israel owed its individuality and existence as a separate people among the nations. But in course of time it became more and more conscious of its mission of being the people of Yahweh on earth, and it learned to understand its entire history from this viewpoint. Accordingly, any account of Israel\'s history must pay special attention to its religious development. For the significance of this history lies for us in this, that it constitutes the preparation for the highest revelation in Christ Jesus. In its innermost heart and kernel it is the history of the redemption of mankind. This it is that gives to this history its phenomenal character. The persons and the events that constitute this history must not be measured by the standards of everyday life. If in this history we find the providential activities of the living God operative in a unique way, this need not strike us as strange, since also the full fruit of this historical development, namely the appearance of Jesus Christ, transcends by far the ordinary course of human history. On the other hand, this history of Israel is not to be regarded as a purely isolated factor. Modern researches have shown how intimately this history was interwoven with that of other nations. Already, between the religious forms of the Old Testament and those of other Semitic peoples, there have been found many relations. Religious expressions and forms of worship among the Israelites often show in language and in cult a similarity to those of the ancient Canaanites, the Phoenicians, the Syrians, the Babylonians, and the Egyptians. But it is a mistake to believe that the history and the religion of Israel are merely an offspring of the Babylonian. As the Israelites clung tenaciously to their national life, even when they were surrounded by powerful nations, or were even scattered among these nations, as in the Exile, thus too their religion, at least in its official representatives, has been able at all times to preserve a very high originality and independence under the influence of the Divine Spirit, who had filled it.<P>I. Origins of Israel in Pre-Mosaic Times.<P>1. Original Home:<P>The Israelites knew at all times that Canaan was not their original home, but that their ancestors had immigrated into this land. What was their earlier and earliest home? Tradition states that they immigrated from Haran in the upper Euphrates valley. But it is claimed that they came to Haran from Ur of the Chaldees, i.e. from a city in Southern Babylonia, now called Mugheir. This city of Ur, now well known from Babylonian inscriptions, was certainly not the original home of the ancestors of Israel. They rather belonged to a purely Semitic tribe, which had found its way from Northern Arabia into these districts. A striking confirmation of this view is found in a mural picture on the rock-tombs of Benihassan in Upper Egypt. The foreigners, of whom pictures are here given (from the time of the XIIth Dynasty), called Amu, namely Bedouins from Northern Arabia or from the Sinai peninsula, show such indisputable Jewish physiognomies that they must have been closely related to the stock of Abraham. Then, too, the leader of the caravan, Ebsha\'a (Abishua), has a name formed just like that of Abraham. When, in later times, Moses fled to the country of the Midianites, he doubtless was welcomed by such tribal relatives.<P>2. Ethnographical Origin:<P>The Israelites at all times laid stress on their ethnographical connection with other nations. They knew that they were intimately related to a group of peoples who have the name of Hebrews. But they traced their origin still farther back to the tribal founder, Shem. Linguistics and ethnology confirm, in general, the closer connection between the Semitic tribes mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,21);">Ge 10:21</a>ff. Undeniable is this connection in the cases of Assur, Aram, and the different Arabian tribes. A narrower group of Semites is called Hebrews. This term is used in Genesis in a wider sense of the word than is the case in later times, when it was employed as a synonym for Israel. According to its etymology, the word signified "those beyond," those who live on the other side of the river or have come over from the other side. The river meant is not the Jordan, but the Euphrates. About the same time that the ancestors of Israel were immigrating into Canaan and Egypt, other tribes also emigrated westward and were called, by the Canaanites and by the Egyptians, \'ibhrim. This term is identical with Chabiri, found in the Tell el-Amarna Letters, in which complaint is made about the inroads of such tribes. The Israelites cannot have been meant here, but related tribes are. Possibly the Egyptian Apriu is the same word.<P>3. Patriarchal Origins and History:<P>The Israelites declared that they were descended from a particular family. On account of the patriarchal characcter of their old tribal life, it is not a matter of doubt that, as a fact, the tribe did grow out of a single family. The tribal father, Abraham, was without a doubt the head of the small tribe, which through its large family of children developed into different tribes. Only we must not forget that such a tribe could rapidly be enlarged by receiving into it also serfs and clients (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,14);">Ge 14:14</a>). These last-mentioned also regarded the head of the tribe as their father and considered themselves as his "sons," without really being his descendants. Possibly the tribe that immigrated first to Haran and from there to Canaan was already more numerous than would seem to be the case according to tradition, which takes into consideration only the leading personalities. Secondly, we must remember that the Israelites, because of their patriarchal life, had become accustomed to clothe all the relations of nations to nations in the scheme of the family. In this way such genealogies of nations as are found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Ge 10</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-\');">11</A> originated. Here peoples, cities and countries have also been placed in the genealogies, without the author himself thinking of individual persons in this connection, who had borne the names, e.g. of Mizraim (Egypt), Gush (Ethiopia), etc., and were actually sons of Ham. The purpose of the genealogy in this form is to express only the closer or more remote relationship or connection to a group of nations. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,1);">Ge 25:1</a>ff also is a telling example, showing how independently these groups are united. A new wife (Keturah) does not at this place fit into the family history of Abraham. But the writer still wants to make mention of an Arabian group, which was also related to Israel by blood, but in fact stood more distant from the Israelites than did the Ishmaelites. Out of this systematic further development of the living tradition, however, one difficulty arises. It is not in all places easy, indeed not always possible, to draw the line between what is reliable tradition and what is a freer continuation. But it is a misinterpretation of the historical situation, when the entire history of the patriarchs is declared to be incredible, and when in such sharply defined personalities as Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and others, only personifications of tribes are found, the later history of which tribes is said to be embodied in the lives of these men; e.g. the name Abraham cannot have been the impersonal name of a tribe or of a god. It is found as the name of a person on old Babylonian tablets (Abu ramu); but originally in the nomadic tribe was doubtless pronounced \'abhi ram, i.e. "My father (God) is exalted." The same is true of the name Jacob (really Jakob-el); compare Joseph (Joseph-el), Ishmael, and others, which find their analogies in old Arabian names.<P>(1) Patriarchal Conditions—<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">Genesis 14</a>.<P>Further, the conditions of life which are presupposed in the history of the Patriarchs are in perfect agreement with those which from the Tell el-Amarna Letters we learn existed in Canaan. While formerly it was maintained that it would have been impossible for a single tribe to force its way into Canaan at that time when the country was thickly populated, it is now known that at that very time when the ancestors of the Israelites entered, similar tribes also found their way into the land, sometimes in a peaceable way, sometimes by force. Egypt for the time being had control of the land, but its supremacy was at no place very strong. And the \'ibhrim, as did others who forced their way into the country, caused the inhabitants much trouble. Especially does <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">Ge 14</a>, the only episode in which a piece of universal history finds its way into the story of the tribal ancestors, turn out to be a document of great value, which reflects beautifully the condition of affairs in Asia. Such expeditions for conquest in the direction of the Mediterranean lands were undertaken at an early period by Babylonian rulers, Sargon I of Akkad and his son Naram Sin. The latter undertook an expedition to the land of Magan along the exact way of the expedition described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">Ge 14</a>, this taking place in the days of Amraphel, i.e. Hammurabi. The fact that the latter was himself under an Elamitic superior is in perfect agreement with the story of the inscriptions, according to which the famous Hammurabi of Babylon had first freed himself from the supremacy of Elam. The fact that Hammurabi, according to accepted chronology, ruled shortly after the year 2000 BC, is also in agreement with Biblical chronology, which places Abraham in this very time. These expeditions into the country Martu, as the Babylonians call Syria, had for their purpose chiefly to secure booty and to levy tribute. That the allied kings themselves took part in this expedition is not probable. These were punitive expeditions undertaken with a small force.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">Genesis 14</a> seems to be a translation of an old cuneiform tablet. As a rule the stories of the patriarchal age for a long time were handed down orally, and naturally were modified to a certain extent. Then, too, scholars have long since discovered different sources, out of which the story in its present form has been compiled. This fact explains some irregularities in the story: e.g. the chronological data of the document the Priestly Code (P), which arranges its contents systematically, do not always harmonize with the order of events as reported by the other two leading documents, the Elohist (E) and the Jahwist (Jahwist), the first of which is perhaps the Ephraimitic and the second the Judaic version of the story. But, under all circumstances, much greater than the difference are the agreements of the sources. They contain the same picture of this period, which certainly has not been modified to glorify the participants. It is easily seen that the situation of the fathers, when they were strangers in the land, was anything but comfortable. A poetical or perfectly fictitious popular account would have told altogether different deeds of heroism of the founder of the people. The weaknesses and the faults of the fathers and mothers in the patriarchal families are not passed over in silence. But the fact that Yahweh, whom they trusted at all times, helped them through and did not suffer them to be destroyed, but in them laid the foundation for the future of His people, is the golden cord that runs through the whole history. And in this the difference between the individual characters finds a sharp expression; e.g. Abraham\'s magnanimity and tender feeling of honor in reference to his advantage in worldly matters find their expression in narratives which are ascribed to altogether different sources, as <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,8);">Ge 13:8</a>ff (Jahwist); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,22);">14:22</A>ff (special source); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,7);">23:7</A>ff (P). In what an altogether different way Jacob insists upon his advantage! This consistency in the way in which the different characters are portrayed must awaken confidence in the historical character of the narratives. Then, too, the harmony with Egyptian manners and customs in the story of Joseph, even in its minutest details, as these have been emphasized particularly by the Egyptologist Ebers, speaks for this historical trustworthiness.<P>(2) Ideas of God.<P>Further, the conception of God as held by these fathers was still of a primitive character, but it contains the elements of the later religious development (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ISRAEL,+RELIGION+OF,+1">ISRAEL, RELIGION OF</a>).<P>(3) Descent into Egypt.<P>During a long period of famine the sons of Jacob, through Divine providence, which made use of Joseph as an instrument, found refuge in Egypt, in the marshes of which country along the lower Nile Semitic tribes had not seldom had their temporary abodes. The land of Coshen in the northeast part of the Delta, Ed. Naville (The Shrine of Saft-el-Henneh and the Land of Goshen, London, 1887) has shown to be the region about Phakusa (Saft-el-Henneh). These regions had at that time not yet been made a part of the strictly organized and governed country of Egypt, and could accordingly still be left to such nomadic tribes. For the sons of Jacob were still wandering shepherds, even if they did, here and there, after the manner of such tribes, change to agricultural pursuits (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,12);">Ge 26:12</a>). If, as is probable, at that time a dynasty of Semitic Hyksos was ruling in lower Egypt, it is all the more easily understood that kindred tribes of this character were fond of settling along these border districts. On account of the fertility of the amply watered districts, men and animals could increase rapidly, and the virile tribe could, in the course of a few centuries, grow into a powerful nation. One portion of the tribes pastured their flocks back and forth on the prairies; another builded houses for themselves among the Egyptians and engaged in agricultural pursuits and in gardening (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,5);">Nu 11:5</a>). Egyptian arts and trades also found their way among this people, as also doubtless the art of writing, at least in the case of certain individuals. In this way their sojourning in this country became a fruitful factor in the education of the people. This stay explains in part the fact that the Israelites at all times were more receptive of culture and were more capable than their kinsmen, the Edomites, Ammonites and Moabites, and others in this respect. Moses, like Joseph, had learned all the mysteries of Egyptian wisdom. On the other hand, the sojourn in this old, civilized country was a danger to the religion of the people of Israel. According to the testimony of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,14);">Jos 24:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,7);">Eze 20:7</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,8,19);">23:8,19</a>, they adopted many heathen customs from their neighbors. It was salutary for them, that the memory of this sojourn was embittered for them by hard oppression.<P>II. Nationality under Moses.<P>1. Israel in Egypt:<P>It is reported in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,\'1-\');">Ex 18</a> that a new Pharaoh ascended the throne, who knew nothing of Joseph. This doubtless means that a new dynasty came into power, which adopted a new policy in the treatment of the Semitic neighbors. The expulsion of the Hyksos had preceded this, and the opposition to the Semitics had become more acute. The new government developed a strong tendency to expansion in the direction of the northeast. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the laws of the empire were vigorously enforced in these border districts and that an end was made to the liberties of the unwelcome shepherd tribes. This led to constantly increasing measures of severity. In this way the people became more and more unhappy and finally were forced to immigrate.<P>(1) Chronology.<P>It is still the current conviction that the Pharaoh of the oppression was Rameses II, a king who was extraordinarily ambitious of building, whose long reign is by Eduard Meyer placed as late as 1310 to 1244 BC. His son Merenptah would then be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. But on this supposition, Biblical chronology not only becomes involved in serious difficulties, since then the time of the Judges must be cut down to unduly small proportions, but certain definite data also speak in favor of an earlier date for the Exodus of Israel. Merenptah boasts in an inscription that on an expedition to Syria he destroyed the men of Israel (which name occurs here for the first time on an Egyptian monument). And even the father of Rameses II, namely Seti, mentions Asher among those whom he conquered in Northern Palestine, that is, in the district afterward occupied by this tribe. These data justify the view that the Exodus already took place in the time of the XVIIIth Dynasty, a thing in itself probable, since the energetic rulers of this dynasty naturally have inaugurated a new method of treating this province. The oppression of Israel would then, perhaps, be the work of Thethroes III (according to Meyer, 1501-1447 BC), and the Exodus would take place under his successor, Amenophis II. In harmony with this is the claim of Manetho, who declares that the "Lepers," in whom we recognize the Israelites (see below), were expelled by King Amenophis.<P>The length of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,13);">Ge 15:13</a> (P), was in round numbers 400 years; more exactly, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,40);">Ex 12:40</a>f (P), 430 years. But the last-mentioned passage in Septuagint reads, "the sojourn of the sons of Jacob, when they lived in Egypt and in the land of Canaan." (The same reading is found in the Samaritan text, only that the land of Canaan precedes that of Egypt.) Since, according to this source (P), the Patriarchs lived 215 years in Canaan, the sojourn in Egypt would be reduced also 215 years. This is the way in which the synagogue reckons (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,17);">Ga 3:17</a>), as also Josephus (Ant., II, xv, 2). In favor of this shorter period appeal is made to the genealogical lists, which, however, because they are incomplete, cannot decide the matter. In favor of a longer duration of this sojourn we can appeal, not only to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,13);">Ge 15:13</a> Septuagint has the same!), but also to the large number of those who left Egypt according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,\'1-\');">Nu 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,\'1-\');">26</A> (P), even if the number of 600,000 men there mentioned, which would presuppose a nation of about two million souls, is based on a later calculation and gives us an impossible conception of the Exodus.<P>(2) Moses.<P>While no account has been preserved concerning the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, the history of the Exodus itself, which signifies the birth of Israel as a nation, is fully reported. In this crisis Moses is the prophetical mediator through whom the wonderful deed of God is accomplished. All the deeds of God, when interpreted by this prophet, become revelations for the people. Moses himself had no other authority or power than that which was secured for him through his office as the organ of God. He was the human instrument to bring about the synthesis between Israel and Yahweh for all times. He had, in doing this, indeed proclaimed the old God of the fathers, but under the new, or at any rate hitherto to the people unknown, name of Yahweh, which is a characteristic mark of the Mosaic revelations to such an extent, that the more accurate narrators (E and P) begin to make use of this name only from this period of time on. In the name of this absolute sovereign, God, Moses claims liberty for Israel, since this people was Yahweh\'s firstborn (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,22);">Ex 4:22</a>). The contest which Moses carries on in the name of this God with Pharaoh becomes more and more a struggle between this God and the gods of Egypt, whose earthly representative Pharaoh is. The plagues which come over Egypt are all founded on the natural conditions of the country, but they occur in such extraordinary strength and rapidity at Moses\' prediction, and even appear at his command, that they convince the people, and finally Pharaoh himself, of the omnipotence of this God on the soil of this country. In the same way the act of deliverance at the Red Sea can be explained as the cooperation of natural causes, namely wind and tide. But the fact that these elementary. forces, just at this critical time, proved so serviceable to the people of God and destructive to their enemies, shows unmistakably the miraculous activity of God. This the Israelites experienced still further on the journey through the desert, when they were entirely dependent on Divine leadership and care. The outcome of these experiences, and at the same time its grandest demonstration, was the conclusion of the covenant at Mt. Sinai. From this time on Yahweh was Israel\'s God and Israel was the people of Yahweh. This God claimed to be the only and absolute ruler over the tribes that were now inwardly united into one nation. From this resulted as a matter of course, that Moses as the recognized organ of this God was not only the authority, who was to decide in all disputes concerning right, but also the one from whom a new and complete order of legal enactments proceeded. Moses became the lawgiver of Israel.<P>Even if the history of the origin of the Old Testament covenant is unique in character, it is nevertheless profitable to take note of an analogy which is found in a related people and which is adapted to make much in Israel\'s history clearer. Mohammed also, after he had at the critical point of his career persuaded his followers to migrate from their homes, soon after, in Medina, concluded a covenant, according to which he, as the recognized speaker of Allah (God), claimed for himself the right to decide in all disputes. He, too, in his capacity as the prophet of God, was consulted as an infallible authority in all questions pertaining to the cult, the civil and the criminal laws, as also in matters pertaining to politics and to war. And his decisions and judgments, uttered in the name of Allah, were written down and afterward collected. This Koran, too, became the basis of sacred law. And by causing the hitherto divided and antagonistic tribes to subject themselves to Allah, Mohammed united these his followers into a religious communion and in this way, too, into a national body. Mohammed has indeed copied the prophecy of earlier times, but the work of Moses was original in character and truly inspired by God.<P>2. Historical Character of the Exodus:<P>The historical character of the exodus out of Egypt cannot be a matter of doubt, though some suspect that the entire nation did not take part in the march through the Red Sea, but that certain tribes had before this already migrated toward the East. We must not forget that the song of victory in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,\'1-\');">Ex 15</a> does not mention a word about Pharaoh\'s being himself destroyed in going through the Sea. It is only the late <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',136,15);">Ps 136:15</a> that presupposes this as a certainty. That an entire nation cannot emigrate in a single night cannot be maintained in view of the fact that the inhabitants of the same Wady-Tumilat, through which Israel marched, so late as the last century, emigrated in a single night and for similar reasons (compare Sayce, Monuments, 249).<P>(1) Egyptian Version of the Exodus.<P>The fact that the Egyptian monuments report nothing of this episode, so disgraceful to that people, is a matter of course, in view of the official character of these accounts and of their policy of passing over in absolute silence all disagreeable facts. And yet in the popular tradition of the people, which Manetho has handed down, there has been preserved some evidence of this event. It is indeed true that what this author reports about the Hyksos (see above) does not belong here, as this people is not, as Josephus thinks, identical with the Israelites. However (Apion, I, xxvi, 5ff), he narrates a story which may easily be the tradition concerning the exodus of the children of Israel as changed by popular use. King Amenophis, we are told, wanted to see the gods. A seer, who bore the same name, promised that his wish would be gratified under the condition that the country would be cleansed of lepers and all others that were unclean; and it is said that he accordingly drove 80,000 such persons into the stone quarries east of the Nile. As the seer was afraid that these measures would be displeasing to the gods and bring upon the land a subjection of 13 years to the supremacy of foreigners, he gave up to these lepers the former city of the Hyksos, Avaris by name. Here they appointed a priest by the name of Osarsiph, later called Moses, as their chief, who gave them a special body of laws and in these did not spare the sacred animals. He also carried on war against the Egyptians, the Hyksos helping him, and he even governed Egypt for 13 years, after which he and his followers were driven out into Syria. Similar stories are found in Chaeromon, Lysimachus, and others (Apion, I, xxxii, 36; compare Tacitus, History, verses 3-5). When we remember that it is nonsense to permit lepers to work in stone quarries and that the Egyptians also otherwise call the Semites Aatu, i.e. "plague," then this story must be regarded as referring to such a non-Egyptian nation. Hecataeus of Abdera has a report of this matter which is much more like the Biblical story, to the effect, namely, that a plague which had broken out in Egypt led the people to believe that the gods were angry at the Egyptians because they had neglected the religious cult; for which reason they expelled all foreigners. A part of these is said to have migrated under the leadership of Moses to Judea and there to have founded the city of Jerusalem (compare Diodorus Siculus xl.3; compare xxxvi.1).<P>(2) Geographical Matters.<P>The Red Sea, through which the Israelites went under the leadership of Moses, is without a doubt the northern extension of this body of water, which in former times reached farther inland than the present Gulf of Suez; compare Edouard Naville, The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus, 1885; and The Route of the Exodus, 1891. This savant is entitled to the credit of having identified the station Sukkoth on the basis of the monuments; it is the modern Tell-Mashuta and identical with Pithom, which was the name of the sanctuary at that place. Later the city was called Heroopoils. The route accordingly went through the modern Wadi-Tumilat to the modern Bitter Sea, north of Suez. It is a more difficult task to trace the route geographically on the other side of the Sea. For it is a question whether "the Mountain of Yahweh," which formed the goal of the journey, is to be located on the Sinai peninsula, or in the land of the Edomites, or even on the western coast of Arabia. A.H. Sayce and others reject the traditional location of Sinai on the peninsula named after this mountain, and declare that the Israelites marched directly eastward toward the Gulf of Akaba. The reasons for this are found in the work of Sayce, The Verdict of the Monuments, 263ff. But even if on this supposition a number of difficulties fall away, there nevertheless are many arguments in favor of the traditional location of Sinai, especially the grandeur of the chain itself, for which a rival worth mentioning has not been discovered in the land of the Edomites or in Northwestern Arabia. The Sinai traveler, E. H. Palmer, has also shown how splendidly the surroundings of the Sinai chain, especially the Jebel Musa with the Ras Sufsafeh, is adapted for the purpose of concluding a covenant.<P>(3) The Wilderness Sojourn.<P>The duration of the sojourn in the "desert" is everywhere (as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,25);">Am 5:25</a>) given as 40 years. In harmony with this is the fact that only a few of those who had come out of Egypt lived to enter Canaan. The greater part of these 40 years the Israelites seem to have spent at Kadesh. At any rate, there was a sanctuary at that place, at which Moses administered justice, while the different tribes probably were scattered over the prairies and over the tillable districts. The central sanctuary, which Moses established, was the Tabernacle, which contained the Ark of the Covenant, the sanctissimum. This sacred ark with the cherubim above it represents the throne of God, who is thought to be enthroned above the cherubim. The ark itself is, as it were, His footstool. As in Egyptian sanctuaries not infrequently the most sacred laws are deposited beneath the feet of the statue of the gods, thus the sacred fundamental laws of God (the Decalogue), on two tablets, were deposited in this ark. This Ark of the Covenant presupposes an invisible God, who cannot be represented by any image. The other laws and ordinances of Moses covered the entire public and private legislation, given whenever the need for these made it necessary to determine such matters. In giving these laws Moses connected his system with the old traditional principles already current among the tribes. This fact is confirmed by the legal Code of Hammurabi, which contains remarkable parallels, especially to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'1-\');">Ex 20-23:19</a>. But Moses has elevated the old traditional laws of the tribes and has given them a more humane character. By putting every enactment in the light of the religion of Yahweh, and by eliminating everything not in harmony with this religion, he has raised the people spiritually and morally to a higher plane.<P>Among the people, the undercurrents of superstition and of immorality were indeed still strong. At the outset Moses had much to contend with in the opposition of the badly mixed mass of the people. And the fact that he was able for the period of 40 years to hold the leadership of this stubborn people without military force is a phenomenal work, which shows at all hands the wonderful cooperation of Yahweh Himself. However, he did not indeed succeed in raising the entire people to the plane of his knowledge of God and of his faith in God. This generation had to die in the wilderness, because it lacked the sanctified courage to take possession of the land of promise. But the foundation had been laid for theocracy, which must not in any way be identified with a hierarchy.<P>(4) Entrance into Canaan.<P>It was Joshua, the successor of Moses, who was enabled to finish the work and to take possession of the land. Not far from Jericho he led the people over the Jordan and captured this city, which had been considered impregnable. After that, with his national army, he conquered the Canaanitish inhabitants in several decisive battles, near Gibeon and at the waters of Merom, and then went back and encamped at Gilgal on the Jordan. After this he advanced with his tribe of Ephraim into the heart of the land, while the southern tribes on their part forced their way into the districts assigned to them. Without reasons this account has been attacked as unreliable, and critics have thought that originally the different tribes, at their own initiative, either peaceably or by force, had occupied their land. But it is entirely natural to suppose that the inhabitants of the country who had allied themselves to resist this occupation by Israel, had first to be made submissive through several decisive defeats, before they would permit the entrance of the tribes of Israel, which entrance accordingly often took place without a serious struggle. That the occupation of the land was not complete is shown in detail in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,\'1-\');">Jud 1</a>. Also in those districts in which Israel had gained the upper hand, they generally did not wage the war of annihilation that Moses had commanded, but were content with making the Canaanites, by the side of whom they settled, bondsmen and subjects. This relation could, in later time, easily be reversed, especially in those cases in which the original inhabitants of the country were in the majority. Then, too, it must be remembered that the latter enjoyed a higher state of civilization than the Israelites. It was accordingly an easy matter for the Israelites to adopt the customs and the ideas of the Canaanites. But if this were done, their religion was also endangered. Together with the sacred "holy places" (bamoth) of the original inhabitants, the altars and the sanctuaries there found also came into possession of the Israelites. Among these there were some that had been sacred to the ancestors of Israel, and with which old memories were associated. As a consequence, it readily occurred that Israel appropriated also old symbols and religious ceremonies, and even the Baals and the Astartes themselves, however little this could be united in principle with the service of Yahweh. But if the Israelites lost their unique religion, then their connection with the kindred tribes and their national independence were soon matters of history. They were readily absorbed by the Canaanites.``131';
|
|
isbe[4705]='Israel, History of, 2`III. Period of the Judges.<P>1. General Character of Period:<P>In such a period of weakened national and religious life, it could easily happen that Israel would again lose the supremacy that it had won by the sword. It was possible that the Canaanites could again bring into their power larger parts of the land. Also energetic and pushing nomadic tribes, such as the Ammonites, the Moabites, or other warlike peoples, such as the Philistines, could bring the country under subjection, as actually did occur in the period of the Judges. The Book of Judges reports a number of such instances of the subjection of Israel, which did not extend over the whole land, and in part occurred in different sections of the country at the same time. Judah and Simeon, the two tribes in the south, as a rule took no part in these contests, and had their own battles to fight; and the same is true of the tribes east of the Jordan, among whom Northern Manasseh and Ephraim were in closest alliance. After a longer or shorter period of oppression, there followed in each case a revival of the national spirit against such oppression. And in all these cases the popular hero who became the liberator appealed to the religious consciousness that formed a bond of union between all the Israelirish tribes and their common God Yahweh. In however wild a manner the youthful vigor of the people may have found its expression on these occasions, they are nevertheless conscious of the fact that they are waging a holy war, which in every case also ended with the victory over the heathen spirit and false worship that had found their way into Israel. The most precious historical monument from these times is the song of Deborah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'1-\');">Jud 5</a>), which, like a mirror, reflects faithfully the conditions of affairs, and the thoughts of that age.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,\'1-\');">Judges 17-21</a> belong to the beginning of this period. The first of these old stories narrates the emigration of a large portion of the tribe of Dan to the extreme north of the country and the origin of idolatry in that region (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,\'1-\');">Jud 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,\'1-\');">18</a>). But the second story, too, both in form and contents, is, at least in part, very old and its historical value is amply protected against the attacks of modern critics by <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',9,9);">Ho 9:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',10,9);">10:9</a>. This story reports a holy war of revenge against the tribe of Benjamin, which was unwilling to render satisfaction for a nefarious crime that had been committed at Gibeah in its territory. In the feeling of close solidarity and of high responsibility which appears in connection with the punishment of this crime, we still see the influence of the periods of Moses and Joshua.<P>2. The Different Judges:<P>First it is narrated of a king of Aram-naharaim that he had oppressed Israel for a period of 8 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,8);">Jud 3:8</a>). This probably means a king of the Mitanni (Sayce, Monuments, 297, 304), who at that time were trying to force their way through Canaan into Egypt. It was Othniel, the Kenazite, belonging to a tribe that was related to Judah, who delivered Israel. A second liberator was the Benjamite Ehud, who delivered the southeastern portion of the country from the servitude of Eglon, the king of the Moabites, by putting the latter to death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,12);">Jud 3:12</a>). On a greater scale was the decisive battle against the Canaanitish kings in the north, when these had formed an alliance and had subjected Israel for a period of 20 years. At the appeal of Deborah, Barak conquered Sisera, the hostile king and leader of a mighty army of chariots, in the plain of Kishon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,\'1-\');">Jud 4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'1-\');">5</a>). In the same region the battle of Gideon was fought with the plundering Bedouin swarms of the Midianites, who had repeatedly oppressed Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,\'1-\');">Jud 6-8</a>). Abimelech, an unworthy son of the God-fearing hero, after the death of his father, had established a local kingdom in Shechem, which stood for only a short time and came to a disgraceful end. Little more than the names are known to us of Tola, of the tribe of Issachar, and of Jair, in Gilead (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,1);">Jud 10:1</a>). More fully is the story of Jephthah told, who delivered the country from the Ammonites coming from the east (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,\'1-\');">Jud 11</a>), with which was also connected a struggle with the jealous Ephraimites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',12,\'1-\');">Jud 12</a>); and still more fully are the details reported of the personal contests of the Nazirite Samson, belonging to the tribe of Dan, against the Philistines making their inroads from the south, and who for many years proved to be the most dangerous enemies of Israel.<P>All these heroes, and a few others not so well known, are called judges, and it is regularly reported how long each of these "judged" Israel. They were not officials in the usual sense of the term, but were liberators of the people, who, at the inspiration of Yahweh, gave the signal for a holy war. After the victory they, as men of Yahweh, then enjoyed distinction, at least in their own tribes; and in so far as it was through their doing that the people had been freed, they were the highest authorities in political, legal, and probably, too, in religious questions. They are called judges in conscious contradistinction from the kingly power, which in Israel was recognized as the exclusive prerogative of Yahweh, so that Gideon declined it as improper when the people wanted to make him king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,22);">Jud 8:22</a>f). The people recognized the Spirit of Yahweh in the fierce energy which came over these men and impelled them to arouse their people out of their disgraceful lethargy. For this reason, too, they could afterward be trusted in making their judicial decisions in harmony with the mind and the Spirit of God, as this had been done already by the prophetess Deborah in the time of oppression. Yet, at least in the case of Samson (notwithstanding <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,31);">Jud 16:31</a>), it is not probable that he ever was engaged in the administration of justice. It is not even reported of him that he fought at the head of the people, but he carried on his contests with the Philistines in behalf of himself individually, even if, as one consecrated of God, he were a witness for the power of God.<P>3. Chronology of the Period:<P>The chronology of the period of the Judges exhibits some peculiar difficulties. If we add together the data that are given in succession in the Book of Judges, we get from <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,\'8-\');">Jud 3:8-16:31</a>, 410 years altogether. But this number is too large to make it harmonize with the 480 years mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a>. Jewish tradition (e.g. Cedher \'Olam) accordingly does not include the years of oppression in this sum, but makes them a part of the period of the individual judges. In this way about 111 years are eliminated. But evidently the redactor of the Book of Judges did not share this view. Modern critics are of the opinion that the writer has dovetailed two chronological methods, one of which counted on the basis of periods of forty years each, while the other was more exact and contained odd numbers. In this way we can shorten this period as does the Cedher \'Olam. At any rate, it is justifiable, and is suggested by <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,7);">Jud 10:7</a>, to regard the oppression by the Ammonites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,8);">10:8</A>ff) and the oppression by the Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,1);">13:1</a>ff) as contemporaneous. And other events, too, which in the course of the narrative are related as following each other, may have taken place at the same time or in a somewhat different sequence, as the author used different sources for the different events. But for this very reason his story deserves to be credited as historical. Such characters as Deborah, Jephthah, Ehud, Gideon, Abimelech and Samson are described as tangible historical realities. Even if, in the case of the last-mentioned, oral tradition has added decorative details to the figure, yet Samson cannot possibly be a mere mythological character, but must have been a national hero characteristic of this period, in whom are represented the abundance of physical and mental peculiarities characteristic of the youthful nation, as also their good-natured indifference and carelessness over against their treacherous enemies.<P>4. Loose Organization of the People:<P>The lack of a central political power made itself felt all the more in the period of the Judges, since, because of the scattered condition of the people in the country that had been so minutely parceled out, and because of the weakening of the religious enthusiasm of the preceding age, the deeper unity of heart and mind was absent. It is indeed incorrect to imagine that at this time there was a total lack of governmental authority. A patriarchal organization had been in force from the beginning. The father of the family was the lawful head of those belonging to him: and a larger clan was again subject to an "elder," with far-reaching rights in the administration of law, but also with the duty to protect his subordinates, and in case of want to support them. Unfortunately we are nowhere informed how these elders were chosen or whether their offices were hereditary. Only a very few passages, such as <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,6);">Isa 3:6</a>f; throw a certain light on the subject. This institution of the elders Moses had already found established and had developed farther (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,13);">Ex 18:13</a>). It was retained in all the periods of Israel\'s history. When the people began to live together in larger centers, as a natural consequence bodies of such city elders were established. The tribes, too, had "elders" at their head. But for a united action of the whole nation this arrangement did not suffice; and especially in the case of war the people of Israel felt that they were at a disadvantage compared with their enemies, who had kings to lead them. For this reason the desire for a king steadily grew in Israel. The dictators of the period of the Judges satisfied their needs only for the time being.<P>IV. The Kingdom: Israel-Judah.<P>In the time when the Israelites were oppressed by the Philistines the need of a king was especially felt. As Samson had come to his death in servitude, the people themselves thus, at the close of this period of glorious victories, were under the supremacy of a warlike race, which had only in recent times settled on the western coast of Palestine, and from this base was forcing its conquests into the heart of the country.<P>1. Samuel:<P>After the most disastrous defeats, during which even the Ark of the Covenant was lost, there arose for the people, indeed, a father and a deliverer in the person of Samuel, who saved them during the most critical period. What his activity meant for the uplift of the people cannot be estimated too highly. He was, above all, during peace the faithful watchman of the most sacred possessions of Israel, a prophet such as the people had not seen since the days of Moses; and he doubtless was the founder of those colonies of prophetical disciples who were in later times so influential in the development of a theocratical spirit in Israel. He guarded the whole nation also with all his power, by giving to them laws and cultivating piety in the land.<P>2. The Kingdom of Saul:<P>But as Samuel, too, became old and the people concluded for good reasons that his rule would have no worthy successors, their voice could no longer be silenced, and they demanded a king. Samuel tried in vain to persuade the people to desist from their demand, which to him seemed to be an evidence of distrust in the providence of Yahweh, but was himself compelled, by inspiration of God, to submit to their wishes and anoint the new king, whom Yahweh pointed out to him. It is indeed maintained by the critics that there are several accounts extant in Samuel concerning the selection of Saul to the kingdom, and that these accounts differ in this, that the one regards the kingdom as a blessing and the other as a curse. The first view, which is said to be the older, is claimed to be found in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,\'1-10\',16);">1Sa 9:1-10, 16</a>; and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,\'1-\');">11</a>; while the second is said to be in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,\'1-\');">1Sa 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,\'17-27\');">10:17-27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,\'12-14\');">11:12-14</a>. Whatever may be the facts in regard to these sources, this is beyond any doubt, that Samuel, the last real theocratic leader, established the kingdom. But just as little can the fact be doubted, that he took this step with inner reluctance, since in his eyes this innovation meant the discarding of the ideals of the people to which he himself had remained true during his lifetime. The demand of the people was the outgrowth of worldly motives, but Yahweh brought it about, that the "Anointed of Yah" signified an advance in the history of the kingdom of God.<P>Saul himself, at first, in a vigorous and efficient manner, solved the immediate problems and overcame the enemies of his people. But he soon began to conceive of his kingdom after the manner of heathen kingdoms and did not subject himself to Yahweh and His appointed representative. There soon arose an open conflict between him and Samuel; and the fact that the Spirit of God had departed from him appears in his melancholy state of mind, which urged him on to constantly increasing deeds of violence. That under these circumstances God\'s blessing also departed from him is proved by the collapse of his life\'s work in his final failures against the Philistines.<P>3. David:<P>In contrast with this, David, his successor, the greatest king that Israel ever had, had a correct conception of this royal office, and even in his most brilliant successes did not forget that he was called to rule only as "the servant of Yahweh" (by which name he, next to Moses, is called most often in the Bible). As a gifted ruler, he strengthened his kingdom from within, which, considering the heterogeneous character of the people, was not an easy matter, and extended it without by overpowering jealous neighbors. In this way it was he who became the real founder of a powerful kingdom. The conquest of Jerusalem and its selection as the capital city also are an evidence of his political wisdom. It is indeed true that he, too, had his personal failings and that he made many mistakes, which caused him political troubles, even down to his old age. But his humility at all times made him strong enough again to subject himself to the hand of Yahweh, and this humility was based on the attitude of his spirit toward Yahweh, which shows itself in his Psalms. In this way he really came to be a connecting link between God and his people, and upon this foundation the prophets built further, who prophesied a still closer union of the two under a son of David.<P>While Saul was a Benjamite, David was of the tribe of Judah, and was for a short time the king of this tribe in Hebron, before the other tribes, becoming tired of the misrule of a descendant of Saul, also voluntarily chose him as their king. He soon after this established as the center of his new kingdom the city of Jerusalem, which really was situated on the territory that had been assigned to Benjamin; and he also set this city apart as the religious center of the people by transferring the Ark of the Covenant to this place. In this way David, through his wisdom and his popular bravery, succeeded in uniting the tribes more firmly under his supremacy, and especially did he bring the tribe of Judah, which down to this time had been more for itself, into closer connection with the others. Israel under David became a prominent kingdom. This position of power was, as a matter of fact, distasteful to their neighbors round about. The Philistines tried to destroy the ambitious kingdom, but were themselves repeatedly and definitely overpowered. But other neighboring people, too, who, notwithstanding the fact that David did not assume an offensive attitude toward them, assumed a hostile attitude toward him, came to feel his superiority. Particularly severe and tedious was the war against the allied Ammonites and Syrians; and although the Edomites, too, regarded this as a favorable time for attacking Israel, this struggle also ended in a complete triumph for David. The surrounding countries became subject to him from the Mediterranean Sea to Hamath (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,9);">2Sa 8:9</a>), and from the territory of the Lebanon, the inhabitants of which assumed a friendly attitude, to the borders of Egypt, which also recognized the new rule.<P>4. Solomon:<P>Solomon, the son of David, developed inwardly the powerful kingdom which he had inherited. To his father he seemed to be the right man for this because of his peaceful temperament and his high mental abilities. He justified the hopes placed in him. Out of love to Yahweh he built the temple on Mt. Zion, regulated the affairs of state and the administration of justice, and by commercial treaties with the Phoenicians (King Hiram) brought about great prosperity in the land. His was the "golden" period in Israel. The culture and civilization, too, of the people were materially advanced by Solomon as he widened their horizon and introduced the literature of Proverbs, which had up to this time been more extensively cultivated by the neighboring people (Edom, Arabia, Egypt). He even developed this literature into a higher type. On the other hand, the brilliant reign of Solomon brought serious dangers to the new kingdom. His liberal-mindedness in the treatment of his foreign wives, in permitting them to retain their heathen worship, probably because he thought that in the end it was the same Divinity which these women worshipped under different form, endangered theocracy with its serious cult and its strict morality. Through this conduct the king necessarily forfeited the sympathy of the most pious Israelites. At the same time, his love for magnificent structures surpassed the measure which was regarded as correct for the "Anointed of Yahweh." Then, too, his efforts, in themselves justifiable, to establish a more perfect organization of the monarchy, produced a great deal of dissatisfaction. Solomon did not understand, as did his father, how to respect the inherited liberty-loving tendencies of his people. The heavy services and taxation, to which the people were compelled to submit, were deeply felt, most of all by the Ephraimites, who at times had exhibited a jealous spirit, and could not forget their lost hegemony.<P>5. Division of the Kingdom:<P>So long, indeed, as the wise Solomon and his advisers were at the helm, the various rebellious tendencies could not make themselves felt. But after his death the catastrophe came. His son, Rehoboam, at the Diet in Shechem, at which the Ephraimites placed before him a kind of capitulation before his coronation, showed that he did not at all understand the situation. His domineering attitude brought things to a head, and he must have been glad that at least the tribe of Judah remained faithful to him. The Northern tribes chose for their king Jeroboam (I), who before this had already taken part in rebellious agitations, as the kingdom had been predicted to him by the prophet Ahijah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,2);">1Ki 11:2</a>). Israel was torn into two parts.<P>6. Sources of the History of the Kingdom:<P>With this rupture the powerful kingdom established by David had reached its end. In regard to this flourishing period in Israel\'s history we are, on the whole, well informed through the sources. Especially in <span class="noTag">2Sa 9-20</span> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,\'1-\');">1Ki 2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,\'1-\');">3</a>, we have a narrator who must have been a contemporary of the events recorded. Klostermann surmises that this may have been Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,27);">2Sa 15:27</a>); while Duhm, Budde, Sellin and others believe it to have been the priest Abiathar. Less unity is in evidence in the first Book of Samuel, containing the history of the youth of David, which evidently was often described. The Books of Chronicles have only secondary value for the life of David. These books narrate in full detail the story of the preparations made by David for the erection of the temple and of his organization of the Levites. In regard to the reign of Solomon, the Books of Kings report more fully. Concerning the later kings, they generally give only meager extracts from more complete sources, which excerpts, however, have been shown to be reliable. The interest which the narrator has in telling his story is the religious. Especially does he carefully note the fact as to the relation of the different kings to the cult. Special sources have been used in compiling the detailed stories of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha, which are inserted in the history of the two kingdoms. On the other hand, the Books of Ch pass over entirely all reference to the work of the prophets of the Northern Kingdom, as they ignore the entire history of the Ephraimitic kingdom since the interest of these books is centered on the sanctuary in Jerusalem. Also in the case of the Judean history, the much older Books of Kings deserve the precedence. Yet we owe to the writer of Chronicles a number of contributions to this history, especially where he has made a fuller use of the sources than has been done by the author of the Books of Kings. The suspicion that everything which Chronicles contains, beyond what is to be found in Kings, is unhistorical, has turned out to be groundless. Thus, e.g., it would be impossible to understand the earlier prophecies of Isaiah under Jotham at all, if it did not appear from Chronicles to what prosperity and influence the people of Jerusalem had by that time again attained. For it is only Chronicles that give us an account of the flourishing reign of his predecessor Uzziah, who is treated but briefly in Kings.<P>7. Chronological Matters:<P>The chronology of the earlier portions of the period of the Kings is dependent on the date of the division of the kingdom. This date can be decided on the basis of the careful chronological data of the Books of K, which do not indeed agree in all particulars, but are to be adjusted by the Assyrian chronology. If we, with Kamphausen, Oettli and Kittel, regard the year 937 BC as the time of the division of the kingdom, then Solomon ruled from 977 to 937; David, from 1017 to 977. The length of the reign of Saul is not known, as the text of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,1);">1Sa 13:1</a> is defective. It is very probable that we can credit him with about twenty years, according to Josephus (Ant., X, viii, 4), i.e. from about 1037-1017. In this case David transferred the seat of government to Jerusalem about the year 1010, and the completion of the erection of the temple of Solomon took place in 966. But this basal date of 937 is not accepted as correct by all scholars. Klostermann places the date of the rupture of the kingdom in the year 978; Koehler, in 973. For later chronological data, Assyrian sources are an important factor. The Assyrians were accustomed to call each year after the name of an official (limu), and eponym lists are extant for 228 years. In these reference is made to an eclipse of the sun, which astronomically has been settled as having taken place on July 15, 763. We have in this list then the period from 893 to 666. On this basis, it is made possible to determine the exact dates of the different military expeditions of the Assyrian rulers and their conflicts with the kings of Judah and Israel, on the presupposition, however, that the Assyrian inscriptions here used really speak of these kings, which in a number of cases is denied. Valuable help for determining the chronology of this period is the fall of Samaria in the year 722 and the expedition of Sennacherib against Jerusalem in 701, and then the fall of Jerusalem in 587 and 586. The distribution of the years between these dates to the individual kings is in places doubtful, as the numbers in the text are possibly corrupt, and in the synchronistic data of the Books of Kings mistakes may have been made.``131';
|
|
isbe[4706]='Israel, History of, 3`V. Period of the Separated Kingdoms.<P>1. Contrasts and Vicissitudes of the Kingdoms:<P>The two separated kingdoms differed materially. The kingdom of Ephraim was the more powerful of the two. It embraced, according to an inaccurate usage of situdes of the words, 10 tribes; and to this the kingdom the vassals, such as Moab, as a rule remained subject, until they emancipated themselves. But, on the other hand, this Northern Kingdom was less firm spiritually. Even the resident city of the king changed frequently, until Omri founded the city of Samaria, which was well adapted for this purpose. The dynasties, too, were only of short duration. It occurred but rarely that one family was able to maintain its supremacy on the throne through several generations. A revolutionary character remained fixed in this kingdom and became its permanent weakness. On the other hand, the smaller and often overpowered kingdom of Judah, which faithfully adhered to the royal line of David, passed through dangerous crises and had many unworthy rulers. But the legitimate royal house, which had been selected by Yahweh, constituted spiritually a firm bond, which kept the people united, as is seen, e.g., by a glance at the addresses of Isaiah, who is thoroughly filled with the conviction of the importance of the house of David, no matter how unworthy the king who happened to rule might appear to him. In a religious respect, also, the arbitrary break with Zion proved to be fatal for the Northern Kingdom.<P>2. The Successive Reigns:<P>Jeroboam.<P>It is true that faithful prophets of Yahweh, such as the Abijah of Shiloh mentioned above, and Shemaiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,22);">1Ki 12:22</a>), proclaimed that the fateful division of the kingdom was a Divinely intended judgment from Yahweh. But they soon were compelled to reach the conclusion that Jeroboam did not regard himself as a servant of Yahweh, but as a sovereign who, through his own power and through the favor of the people, had secured the rule, and hence, could arbitrarily decide all matters in reference to the cult and the sacred sanctuaries of the people. According to his own will, and for political reasons, he established the new national sanctuary at Bethel, and another at Dan. At both shrines he caused Yahweh to be worshipped under the image of a calf, which was to constitute a paganizing opposition to the Ark of the Covenant on Mt. Zion, even if it was the idea that Yahweh, the God of the Covenant, was to be worshipped in these new images. In doing this, the king followed ancient national customs, which had broken with the purity of the Mosaic religion (concerning image worship in Daniel we have beard before. See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GOLDEN+CALF">GOLDEN CALF</A>). His sojourn in Egypt, too, where he had lived as a fugitive, had doubtless furnished the king incentives in this direction. He created a priesthood that was submissive to his wishes, and disregarded the opposition of the few prophets who protested against the policy of the king. His successors, too, walked "in the ways of Jeroboam." The independent prophets, however, did not die out, but, rather, prophecy developed its greatest activity in this very Northern Kingdom. As a rule, in its work it stood in opposition to the government, but at times it succeeded in gaining the recognition of the rulers.<P>Omri.<P>The earliest times of the divided kingdoms are, from a political point of view, characterized by the fact that the kingdoms on the Euphrates and the Tigris, namely Assyria and Babylon, still had enough to do with themselves, and did not yet make any inroads into the Mediterranean lands; but, rather, it was the Syrians who first caused a good deal of trouble to the Northern Kingdom. Jeroboam did not succeed in rounding a dynasty. Already his son Nadab was eliminated by a usurper Baasha. The latter\'s son too, Elah, was murdered, after a reign of two years. It was not, however, his murderer Zimri, or Tibni, who strove to secure the kingdom. for himself, but Omri who became king (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',16,\'1-\');">1Ki 16</a>), and who also attained to such prominence abroad that the cuneiform inscriptions for a long time after call Israel "the land of Omri." His ability as a ruler was seen in the fact that the establishment of Samaria as the capital city was his work. The inscription on the Mesha stone reports that he also established the sovereignty of Israel vigorously on the east side of the Jordan.<P>Ahab.<P>His son Ahab, too, was an energetic and brave ruler, who succeeded in gaining a number of victories over the Syrians, who were now beginning to assume the offensive in a determined manner. Then, too, he was politic enough to win over to his interests the kingdom of Judah, with which his predecessors had lived in almost constant warfare. In this policy he succeeded, because the noble and large-hearted king Jehoshaphat was more receptive to such fraternal relations than was good for him. An expedition jointly undertaken by these two kings against Syria brought Jehoshaphat into extreme danger and ended with the death of Ahab.<P>Ahab\'s fate was his wife Jezebel, the daughter of the Phoenician king Ethbaal (Ithobal, according to Josephus, Ant, VIII, xiii, 2 and Apion, I, 18), who had been a priest of Astarte. This intermarriage with a fanatical heathen family brought untold and endless misfortune over all Israel. This bold and scheming woman planned nothing less than the overthrow of the religion of Yahweh, and the substitution for it of the Baal and the Astarte cult. As a first step she succeeded in having the king tolerate this religion. The leading temple in the new resident city, Samaria, was dedicated to the Baal cult. Already this introduction of a strange and lascivious ethnic religion was a great danger to the religion and the morals of the people. Hosts of Baal priests, ecstatic dervishes, traversed the country. Soon the queen undertook to persecute the faithful worshippers of Yahweh. The fact that these men protested against the tolerance of this foreign false religion was interpreted as disobedience on their part to the king. Many faithful prophets were put to death. At this critical period, when the existence of the religion of Yahweh was at stake, the prophet Elijah, the Tishbite, appeared on the stage, and through a bitter struggle reestablished the worship of Yahweh. However, the fateful influence that this woman exerted was thereby not yet destroyed. It extended to Judah also.<P>Rehoboam.<P>In the kingdom of Judah, apart from the apostasy of different tribes, which left him only the vigorous tribe of Judah and portions of Benjamin, Dan, Simeon, and Levi, Rehoboam experienced also other calamities, namely, a destructive invasion and tribute imposition by King Shishak of Egypt (Egyptian Sheshonk, founder of the XXIId Dynasty; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,25);">1Ki 14:25</a>f; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',12,2);">2Ch 12:2</a>ff). While under Solomon the relations of Israel to the Egyptian court had in the beginning been very friendly, this was changed when a new dynasty came to the throne. After Jeroboam had failed in his first revolutionary project, he had found refuge at the court of Shishak (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,40);">1Ki 11:40</a>). It is possible that Jeroboam made the Egyptian king lustful for the treasures of Jerusalem. The Egyptians did not, as a matter of fact, stop at the Ephraimitic boundaries, but in part also invaded the territory of Jeroboam; but their chief objective was Jerusalem, from which they carried away the treasures that had been gathered by Solomon. On the temple wall of Karnak this Pharaoh has inscribed the story of this victory and booty. From the names of the cities found in this inscription, we learn that this expedition extended as far as Megiddo and Taanach.<P>Abijah.<P>Rehoboam was succeeded by his son Abijah, or Abijahu, according to Chronicles (the Abijam of Kings is hardly correct). He ruled only 3 years. But even during this short reign he was compelled to engage in a severe struggle with Jeroboam (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,6);">1Ki 15:6</a>; see details in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,\'1-\');">2Ch 13</a>).<P>Asa.<P>In every respect the reign of the God-fearing Asa, who sought to destroy the heathenism that had found its way into the cult, was more fortunate. He also experienced Yahweh\'s wonderful help when the Cushite Zerah made an incursion into his land (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',14,8);">2Ch 14:8</a>), i.e. probably Osorkon I, who, however, did not belong to an Ethiopian dynasty. Possibly he is called an Ethiopian because he came into the country with Nubian troops. Less honorable was his conduct in the conflict with Baasha. When he was sorely pressed by the latter he bought, through the payment of a large tribute, the assistance of the Syrian king, Ben-hadad I, who up to this time had been an ally of Baasha. This bribing of foreigners to fight against their own covenant people, which was afterward often repeated, was rebuked by a bold prophet in the presence of the pious king, but the prophet was compelled to suffer abuse for his open testimony (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',16,7);">2Ch 16:7</a>).<P>Jehoshaphat.<P>A much more noble conduct characterized the dealings of Jehoshaphat in relation to the Northern Kingdom. His fault was that he entered too fully into the selfish offers of friendship made by Ahab. The worst step was that, in order to confirm his covenant, he took for his son Jehoram as wife, Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel. Jehoshaphat was a chivalrous ally, who also joined Ahab\'s son, Jehoram, in a dangerous war against the Moabites; as this people under their king Mesha had made themselves free from Israel and had taken the offensive against them. For the inner affairs of the kingdom his reign was more fortunate. He was a Godfearing and an energetic prince, who did much to elevate the people in a material and a religious way and perfected its political organization. Nor did he fail to secure some noteworthy successes. However, the fact that the warning words of the prophets who rebuked him because of his alliance with the half-heathenish house of Omri were not the fanatical exaggerations of pessimistic seers, appears at once after his death.<P>Jehoram.<P>His son Jehoram, after the manner of oriental despots, at once caused his brothers to be put to death, of which doubtless his wife Athaliah was the cause. This woman transplanted the policy of Jezebel to Judah, and was scheming for the downfall of the house of David and its sanctuary. Under Jehoram the power of Judah accordingly began to sink rapidly. Edom became independent. The Philistines and the Arabians sacked Jerusalem. Even the royal princes, with the exception of Ahaziah, the youngest son of Athaliah, were expelled. When the latter ascended the throne she had the absolute power in her hands.<P>Jehu.<P>During this time the judgment over the house of Omri was fast approaching. The avenger came in the person of the impetuous Jehu, who had been anointed king by one of the disciples of Elisha in the camp of Ramoth in Gilead. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,16);">1Ki 19:16</a>, the order had already been given to Elijah to raise this man to the throne; but the compliance with this command appears to have been delayed. As soon as Jehu became aware that he was entrusted with this mission, he hastened to Jezreel, where Ahaziah, king of Judah, was just paying a visit to Jehoram, and slew them both. With heartless severity he extended this slaughter, not only to all the members of the house of Omri, together with Jezebel, but also to those numerous members of the Davidic royal house who fell into his hands. He likewise destroyed the adherents of Baal, whom he had invited to their death in their sanctuary at Samaria. Deserved as this judgment upon the house of Jeroboam was (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,30);">2Ki 10:30</a>), which Jehu, according to higher command, carried out, he did this in an unholy mind and with hardness and ambitious purpose. The puritanical Rechabites had sanctioned his action; but as more and more the true character of Jehu began to reveal itself, he lost the sympathies of the pious, and Hosea announced to his house the vengeance for his bloody crimes at Jezreel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',1,4);">Ho 1:4</a>).<P>The Assyrians.<P>In Jehu\'s reign occurred the inroads toward the West on the part of the Assyrians. This people already in the time of Ahab, under their king, Shalmaneser II, had forced their way as far as Karkar on the Orontes, and had there fought a battle in 854 with the Syrians and their allies, among whom Ahab is also mentioned, with 2,000 chariots and 10,000 soldiers. If this is really Ahab, the king of Israel, which is denied by some, then he, at that time, fought against Assyria in conjunction with the Syrians, who otherwise had been so bitterly attacked by him. The Assyrians boast of this victory, but seem to have won it at a heavy price, as they did not press on farther westward. When in 842 Shalmaneser came a second time, Jehu was certainly not among the allies of the Syrians. The Assyrians do not seem, on this occasion, to have been opposed by so powerful a league, and were able to attack the Syrians whom they conquered at Saniru (Hermon, Anti-Lebanon) in a much more determined manner. They laid siege to Damascus and laid waste the surrounding country. The Hauran and Bashan were made a desert. In their march of victory they pressed forward as far as the Mediterranean. Phoenicia and other countries brought tribute. Among these nations Shalmaneser expressly mentions Jahua ("Jehu, the son of Omri" (!)), who was compelled to deliver up gold and silver bars and other valuable possessions. But this expensive homage on the part of Jehu did not help much. Shalmaneser came only once more (839) into this neighborhood. After this the Assyrians did not appear again for a period of 35 years. All the more vigorously did the Syrians and other neighboring people make onslaughts on Israel. How fearfully they devasted Israel appears from <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,\'1-\');">Am 1</a>.<P>Jehoahaz.<P>Under his son Jehoahaz the weakness of Israel became still greater. In his helplessness, the Lord finally sent him a deliverer (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',13,3);">2Ki 13:3</a>). This deliverer was none other than the Assyrian king, Adad-nirari III (812-783), who, through a military incursion, had secured anew his supremacy over Western Asia, and had besieged the king of Damascus and had forced him to pay an immense tribute. In this way Israel, which had voluntarily rendered submission to him, was relieved of its embarrassment by the weakening of Syria.<P>Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz, experienced more favorable conditions. He also conquered Amaziah, the king of Judah; and his son, Jeroboam II, even succeeded in restoring the old boundaries of the kingdom, as the prophet Jonah had predicted (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,24);">2Ki 14:24</a>). His reign was the last flourishing period of the kingdom of Ephraim.<P>See, further, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ISRAEL,+KINGDOM+OF">ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF</a>.<P>Athaliah.<P>The kingdom of Judah, in the meanwhile, had passed through severe crises. The most severe was caused by that Athaliah, who, after the murder of her son Ahaziah by Jehu, had secured absolute control in Jerusalem, and had abused this power in order to root out the family of David. Only one son of the king, Joash, escaped with his life. He, a boy of one year, was hidden in the temple by a relative, where the high priest Jehoiada, who belonged to the party opposed to the heathen-minded queen, concealed him for a period of 6 years. When the boy was 7 years old Jehoiada, at a well-timed moment, proclaimed him king. His elevation to the throne, in connection with which event the terrible Athaliah was put to death, introduced at the same time an energetic reaction against the heathendom that had found its way even into Judah, and which the queen had in every way favored. Joash was predestined to be a theocratic king. And, in reality, in the beginning of his reign of 40 years, he went hand in hand with the priests and the prophets of Yahweh. After Jehoiada\'s death, however, he tolerated idolatrous worship among the princes (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',24,17);">2Ch 24:17</a>), and by doing so came into conflict with the faithful prophet Zechariah, the son of his benefactor Jehoiada, who rebuked him for his wrong, and was even stoned. A just punishment for this guilt was recognized in the misfortune which overtook the king and his country. The Syrian king, Hazael, when he was engaged in an expedition against Gath, also took possession of Jerusalem and made it pay tribute, after having apparently inflicted a severe defeat on the people of Judah, on which occasion many princes fell in the battle and Joash himself was severely wounded. Toward the end of his reign there was also much dissatisfaction among his subjects, and some of his courtiers finally murdered him (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,20);">2Ki 12:20</a>f).<P>Amaziah.<P>However, his son Amaziah, who now ascended the throne, punished the murderers. The king was successful in war against the Edomites. This made him bold. He ventured to meet Joash, the king of Israel, in battle and was defeated and captured. The people of Judah suffered the deepest humiliation. A large portion of the walls of Jerusalem was torn down (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,11);">2Ki 14:11</a>). Amaziah did not feel himself safe even in his own capital city, because of the dissatisfaction of his own subjects, and he fled to Lachish. Here he was murdered. So deep had Judah fallen, while Jeroboam II succeeded in raising his kingdom to an unthought-of power.<P>Uzziah.<P>But for Judah a turn for the better soon set in under Uzziah, the same as Azariah in Kings, the son of Amaziah, who enjoyed a long and prosperous reign. 3. The Literary Prophets:<P>Prosperous as Israel outwardly appeared to be during the reigns of these two kings, Jeroboam II and Uzziah, the religious and moral conditions of the people were just as little satisfactory. This is the testimony Prophets of the prophets Amos and Hosea, as also of Isaiah and Micah, who not much later began their active ministry in Judah. It is indeed true that these were not the first prophets to put into written form some of their prophetic utterances. The prophecies of Obadiah and Joel are by many put at an earlier date, namely Obadiah under Jehoram in Judah, and Joel under Joash in Judah. At any rate, the discourses of the prophets from this time on constitute an important contemporaneous historical source. They illustrate especially the spiritual condition of the nation. Throughout these writings complaints are made concerning the heathen superstitions and the godless cult of the people, and especially the corruption in the administration of the laws, oppression of the poor and the helpless by the rich and the powerful, and pride and luxury of all kinds. In all these things the prophets see a terrible apostasy on Israel\'s part. But also the foreign policy of the different kings, who sought help, now of the one and then of the other of the world-powers (Egypt, Assyria), and tried to buy the favor of these nations, the prophets regarded as adultery with foreign nations and as infidelity toward Yahweh. As a punishment they announced, since all other misfortunes sent upon them had been of no avail, an invasion through a conqueror, whom Amos and Hosea always indicate shall be Assyria, and also deportations of the people into a heathen land, and an end of the Jewish state. Improbable as these threats may have seemed to the self-satisfied inhabitants of Samaria, they were speedily realized.<P>Successors of Jeroboam II<P>After the death of Jeroboam, the strength of the Northern Kingdom collapsed. His son Zechariah was able to maintain the throne for only 6 months, and his murderer Shallum only one month. The general Menahem, who put him out of the way, maintained himself as king for 10 years, but only by paying a heavy tribute to the Assyrian ruler Pul, i.e. Tiglath-pileser III, who ruled from 745-727 (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,19);">2Ki 15:19</a>f).<P>Pekah.<P>His son Pekahiah, on the other hand, soon fell by the hands of the murderer Pekah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,25);">2Ki 15:25</a>), who allied himself with Syria against Judah. The latter, however, invited the Assyrians to come into the country; and these, entering in the year 734 BC, put an end to the reign of this usurper, although he was actually put to death as late as 730 BC.<P>Hoshea.<P>The last king of the Northern Kingdom, Hoshea (730-722 BC), had the Assyrians to thank for his throne; but he did not keep his fidelity as a vassal very long. As soon as Tiglath-pileser was dead, he tried to throw off the Assyrian yoke. But his successor Shalmaneser IV (727-723 BC), who already in the first year of his reign had again subdued the rebellious king Elulaios of Syria, soon compelled Hoshea also to submit to his authority. Two years later Hoshea again joined a conspiracy with the Phoenicians against Assyria, in which they even counted on the help of the Egyptian king, who in the Bible is called So or Seve (Egyptian name is Shabaka). Now the Assyrians lost all patience. They at once came with their armies. Hoshea seems to have voluntarily submitted to the power of the Great King, who then made him a captive. The people, however, continued the struggle. Samaria, the capital city, was besieged, but did not fall until the 3rd year (722 BC) into the hands of the enemy. Shalmaneser, in the meanwhile, had died and Sargon II had become his successor. The city was indeed not destroyed, but a large portion of the inhabitants, especially the leaders, were deported and transplanted to Northern Mesopotamia and to Media. Sargon states that the number of deported Israelites was 27,290. Prominent persons from other cities were also doubtless to be included in those deported. On the other hand, the Assyrian king settled Babylonian and Syrian prisoners of war in Samaria (721 BC), and in the year 715 BC, Arabs also. But the country, to a great extent, continued in a state of desolation, so that Esar-haddon (680-668 BC) and Ashurbanipal (667-626 BC) sent new colonists there, the last-mentioned sending them from Babylonia, Persia and Media (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,24);">2Ki 17:24</a>ff). In these verses the Babylonian city of Cuthah is several times mentioned, on account of which city the Jews afterward called the Samaritans Cuthites. This report also makes mention of the religious syncretism, which of necessity resulted from the mixture of the people. But we must be careful not to place at too small figures the number of Israelites who remained in the country. It is a great exaggeration when it is claimed, as it is by Friedrich Delitzsch, that the great bulk of the inhabitants of the country of Samaria, or even of Galilee, was from this time on Babylonian.<P>Uzziah and Jotham.<P>The kingdom of Judah, however, outlived the danger from Assyria. As King Uzziah later in his life suffered from leprosy, he had Jotham as a co-regent during this period. The earliest discourses of Isaiah, which belong to this period (Isa <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,\'1-\');">3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',4,\'1-\');">4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,\'1-\');">5</a>), show that in Jerusalem the people were at that time still enjoying the fruits and prosperity of a long period of peace. But immediately after the death of Jotham, when the youthful Ahaz began to rule, the onslaught of the allied Syrians and Ephraimites took place under Rezin, or better Rezon, and Pekah. This alliance purposed to put an end to the Davidic reign in Jerusalem, probably for the purpose of making this people, too, a member of the league against the dangerous Assyrians. The good-sized army of Judah seems to have fallen a victim to the superior power of the allies before the situation described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,\'1-\');">Isa 7</a> could be realized, in which the siege of the city is described as already imminent. The Edomites also at that time advanced against Judah. Elath, the harbor city on the Red Sea, from which Uzziah, too, as had been done by Solomon long before, sent out trading vessels, at that time came into their power. For <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,6);">2Ki 16:6</a> probably speaks of Edom and not of Aram (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,17);">2Ch 28:17</a>). In his anxiety, Ahaz, notwithstanding the advice of Isaiah to the contrary, then appealed to the king of Assyria, and the latter actually put in his appearance in 734 BC and overcame the power of Syria and Ephraim, as we have seen above. However, the intervention of this world-power brought no benefit to Judah. Without this disgraceful appeal to a heathen ruler, Yahweh, according to the promise of Isaiah, would have protected Jerusalem, if Ahaz had only believed. And the Assyrians did not prevent the Philistines and the Edomites from falling upon Judah. The Assyrians themselves soon came to be the greatest danger threatening Judah. Ahaz, however, was an unstable character in religious affairs, and he copied heathen forms of worship, and even sacrificed his son to the angry sun-god, in order to gain his favor. The tribute that the people had to pay to Assyria was already a heavy burden on this little kingdom.<P>Hezekiah.<P>His noble and God-fearing son, Hezekiah (724-696 BC), was also compelled to suffer from the consequences of this misgovernment. The temptation was great to enter into an alliance with his neighbors and the Egyptians, so strong in cavalry, for the purpose of ridding Judah of the burdensome yoke of the Assyrians. In vain did Isaiah warn against such unworthy self-help. At the advice of the ministers of Hezekiah, and because of the trust put in Egypt, the tribute was finally refused to the Assyrians. Hezekiah also sought to establish closer connections with Merodachbaladan, the king of Babylon and the enemy of the Assyrians, when the latter, after a dangerous sickness of the king, had sent messengers to Jerusalem in order to congratulate him on the restoration of his health. This story, found in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',20,\'1-\');">2Ki 20</a>, belongs chronologically before <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,13);">2Ki 18:13</a>ff, and, more accurately, in the 14th year of Hezekiah mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,13);">18:13</A>. However, the expedition of Sennacherib which is mistakenly placed in that year, took place several years later: according to the Assyrian monuments, in the year 701 BC.<P>Sennacherib.<P>In the year 702 BC Sennacherib, with a powerful army, marched over the Lebanon and subdued the rebellious Phoenicians, and marched along the seacoast to Philistia. The inhabitants of Ekron had sent their king, Padi, who sympathized with the Assyrians, to Hezekiah. Sennacherib came to punish Ekron and Ascalon. But he was particularly anxious to overpower Judah, which country his troops devastated and depopulated. Now Hezekiah recognized his danger, and offered to submit to Sennacherib. The latter accepted his submission conditionally on the payment of a burdensome tribute, which Hezekiah delivered faithfully (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,\'14-16\');">2Ki 18:14-16</a>). Then Sennacherib was no longer satisfied with the tribute alone, but sent troops who were to despoil Jerusalem. Isaiah, who surely had not sanctioned the falling away from the Assyrian supremacy and had prophesied that the inhabitants of Jerusalem would suffer a severe punishment, from that moment, when the conqueror had maliciously broken his word, spoke words of comfort and advised against giving up the city, no matter how desperate the situation seemed to be (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,1);">Isa 37:1</a>). The city was then not given up, and Sennacherib, on account of a number of things that occurred, and finally because of a pestilence which broke out in his army, was compelled to retreat. He did not return to Jerusalem, and later met his death by violent hands. This deliverance of Jerusalem through the miraculous providence of God was the greatest triumph of the prophet Isaiah. Within his kingdom Hezekiah ruled successfully. He also purified the cult from the heathen influences that had forced their way into it, and was a predecessor of Josiah in the abolition of the sacrifices on the high places, which had been corrupted by these influences.<P>Manasseh.<P>Unfortunately, his son Manasseh was little worthy of succeeding him. He, in every way, favored the idolatry which all along had been growing secretly. He inaugurated bloody persecutions of the faithful prophets of Yahweh. According to a tradition, which it must be confessed is not supported by undoubted testimony, Isaiah also, now an old man, became a victim of these persecutions. Images and altars were openly erected to Baal and Astarte. Even in the temple-house on Mt. Zion, an image of Astarte was standing. As a result of this ethnic cult, immorality and sensuality found their way among the people. At the same time the terrible service of Moloch, in the valley of Hinnom, demanded the sacrifice of children, and even a son of the king was given over to this worship. The Book of Chronicles, indeed, tells the story of a terrible affliction that Manasseh suffered, namely that an Assyrian general dragged him in chains to Babylon for having violated his promises to them, but that he was soon released. This is not at all incredible. He seems to have taken part in a rebellion, which the brother of the Assyrian king, who was also vice-king in Babylon, had inaugurated. This sad experience may have forced Manasseh to a certain kind of repentance, at least, so that he desisted from his worst sacrileges. But his son Amon continued the old ways of his father, until after a brief reign he was put to death.<P>Josiah.<P>Much more promising was his young son Josiah, who now, only 8 years old, came to the throne. It is quite possible that, in view of such frequent changes in the disposition of the successors to the throne, his mother may have had great influence on his character. Concerning Josiah, see <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,1);">2Ki 22:1</a>ff. With increasing clearness and consistency, he proceeded to the work of religious reformation. A special impetus to this was given by the finding of an old law book in the temple, the publication of which for the first time revealed the fearful apostasy of the times. The finding of this book in the temple, as narrated in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,3);">2Ki 22:3</a>ff, took place in connection with the restoration of that building on a larger scale, which at that time had been undertaken. And very probably Edouard Naville is right in believing, on the basis of Egyptian analogies, that this document had been imbedded in the foundation walls of the building. Whether this had been done already in the days of Solomon is not determined by this fact. From the orders of Josiah we can conclude that the book which was found was Deuteronomy, which lays special stress on the fact that there shall be a central place for the cult, and also contains such threats as those must have been which frightened Josiah. But under no circumstances was Deuteronomy a lawbook that had first been written at this time, or a fabrication of the priest Hilkiah and his helpers. It would rather have been possible that the discovered old law was rewritten in changed form after its discovery and had been adapted to the language of the times. The people were obliged to obey the newly-discovered law and were instructed in it.<P>Jeremiah.<P>The prophet Jeremiah also, who a few years before this had been called to the prophetic office, according to certain data in the text, participated in this proclamation of the law of the covenant throughout the land. This change for the better did not change the tendency of his prophetic discourses, from what these had been from the beginning. He continued to be the accuser and the prophet of judgment, who declared that the destruction of the city and of the temple was near at hand. He looked too deeply into the inner corruption of his people to be misled by the external transformation that was the result of a command of the ruler. And only too soon did the course of events justify his prediction. With the person of the God-fearing Josiah, the devotion of the people to the law was also buried and the old curse everywhere broke out again.<P>The Chaldeans.<P>In a formal way Jeremiah was probably influenced by the incursions of the Scythians, which occurred during his youth, and who about this time marched from the plain of Jezreel toward Egypt (compare Herodotus i.103ff); which event also made a gloomy impression on his contemporary Ezekiel, as appears from his vision of Gog in the land of Magog. However, we are not to suppose that Jeremiah, when describing the enemy coming from the north, whom he saw from the time of his call to the prophetic office, meant merely this band of freebooters. The prophet had in mind a world-power after the type of the Assyrians, who always came from the north into Canaan. The Assyrians indeed were in process of disintegration, and Nineveh fell under the attacks of the Medes and the Persians in the year 607-606 BC. The heir of the Assyrian power was not Egypt, which was also striving for universal supremacy, but was the Babylonian, or rather, more accurately, the Chaldean dynasty of Nabopolassar, whose son Nebuchadnezzar had overpowered the Egyptians at Carchemish in 605 BC. From this time on Jeremiah had pointed out the Chaldeans and Nebuchadnezzar, who soon afterward became their king, as the agents to carry out the judgment on Jerusalem.<P>Already a few years before this Judah\'s good star had gone down on the horizon. When Pharaoh-necho II came to Palestine by the sea route, in order to march northeast through the plain of Jezreel, to give the final and fatal blow to the sinking kingdom of the Assyrians, King Josiah opposed him on the plain of Megiddo, probably because of his obligations as a vassal to the king of Assyria. In the battle of Megiddo (609 BC), Josiah was mortally wounded. No greater calamity could have befallen Judah than the death of this king, who was deeply mourned by all well-meaning people, and who was the last of the house of David that was a credit to it.<P>The Successors of Josiah.<P>By popular election the choice now fell on Jehoahaz, a younger son of Josiah, called by Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,11);">22:11</A>) Shallum. But he found no favor with Necho, who took him prisoner in his camp at Riblah and carried him to Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,30);">2Ki 23:30</a>). The Egyptian king himself selected Jehoiakim, hitherto called Eliakim, an older son of Josiah, who had been ignored by the people, to be king in Jerusalem, a prince untrue to Yahweh, conceited, luxury-loving and hard-hearted, who, in addition, through his perfidious policy, brought calamity upon the land. He formed a conspiracy against Nebuchadnezzar, to whom he had begun to pay tribute in the 5th year of his reign, and in this way brought it about that the Syrians, the Moabites and the Ammonites, who had taken sides with the Assyrians, devastated the land of Judah, and that finally the king of Babylon himself came to Jerusalem to take revenge. It is not clear what was the end of this king. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,6);">2Ch 36:6</a>, compared with <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,6);">2Ki 24:6</a>, he seems to have died while yet in Jerusalem, and after he had already fallen into the hands of his enemies. His son Jehoiachin did not experience a much better fate. After ruling three months he was taken to Babylon, where he was a prisoner for 37 years, until he was pardoned (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,8);">2Ki 24:8</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,27);">25:27</a>). Together with Jehoiachin, the best portion of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, about 10,000 men, especially the smiths and the builders, were deported.<P>Zedekiah, the Last King of Judah.<P>Once more the Babylonians set up a king in Jerusalem in the person of Zedekiah, an uncle of Jehoiachin, and accordingly a son of Josiah, called Mattaniah, who afterward was called Zedekiah. He governed for twelve years (597-586 BC), and by his life, morally and religiously corrupt, sealed the fate of the house and of the kingdom of David. The better class among the leading and prominent people had been banished. As a result, the courtiers of the king urged him to try once again some treacherous schemes against the Babylonian rulers and to join Egypt in a conspiracy against them. However earnestly Jeremiah and Ezekiel warned against this policy, Zedekiah nevertheless constantly yielded to his evil advisers and to the warlike patriotic party, who were determined to win back in battle the independence of the country. While he at first, through an embassy, had assured the Great King of his loyalty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',29,3);">Jer 29:3</a>), and still in the 4th year of his reign had personally visited in Babylon as a mark of his fidelity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,59);">Jer 51:59</a>), he was induced in the 9th year of his reign to make an alliance with the Egyptians against the Babylonians and to refuse to render obedience to the latter. Nebuchadnezzar soon came and surrounded the city. At the announcement that an Egyptian army was approaching, the siege was again raised for a short time. But the hope placed by Zedekiah on his ally failed him. The Babylonians began again to starve out the city. After a siege of 18 months, resistance proved futile. The king tried secretly to break through the circle of besiegers, but in doing so was taken prisoner, was blinded by the Babylonian king and taken to Babylon. The majority of the prominent men and state officials, who were taken to the encampment of the conqueror in Riblah, were put to death. The conquered city of Jerusalem, especially its walls and towers, together with the temple, were totally destroyed. Nearly all the inhabitants who could be captured after the slaughter were dragged into captivity, and only people of the lower classes were left behind in order to cultivate the land (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,11);">2Ki 25:11</a>). Gedaliah, a noble-minded aristocrat, was appointed governor of the city, and took up his residence in Mizpah. At this place it seemed that a new kernel of the people was being gathered. Jeremiah also went there. However, after two months this good beginning came to an end. Gedaliah was slain by Ishmael, the son of Nethaniah, an anti-Chaldaean, a fanatical and revengeful descendant of the house of David. The murderer acted in cooperation with certain Ammonitish associates and fled to the king of Ammon. The Jews in later times considered the murder of Gedaliah as an especially great national calamity, and fasted on the anniversary of this crime. And as the people also feared the revenge of the Babylonians, many migrated to Egypt, compelling Jeremiah, now an old man, to accompany them, although he prophesied to them that no good would come of this scheme. They first stayed at the border city Tahpanhes, near Pelusium, and then scattered over Upper and Lower Egypt.<P>VI. Time of the Babylonian Exile.<P>1. Influence of the Exile:<P>The inhabitants of Judah, who had been deported by Nebuchadnezzar at different times, were settled by him in Babylonia, e.g. at the river Chebar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,1);">Eze 1:1</a>), near the city of Nippur. From Hilprecht\'s excavations of this city, it has been learned that this river, or branch of the Euphrates Influence river, is to be found at this place, and of the is not to be confounded with the river Chaboras. In the same way, the many contract-tablets with Jewish names which have been found at Nippur, show that a large Jewish colony lived at that place. Of the fate of these banished Jews for a period of 50 years, we hear almost nothing. But it is possible to learn what their condition was in exile from the Book of Ezekiel and the 2nd part of Isaiah. Land was assigned to them here, and they were permitted to build houses for themselves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',29,5);">Jer 29:5</a>), and could travel around this district without restraint. They were not prisoners in the narrow sense of the word. They soon, through diligence and skill in trade, attained to considerable wealth, so that most of them, after the lapse of half a century, were perfectly satisfied and felt no desire to return home. For the spiritual development of the people the exile proved to be a period of great importance. In the first place, they were separated from their native soil, and in this way from many temptations of heathenism and idolatry, and the like. The terrible judgment that had come over Jerusalem had proved that the prophets had been right, who had for a long time, but in vain, preached genuine repentance. This did not prove to be without fruit (of <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',1,6);">Zec 1:6</a>). While living in the heathen land, they naturally became acquainted with heathendom in a more crass form. But even if many of the Jews were defiled by it, in general the relations of the Israelites toward the idol-worshipping Babylonians were antagonistic, and they became all the more zealous in the observance of those religious rites which could be practiced in a foreign land, such as rest on the Sabbath day, the use of meats, circumcision, and others. But with marked zeal the people turned to the spiritual storehouse of their traditions, namely their sacred literature. They collected the laws, the history, the hymns, and treasured them. It was also a noteworthy progress that such prophets as Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Daniel received prophetic visions while on heathen soil. The people also learned that the heathen, in the midst of whom they lived, became receptive of the higher truths of Israel\'s religion. Especially does the 2nd part of Isaiah, chapters 40-66, show that they began to understand the missionary calling of Israel among the nations of the world.<P>2. Daniel:<P>The Book of Daniel reports how a God-fearing and law-abiding Jew, through his prophecies, attained to prominent positions of influence at the courts of different rulers. From the Book of Ezekiel we learn that the prophets and the elders cared for the spiritual wants of the people, and that they held meetings, at which indeed it was not permitted to offer sacrifices, but at which the word of Yahweh was proclaimed. Here we find the beginnings of what afterward was the synagogue-system.<P>3. Elephantine Papyri:<P>A remarkable picture of the Jewish diaspora in Upper Egypt is furnished by recently discovered papyri at Elephantine. From these it appears that in the 6th century BC, not only a large and flourishing Jewish colony was to be found at this place, but also that they had erected here a fine temple to Yahweh where they brought their sacrifices to which they had been accustomed at home. In an Aramaic letter, still preserved and dating from the year 411 BC, and which is addressed to the governor Bagohi, in Judea, these Jews complain that their temple in Yeb (Elephantine, near Syene) had been destroyed in the same year. It also states that this temple had been spared on one occasion by Cambyses, who was in Egypt from 525 to 521 BC. The answer of Bagohi also has been preserved, and he directs that the temple is to be built again and that meal offerings and incense are again to be introduced. Probably intentionally, mention in this letter is made only of the unbloody sacrifices, while in the first letter burnt sacrifices also are named. The sacrifices of animals by the Jews would probably have aroused too much the anger of the devotees of the divine ram, which was worshipped at Syene. Up to the present time we knew only of the much later temple of the high priest Onias IV at Leontopolis (160 BC). Compare Josephus, Ant, XII, iii, 1-3; BJ, VII, x,2,3.<P>VII. Return from the Exile and the Restoration.<P>1. Career of Cyrus:<P>In the meanwhile there was a new re-adjustment of political supremacy among the world-powers. The Persian king, Koresh (Cyrus), first made himself free from the supremacy of Media which, after the capture of the city Ecbatana, became a part of his own kingdom (549 BC). At that time Nabonidus was the king in Babylon (555-538 BC), who was not displeased at the collapse of the kingdom of the Medes, but soon learned that the new ruler turned out to be a greater danger to himself, as Cyrus subjugated, one after the other, the smaller kingdoms in the north. But Nabonidus was too unwarlike to meet Cyrus. He confined himself to sending his son with an army to the northern boundaries of his kingdom. On the other hand, the king of the Lydians, Croesus, who was related by marriage to King Astyages, who had been subdued by Cyrus, began a war with Cyrus, after he had formed an alliance with Egypt and Sparta. In the year 546 BC, he crossed the river Halys. Cyrus approached from the Tigris, and in doing so already entered Babylonian territory, conquered Croesus, took his capital city Sardis, and put an end to the kingdom of Lydia. The pious Israelites in captivity, under the tutelage of Deutero-Isaiah, watched these events with the greatest of interest. For the prophet taught them from the beginning to see in this king "the deliverer," who was the instrument of Yahweh for the return of the Israelites out of captivity, and of whom the prophets had predicted. And this expectation was fulfilled with remarkable rapidity. The victorious and aggressive king of Persia could now no longer be permanently checked, even by the Babylonians. It was in vain that King Nabonidus had caused the images of the gods from many of his cities to be taken to Babylon, in order to make the capital city invincible. This city opened its doors to the Persian commander Ugbaru (Gobryas) in 538 BC, and a few months later Cyrus himself entered the city. This king, however, was mild and conciliatory in his treatment of the people and the city. He did not destroy the city, but commanded only that a portion of the walls should be razed. However, the city gradually, in the course of time, became ruins.<P>Cyrus also won the good will and favor of the subjugated nations by respecting their religions. He returned to their shrines the idols of Nabonidus, that had been taken away. But he was particularly considerate of the Jews, who doubtless had complained to him of their fate and had made known to him their prophecies regarding him as the coming deliverer.<P>2. First Return under Zerubbable:<P>In the very first year of his reign over Babylon he issued an edict (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,22);">2Ch 36:22</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',1,1);">Ezr 1:1</a>) that permitted the Jews to return home, with the command that they should again erect their temple. For this purpose he directed that the temple-vessels, which Nebuchadnezzar had taken away with him, should be returned to them, and commanded that those Israelites who voluntarily remained in Babylon should contribute money for the restoration of the temple. At the head of those to be returned stood Sheshbazzar, who is probably identical with Zerubbabel, although this is denied by some scholars; and also the high priest, Joshua, a grandson of the high priest, Seraiah, who had been put to death by Nebuchadnezzar. They were accompanied by only a small part of those in exile, that is by 42,360 men and women and children, male and female servants, especially from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, but of the last-mentioned tribes more priests than other Levites. After several months they safely arrived in Palestine, probably 537 BC. Some of them settled down in Jerusalem, and others in surrounding cities and villages. They erected the altar for burnt sacrifices, so that they were again able in the 7th month to sacrifice on it.<P>(1) Building the temple.<P>The cornerstone of the temple was also solemnly laid at that time in the 2nd year of the Return (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,8);">Ezr 3:8</a>).<P>(2) Haggai and Zechariah.<P>But the erection of the temple must have been interrupted in a short time, since it was not until the 2nd year of Darius (520 BC), at the urgent appeal of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, that the work of building was energetically prosecuted. For this reason many scholars deny this cornerstone-laying in the year 536 BC. However, it still remains thinkable that several attempts were made at this work, since the young colony had many difficulties to contend with. Then, too, the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah, which have been worked over by the author of Chronicles, report the history of these times only in parts. The historical value of these literary sources has been confirmed by those Aramaic papyri found in Upper Egypt.<P>3. Ezra and Nehemiah:<P>In the year 516 BC, after 4 years of building, the temple was completed and dedicated. After this we have no information for a period of 58 years. Then we learn that Ezra, the scribe, in the 7th year of Artaxerxes I (458 BC), came with a new caravan of about 1,500 men with women and children from Babylon to the Holy Land. He had secured from the king the command to establish again in the land of the Jews the law, in which he was a prominent expert, and he tried to do this by earnest admonitions and instructive discourses addressed to the people. The acme of the activity of Ezra was the meeting of the people described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,\'1-\');">Ne 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,\'1-\');">9</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,\'1-\');">10</a> on the Feast of the Tabernacles, on which occasion the entire nation solemnly came under obligation to observe the law. According to the present position of these chapters this act took place in 444 BC; but it is probable that it happened before the arrival of Nehemiah, whose name would accordingly have to be eliminated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,9);">8:9</a>. This pericope would then belong to the memoirs of Ezra and not to those of Nehemiah. After some years there came to help Ezra in his work, Nehemiah, a pious Jew, who was a cupbearer to the king, and at his own request was granted leave of absence in order to help the city of Jerusalem, which he had heard was in dire straits. Its walls were in ruins, as the neighboring nations had been able to hinder their rebuilding, and even those walls of the city that had been hastily restored, had again been pulled down. Nehemiah came in the year 445-444 BC from Shushan to Jerusalem and at once went energetically to work at rebuilding the walls. Notwithstanding all oppositions and intrigues of malicious neighbors, the work was successfully brought to a close.<P>The hostile agitations, in so far as they were not caused by widespread envy and hatred of the Jews among the neighboring peoples, had a religious ground. Those who returned, as the people of Yahweh, held themselves aloof from the peoples living round about them, especially from the mixed peoples of Samaria. Samaria was the breeding-place for this hostility against Jerusalem. The governor at that place, Sanballat, was the head of this hostile league. The Jews had declined to permit the Samaritans to cooperate in the erection of the temple and would have no religious communion with them. The Samaritans had taken serious offense at this, and they accordingly did all they could to prevent the building of the walls in Jerusalem, which would be a hindrance to their having access to the temple. But Nehemiah\'s trust in God and his energy overcame this obstacle. The policy of exclusiveness, which Ezra and Nehemiah on this occasion and at other times followed out, evinces a more narrow mind than the preexilic prophets had shown. In the refusal of intermarriage with the people living around them they went beyond the Mosaic law, for they even demanded that those marriages, which the Israelites had already contracted with foreign women, should be dissolved. But this exclusiveness was the outcome of legal conscientiousness, and at this period it was probably necessary for the selfpreservation of the people of Yahweh.<P>Malachi.<P>From the prophecies of Malachi, who was almost a contemporary of the two mentioned, it can be seen that the marriages with the foreign women had also brought with them a loosening of even the most sacred family ties (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',2,14);">Mal 2:14</a>f). After an absence of 12 years, Nehemiah again returned to Shushan to the court; and when he later returned to Jerusalem he was compelled once more to inaugurate a stringent policy against the lawlessness which was violating the sanctity of the temple and of the Sabbath commandment. He also expelled a certain Manasseh, a grandson of the high priest, who had married a daughter of Sanballat. This Manasseh, according to Josephus (Ant., XI, viii, 2), erected the sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim, and established the priesthood at that place. This is no doubt correct. These accounts of Josephus are often combined without cause with the times of Alexander the Great, although they transpired about 110 years earlier.<P>The history of the Jews in the last decades of the Persian rule is little known. Under Artaxerxes III (Ochus), they were compelled to suffer much, when they took part in a rebellion of the Phoenicians and Cyprians. Many Jews were at that time banished to Hyrcania on the southern coast of the Caspian Sea. The Persian general, Bagoses, came to Jerusalem and forced his way even into the temple (Josephus, Ant, XI, vii, 1). He undertook to install as high priest, in the place of John (Jochanan), his brother Joshua (Jesus). The latter, however, was slain by the former in the temple. For the first time the office of the high priest appears as more of a political position, something that it never was in the preexilic times, and according to the law was not to be.<P>VIII. The Jews under Alexander and His Successors.<P>1. Spread of Hellenism:<P>As the Jews were then tired of the rule of the priests, they were not dissatisfied with the victorious career of Alexander the Great. He appears to have assumed a friendly attitude toward them, even if the story reported by Josephus (Ant., XI, viii, 4) is scarcely historical. The successors of Alexander were also, as a rule, tolerant in religious matters. But for political and geographical reasons, Palestine suffered severely in these times, as it lay between Syria and Egypt, and was an object of attack on the part of both the leading ruling families in this period, the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucids in Syria. At the same time Hellenism, which had been so powerfully advanced by Alexander as a factor of civilization and culture, penetrated the land of Israel also. Greek culture and language spread soon in Palestine and in many places was supreme. The more strict adherents of Judaism recognized in this a danger to the Mosaic order of life and religion, and all the more zealously they now adhered to the traditional ordinances. These were called the chacidhim, or the Pious (Hasidaioi, 1Macc 2:42; 7:13; 2Macc 14:6). The world-transforming Hellenistic type of thought spread especially among the aristocrats and the politically prominent, and even found adherents among the priests, while the chacidhim belonged to the less conspicuous ranks of the people.<P>2. The Hasmoneans:<P>A struggle for life and death was caused between these two tendencies by the Syrian king, Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), into whose hands the sovereignty of Palestine had fallen. He undertook nothing less than to root out the hated Jewish religion. In the year 168 BC he commanded that the temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem should be dedicated to the Olympian Jupiter and forbade most stringently the observance of the Sabbath and circumcision. A large portion of the people did not resist his oppression, but adapted themselves to this tyrannical heathendom. Others suffered and died as martyrs. Finally in the year 167 BC a priest, Mattathias, gave the signal for a determined resistance, at the head of which stood his brave sons, the Hasmoneans, or Maccabees. First his son Judas undertook the leadership of the faithful. He succeeded in freeing Jerusalem from the Syriansú He restored the temple on Mt. Zion. The temple was dedicated anew and was given over to the old cult. After a number of victorious campaigns, Judas Maccabeus died the death of a hero in 161 BC. His brother, Jonathan, who took his place at the head of the movement, tried to secure the independence of the land rather through deliberate planning than through military power. He assumed, in addition to his secular power, also the high-priestly dignity. After his death by violence in 143 BC, he was succeeded by his brother Simon as the bearer of this double honor. The Hasmoneans, however, rapidly became worldly minded and lost the sympathies of the chasidhim. The son of Simon, John Hyrcanus (135-106 BC), broke entirely with the Pious, and his family, after his death, came to an end in disgraceful struggles for power. The rule of the land fell into the hands of Herod, a tyrant of Idumean origin, who was supported by the Romans. From 37 BC he was the recognized king of Judah.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ASMONEANS">ASMONEANS</A>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=MACCABEES">MACCABEES</a>.<P>IX. The Romans.<P>1. Division of Territory:<P>After the death of Herod (4 BC), the kingdom, according to his last will, was to be divided among his three sons. Archelaus received Judea; Antipas, Galilee and Peraea; Philip, the border lands in the north. However, Archelaus was soon deposed by the Romans (6 AD), and Judea was made a part of the province of Syria, but was put under a special Roman procurator, who resided in Caesarea. These procurators (of whom the best known was Pontius Pilate, 26-36 AD), had no other object than to plunder the land and the people.<P>2. Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans:<P>In this way a conflict was gradually generated between the people and their oppressors, which ended with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. As early as 40 AD this rupture almost took place, when the Syrian legate Petronius, at the command of Caligula, undertook to place a statue of the emperor in the temple of Jerusalem. On this occasion King Agrippa I, who was again ruling the whole territory of Herod, succeeded in adjusting the conflict. His son Agrippa II was given a much smaller kingdom (40-100 AD). He, too, sought to prevent the people from undertaking a struggle with the Romans, but in vain. By his unscrupulous treatment of the people, the procurator Gessius Florus drove the Jews into an insurrection. The party of the Zealots gained the upper hand. Florus was compelled to leave Jerusalem (66 AD). Even the good-sized army which Cestius Gallus commanded could not get control of the city, but was completely overpowered by the Jews on its retreat at Bethhoron. Now the entire country rose in rebellion. The Romans, under the leadership of Vespasian, advanced with considerable power and first conquered Galilee, then under Josephus (67 AD). In Jerusalem, in the meanwhile, different parties of the Jews were still fighting each other. Titus, the son of Vespasian, took the chief command after Vespasian had already conquered the East Jordan country and the western coast, but had hastened to Rome in order to become emperor. Titus completely surrounded the city a few days before the Passover festival in the year 70. On the northern side the Romans first broke through the first and newest city wall, and after that the second. The third offered a longer resistance, and at the same time famine wrought havoc in Jerusalem. At last the battle raged about the temple, during which this structure went up in flames. According to the full description by Josephus (BJ, VI, iv, 3ff), Titus tried to prevent the destruction of the temple; according to Sulpicius Severus (Chron. II, 20), however, this destruction was just what he wanted. A few fortified places yet maintained themselves after the fall of Jerusalem, e.g. Macherus in the East Jordan country, but they could not hold out very long.<P>Later Insurrection of Bar-Cochba.<P>Once again the natural ambition for independence burst out in the insurrection of Bar-Cochba (132-35 AD). Pious teachers of the law, especially Rabbi Akiba, had enkindled this fire, in order to rid the country of the rule of the Gentiles. However, notwithstanding some temporary successes, this insurrection was hopeless. Both the city and the country were desolated by the enraged Romans still more fearfully, and were depopulated still more than in 70. From that time Jerusalem was lost to the Jews. They lived on without a country of their own, without any political organization, without a sanctuary, in the Diaspora among the nations.<P>3. Spiritual Life of the Period:<P>The spiritual and religious life of the Jews during the period preceding the dissolution of the state was determined particularly by the legalistic character of their ideals and their opposition to Hellenism. Their religion had become formalistic to a great extent since their return from the exile. The greatest emphasis was laid on obedience to the traditional ordinances, and these latter were chiefly expositions of ceremonial usurpers.<P>Appearance of Jesus Christ.<P>The crown of the history of Israel-Judah was the appearance of Jesus Christ. Looked at superficially, it may indeed appear as though His person and His life had but little affected the development of the national history of Israel. However, more closely viewed, we shall see that this entire history has its goal in Him and finds its realization in Him. After full fruit had developed out of this stock, the latter withered and died. He was to be the bearer of salvation for all mankind.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The earliest historian of Israel was the Jew, Flavius Josephus, in the 1st Christian century. His example found few followers in the early church, and we mention only the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus. The subject is handled theologically by Augustine in his De Civitate Dei. It was only in the 17th century that a keen interest was awakened in this subject. Compare especially James Usher, Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti, London, 1605; J.B. Bousset, Discours sur l\'histoire universelie, Paris, 1681; Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and the New Testament Connected in the History of the Jews and Neighboring Nations, 2 volumes, London, 1716; S. Shukford, The Sacred and Profane History of the World Connected, London,1727,this work treating the subject apologetically against the Deists. Compare also J. Saurin, Discours historiques, Amsterdam, 1720. Cocceius and his school systematized this history on the basis of their theological tenets, e.g. Gurtler, Systema theol. prophetica, Frankfurt, 1724. More systematic is the work of Vitringa, Hypothesis historiae et chronologiae sacrae, Frankfurt, 1708. The Lutheran church furnished the excellent work of Franz Budde, Historia Eccles. Veteris Testamenti, Jena, 1715. In the 18th century, Bengel\'s school furnished some good histories of Israel, such as M.F. Roos\'s Einleitung in die bibl. Geschichte, 1700. More popular is the work of J.J. Hess. The best Catholic work from this time is J. Jahn\'s Archaeologie, 1802; while the Rationalistic period furnished Lorenz Bauer\'s Geschichte der hebr. Nation, 1800. In the 19th century the rationalistic and the conservative tendencies run parallel, and a new impulse was given to the study of this history by the phenomenal archaeological finds in Egypt and in Assyria and Babylon. Critical reconstruction of Israel\'s history characterizes the works of Reuss, Graf, Kuenen, Wellhausen. Other works of prominence are the Geschichte des Volkes Gottes, by Ewald; Kurtz, Geschichte des alten Bundes (these are translated); Hitzig, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, with critical tendency. The work of August Koehler, Lehrbuch der biblischen Geschichte, Altes Testament, is positive, while Wellhausen\'s Geschichte Israels is a classic of the advanced school. Other works mostly critical are the histories of Renan, Kuenen, Stade, Winckler, Piepenbring, Cornill, Guthe, Cheyne, and others. Kittel\'s Geschichte der Hebreier (translated) is more moderate in tone. For the New Testament the richest storehouse is Schurer\'s Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (translated); Hausrath\'s Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte is also good. From the Jewish standpoint this history has been treated by S. Friediander, Geschichte des Israel-Volkes; and J.M. Jost, Geschichte der Israelitch; Moritz Raphall, Post-biblical History of the Jews from the Close of the Old Testament till the Destruction of the Second Temple, in the Year 70.<P>Among English works may be especially mentioned Milman\'s History of the Jews and Stanley\'s Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, with smaller works by Ottley and others.<P>American works on the subject from the critical point of view are a History of the Hebrew People, by Kent, and a History of the Jewish People by Kent and Riggs in the "Historical Series for Bible Students," published by Messrs. Scribner. Compare also McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments; Toy, Judaism and Christianity; H.P. Smith, Old Testament History.``131';
|
|
isbe[4707]='Israel, Kingdom of`<p><b>I. THE FIRST PERIOD</b><P>1. The Two Kingdoms<P>2. The 1st Dynasty<P>3. The 2nd Dynasty<P>4. Civil War<P><b>II. PERIOD OF THE SYRIAN WARS</b><P>1. The 3rd Dynasty<P>2. World-Politics<P>3. Battle of Karkar<P>4. Loss of Territory<P>5. Reform of Religion<P>6. Revolution<P>7. The 4th Dynasty<P>8. Renewed Prosperity<P>9. Anarchy<P><b>III. DECLINE AND FALL</b><P>1. Loss of Independence<P>2. Decline<P>3. Extinction<P>4. Summary<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. The First Period.<P>1. The Two Kingdoms:<P>The circumstances leading up to the foundation of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, or the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes, have been detailed under the heading <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=KINGDOM+OF+JUDAH">KINGDOM OF JUDAH</A>. From a secular point of view it would be more natural to regard the latter as an offshoot from the former, rather than the converse. But not only is the kingdom of Judah of paramount importance in respect of both religion and literature, but its government also was in the hands of a single dynasty, whereas that of the Northern Kingdom changed hands no less than 8 times, during the two and a half centuries of its existence. Moreover, the Southern Kingdom lasted about twice as long as the other.<P>2. The 1st Dynasty:<P>No sooner had Jeroboam I been elected the first ruler of the newly founded state than he set about managing its affairs with the energy for which he was distinguished (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,28);">1Ki 11:28</a>). To complete the disruption he established a sanctuary in opposition to that of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',8,14);">Ho 8:14</a>), with its own order of priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,14);">2Ch 11:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,9);">13:9</a>), and founded two capital cities, Shechem on the west and Penuel on the east of the Jordan (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,25);">1Ki 12:25</a>). Peace seems to have been maintained between the rival governments during the 17 years\' reign of Rehoboam, but on the accession of his son Abijah war broke out (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,6,7);">1Ki 15:6-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,3);">2Ch 13:3</a>ff). Shortly afterward Jeroboam died and was succeeded by his son Nadab, who was a year later assassinated, and the Ist Dynasty came to an end, after an existence of 23 years, being limited, in fact, to a single reign.<P>3. The 2nd Dynasty:<P>The turn of the tribe of Issachar came next. They had not yet given a ruler to Israel; they could claim none of the judges, but they had taken their part at the assembling of the tribes under Deborah and Barak of Naphtali. Baasha began his reign of 24 years by extirpating the house of his predecessor (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,29);">1Ki 15:29</a>), just as the \'Abbasids annihilated the Umeiyads. The capital was now Tirzah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,17);">1Ki 14:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',6,4);">So 6:4</a>), a site not yet identified. His Judean contemporary was <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ASA">ASA</A> (which see), who, like his father Abijah, called in the aid of the Syrians against the Northern Kingdom. Baasha was unequal to the double contest and was forced to evacuate the ground he had gained. His son Elah was assassinated after a reign of a year, as he himself had assassinated the son of the founder of the preceding dynasty, and his entire family and adherents were massacred (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',16,11);">1Ki 16:11</a>).<P>4. Civil War:<P>The name of the assassin was Zimri, an officer of the charioteers, of unknown origin and tribe. But the kingship was always elective, and the army chose Omri, the commander-in-chief, who besieged and took Tirzah, Zimri setting the palace on fire by his own hand and perishing in the flames. A second pretender, Tibni, a name found in Phoenician and Assyrian, of unknown origin, sprang up. He was quickly disposed of, and security of government was reestablished.<P>II. Period of the Syrian Wars.<P>1. The IIId Dynasty:<P>The founder of the new dynasty was Omri. By this time the Northern Kingdom was so much a united whole that the distinctions of tribe were forgotten. We do not know to what tribe Omri and his successors belonged. With Omri the political sphere of action of Israel became wider than it had been before, and its internal affairs more settled. His civil code was in force long after his dynasty was extinct, and was adopted in the Southern Kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,16);">Mic 6:16</a>). The capital city, the site of which he chose, has remained a place of human habitation till the present day. Within the last few years, remains of his building have been recovered, showing a great advance in that art from those believed to go back to Rehoboam and Solomon. He was, however, unfortunate in his relations with Syria, having lost some towns and been forced to grant certain trading concessions to his northern neighbors (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,34);">1Ki 20:34</a>). But he was so great a king that long after his death the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes was known to the Assyrians as "the house of Omri."<P>2. World-Politics:<P>Contemporarily with this dynasty, there occurred a revival of the Phoenician power, which exerted a powerful influence upon the Israelite kings and people, and at the same time the Assyrians once more began to interfere with Syrian politics. The Northern Kingdom now began to play a part in the game of world-politics. There was peace with Judah, and alliance with Phoenicia was cemented by the marriage of Ahab, it seems after his father\'s death, with Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',16,31);">1Ki 16:31</a>). This led to the erection of a temple in Samaria in which the Tyrian Baal was worshipped, while side by side with it the worship of Yahweh was carried on as before. It seems as if the people had fallen back from the pure monotheism of Moses and David into what is known as henotheism. Against this relapse Elijah protested with final success. Ahab was a wise and skillful soldier, without rashness, but also without decision. He defeated a Syrian coalition in two campaigns (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,\'1-\');">1Ki 20</a>) and imposed on Ben-hadad the same conditions which the latter had imposed on Omri. With the close of the reign of Asa in Judah, war ceased between the two Israelite kingdoms and the two kings for the first time became friends and fought side by side (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,\'1-\');">1Ki 22</a>). In the reign of Ahab we note the beginning of decay in the state in regard to personal liberty and equal justice. The tragedy of Naboth\'s vineyard would not have happened but for the influence of Tyrian ideas, any more than in the case of the famous windmill which stands by the palace of Sans Souci at Potsdam. A further improvement in the art of building took place in this reign. The palace of Ahab, which has recently been recovered by the excavations carded on by the Harvard University Expedition under Dr. G.A. Reisner, shows a marked advance in fineness of workmanship upon that of Omri.<P>3. Battle of Karkar:<P>The object of Ben-hadad\'s attack upon Ahab seems to have been to compel him to join a league founded to resist the encroachments of Assyria upon the countries bordering upon the Mediterranean. The confederates, who were led by Ben-hadad, and of whom Ahab was one, were defeated by Shalmaneser II in the battle of Karkar. The date is known from the inscriptions to have been the year 854-853. It is the first quite certain date in Hebrew history, and from it the earlier dates must be reckoned by working backward. Ahab seems to have seized the moment of Syria\'s weakness to exact by force the fulfillment of their agreement on the part of Ben-hadad (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,\'1-\');">1Ki 22</a>).<P>4. Losses of Territory:<P>On the other hand, the king of Moab, Mesha, appears to have turned the same disaster to account by throwing off his allegiance to Israel, which dated from the time of David, but had apparently lapsed until it was enforced anew by Omri (MS, ll. 4ff, but l. 8 makes Omri\'s reign plus half Ahabs = 40 years). Ahab\'s son and successor Jehoram (omitting Ahaziah, who is chiefly notable as a devotee of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron), with the aid of Jehoshaphat and his vassal, the king of Edom, attempted to recover his rights, but in vain (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,\'1-\');">2Ki 3</a>). It may have been in consequence of the failure of this expedition that the Syrians again besieged Samaria and reduced it to great straits (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',6,24);">2Ki 6:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',7,\'1-\');">7</a>), but the date is uncertain. Jehoram replied with a counter-attack upon the east of the Jordan.<P>5. Reform of Religion:<P>It was no doubt owing to his connection with the king of Judah that Jehoram so far modified the worship and ritual as to remove the worst innovations which had come to prevail in the Northern Kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,\'1-3\');">2Ki 3:1-3</a>). But these half-measures did not satisfy the demands of the time, and in the revolution which followed both he and his dynasty were swept away. The dynasty had lasted, according to the Biblical account, less than half a century.<P>6. Revolution:<P>The religious reformation, or rather revolution, which swept away almost entirely both royal houses, bears a good deal of resemblance to the Wahhabi rising in Arabia at the beginning of the 18th century. It took its origin from prophetism (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,16);">1Ki 19:16</a>), and was supported by the Rechabite Jonadab. The object of the movement headed by Jehu was nominally to revenge the prophets of Yahweh put to death by order of Jezebel, but in reality it was much wider and aimed at nothing less than rooting out the Baal-worship altogether, and enforcing a return to the primitive faith and worship. Just as the Wahhabis went back to Mohammed\'s doctrine, as contained in the Koran and the Tradition, and as the Rechabites preserved the simplicity of the early desert life, so Jehu went back to the state of things as they were at the foundation of the Northern Kingdom under Jeroboam I.<P>7. IVth Dynasty:<P>Jehu\'s reforms were carried out to the letter, and the whole dynasty of Omri, which was responsible for the innovations, was annihilated like its predecessors. The religious fervor, however, soon subsided, and Jehu\'s reign ended in disaster. Hazael, whose armies had been exterminated by the forces of Assyria, turned his attention to the eastern territory of Israel. In the turbulent land of Gilead, the home of Elijah, disappointed in its hopes of Jehu, he quickly established his supremacy (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,32);">2Ki 10:32</a>). Jehu also appreciated the significance of the victories of Assyria, and was wise enough to send tribute to Shalmaneser II. This was in the year 842. Under his son and successor Jehoahaz the fortunes of Israel continued to decline, until Hazael imposed upon it the most humiliating conditions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,\'3-5\');">Am 1:3-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',13,1);">2Ki 13:1</a>).<P>8. Renewed Prosperity:<P>Toward the end of the reign of Jehoahaz, however, the tide began to turn, under the leadership of a military genius whose name has not been recorded (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',13,5);">2Ki 13:5</a>); and the improvement continued, after the death of Hazael, under his son Jehoash (Joash), who even besieged and plundered Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,8);">2Ki 14:8</a>). But it was not until the long reign of Jeroboam II, son of Jehoash, that the frontiers of Israel, were, for the first time since the beginning of the kingdom, restored to their ideal limits. Even Damascus and Hamath were subdued (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,28);">2Ki 14:28</a>). But the prosperity was superficial. Jeroboam II stood at the head of a military oligarchy, who crushed the great mass of the people under them. The tribune of the plebs at this time was Amos of Tekoa. His Cassandra-like utterances soon fulfilled themselves. The dynasty, which had been founded in blood and had lasted some 90 years, on the accesssion of Jeroboam\'s son Zachariah gave place to 12 years of anarchy.<P>9. Anarchy:<P>Zachariah was almost immediately assassinated by Shallum, who within a month was in turn assassinated by Menahem, a soldier of the tribe of Gad, stationed in Tirzah, to avenge the death of his master. The low social condition of Israel at this time is depicted in the pages of Hos. The atrocities perpetrated by the soldiers of Menahem are mentioned by Josephus (Ant., IX, xi, 1).<P>III. Decline and Fall.<P>1. Loss of Independence:<P>Meantime Pul or Pulu had founded the second Assyrian empire under the name of Tiglath-pileser III. Before conquering Babylonia, he broke the power of the Hittites in the west, and made himself master of the routes leading to the Phoenician seaports. As the eclipse of the Assyrian power had allowed the expansion of Israel under Jeroboam II, so its revival now crushed the independence of the nation forever. Menahem bought stability for his throne by the payment of an immense bribe of 1,000 talents of silver, or $2,000,000, reckoning the silver talent at $2,000. The money was raised by means of an assessment of 50 talents each upon all the men of known wealth. The payment of this tribute is mentioned on the Assyrian monuments, the date being 738.<P>2. Decline:<P>Menahem reigned 10 years. His son Pekahiah was, soon after his accession, assassinated by one of his own captains, Pekah, son of Remaliah, who established himself, with the help of some Gileadites, as king. He formed an alliance with Rezin of Damascus against Israel, defeating Ahaz in two pitched battles, taking numerous captives, and even reaching the walls of Jerusalem. The result was disastrous to both allies. Ahaz called in the aid of the Assyrians. Tiglath-pileser put an end to the kingdom of Damascus, and deported the inhabitants of Northern and Eastern Palestine. The kingdom of Israel was reduced to the dimensions of the later province of Samaria. Pekah himself was assassinated by Hoshea, who became king under the tutelage of the Assyrian overlord. The depopulated provinces were filled with colonists from the conquered countries of the East. The year is 734 BC.<P>3. Extinction:<P>Hoshea was never an independent king, but the mere vassal of Assyria. He was foolish enough to withhold the annual tribute, and to turn to Egypt for succor. Meanwhile, Tiglath-pileser III had been succeeded by Shalmaneser IV. This king laid siege to Samaria, but died during the siege. The city was taken by his successor Sargon, who had seized the throne, toward the end of the year 722.<P>4. Summary:<P>The Northern Kingdom had lasted 240 years, which fall into three periods of about 80 years each, the middle period being the period of the Syrian wars. As it was fully formed when it broke off from the Southern Kingdom, its history shows no development or evolution, but is made up of undulations of prosperity and of decline. It was at its best immediately after its foundation, and again under Jeroboam II. It was strong under Baasha, Omri and Ahab, but generally weak under the other kings. Every change of dynasty meant a period of anarchy, when the country was at the mercy of every invader. The fortunes of Israel depended entirely on those of Assyria. When Assyria was weak, Israel was strong. Given the advance of Assyria, the destruction of Israel was certain. This was necessary and was clearly foreseen by Hosea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',9,3);">9:3</A>, etc.). The wonder is that the little state, surrounded by such powerful neighbors, lasted as long as it did.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The most important works are Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (English Translation by Martineau and Glover); Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels; Derenbourg, Essai sur l\'histoire...de la Palestine; and there are many more. Ewald is best known to English readers through the medium of Dean Stanley\'s Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church. See further under <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=CHRONOLOGY+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ISRAEL">ISRAEL</a>, and articles on individual kings.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISRAEL,+HISTORY+OF,+1">ISRAEL, HISTORY OF</a>`189';
|
|
isbe[4708]='Israel, Religion of, 1`<p><b>I. INTRODUCTION: HISTORICAL CONSIDERATION OF THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL</b><P><b>II. HISTORICAL OUTLINE</b><P>1. Pre-Mosaic Religion of the Ancestors of Israel<P class="in15">(1) The Traditional View<P class="in15">(2) The Modern View<P class="in15">(3) A Higher Conception of the Deity; \'ilu, \'el<P class="in15">(4) Totemism, Animism, etc<P class="in15">(5) Conception of God<P class="in15">(6) Cult<P>2. The Mosaic Covenant with Yahweh<P class="in15">(1) The Covenant-Idea<P class="in15">(2) The Covenant-God, Yahweh<P class="in15">(3) Monotheism of Moses<P class="in15">(4) Impossibility of Representing Yahweh by an Image<P class="in15">(5) Ethical Character of the God of Moses<P class="in15">(6) The Theocracy<P class="in15">(7) The Mosaic Cult<P>3. The Religion of Israel before the 8th Century BC<P class="in15">(1) Decay of Religion in Canaan<P class="in15">(2) The Theocratic Kingdom<P class="in15">(3) Religious Ideals of the Psalms from the Time of David<P class="in15">(4) Wisdom Literature from the Time of Solomon<P class="in15">(5) The Sanctuary on Mt. Zion<P class="in15">(6) The Religion of the Kingdom of Ephraim<P class="in15">(7) Elijah and Elisha<P>4. Development of the Religion of Israel from the 8th Century BC to the Exile<P class="in15">(1) The Writing Prophets<P class="in15">(2) Their Opposition to the Cult<P class="in15">(3) Their Preaching of the Judgment<P class="in15">(4) Their Messianic Promises<P class="in15">(5) Reformations<P class="in15">(6) Destruction of Jerusalem<P>5. The Babylonian Exile<P class="in15">(1) Spiritual Purification through the Exile<P class="in15">(2) Relations to the Gentile World<P>6. Religion of the Post-exilic Period<P class="in15">(1) Life under the Law<P class="in15">(2) Hellenism<P class="in15">(3) Pharisees and Sadducees<P class="in15">(4) Essenes<P class="in15">(5) Positive Connections between Judaism and Hellenism<P class="in15">(6) Apocalyptic Literature<P><b>III. CONCLUSION: CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL</b><P>1. The Living God<P>2. The Relation of Man to This God<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Introduction: Historical Consideration of the Religion of Israel<P>In former times it was the rule to draw out of the Old Testament its religious contents only for dogmatic purposes, without making any distinction between the different books. These writings were all regarded as the documents of the Divine revelation which had been given to this people alone and not to others. At the present time the first inquiry in the study of these books deals historically with the religious development of the Israelites. This religion was not of a strictly uniform nature, but is characterized by a development and a growth, and in the centuries which are covered by the Old Testament books it has passed through many changes. Then, too, in the different periods of this development there were various religious trends among the people and very different degrees in the extent of their religious knowledge. The common people were at times still entangled in crude heathen ideas, while the bearers of a higher Divine light ranked vastly above them. And even in those times, when these enlightened teachers secured full recognition, there occurred relapses into lower forms of religion on the part of the masses, especially because the influence of the nations surrounding Israel at all times made itself felt in the religious life and thoughts of the latter. And even when the correct teachings were accepted by the people, a malformation of the entire religion could readily occur through a petrifaction of the religious life. It is the business of the science of the history of religion to furnish a correct picture of this development, which in this article can be done only in the form of a sketch.<P>One of the recent results of the science of the history of religion is the knowledge that the religion of Israel itself, and not merely the corruptions of this religion, stood in a much closer connection with other religions than had in former times been supposed. The wealth of new data from the history of oriental nations lately secured has shown that it is not correct to regard the religion of Israel as an isolated phenomenon, but that considerable light is thrown upon it from analogous facts from surrounding regions. Of especial importance in this respect is the study of Assyrian and Bah antiquities, with their rich and illustrative monuments, and, by the side of these, also those of Egypt; and, further, although these are indeed much smaller in number, the inscriptions and monuments of a number of peoples situated much nearer to Israel and ethnologically more closely connected with them, such as the Moabites, Arameans, Arabians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, and others. For later times, Parsiism is an especially important factor.<P>These antiquities have shown that between the religion of Israel and the religions of these nations there existed such close connections that a relationship between them cannot be denied. It is indeed true that these similarities are mostly of a formal nature, but they nevertheless point to similar conceptions of the Divine Being and of the relation of man to this Being. We find such connecting links in the cult, in the traditions concerning the creation of the world, concerning the earliest history of man kind, etc.; further, in the conception of what is legally right and of the customs of life; in the ideas concerning death and the world beyond; concerning the souls of men and the supernatural spiritual world, and elsewhere. These analogies and related connections have appeared so pronounced to some savants, especially Assyriologists, that they are willing to find in the religion of the Israelites and Jews only a reflection of the Babylonian, or of what they call the "religion of the ancient Orient." But over against this claim, a closer and deeper investigation shows that a higher world of thought and ideals at all times permeates the Israelite religion and gives to it a unique character and a Divine truth, which is lacking in all other religions and which made Israel\'s religion capable of becoming the basis of that highest Divine revelation which through Christ came forth from it. We will here briefly sketch the progress of the development of this religion, and then formulate a summary of those characteristics which distinguish it from the other religions.<P>II. Historical Outline.<P>1. Pre-Mosaic Religion of the Ancestors of Israel:<P>(1) The Traditional View.<P>The sources for this period are meager. Yet what has been reported concerning the religion of the period of the Patriarchs is enough to give us a picture of their conception of the Deity. And this picture is more deserving of acceptance than is the representation of the matter by the traditional dogmatics of the church and also that of those modern scholars who are under the spell of the evolutionary idea, and who undertake to prove in the Biblical history of Israel the complete development from the lowest type of fetishism and animism to the heights of ethical monotheism. The views of the old church teachers were to the effect that the doctrine concerning the one true God had been communicated by God to Adam in its purity and perfection, and by him had been handed through an unbroken chain of true confessors of the faith (Seth, Noah, etc.), down to Abraham. But this view does not find confirmation in the Biblical record. On the contrary, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,2,15);">Jos 24:2, 15</a>, it is even expressly stated of the ancestors of Abraham that they had worshipped strange gods in Chaldea. And the ancestors of the people, Abraham, Jacob, and others, do not appear on the stage of history with teachable creed, but themselves first learn to know gradually, in the school of life, the God whom they serve, after He has made Himself known to them in extraordinary manifestations. Abraham does not yet know that Yahweh does not demand any human sacrifices. Jacob still has the narrow view, that the place where he has slept is the entrance portal to heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,16,17);">Ge 28:16-17</a>). Omnipresence and omniscience are not yet attributes which they associate with their idea of the Divinity. They still stand on a simple-minded and primitive stage, as far as their knowledge of the living God is concerned.<P>(2) The Modern View.<P>Over against this, modern scholars describe pre-Mosaic Israel as yet entirely entangled in Semitic heathen ideas, and even regard the religion of the people in general, in the post-Mosaic period down to the 8th century BC, as little better than this, since in their opinion the Yahweh-religion had not thoroughly permeated the ranks of the common people, and had practically remained the possession of the men, while the women had continued to cultivate the ancient customs and views. W. R. Smith and Wellhausen have pointed to customs and ideas of the pre-Islamic Arabs, and S.I. Curtiss to such in the modern life of oriental tribes, which are claimed to have been the property of the most ancient Semitic heathen tribes, and these scholars use these as the key for the ancient Israelite rites and customs. But even if much light is thrown from these sources on the forms of life and cult as depicted by the Scriptures, much caution must be exercised in the use made of this material. In the first place, neither those Arabs of the 6th century AD, nor their successors of today, can be regarded as "primitive Semites." In the second place, it is a question, even if in the earliest period of Israel such customs are actually found, what they really signified for the tribe of Abraham. We are here not speaking of a prehistoric religion, but of the religion of that tribe that came originally from Ur of the Chaldees, and migrated first by way of Haran to Canaan, and then to Egypt. In this tribe such primitive customs, perhaps, had long been spiritualized. For these Hebrews cannot be regarded as being as uncivilized as are the New Zealanders, or the Indians of North America, or those Bedouins who have never left the desert; for they had lived in Babylonia for a long period, even if, while there, they had withdrawn themselves as much as possible from the more cultured life of the cities. The patriarchs were in touch with the civilization of the Babylonians. We do not, indeed, want to lay special stress on the fact that they lived in Ur and in Haran, two cities of the moon-god, the worship of which divinity shows monotheistic tendencies. But the history of the family of Abraham, e.g. his relation to Sarah and Hagar, shows indisputable influence of Babylonian legal ideas. Probably, too, the traditions concerning the beginnings of history, such as the Creation, the Deluge, and the like, were brought from Babylon to Canaan by the tribe of Abraham.<P>(3) A Higher Conception of the Deity; \'ilu, \'el.<P>But this tribe had come to Babylonia from Northern Arabia. It is a very important fact that the oldest Arabian inscriptions, namely the Minaean and the Sabean, lead us to conclude that these tribes entertained a relatively high conception of the Deity, as has been shown by Professor Fritz Hommel. The oldest Arabian proper names are not found combined with names of all kinds of gods, but with the simple \'ilu, \'el, or God, or with \'ili, "my God." Then, too, God is often circumscribed by the nouns expressing relationship, such as \'abhi, "my father," or \'achi, "my brother," or \'ammi, "my uncle," and others, which express an intimate relationship between man and his God. Corresponding to these are also the old Semitic proper names in Canaan, as also the name Abraham, i.e. \'Abhiram, "my father is exalted," or Ishmael, and many others. We accordingly must believe that the ancestors of Abraham immigrated into Babylon with a comparatively highly developed religion and with a uniform conception of God. Here their faith may have been unfavorably influenced, and it is not impossible that the religious disagreement between the patriarch and his neighbors may have been a reason for his migration. Abraham himself is regarded by the Canaanites as a "friend of God," who stands in an intimate relationship with his God, and he is accordingly to be regarded, not merely as a secular, but also as a religious tribal head, an Imam, a prophetical personality.<P>(4) Totemism; Animism, etc.<P>Still less is it correct to ascribe to this tribe the lowest religious stage possible, namely that of fetishism or of totemism (worship of demons or worship of animals) and the like. Some think they find evidences of the worship of animals in Israel. The fact that some Israelites were regarded as descendants of Leah ("wild cow"(?)), others of Rachel ("mother sheep"), is claimed to refer to the fact that these animals were totems of the tribe, i.e. were worshipped as ancestors. But for this claim there is no scintilla of proof. These names of women, especially in the case of a nomadic tribe, can be explained in a much more simple way. The calves that appear in later times as images of Yahweh are just as little a proof for the claim that calves were worshipped by the ancestors of Israel as divinities. We read nothing of such an image before the sojourn in Egypt, and after that time this image was always regarded symbolically. The fact, again, that from the days of Moses, and without a doubt earlier than this, certain animals were not allowed to be eaten, does not justify the conclusion which Professor B. Stade and others have drawn from it, namely, that these animals were in olden times regarded as divine (tabu), and for that reason were not permitted to be eaten, and only afterward were avoided as "unclean." The list of unclean animals in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,\'1-\');">De 14</a> speaks for an altogether different reason for regarding them as unclean. It is not at all thinkable that these many, and as a rule unclean and low class of animals, were at one time accorded divine honor, while the higher and cleaner class had been excluded from this distinction. We have accordingly no reason for finding animal worship here. On the other hand, it is self-evident, in the case of such an old nomadic tribe, that man stood in a more familiar relationship to his animals, and for this reason the slaughter of these was a more significant matter than was afterward the case. This was done only on extraordinary occasions, and it readily was accorded a religious consecration.<P>See also <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=TOTEMISM">TOTEMISM</a>.<P>The idea is also emphatically to be rejected, that in the pre-Mosaic period mere animism prevailed in Israel—the worship of spirits and of demons. It has been tried in vain to show that in the most primitive period of Israel\'s religion the worship of ancestors occupied a prominent place. As Professor Emil Kautzsch has emphasized, the arguments which have been drawn from the mourning customs of the Israelites in favor of this claim (as this is done by F. Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode, nach den Vorstellungen des alten Israel und des Judentums, Giessen, 1892) are altogether inadequate, as is also the appeal to the marriage with a deceased wife\'s sister, as though the purpose of the institution was to secure for the deceased who had died without issue somebody who would attend to his worship. Because of the strongly developed mundane character of the religious life in Israel, it is natural that it was regarded as a calamity if there was no issue who kept alive the memory of the departed in the tribe. But even if the argument from the mourning customs of Israel were more convincing than is actually the case, and that gifts, such as food, oil, and the like, were placed in the tomb of the departed, as was often done by the Canaanites, yet this would be in the ancient Israelite religion a matter of subordinate importance, which could readily be explained on the ground of natural feelings. It could never be made to appear plausible that all religions had grown out of such a cult. If the teraphim are to be regarded as having been originally images of ancestors, which is quite plausible, then they would indeed represent a continuous ancestral cult, as the people evidently kept these images in their houses in order to attract to themselves blessings, to avert misfortunes and to secure oracles. But these dolls, modeled after the form of human beings, already in the period of the Patriarchs were regarded as a foreign element and in contradiction to the more earnest religious sentiments (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,19);">Ge 31:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,2,4);">35:2, 4</a>).<P>That Israel, like all ancient peoples, did at one time pass through an "animistic" stage of religious development could best be proved, if at all, from their conception of the soul. Among the purifications those are especially necessary which are demanded by the presence of a dead body in the same room with the living, as the living are defiled by the soul of the deceased in leaving the body (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',19,14);">Nu 19:14</a>). Even the uncovered vessels are defiled by his soul-substance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',19,15);">Nu 19:15</a>). This, however, is a biological conception, which has nothing to do with the conception of the Deity.<P>Or are those perhaps right, who think that the primitive Israelites had accepted animism in this sense, that they did not as yet worship any actual divinities, but only a multitude of spirits or demons, be these ghosts of departed human beings or the spirits of Nature, local numina? In favor of this last-mentioned view, appeal is made to this fact, that in the ancient Semitic world local divinities with very circumscribed spheres of power are very often to be met with, especially at springs, trees, oases, at which a demon or divinity is regarded as having his abode, who is described as the ba\'al or master in this place; compare such local names as Baal-tamar, Baal-hermon, and others. Such local spirits would then be the \'elohim, out of which would grow more mighty divinities of whole cities and countries. To these it would be necessary yet to add those spirits which were worshipped by individual tribes, partly spirits of ancestors, who also could have grown into higher divinities, while the rest of the mass of deities, good and bad, had to content themselves with a lower rank.<P>As against this, we must above all consider the fact that in ancient Israel the demons played a very subordinate role. The contrast in this regard with Babylonia is phenomenal. It is probably the case that at all periods in Israel there existed a belief in unclean spirits, who perhaps lived in the desert (compare the se\'irim), or in the demoniacs, and could otherwise, too, do much harm. But they are not described as having much influence on man\'s life. How few indications of such a view can be found and how little most of these indications prove we can see in the work of H. Duhm, Die bosch Geister im Altes Testament, Tubingen, 1906. After the Babylonian exile, and still more after the longer sojourn of the Israelites in Babylon, their imagination was to a much greater degree than before saturated by the faith in spirits. Then the closer study of such Semitic be\'alim teaches us that they were not originally conceived in such a narrow sense. They are very often of a solar nature, celestial powers who have their abode at a particular place, and there produce fertility, but in this special function represent a general power of Nature. The same is the case with the tribal divinities. These are by no means merely the personifications of the small power of a particular tribe, but claim to be absolute beings, which shows that they are regarded as higher divinities which the tribe has appropriated and adapted to its own political ideas. We accordingly have no right to think that such a divinity was to be regarded as really confined to a particular hill, or even to a certain stone or tree where it was worshipped. The rock or stone or tree divinities of the ancient Arabs are celestial powers, who have only taken their abode at these places, even if popular superstition did actually identify them with such stones or trees.<P>It is therefore a misconception of the actual state of affairs when the conclusion is drawn that stone-worship is meant when Jacob erects a stone monument, the matstsebhah at Bethel, and anoints it with oil, and when this is understood to be a low type of fetishism. Stones are to the present day, for the wandering tribes, the signs by which important localities, especially sacred places, are designated. The symbolical significance of such stones may be quite different, as also the relation which a divinity is thought to sustain to such a stone monument. For this reason, too, the judgment of the Bible concerning such objects is quite different. Only then, when they are symbols of idolatry, as the chammanim, i.e representations of the sun-god, ba\'al chamman, are they everywhere rejected in the Old Testament. In the same way a mighty tree, especially if it is found near a spring of water, is in the Orient, by its very nature, a proof of the life-producing God. Such a tree naturally suggests that it is a place where divine life can be felt. Trees that have been made sacred by manifestations of the divinities or have been consecrated by the memory of a great personality, especially the oak, the terebinth, the palm, were regarded as favorite places beneath which the divinity was sought. Only in that case, as was indeed common in Canaan, when the unhallowed powers of Nature were here adored, was this custom reprehensible in the eyes of the prophets. The \'asherim, too, are of a decidedly heathen character, as these trunks of trees were symbols of the goddess Ashera. Further, it was a favorite custom to worship the divinities on the high places, for the reason that they were regarded as in or attached to the heavens. Only because of the heathen worship which was practiced on these bamoth were they, in later times, so hateful to the prophets.<P>(5) Conception of God.<P>In answer to the question, what ideas the patriarchs, the pre-Mosaic leaders of the people of Israel, entertained concerning God, attention must first of all be drawn to the fact that God spoke to some of these personally, be this in one form of manifestation or in another. These men heard the word of God with their own ears, and that, too, in the most important moments of their lives. In the case of Abraham, these revelations are fundamental for him and for his people. The prophetic factor, which goes through the entire history of Israel and constitutes the life-principle that fills its religion and causes its further development, is at the very first beginnings the source whence the knowledge of God is taken. This presupposes a personal God; and, as a matter of fact, a fixed personality is demanded by the character of such a God. His "I" impresses itself upon man with absolute power and demands his service entirely. This "I" constantly remains the same, and everywhere evinces the same power, be this in Haran or in Canaan or in Egypt, and whether it manifests itself to Abraham or to Isaac or to Jacob. This oneness is not formulated as a didactic proposition, but as a living reality: only this God existed for His adherents. These appeal to Him at all times with equal success. The manifestations of this God may be of a different kind at different times. He is even entertained, on one occasion, as a personal guest by His friend Abraham, together with two companions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,1);">Ge 18:1</a>). On another occasion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,17);">Ge 15:17</a>) Abraham beholds Him in symbolical form as a burning and fiery furnace (probably to be regarded as similar to the movable altar discovered by Sellin in Taanach). But these are to be regarded as special favors shown by God. In general it was the rule that God could not be seen without the beholder suffering death. Then, too, the conviction is very old, that what man sees in the case of such theophanies cannot have been God Himself, but that He had manifested Himself through a subordinate agent, an angel (this is particularly the case in the document E in Genesis). This angel, however, has no significance in himself, but is only the creature-veil, out of which God Himself speaks in the first person. In the most elementary manner this formal limitation of God appears in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,5);">Ge 11:5</a>, where He goes to the trouble of descending from heaven in order to look at something on earth; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,21);">18:21</a>, when He desires to go to Sodom personally, in order to convince Himself that what He has intended to send upon this city is also the right thing. It is indeed possible to find in the first instance some traits of irony, and possibly in the second case the epic details may have added something. However, God is no longer spoken of in such a human way in the post-Mosaic times. This shows that the document J (Jahwist) at this place contains material that is very old. All the more is it to be noted what exalted conceptions of God prevail already in these narratives. He dwells in heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,5);">11:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,24);">19:24</A>), something that has without reason been claimed not to have been the idea entertained in the older period. He is the God of the world, who exercises supremacy over all the nations. He rules with justice, checks pride, avenges injustice, and that, too, not only in a summary manner on whole countries, but also in such a way that He takes into consideration every individual and saves the one just man out of the midst of the mass of sinners (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,15);">18:25</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,\'1-\');">19</A>). In short, He is already the true God, although yet incompletely and primitively grasped in His attributes.<P>This God, ruling with omnipotent power in Nature and history, has entered into a special relationship with the tribe of Abraham. He has become the Covenant-God of the patriarch, according to the testimony of the old document J in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,\'1-\');">Ge 15</a>. We accordingly find here already the consciousness that that God who rules over the world has entered into a special relationship with one small nation or tribe. This fact appears also in this, that Abram (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">Ge 14</a>) acknowledges the highest God of the priest-king Melchizedek (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,20);">Ge 14:20</a>) as his God, as the founder of heaven and of earth, and identifies Him with his own Covenant-God Yahweh.<P>(6) Cult.<P>As far as the cult is concerned, it can be stated that at this period it was still of simple, but solemn and dignified character. The people preferred to worship their God at such places where He had manifested Himself, usually on high place, on which an altar had been erected. There were no images of the Divinity extant. As the word mizbeach, "altar," shows, the sacrifices were usually bloody. Human sacrifice had already in the days of Abraham been overcome by the substitution of an animal, although in olden times it may have been practiced, perhaps, as the sacrifice of the firstborn; and in later times, too, through the influence of the example of heathen nations, it may have found its way into Israel now and then. Both larger and smaller animals were sacrificed, as also fowls. The idea that prevailed in this connection was that God, too, enjoyed the food which served man as his sustenance, although God, in a finer way, experienced as a pleasure only the scent of the sacrifices, as this ascended in the flame and the smoke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,21);">Ge 8:21</a>). But the main thing was the blood as the substratum of the soul. The fruits of the field, especially the first-fruits, were also offered. Of liquid offerings, it is probable that in primitive times water was often brought, as this was often a costly possession; and in Canaan, oil, which the inhabitants of this country employed extensively in their sacrifices (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,9);">Jud 9:9</a>, something that is confirmed also by recent excavations); also wine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,13);">Jud 9:13</a>). As the ancient burnt or whole sacrifices (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,20);">Ge 8:20</a>) give expression to reverence, thankfulness, the prayer for protection or the granting of certain favors, the people from the very beginning also instituted sacrificial feasts, which gave expression to the covenant with God, the communion with the Covenant-God. In this act the sacrifice was divided between God and those who sacrificed. The latter ate and drank joyously before God after the parts dedicated to Him had been sacrificed, and especially after the blood had been poured around the altar. The idea that this was the original form of the sacrifice and that gift-sacrifices were introduced only at a later period when agriculture had been introduced is not confirmed by historical evidences. That man felt himself impelled, by bringing to his God gifts of the best things he possessed, to express his dependence and gratitude, is too natural not to have been from the beginning a favorite expression of religious feeling. In connection with the sacrifices the name of God was solemnly called upon. J even says that this was the name Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,25);">Ge 4:25</a>), while E (Elohist) and P (Priestly Code) tell us that this name came into use only through Moses.<P>According to P (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,10);">Ge 17:10</a>), circumcision was already introduced by Abraham in his tribe as the sign of the covenant. There are good reasons why the introduction of this custom is not like that of so many other ceremonies attributed to Moses. The custom was without doubt of an older origin. From whatever source it may have been derived in its earlier ethnological stage, for the Israelites circumcision is an act of purification and of consecration for connection with the congregation of Yahweh. A special priesthood, however, did not yet exist in this period, as the head of the family and of the tribe exercised the priestly functions and rights (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,1);">Ge 35:1</a>ff), although the peoples inhabiting Canaan at that time had priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,18);">Ge 14:18</a>).<P>2. The Mosaic Covenant with Yahweh:<P>(1) The Covenant-Idea.<P>Israel claims that its existence as a nation and its special relation to Yahweh begins with its exodus from Egypt and with the conclusion of the covenant at Mt. Sinai (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,2);">Am 3:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,7);">9:7</a>). As the preparation for this relation goes back to one individual, namely, Abraham, thus it is Moses through whom God delivered His people from bondage and received them into His covenant (see concerning Moses as a prophet and mediator of the covenant, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ISRAEL,+HISTORY+OF">ISRAEL, HISTORY OF</A>). It is a matter of the highest significance for the religion of Israel that the relation of this people to Yahweh was not one which existed by the nature of things, as was the case with the other oriental tribal and national religions, but that it was the outgrowth of a historical event, in which their God had united Himself with them. The conception of a covenant, upon which Yahweh entered as a matter of free choice and will, and to which the people voluntarily gave their assent, is not an idea of later date in the religious history of Israel, which grew out of the prophetic thoughts of the 8th and 7th centuries BC, as has been claimed, but is found, as has been made prominent by Professor French Giesebrecht (Die Geschichtlichkeit des Sinaibundes, 1900), already in the oldest accounts of the conclusion of the covenant (E, J), and must be ascribed to the Mosaic age. This includes the fact, too, that this covenant, which unites Yahweh with Israel, could not be of an indissoluble character, but that the covenant was based on certain conditions. The superficial opinion of the people might often cause them to forget this. But the prophets could, in later times, base their proclamations on this fact. Further, the thought is made very prominent that this covenant imposed ethical duties. While the divinities of other nations, Egyptian Babylonian, Phoenician, demanded primarily that their devotees should erect temples in their honor and should bring them an abundance of sacrifices, in Israel the exalted and ethical commandment is found in the forefront. The covenant relation to the God of Israel can legitimately be found only where the relation to one\'s fellow-man is normal and God-pleasing (Decalogue).<P>(2) The Covenant-God, Yahweh.<P>The special revelation which Moses received is characterized by the word Yahweh (Yahweh) as a name for God. This name, according to the well-authenticated report of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,3);">Ex 6:3</a> (P), which is supported also by E, had not been "known" to the fathers. This does not necessarily mean that nothing had been known of this name. Babylonian prayers often speak of an "unknown god," and in doing this refer to a god with whom those who prayed had not stood in personal relation. The God of the fathers appeared to Moses, but under a name which was not familiar to the fathers nor was recognized by them. In agreement with this is the fact that only from the time of Moses proper names compounded with some abbreviation of Yahweh, such as Yah, Yahu, Yeho, are found, but soon after this they became very common. Accordingly, it would be possible that such names were in scattered cases found also before the days of Moses among the tribes of Israel, and it is not impossible that this name was familiar to other nations. The Midianites especially, who lived originally at Mt. Sinai, have been mentioned in this connection, and also the Kenites (Stade, Budde), some scholars appealing for this claim to the influence which, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,\'1-\');">Ex 18</a>, Jethro had on the institutions of Moses. However, the matters mentioned here refer only to legal procedure (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,14);">18:14</A>ff). We nowhere hear that Moses took over the Yahweh-worship from this tribe. On the contrary, Jethro begins only at this time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,11);">Ex 18:11</a>) to worship Yahweh, the God of Moses, and the common sacrificial meal, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,12);">18:12</A>, did not take place in the presence of Yahweh, but, accommodating it to the guest, in the presence of Elohim. Then we nowhere hear that the Kenites, who lived together with the Israelites, ever had any special prominence in the service of Yahweh, as was the case, e.g., with the Median Magi, who had charge of the priesthood among the Persians, or with the Etruscans among the Romans, who examined the entrails. Yet the Kenites would necessarily have enjoyed special authority in the Yahweh-cultus, if their tribal God had become the national God of Israel. The only thing that can be cited in favor of an Arabian origin of the name of Yahweh is the Arabic word-form, hawah, for hayah. On the other hand, a number of facts indicate that Ja or Jau as a name for God was common in Syria, Philistia and Babylonia; compare Joram, son of the king of Hamath (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,10);">2Sa 8:10</a>), and Jaubidi, the king of this city, who was removed by Sargon. In these cases, however, Israelite influences may have been felt. Friedrich Delitzsch claims to have discovered the names Jahve-ilu and Jahum-ilu on inscriptions as early as the times of Hammurabi. But his readings are sharply attacked. However this may be, the name God as proclaimed by Moses was not only something new for Israel, but was also announced by him (possibly also with a new pronunciation, Yahweh instead of Yahu) with a new signification. At any rate, the explanation in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,14);">Ex 3:14</a> (E), "<a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=I+AM+THAT+I+AM">I AM THAT I AM</a>," for doubting which we have no valid reasons, indicates a depth in the conception of God which far surpasses the current conceptions of the Syrian and the Babylonian pantheon. It would, perhaps, be easier to find analogous thoughts in Egyptian speculations. But this absolute God of Moses is not the idea of speculative priests, but is a popular God who claims to control all public as well as private life.<P>(3) Monotheism of Moses.<P>Attempts have been made to deny the monotheistic character of this God, and some have thought that the term "monolatry" would suffice to express this stage in man\'s knowledge of God, since the existence of other gods was not denied, but rather was presupposed (compare passages like <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,11);">Ex 15:11</a>), and it was only forbidden to worship any god in addition to Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,3);">Ex 20:3</a>). However, this distinction is fundamental, and separates, in kind, the religion of Moses from that of the surrounding nations. For among these latter, the worship of more than one divine being at the same time was the rule. The gods of the Phoeniclans, the Arameans, and the Babylonians are, like those of the Egyptians, beings that spontaneously increase in number. They are divided into male and female groups of two, while in Hebrew there is not even a word extant for goddess, and the idea of a female companion-being to Yahweh is an impossibility. Then, too, it is characteristic of the ethnic god that he is multiplied into many be\'alim, and does not feel it as a limitation or restriction when kindred divinities are associated with him. However, the Yahweh of Moses does not suffer another being at His side, for the very reason that He claims to be the absolute God. Passages like <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,11);">Ex 15:11</a>, too, purpose chiefly only to express His unique character; but if He is without any equals among the gods, then He is the only one who can claim to be God; and it is in the end only the logical dogmatic formulation of the faces in the case when we are told in Deuteronomy, "Yahweh he is God; there is none else besides him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,35,39);">4:35,39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,4);">6:4</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,32);">Ps 18:32</a>). This does not exclude the fact that also in later times, when monotheism had been intelligently accepted, mention is still made of the gods of the heathen as of real powers (compare, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,1);">Jer 49:1</a>). This was rather the empirical method of expression, which found its objective basis in the fact that the heathen world was still in possession of some real spiritual power. Most of all, the popular faith or the superstition of the people could often regard the gods of the other nations as ruling in the same way as Yahweh did in Israel (compare, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,23);">2Ch 28:23</a>). But the idea that the faithful worshippers of Yahweh after the days of Moses ever recognized as equal and of the same rank with their own God the gods of the heathen must be most emphatically denied, as also the claim that these Israelites assigned to Yahweh only restricted powers over a small territory. This surely would have been in flat contradiction to the well-known history of the Mosaic period, in which Yahweh had demonstrated His superiority over the famous gods of Egypt in so glorious a manner. Compare on this point James Robertson, Early Religion, 4th edition, 297ff (against Stade).<P>(4) Impossibility of Representing Yahweh by an Image.<P>The 2nd principle which the Mosaic Decalogue establishes is that Yahweh cannot be represented by any image. In this doctrine, too, there is a conscious contrast to the nations round about Israel (in addition to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,4);">Ex 20:4</a>, compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,8);">De 5:8</a>; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,17);">Ex 24:17</a>). That in the last-mentioned passage only molten images are forbidden, while those hewn of stone or made of wood might be permitted, is an arbitrary claim, which is already refuted by the fact that the Mosaic sanctuary did not contain any image of Yahweh. The Ark of the Covenant was indeed a visible symbol of the presence of God, but it is a kind of throne of Him who sits enthroned invisibly above the cherubim, as has been shown above, and accordingly does not admit of any representation of God by means of an image. This continued to be the case in connection with the central sanctuary, with the exception of such aberrations as are already found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'1-\');">Ex 32</a> and which are regarded as a violation of the Covenant, also at the time when the sanctuary was stationed at Shiloh. The fact that at certain local cults Yahweh-images were worshipped is to be attributed to the influence of heathen surroundings (compare on this point J. Robertson, loc. cit., 215ff).<P>(5) Ethical Character of the God of Moses.<P>A further attribute of the God of Moses, which exalts Him far above the ethnic divinities of the surrounding peoples, is His ethical character. This appears in the fact that His principles inculcate fundamental ethical duties and His agents are chiefly occupied with the administration of legal justice. Moses himself became the lawgiver of Israel. The spirit of this legislation is deeply ethical. Only we must not forget that Moses cannot have originated these ordinances and laws and created them as something absolutely new, but that he was compelled to build on the basis of the accepted legal customs of the people. But he purified these legal usages, which he found in use among the people, through the spirit of his knowledge of God, protected as much as possible the poor, the weak, the enslaved, and elevated the female sex, as is shown by a comparison with related Babylonian laws (Code of Hammurabi). Then, too, we must not forget that the people were comparatively uneducated, and especially that a number of crude classes had joined themselves to the people at that time, who had to be stringently handled if their corrupt customs were not to infect the whole nation. The humane and philanthropic spirit of the Mosaic legislation appears particularly pronounced in Deuteronomy, which, however, represents a later reproduction of the Mosaic system, but is entirely the outcome of Mosaic principles. Most embarrassing for our Christian feeling is the hardness of the Mosaic ordinances in reference to the heathen Canaanites, who were mercilessly to be rooted out (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,2);">De 7:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',20,16);">20:16</a>f). Here there prevails a conception of God, which is found also among the Moabites, whose King Mesha, on his famous monument, boasts that he had slain all the inhabitants of the city of Kiriath-jearim as "a spectacle to Chemosh, the god of Moab." According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,2);">De 7:2</a>ff, the explanation of this hardness is to be found in the fact that such a treatment was regarded as a Divine judgment upon the worshippers of idols, and served at the same time as a preventive against the infection of idolatry.<P>(6) The Theocracy.<P>The vital principle of the organization which Moses gave to his people, Josephus (Apion, II, 16) has aptly called a theocracy, because the lawgiver has subordinated all relations of life to the government of his God. It is entirely incorrect when Wellhausen denies that there is a difference between theocracy and hierarchy. Not the priesthood, but Yahweh alone, is to rule all things in Israel, and Yahweh had many other organs or agents besides the priests, especially the prophets, who not rarely, as the representatives of the sovereign God, sharply opposed themselves to the priests. The theocratical principle, however, finds its expression in this, that public and private life, civil and criminal law, military and political matters were all controlled by religious principles.<P>(7) The Mosaic Cult.<P>As a matter of course, Moses also arranged the cult. He created a holy shrine, the tabernacle, which contained the Ark of the Covenant, and in its general arrangements became the model of the sanctuary or temple built in later times. He appointed sacred seasons, in doing which he connected these with previously customary festival days, but he gave sharper directions concerning the Sabbath and gave to the old festival of spring a new historical significance as the Passover. Moses further appointed for this sanctuary a priestly family, and at the same time ordained that the tribe to which this family belonged should assume the guardianship of the sanctuary. The lines separating the rights of the priests and of the Levites have often been changed since his time, but the fundamental distinctions in this respect go back to Moses. In the same way Moses has also, as a matter of course, put the sacred rites, the celebrations of the sacrifices, the religious institutions and ceremonies, into forms suitable to that God whom he proclaimed. This does not mean that all the priestly laws, as they are now found recorded in the Pentateuch, were word for word dictated by him. The priests were empowered to pronounce Torah, i.e. Divine instruction, on this subject, and did this in accordance with the directions received through Moses. Most of these instructions were at first handed down orally, until they were put into written form in a large collection. But in the priestly ordinances, too, there is no lack of traces to show that these date from the period of Moses and must at an early time have been put into written form.`<a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=Israel,+Religion+of,+2">ISRAEL, RELIGION OF, 2</a>`131';
|
|
isbe[4709]='Israel, Religion of, 2`3. The Religion of Israel before the 8th Century BC:<P>(1) Decay of Religion in Canaan.<P>Upon the intense religious feeling produced by the exodus from Egypt and the events at Mt. Sinai, there followed a relapse, in connection with which it appears that in this Mosaic generation the cruder tendencies were still too pronounced to endure the great trial of faith demanded by the conquest of the land of Canaan. In the same way, the heroic struggles of Joshua, carried on under the directions of Yahweh and resulting in the conquest of the country, were followed by a reaction. The zeal for battle weakened; the work of conquest was left unfinished; the people arranged to make themselves at home in the land before it had really been won; peace was concluded with the inhabitants. This decay of theocratic zeal and the occupation of the land by the side of and among the Canaanites had a direful influence on the Yahweh-religion as it had been taught the people by Moses. The people adopted the sanctuaries of the country as their own, instead of rooting them out entirely. They took part in the festivals of their neighbors and adopted their customs of worship, including those that were baneful. The local Baals, in whose honor harvest and autumn festivals were celebrated as thanksgiving for their having given the products of the earth, were in many places worshipped by the Israelites. The possibility of interpreting the name Baal in both a good and bad sense favored the excuse that in doing this the people were honoring Yahweh, whom in olden times they also unhesitatingly called their Baal, as their Lord and the master of the land and of the people. By the side of the Yahweh-altars they placed the Asherah, the sacred tree, really as a symbol of the goddess of this name; and the stone pillars (chammanim), which the original inhabitants had erected near their sanctuaries, were also held in honor, while the heathen ideas associated with them thereby found their way into the religious consciousness of the people. Sorcery, necromancy, and similar superstitions crept in. And since, even as it was, a good deal of superstition had continued to survive among the people, there came into existence, in the period of the Judges, a type of popular religion that was tinged by a pronounced heathenism and had but little in common with theocratical principles of Moses, although the people had no intention of discarding the God of Moses. Characteristic of this religious syncretism during the time of the Judges was the rise of the worship of images dedicated to Yahweh in Dan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,\'1-\');">Jud 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,\'1-\');">18</a>) and probably also at Ophrah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,27);">Jud 8:27</a>), as also human sacrifices (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,\'1-\');">Jud 11</a>).<P>(2) The Theocratic Kingdom.<P>But during this period pronounced reactions to the true worship of Yahweh were not lacking. The heroes who appeared on the arena as liberators from the yoke of the oppressors recalled the people to Yahweh, as was done likewise by the prophets and prophetesses. Samuel, the greatest among this class, was at the same time a prophet and reformer. He again brought the people together and tried to free them from the contamination of heathenism, in accordance with the<P>Mosaic ordinances, and at the same time prepared for a new future by the establishment of colonies of prophets and by the establishment of the kingdom. This latter innovation seemed to be at variance with the principles of a strict theocracy. It is the merit of Samuel that he created theocratic kingdom, by which the anointed of Yahweh himself was to become an important agent of the supreme rule of Yahweh. It is indeed true that the first king, Saul, did not realize this ideal, but his successor, David, appreciated it all the more. And even if David was far from realizing the ideal of a theocratic king, he nevertheless continued to be the model which prophecy tried to attain, namely, a king who was personally and most intimately connected with Yahweh, and who, as the servant of Yahweh, was to realize entirely in his own person the mission of the people to become the servants of Yahweh, and was thus to furnish the guaranty for the harmony between Israel and their God, and bring rich and unalloyed blessings upon the land.<P>(3) Religious Ideals of the Psalms from the Time of David.<P>In this way the covenant-relation became a personal one through "the anointed one of Yahweh." In general, religion in Israel became more personal in character in the days of the earlier kings. Before this time the collective relation to God prevailed. Only as a member of the tribe or of the nation was the individual connected with Yahweh, which fact does not exclude the idea that this God, for the very reason that He rules according to ethical principles, also regards the individual and grants him His special protection and requites to him good or evil according to his deeds. The Hebrew hymns or "psalms," which David originated, give evidence of a more intimate association of the individual with his God.<P>The very oldest of these psalms, a number of which point to David as their author, are not liturgical congregational hymns, but were originally individual prayer-songs, which emanated from personal experiences, but were, in later times, employed for congregational use. The prejudice, that only in later times such expressions of personal piety could be expected, is refuted by analogous cases among other nations, especially by the much more ancient penitential and petitionary prayers of the Babylonians, in which, as a rule, the wants of the individual and not those of the nation constitute the contents. These Babylonian penitential prayers show that among this people, too, the feeling of guilt as the cause of misfortune was very vivid, and that they regarded repentance and confession as necessary in order to secure the forgiveness of the gods. However, the more exalted character of the Israelite conception of God appears in a most pronounced way in this comparison, since the Babylonian feels his way in an uncertain manner in order to discover what god or goddess he may have offended, and not rarely tries to draw out the sympathy of the one divinity over against the wrath of another. But much more can this difference be seen in this, that the heathen singer is concerned only to get rid of the evil or the misfortune that oppresses him. The communion with his god whose favor he seeks to regain is in itself of no value for him. In David\'s case the matter is altogether different, as he knows that he is bound to Yahweh by a covenant of love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,2);">Ps 18:2</a>), and his heart delights in this communion, more than it does in all earthly possessions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',4,8);">Ps 4:8</a>); and this is even more so in the case of the author of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,\'25-26\');">Ps 73:25-26</a>. Such words would, for good reasons, be unthinkable in the case of a Babylonian psalmist.<P>In the times of those earliest kings of Israel, which, externally, constituted the most flourishing period in their history, unless tradition is entirely at fault, the spiritual world of thought also was enriched by the Wisdom literature of the Proverbs, the earliest examples of which date back to Solomon.<P>(4) Wisdom Literature from the Time of Solomon. This chokhmah, or Wisdom literature, is marked by the peculiarity that it ignores the special providential guidance of Israel and their extraordinary relation to their God, and confines itself more to the general revelation of God in Nature and in the history of mankind, but in doing this regards the fear of God as the beginning of wisdom, and at all times has the practical purpose of exhorting to a moral and God-pleasing life. The idea that this cosmopolitan tendency is to be attributed to Greek influences, and accordingly betrays a later period as the time of its origin, is to be rejected, as far as Proverbs and Job are concerned. The many passages in Pr that speak of conduct over against the king show a pre-exilic origin. The universalistic character of this literature must be explained on other grounds. It resulted from this, that this proverb-wisdom is not the sole, exclusive property of Israel and was not first cultivated among them, but was derived from abroad. The Edomites were especially conspicuous in this respect, as the Book of Job shows, in which the Israelite author introduces as speakers masters of this art from this tribe and others adjoining it. We can also compare the superscriptions in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,1);">Pr 30:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,1);">31:1</a>, in which groups of proverbs from Arabian principalities are introduced. Accordingly, this wisdom was regarded as a common possession of Israel and of their neighbors. This is probably the reason why the authors of this class of literature refrain from national reference and reminiscences. That the liberal-minded Solomon was the one to introduce this proverb-wisdom, or at any rate cultivated it with special favor, is in itself probable, and is confirmed by the fact that the Queen of Sheba (south Arabia) came to Jerusalem in order to listen to his wisdom. But this also presupposes that in her country a similar class of wisdom was cultivated. This was also the case in Egypt in very early antiquity, and in Egyptian literature we have collections of proverbs that remind us of the proverbs of Solomon (compare Transactions of the Third International Congress of the History of Religions, Oxford,1908,I, 284ff; see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=WISDOM">WISDOM</a>).<P>(5) The Sanctuary on Mt. Zion.<P>The kingdom of David and of Solomon not only externally marks the highest development of the history of Israel, but intellectually, too, prepared the soil out of which henceforth the religious life of the nation drew its sustenance. It was especially under David a significant matter, that at this time the higher spiritual powers were in harmony with the political. This found its expression in the Divine election of David and his seed, which was confirmed by prophetical testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,\'1-\');">2Sa 7</a>). Hand in hand with this went the selection of Mt. Zion as the dwelling-place of Yahweh. David, from the beginning, was desirous of establishing here theocratical center of the people, as he had shown by transferring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. In the same way Solomon, by the erection of the Temple, sought to strengthen and suitably equip this central seat. As a matter of course, the sacred shrines throughout the land did not thereby at once lose their significance. But the erection of the sanctuary in Jerusalem was not at all intended to establish a "royal chapel" for the king, as Wellhausen has termed this structure, but it claimed the inheritance of the tabernacle in Shiloh, and the prophets sanctioned this claim.<P>(6) The Religion of the Kingdom of Ephraim.<P>The division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon which, as it was, had not been too large, proved politically disastrous. It also entailed a retrogression in religious matters. The centralizing tendencies of the preceding reigns were thwarted. Jeroboam erected other sacred shrines; especially did he make Bethel a "king\'s sanctuary" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,13);">Am 7:13</a>). At the same time he encouraged religious syncretism. It is true that the gold-covered images of heifers (by the prophets, in derision, called "calves") were intended only to represent the Covenant-God Yahweh. However, this representation in the form of images, an idea which the king no doubt had brought back with him from his sojourn in Egypt, was a concession to the corrupt religious instincts in the nation, and gave to the Ephraimitic worship an inferior character in comparison with the service in the Temple in Jerusalem, where no images were to be found. But in other respects, too, the arbitrary conduct of the king in the arrangement of the cults proved to be a potent factor in the Northern Kingdom from the beginning. The opposition of independent prophets was suppressed with all power. Nevertheless, the prophetic agitation continued to be a potent spiritual factor, which the kings themselves could not afford to ignore.<P>This proved to be the case particularly when the dynasty of Omri, who established a new capital city, Samaria, openly favored the introduction of Phoenician idolatry. Ahab\'s wife, Jezebel, even succeeded in having a magnificent temple erected in the new capital to her native Baal, and in crushing the opposition of the prophets who were faithful to Yahweh. It now became a question of life and death, so far as the religion of Yahweh was concerned. The struggle involved not only certain old heathen customs in the religion of the masses, dating back to the occupation of Canaan, but it was the case of an invasion of a foreign and heathen god, with a clearly defined purpose. His voluptuous worship was not at all in harmony with the serious character of the Mosaic religion, and it seriously menaced, in a people naturally inclined to sensuality, the rule of the stringent and holy God of Mt. Sinai. The tricky and energetic queen was already certain that she had attained her purpose, when an opponent arose in the person of Elijah, who put all her efforts to naught.<P>(7) Elijah and Elisha.<P>In his struggle with the priests of Baal, who deported themselves after the manner of modern dervishes, we notice particularly the exalted and dignified conception of God in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,\'1-\');">1Ki 18</a>. When in this chapter Yahweh and Baal are contrasted, the idea of Elijah is by no means that these gods have in their own territory the same rights as Yahweh in Canaan and Israel. Elijah mocks this Baal because he is no God at all (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,21);">18:21</A>), and the whole worship of the priests convinces him that they are not serving a real and true God, but only the product of their imagination (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,27);">18:27</A>). This is monotheism, and certainly not of a kind that has only recently been acquired and been first set up by Elijah, but one that came down from the days of Moses. Elijah proves himself to be a witness and an advocate of the God of Sinai, who has been betrayed in a treacherous manner. The fact that he inflicts a dire and fateful punishment on the idolatrous priests of Baal is also in perfect agreement with the old, stringent, Mosaic, legal code. Only such severity could atone for the fearful crime against the God of the country and of the covenant, and could save the people from apostasy. However, theophany at Mt. Sinai (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,11);">1Ki 19:11</a>) shows clearly that not His external and fearful power, but His calm and deep character was felt by Elijah to be the distinguishing mark of his God. His successor, Elisha, after the storm had cleared the religious atmosphere in the country, in the performance of his prophetic duties was able again to show forth more emphatically the fatherly care and the helpful, healing love of his God.<P>In general, the political retrogression of the nation and the opposition of those in power, which the prophets and the faithful worshippers of Yahweh in later times were compelled to experience often enough, served greatly to intensify and to spiritualize their religion. The unfortunate situation of the present, and the weaknesses and failures in the actual state of theocracy, directed their eyes to the future. The people began to study the wonderful ways of God in dealing with His people, and they began to look to the end of these dealings. A proof of this is found in the comprehensive accounts contained in the old history of the covenant-people as recorded in the Pentateuchal documents E and J, which were composed during this period. Whether these extend beyond and later than the period of Joshua or not, can remain an open question. In any case, there existed written accounts also concerning the times of the Judges, and concerning the history of Samuel, David and Solomon, which in part were written down soon after the events they record, and which, because of their phenomenal impartiality, point to an exceptionally high prophetic watchtower from which the ways of God with His people were observed.<P>4. Development of the Religion of Israel from the 8th Century BC to the Exile:<P>(1) The Writing Prophets.<P>The spiritual development of the deeper Israelite religion was the business of the prophets. At the latest, from the 8th century BC, and probably from the middle of the 9th, we have in written form their utterances and discourses. Larger collections of such prophecies were certainly left by Amos and Hosea. These prophets stood entirely on the basis of the revelations which by Moses had been made the foundation of Israel\'s religion. But in contrast to the superficial and mistaken idea of the covenant of Yahweh entertained by their contemporaries, these prophets make clear the true intentions of this covenant, and at the same time, through their new inspiration, advance the religious knowledge of the people.<P>(2) Their Opposition to the Cult.<P>This appears particularly in their rejection of the external and unspiritual cult of their age. Over against the false worship of God, which thinks to satisfy God by the offering of sacrifices, they proclaim the true worship, which consists above all things in the fulfillment of the duties of the law and of love toward their fellow-men. They denounce as a violation of the covenant not only idolatry, the worship of strange gods, and the heathen symbols and customs which, in the course of time, had crept into the service of Yahweh, but they declare also that the religion which is based solely on the offering of sacrifices is worthless, since God, who is in no way dependent on any services rendered by men, does not care for such sacrifices, but is concerned about this, that His commands be observed, and that these consist above all things in righteousness, uprightness in the dealings of man with man, and in mercy on the poor, the weak, the defenseless, who cannot secure justice for themselves. (Compare e.g., <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,22);">1Sa 15:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,6);">Ho 6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,11);">Isa 1:11</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,21);">Jer 7:21</a>ff, and other passages equally pointed. See on this subject, J. Robertson, Early Religion, etc., 440ff.) Such a transfer of the center of religion from the cult to practical ethical life has no analogy whatever in other Semitic and ancient religions. Yet it is not something absolutely new, but is a principle that has developed out of the foundation laid by Moses, while it is in most pronounced contrast to the common religious sentiments of mankind. The prophetic utterances that condemn the unthinking and the unconsecrated cult must not be misunderstood, as though Isaiah, Jeremiah and others had been modern spiritualists, who rejected all external forms of worship. In this case they would have ceased to be members of their own people and children of their own times. What they absolutely reject is only the false trust put in an opus operatum, i.e. a mechanical performance of religious rites, which had been substituted for the real and heartfelt exercise of religion. Then, too, we are not justified in drawing from passages such as <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,22);">Jer 7:22</a> the conclusion that at this time there did not yet exist in written form a Mosaic sacrificial code. Such a code is found even in the Book of the Covenant, recognized by critics as an older Pentateuch document (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'1-\');">Ex 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">21</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,\'1-\');">22</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,\'1-\');">34</a>), and the fact that the Sabbath commandment is found in the Decalogue does not prevent Isaiah from writing what he has penned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,13,14);">1:13,14</A>. That at this period, already, there were extant many written ordinances is demanded by <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',8,12);">Ho 8:12</a>, and the connection shows that cult ordinances are meant. We must accordingly take the prophet\'s method of expression into consideration, which delights in absolute contrasts in cases where we would speak relatively. But this is not intended to weaken the boldness of the prophetic thoughts, which purpose to express sharp opposition to the religious ideas current at that time.<P>(3) Their Preaching of the Judgment.<P>The conception of God and Divine things on the part of the prophets was the logical development of the revelations in the days of Moses, and after that time, concerning the nature and the activity of God. The God of the prophets is entirely a personal and living God, i.e. He enters into the life of man. His holiness is exaltation above Nature and the most pronounced antagonism to all things unclean, to sin. Sin is severely dealt with by God, especially, as has already been mentioned, the sin of showing no love and no mercy to one\'s neighbor. Because they are saturated with this conviction of the absolute holiness of God, the preexilic prophets proclaim to their people more than anything else the judgment which shall bring with it the dissolution of both kingdoms and the destruction of Samaria and of Jerusalem, together with its temple. First, its destruction is proclaimed to the Northern Kingdom; later on to the Southern. In doing this, these inspired men testify that Yahweh is not inseparably bound to His people. Rather He Himself calls the destroyer to come, since all the nations of the world are at His command.<P>(4) Their Messianic Promises.<P>However, the prophets never conclude purely negatively, but they always see on the horizon some rays of hope, which promise to a "remnant" of the people better times. A "day of Yahweh" is coming, when He will make His final settlement with the nations, after they have carried out His judgment on His people. Then, after the destruction of the Gentile world, He will establish His rule over the world. This fundamental thought, which appears again and again with constantly increasing clearness, often takes the form that a future king out of the house of David, in whom the idea of the "anointed of Yahweh" has been perfectly realized, will first establish in Judah-Israel a pure rule of God, and then also gain the supremacy of the world. Some critics have claimed that all of these Messianic and eschatological predictions date from the postexilic period. In recent years a reaction against this view has set in, based on the belief that in Egypt and Babylonia also similar expectations are found at an early period. These promises, when they are more clearly examined, are found to be so intimately connected with the other prophecies of Isaiah, Hosea, and others, that to separate them would be an act of violence. In their most magnificent character, these pictures of the future are found in Isaiah, while in Jeremiah their realization and spiritualization have progressed farther.<P>(5) Reformations.<P>While the prophets are characterized by higher religious ideas and ideals, the religion of the masses was still strongly honeycombed with cruder and even heathen elements. Yet there were not totally wanting among the common people those who listened to these prophetic teachers. And especially in Judea there were times when, favored by pious kings, this stricter and purer party obtained the upper hand. This was particularly the case under the kings Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. During the reigns of these kings the cult was reformed. Hezekiah and Josiah attacked particularly the local sanctuaries and their heathen worship (called bamoth), and concentrated the sacrificial cult in Jerusalem. In doing this they were guided by the faithful priests and prophets and by the ancient Mosaic directions. Josiah, who, more thoroughly than others, fought against the disintegration of the Yahweh-cultus, found his best help in the newly-discovered Book of the Law (Deuteronomy). That the sacrifices should be made at one place had been, as we saw, an old Mosaic arrangement. However, Moses had foreseen that local altars would be erected at places where special revelations had been received from Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'24-25\');">Ex 20:24-25</a>). In this way the numerous altars at Bethel, on Carmel, and elsewhere could claim a certain justification, only they were not entitled to the same rank as the central sanctuary, where the Ark of the Covenant stood and where the sons of Aaron performed their priestly functions. Deuteronomy demands more stringently that all real sacrificial acts shall be transferred to this central point. This rule Josiah carried out strictly. The suppression of the current sacrifices on high places by the fall of the Northern Kingdom aided in effecting the collapse of such shrines, while the sanctuary in Jerusalem, because it was delivered from the attack of the Assyrians, won a still greater recognition.<P>(6) Destruction of Jerusalem.<P>However, immediately after the death of Josiah, the apostasy from Yahweh again set in. The people thought that they had been deserted by Him, and they now more than before sought refuge in an appeal to a mixture of gods derived from Babylonia, Egypt, Persia and elsewhere. <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,\'1-\');">Eze 8</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',9,\'1-\');">9</A> describe this syncretism which made itself felt even in the temple-house in Jerusalem. The people were incapable of being made better and were ripe for destruction. The temple, too, which it was thought by many could not be taken, was doomed to be destroyed from its very foundations.<P>5. The Babylonian Exile:<P>(1) Spiritual Purification through the Exile.<P>A mighty change in the religion of Israel was occasioned by the deportation of the wealthier and better educated Jews to Babylon and their sojourn there for a period of about 50 years, and by the still longer stay of a large portion of the exiles in this country. The nation was thus cut off from the roots of the native heathendom in Palestine and also from the external organization of theocracy. This brought about a purification and a spiritualization, which proved to be a great benefit for later times, when the political manifestation of their religious life had ceased, and the personal element came more into the foreground. Jeremiah and Ezekiel emphasize, each in his own way, the value of this religion for the individual. A spiritual communion came into being during the Exile, which found its bond of union in the word of Yahweh, and which insisted on serving God without a temple and external sacrificial cult (which, however, was still found among the exiles in Egypt). Separated from their homes, they collected all the more diligently the sacred memories and traditions, to which Ezekiel\'s plans for the temple belong. Their sacred literature, the Torah or Law, the prophetical books, the historical writings, the Psalms, and other literature were collected, and in this way preparations were made for the following period.<P>(2) Relations to the Gentile World.<P>The most earnest classes of Jews, at least, absolutely declined to have anything to do with the Babylonian religion and worship. They saw here the worship of images in its most repulsive and sensual form, and they also learned its absolute impotency when the haughty Chaldean empire was overthrown. Deutero-Isaiah (<span class="noTag">Isa 40:1-66:24</span>) shows that the Israelites now become more conscious than ever of the great value of their own religion with its Creator of heaven and earth over against this variegated Pantheon of changeable gods in forms of wood and metal images. From this time on, the glory of the Creator of the universe and His revelation in the works of Nature were lauded and magnified with a new zeal and more emphatically than ever before. This same prophet, however, proclaims also the new fact of the mission-call of Israel among the nations of the world. This people, he declares, is to become the instrument of Yahweh to make the Gentiles His spiritual subjects. But as this people in its present condition is little fit for this great service, he sees with his prophetic eye a perfect "Servant of Yahweh," who carries out this mission, a personal, visible "Servant of Yahweh," who establishes the rule of God upon earth, by becoming, in the first place, for Israel a second Moses and Joshua, but who then, too, wins over the heathen nations by this message. He accordingly takes the place of the prophesied future Son of David. However, He is not a personal ruler, but carries out His work through mere spiritual power and in lowliness and weakness. Indeed, His suffering and death become the atonement to wipe out the guilt of His people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">Isa 53</a>). We can see in this further development of the deepening and spiritualization of the eschatological hopes how strongly the unaccustomed misfortunes and surroundings of the exiles had influenced them. Notwithstanding all their antagonism to the aberrations of the heathen world, the Israelites yet learned that among the Gentiles there was also some receptivity for the higher truths. The worshippers of Yahweh felt themselves more akin to the Persians than to the Babylonians, as the former served without images a god which was conceived as one and as an exalted divine being. Thoughts taken from Parsiism are also found in the later literature of Israel, although it is not the case that the idea of Satan was first taken from this source. The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead for the judgment also can be gained from Old Testament premises. However, the religion of the Babylonians was not without influence on that of the Jews. It is indeed out of the question that it was only during the Exile that the Jews took over the accounts of the Creation and the Deluge and others similar to the Babylonian, as these are found in <span class="noTag">Ge 1-11</span>. But the development of the angelology shows the evidences of later Babylonian and Persian influences. And especially does demonology play a more important role in post-exilic times than ever before, particularly about the beginnings of the Christian era. Magic art, too, entered largely into the faith of later Judaism, and it can be shown that both of these came from Babylonian sources.<P>6. Religion of the Post-exilic Period:<P>(1) Life under the Law.<P>The people which returned from the Exile was a purified congregation of Yahweh, willing to serve Him. They aimed to re-establish theocracy. This latter had not, indeed, because of the loss of the political independence of the people, the same importance as formerly, but the religious cult and the religious life of the people were all the more stringently observed. The post-exilic period is characterized by religious legalism. The people were exceedingly zealous in observing the old ordinances, and tried to find righteousness in the correctness with which the Mosaic law was observed, as this was now demanded by the teachers of this law. The prophet of the Exile, Ezekiel, had taken the lead in this particular, and had laid great emphasis on the formal ordinances, although in connection with this he also insisted upon real moral earnestness. But it was an easy matter that in the course of time an external work-righteousness and petrifaction of true religion should arise. Yet the later prophets, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, even if they do ascribe a greater importance to external matters than the preexilic prophets did, show that they are the spiritual heirs of these earlier seers. They teach a healthy ethical and sanctifying type of practical religion and continue to proclaim the hopes for an expansion and spiritualization of the Kingdom of God. The leaders of these times, Zerubbabel, Ezra, Nehemiah, show a pronouncedly antagonistic attitude toward the neighboring nations and also toward those inhabitants of the country who did not live under the law. However, their intolerance, especially toward the Samaritans, can be readily understood from the principle of the self-preservation of the people of Yahweh. The law came to be the subject of the most careful study, and the teachers of the law collected, even to the minutest details, the oral traditions with reference to its meaning and to the proper observance of the different demands, so that already before the time of Christ they were in possession of an extensive tradition, which was afterward put down in written form in the Mishna. The writing of history was also carefully cultivated. The Books of Chronicles show from what viewpoint they described the past; the temple and the cult were the center of interest. In the same way the psalm-poetry, especially the temple-song, flourished again. These later hymns are pretty and regular, but no longer show the bold spirit of the older psalms. In many cases, older songs are made use of in these later hymns in a new way. Of the proverb-literature of the later post-exilic times, the The Wisdom of Solomon of Jesus Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, is an instructive example. Notwithstanding its great similarity to the old Proverbs, the prevailing and leading points of view have become different in character. The conception of Wisdom has assumed a specifically Jewish and theocratic character.<P>(2) Hellenism.<P>But the Jewish exclusiveness found a dangerous opponent, especially from the days of Alexander the Great, in the new Hellenism. Hellenistic language, culture, customs and world ideas overwhelmed Palestine also. While the Pious (chacidhim) all the more anxiously fortified themselves behind their ordinances, the worldly-minded gave themselves up fully to the influence that came from without. In the first half of the 2nd century BC there arose, as a consequence, a bloody struggle against the inroads of this heathendom, when Antiochus Epiphanes undertook to suppress the religion of the Jews, and when the Asmoneans began their holy war against him.<P>(3) Pharisees and Sadducees.<P>But within the people of Israel itself there were found two parties, one strict and the other lax in the observance of the law. The leaders of the former were the highly popular Pharisees, who, according to their name, were the "Separatists," separated from the common and lawless masses. They tried to surpass each other in their zeal for the traditional ordinances and pious observances. However, among them it was also possible to find real piety, although in the New Testament records, where they are described as taking a hostile attitude toward the higher and the highest form of Divine revelation, they appear at their worst. Their rivals, the Sadducees, were less fanatical in their observance of the demands of the law and more willing to compromise with the spirit of the times. To this party belonged many of the more prominent priests. But this party evinced less real religious life than did the Pharisees.<P>(4) Essenes.<P>Then, too, in the time of Jesus, there were not lacking indications of the influence of foreign religions, as is apparent in the case of the Essenes. This party advocated dualistic ideas, as these are later found among the Mandeans.<P>(5) Positive Connections between Judaism and Hellenism.<P>In Alexandria a friendly exchange of ideas between Hellenism and Judaism was brought about. Here the Old Testament was translated into the Greek. This translation, known as the Septuagint (Septuagint), shows as yet but few signs of the Greek spirit; rather, a pronounced influence of legal and ritualistic Judaism. On the other hand, apologetical opposition to Hellenism appears to a more marked degree, among others, in the apocryphal work known as "Wisdom of Solomon," in which we find a positive defense of wisdom as the principle of revelation over against the Epicurean world wisdom of Hellenism. In doing this, the book leans on Platonism and Stoicism. The chokhmah, or wisdom of the old Jewish literature, has been Hellenized. Philo goes still farther in adapting Judaism to Greek taste and to humanism. A more liberal conception of inspiration also appears in the reception of contemporaneous literary products into the Old Testament Canon, even of some books which had originally been written in the Greek language. The means observed in adapting national Hebraism to Hellenistic universalism was the allegorical method of interpretation, which Philo practiced extensively and which then passed over to the Christian church Fathers of the Alexandrian school. This school constitutes the opposite extreme to the rabbinical, which clung most tenaciously to the letter of the sacred texts.<P>(6) Apocalyptic Literature.<P>A unique phenomenon at the close of the Biblical and in the earliest post-Biblical period is, finally, the <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a> (which see). Since the days of the Maccabees we find the custom in certain Jewish circles, by using the old prophecies and adapting them to the events of the times, of drawing up a systematic picture of the future. The authorship of these writings was usually ascribed to one of the ancient saints, e.g. to Enoch, or Abraham, or Moses, or Elijah, or Solomon, or Baruch, or Ezra, or others. The model of these Apocalypses is the Book of Daniel, which, on the basis of older visions, in the times of the oppression by Antiochus Epiphanes, pictures, in grand simplicity, the development of the history of the world down to the final triumph of the Kingdom of God over the kingdoms of the world.<P>III. Conclusion: Characteristic Features of the Religion of Israel.<P>When we consider this whole development, it cannot be denied that the religion of Israel passed through many changes. It grew and purified and spiritualized itself out of its own inherent strength; but it also suffered many relapses, when hindering and corrupting influence gained the upper hand. But it received from without not only degenerating influences, but also much that inspired and developed its growth. Its original and native strength also shows itself in this, that without losing its real character it was able to appropriate to itself elements of truth from without and assimilate these.<P>1. The Living God:<P>If we ask what the specific and unique character of this religion was, by which it was distinguished from all other religions of antiquity, and by reason of which it alone was capable of producing from itself the highest revelation in Christ, it must be answered that its uniqueness lies, most of all, in its conception of God and of Divine things, and of God\'s relation to the world. The term "monotheism" but inadequately expresses this peculiarity; for monotheistic tendencies are found also in other nations, and in Israel monotheism often shows itself in a strongly corrupted form. The advantage of Israel lies in its close contact with the living God. From the beginning of Israel\'s history a strictly personal God gave testimony of Himself to different personalities with a decision which demanded absolute submission; and, in addition, this was a holy God, who elevated mankind above Nature and above themselves, a God who stood in the most absolute contrast to all that was impure or sinful, but at the same time was wonderful in His grace and His mercy to the sinner. This direct revelation of God to specially chosen bearers of the Divine truth goes through the entire history of Israel. Through this factor this religion was being constantly purified and unfolded further. The Israelites learned to conceive God in a more spiritual, correct, and universal manner, the more they advanced in experience and culture. But this God did not thereby become a mere abstract being, separated from mankind, as was the case with so many nations. He always continued to be a living God who takes an active part in the lives of men. We need notice only those prophets who describe the greatness of God in the grandest way, such as Hosea, Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, who depict also the personal life of God in the boldest way through anthropomorphisms.<P>2. The Relation of Man to This God:<P>In agreement with this, too, we find that this religion demands the personal subjection of men to God. As was the case with all the religions of antiquity, that of the Old Testament, of Man to too, was originally rather a tribal and a national religion than one of the individual. This brought with it the demand for the external observance of the tribal customs in the name of religion. However, the traditional customs and legal ordinances had already been sifted and purified by Moses. And, as a matter of necessity, in a religion of such a pronounced personal nature, the personal relation of the individual to God must become more and more a matter of importance. This idea became deeper and more spiritual in the course of time and developed into a pure love for God. It did not prevent this religion from becoming petrified, even during the Exile, when the doctrines and the cult were most correctly observed. But the vital kernels found embedded in the revelation of God constantly proved their power of rejuvenation. And at that very time when the petrified legalism of Pharisaism attained its most pronounced development, the most perfect fruit of this religion came forth from the old stem of the history of Israel, namely Christ, who unfolded Judaism and converted it into the religion of salvation for the entire world.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Of the literature on the religion of Israel we may yet make particular mention of the following: The textbooks on Old Testament Theology by Oehler, 1891 (also the English translation), of Dillmann, 1895. The Kuenen-Wellhausen school is represented by Kuenen, De Godsdienst van Israel, 1869 (also the English translation); Stade, Biblische Theologie des A T, 1905; Marti, Theologie des A T, 1903; Smend, Lehrbuch der A T Religionsgeschichte, 1899; compare also the works of Robertson Smith, especially his lectures on The Religion of the Semites. Against this radical school, see, in addition to the work of Dillmann, James Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, 1893. On the subject of Semitism in general, S.I. Curtiss, Ursemitische Religion im Volksleben des heutigen Orients, 1903 (also the English translation); Baethgen, Beltrage zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, 1880; M.J. Lagrange, Etudes sur les religions semitiques, 1905. The relation of Israel to the Assyrian and Babylonian religions is discussed by Hugo Winckler in several works; compare also Fritz Hommel, Alttestamentliche Ueberlieferungen, 1897 (also the English translation); Sayce, The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments, 1895; Alfred Jerermias, Das A Tim Lichte des alten Orients, 1906; a good brief summary is found in Sellin, Die A T Religion im Rahmen der andern Altorientalischen, 1908. Full details are given in Kautzsch, "Religion of Israel," in HDB, extra vol, 1904. For the last centuries before Christ see particularly, Schurer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 1907 (also English Translation). The modern Jewish standpoint is represented by Montefiore, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by the History of the Ancient Hebrews, 1892.`<a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=Israel,+Religion+of,+1">ISRAEL, RELIGION OF, 1`131';
|
|
isbe[4710]='Israelite; Israelitish`iz\'-ra-el-it, iz\'-rael-it-ish: Belonging to the tribes of <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ISRAEL">ISRAEL</A> (which see). Occurs 4 times in the New Testament: of Nathanael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,47);">Joh 1:47</a>); used by Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,4);">Ro 9:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,1);">11:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,22);">2Co 11:22</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4711]='Issachar`is\'-a-kar (yissa(se)khar; Septuagint, Swete Issachar; Tischendorf, Issachar, so also in the New Testament, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek):<P>(1) The 9th son of Jacob, the 5th borne to him by Leah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,17);">Ge 30:17</a>f).<P>1. The Name:<P>His birth is in this passage connected with the strange story of Reuben and his mandrakes, and the name given him is apparently conceived as derived from \'ish sakhar, "a hired workman." There is a play upon the name in this sense in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,15);">Ge 49:15</a>, "He bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant under taskwork." Wellhausen (Textder Buch. Sam., 95) thinks that the second element of the name may denote a deity; and Sokar, an Egyptian god, has been suggested. The name in that case would mean "worshipper of Sokar." Practically nothing is preserved of the personal history of this patriarch beyond his share in the common actions of the sons of Jacob. Four sons were born to him before Jacob\'s family removed to Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,13);">Ge 46:13</a>). In that land he died and was buried.<P>2. The Tribe:<P>At Sinai the tribe numbered 54,000 men of war over 20 years of age (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,29);">Nu 1:29</a>). At the end of the wanderings the numbers had grown to 64,300 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,25);">Nu 26:25</a>). In the days of David, the Chronicler puts the figures at 87,000 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,5);">1Ch 7:5</a>). See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=NUMBERS">NUMBERS</a>. The place of Issachar in the desert-march was with the standard of the tribe of Judah (along with Zebulun) on the east side of the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,5);">Nu 2:5</a>), this group forming the van of the host (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,14);">Nu 10:14</a>f). The rabbis say that this standard was of 3 colors, sardine, topaz and carbuncle, on which were inscribed the names of the 3 tribes, bearing the figure of a lion\'s whelp (Tg, pseudo. Jonathan. on <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,3);">Nu 2:3</a>). The captain of the tribe was Nethanel ben-Zuar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,8);">Nu 1:8</a>, etc.). Later this place was held by Igal ben-Joseph, the tribal representative among the spies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,7);">Nu 13:7</a>). The prince chosen from Issachar to assist in the division of the land was Paltiel ben-Azzan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,26);">Nu 34:26</a>). The position of Issachar at the strange ceremony near Shechem was on Mt. Gerizim, "to bless the people" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,12);">De 27:12</a>).<P>3. The Tribal Territory:<P>Sixteen cities of Issachar are mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,17);">Jos 19:17</a>ff, but the only indications of boundaries are Tabor in the north and Jordan in the east. We gather elsewhere that the territory of this tribe marched on the north with Zebulun and Naphtali (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,11,33);">19:11,33</A>); on the west with Manasseh and possibly Asher (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,10);">17:10</A>); and on the south with Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,11);">17:11</A>). It does not seem to have had any point of contact with the sea. The portion of Issachar, therefore, included the plain of Esdraelon, Tabor, the hill of Moreh, and the slopes east to the Jordan. The fortresses along the south edge of the plain were held by Manasseh. Tola, a man of Issachar, held Shamir, a stronghold in Mt. Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,1);">Jud 10:1</a>). To Manasseh was given Beth-shean with her "towns" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,11);">Jos 17:11</a>). No reliable line can be drawn for the south border. The district thus indicated was small; but it embraced some of the most fruitful land in Palestine. By the very riches of the soil Issachar was tempted. "He saw a resting-place that it was good, and the land that it was pleasant; and he bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant under taskwork" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,15);">Ge 49:15</a>). "The mountain" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,19);">De 33:19</a> may possibly be Tabor, on which, most likely, there was an ancient sanctuary and place of pilgrimage. This would certainly be associated with a market, in which Issachar and Zebulun, the adjoining tribes, would be able to enrich themselves by trade with the pilgrims from afar. Issachar took part in the battle with Sisera (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,15);">Jud 5:15</a>). To Israel Issachar gave one judge, Tola (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,1);">Jud 10:1</a>), and two kings, Baasha and his son (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,27);">1Ki 15:27</a>, etc.).<P>4. Men of Issachar:<P>Of the 200 "heads" of the men of Issachar who came to David at Hebron it is said that they were "men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,32);">1Ch 12:32</a>). According to the Targum, this meant that they knew how to ascertain the periods of the sun and moon, the intercalation of months, the dates of solemn feasts, and could interpret the signs of the times. A company from Issachar came to the celebration of the Passover when it was restored by Hezekiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',30,18);">2Ch 30:18</a>). Issachar has a portion assigned to him in Ezekiel\'s ideal division of the land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,25);">Eze 48:25</a>); and he appears also in the list in Revelation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,7);">7:7</A>).<P>(2) A Korahite doorkeeper, the 7th son of Obededom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,5);">1Ch 26:5</a>).``54';
|
|
isbe[4712]='Isshiah`is-shi\'-a (yishshiyahu, "Yah exists"; the King James Version Ishiah):<P>(1) Mentioned among David\'s heroes, a greatgrandson of Tola (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,3);">1Ch 7:3</a>).<P>(2) Mentioned among the men who came to David at Ziklag (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,6);">1Ch 12:6</a>; the King James Version "Jesiah").<P>(3) A member of the priesthood of the house of Rehabiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,21);">1Ch 24:21</a>; the King James Version "Jesiah").<P>(4) Another Levitical priest of the house of Uzziel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,20);">1Ch 23:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,25);">24:25</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4713]='Isshijah`is-shi\'-ja (yishshiyah, "Yah lends"; the King James Version Ishijah): A man of the household of Harim, named among those who, at Ezra\'s command, were induced to put away their "strange wives" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,31);">Ezr 10:31</a>). Also called "Aseas" (1Esdras 9:32).``1';
|
|
isbe[4714]='Issue`ish\'-u:<P>(1) (moledheth, tse\'etsa\'im; sperma, "seed"): Offspring, descendants (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,6);">Ge 48:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,24);">Isa 22:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,25);">Mt 22:25</a> the King James Version).<P>(2) (zirmah; yatsa\' (verb); rhusis): A gushing of fluid (semen, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,20);">Eze 23:20</a>; water, 47:8; blood, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,43);">Lu 8:43</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISSUE+OF+BLOOD">ISSUE OF BLOOD</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=BLOODY+FLUX">BLOODY FLUX `1';
|
|
isbe[4715]='Issue (of Blood)`(zobh, zubh; rhusis, haimorrhoos): When used as a description of a bodily affection the word signifies:<P>(1) A discharge, the consequence of uncleanness and sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,2);">Le 15:2</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,2);">Nu 5:2</a>). As such it was one of the judgments which were to afflict the family of Joab (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,29);">2Sa 3:29</a>);<P>(2) a hemorrhage, either natural (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,7);">Le 12:7</a>, where the word used is maqor, literally, a "fountain"), or the consequence of disease (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,20);">Mt 9:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,25);">Mr 5:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,43);">Lu 8:43</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4716]='Issues`ish\'-uz (tots\'-oth, literally, "outgoings"):<P>(1) Ways of escape (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,20);">Ps 68:20</a> the King James Version);<P>(2) Free moral choices (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,23);">Pr 4:23</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4717]='Istalcurus`is-tal-ku\'-rus (Istalkouros): 1Esdras 8:40, corresponding to Zabbud in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,14);">Ezr 8:14</a>. In Swete\'s text the name is Istakalkos.``1';
|
|
isbe[4718]='Isuah`is\'-u-a.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISHVAH">ISHVAH</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4719]='Isui`is\'-u-i.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISHVI">ISHVI</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4720]='Isvah`is\'-va.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISHVAH">ISHVAH</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4721]='Itala, Version`it\'-a-la.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LATIN+VERSION,+THE+OLD">LATIN VERSION, THE OLD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=VULGATE">VULGATE</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4722]='Italian Band`i-tal\'-yan.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BAND">BAND</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4723]='Italy`it\'-a-li (Italia): At first confined as a name to the extreme southern part of the Italian peninsula in the region now called Calabria, whence its application was gradually extended. In Greek usage of the 5th century BC, the name was applied to the coasts as far as Metapontum and Posidonia, being synonymous with Oenotria. The Oenotrians are represented as having assumed the name of Italians (Itali) from a legendary ruler Italus (Dionysius, i.12,35; Vergil, Aen. i.533). The extension of Roman authority seems to have given this name an ever-widening application, since it was used to designate their allies generally. As early as the time of Polybius the name Italy was sometimes employed as an appellation for all the country between the two seas (Tyrrhenian and Adriatic) and from the foot of the Alps to the Sicilian Straits (Polyb. i.6; ii.14; iii.39,54), although Cisalpine Gaul was not placed on a footing of complete equality with the peninsula as regards administration until shortly after the death of Julius Caesar. From the time of Augustus the term was used in practically its modern sense (Nissen, Italische Landeskunde, I, 57-87).<P>The name Italy occurs 3 times in the New Testament: <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,2);">Ac 18:2</a>, Aquila "lately come from Italy," because of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,1);">Ac 27:1</a>, the decision that Paul be sent to Italy; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,24);">Heb 13:24</a>, salutation from those "of Italy." The adjective form is found in the appellation, "Italian band" (cobors Italica, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,1);">Ac 10:1</a>).<P>The history of ancient Italy, in so far as it falls within the scope of the present work, is treated under <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ROME">ROME</A> (which see).``3';
|
|
isbe[4724]='Itch`(charec; psora): Only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,27);">De 28:27</a>, where it probably refers to the parasitic skin disease of that name which is very common in Palestine. It is due to a small mite, Sarcoptes scabiei, which makes burrows in the skin and sometimes causes extensive crusts or scabs, attended with a severe itching. It is very easily communicated from person to person by contact, and can be cured only by destruction of the parasite. This disease disqualified its victims for the priesthood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,20);">Le 21:20</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4725]='Ithai`ith\'-a-i.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ITTAI">ITTAI</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4726]='Ithamar`ith\'-a-mar (\'ithamar, "land" or "island of palms": Gesenius; or "father of Tamar," \'i, being perhaps for \'abhi: Cook in Encyclopedia Biblica—though both derivations are uncertain): The 4th son of Aaron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,23);">Ex 6:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,1);">28:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,3);">1Ch 6:3</a>), Eleazar being the 3rd son, Nadab and Abihu the 1st and 2nd sons. While Nadab and Abihu were prematurely cut off for offering strange fire before the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,1,2);">Le 10:1-2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,4);">Nu 3:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,61);">26:61</a>), and Eleazar was appointed chief of the tribe of Levi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,23,25);">Ex 6:23, 25</a>) and ultimately succeeded Aaron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,1);">Ex 28:1</a>), Ithamar was made the treasurer of the offerings for the Tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,21);">Ex 38:21</a>), and superintendent of the Gershonites and Merarites in the service of the Tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,28,33);">Nu 4:28, 33</a>). In the time of Eli the high-priesthood had come to be in his family, but how, and whether before Eli\'s day or first in Eli\'s person, is not told and need not be conjectured. W. R. Smith in Encyclopedia Biblica (art. "Eli"), on the strength of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,27,28);">1Sa 2:27-28</a>, holds that the priesthood was originally in Eli\'s line; but the words "the house of thy father" do not necessarily mean only the house of Ithamar, but may, and most probably do, refer to Aaron and his descendants, of whom Ithamar was one. Nor does the cutting off of Eli\'s family from the priesthood and the setting in their place of "a faithful priest," who should do everything according to Yahweh\'s will and walk before Yahweh\'s anointed forever, find its complete fulfillment in the deposition of Abiathar or Ahimelech, his son, and the installation of Zadok in the time of Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,35);">1Ki 2:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,22);">1Ch 29:22</a>; see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ZADOK">ZADOK</A>). A descendant of Ithamar, Daniel by name, is mentioned among the exiles who returned from Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,2);">Ezr 8:2</a>).``192';
|
|
isbe[4727]='Ithiel`ith\'-i-el (\'ithi\'el, "God is"):<P>(1) A son of Jeshaiah of the tribe of Benjamin, mentioned among the inhabitants of Jerusalem in Nehemiah\'s day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,7);">Ne 11:7</a>).<P>(2) The name is perhaps also found in the oracle of Agur (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,1);">Pr 30:1</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ITHIEL+AND+UCAL">ITHIEL AND UCAL</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4728]='Ithiel And Ucal` (\'ithi\'el we\'ukhal): Names of the two men to whom Agur the son of Jakeh spoke his words (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,1);">Pr 30:1</a>). The purport of introducing these persons is strange and obscure; the margin proposes therefore, by the use of a different pointing, to read the verse, "The man said, I have wearied myself, O God, I have wearied myself, O God, and am consumed," thus doing away with the proper names; a reading which corresponds not inaptly with the tone of the succeeding verses.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AGUR">AGUR</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROVERBS+THE+BOOK+OF">PROVERBS, THE BOOK OF</a>`66';
|
|
isbe[4729]='Ithlah`ith\'-la (yithlah; the King James Version Jetblah): An unidentified town in the territory of Dan, named with Aijalon and Elon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,42);">Jos 19:42</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4730]='Ithmah`ith\'-ma (yithmah, "purity"): A citizen of the country of the Moabites, David\'s deadly enemies, yet mentioned as one of the king\'s heroes (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,46);">1Ch 11:46</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4731]='Ithnan`ith\'-nan (yithnan): A town in the south of Judah mentioned along with Hazor and Ziph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,23);">Jos 15:23</a>), apparently the "Ethnan" of Jerome (Onom 118 13). Not identified.``1';
|
|
isbe[4732]='Ithra`ith\'-ra (yithra\', "abundance"): The father of Amasa, commanding general in the rebel army of Absalom. It seems that his mother was Abigail, a sister or half-sister of King David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,17);">1Ch 2:17</a>). She is called the sister of Zeruiah, Joab\'s mother (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,25);">2Sa 17:25</a>). In this same passage Ithra is called an "Israelite," but in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,17);">1Ch 2:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,5,32);">1Ki 2:5, 32</a>, we read: "Jether the Ishmaelite."``1';
|
|
isbe[4733]='Ithran`ith\'-ran (yithran, "excellent"):<P>(1) A descendant of Seir the Horite, son of Dishon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,26);">Ge 36:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,41);">1Ch 1:41</a>).<P>(2) One of the sons of Zophah of the tribe of Asher (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,37);">1Ch 7:37</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4734]='Ithream`ith\'-re-am (yithre\'am, "residue of the people"): The 6th son born to David at Hebron. His mother\'s name was Eglah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,5);">2Sa 3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,3);">1Ch 3:3</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4735]='Ithrite`ith\'-rit (yithri, "excellence," "preeminence"): A family in Israel, whose home was Kiriath-jearim (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,53);">1Ch 2:53</a>). Among the 37 heroes of David, two are mentioned who belonged to this family, Ira and Gareb (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,38);">2Sa 23:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,40);">1Ch 11:40</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4736]='Ittah-Kazin`it-a-ka\'-zin (\'ittah qatsin): <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,13);">Jos 19:13</a> the King James Version for Eth-kazin. Ittah is correctly Eth with He locale, meaning "toward Eth."``1';
|
|
isbe[4737]='Ittai`it\'-a-i, it\'-i (\'ittay, \'ithay):<P>(1) A Gittite or native of Gath, one of David\'s chief captains and most faithful friends during the rebellion of Absalom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,\'11-22\');">2Sa 15:11-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,2,4,12);">18:2, 4, 12</a>). The narrative reveals David\'s chivalrous and unselfish spirit in time of trouble, as well as the most self-sacrificing loyalty on the part of Ittai. He seems to have but recently left his native city and joined David\'s army through personal attachment to the king. David rapidly promoted him. Hearing of Absalom\'s rebellion and approach to Jerusalem, he flees with David. The latter remonstrates, urges him to go back and join Absalom, as he is a foreigner and in exile. His interests are in the capital and with the king; there is no reason why he should be a fugitive and perhaps suffer the loss of everything; it would be better for him, with his band of men, to put himself and them at the service of Absalom, the new king. "Mercy and truth be with thee," says David in his magnanimity. Ittai, with a double oath, absolutely refuses to go back, but will stand by David until the last. Remonstrance being useless, the monarch orders him across the river, doubtless glad that he had such a doughty warrior and faithful friend by his side. On mustering his hosts to meet Absalom, David makes Ittai a chief captain with the intrepid Joab and Abishai. He doubtless did his part in the battle, and as nothing more is said of him it is possible that he fell in the fight.<P>(2) A Benjamite, one of David\'s 30 mighty men (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,29);">2Sa 23:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,31);">1Ch 11:31</a>, "Ithai").``146';
|
|
isbe[4738]='Ituraea`it-u-re\'-a (Itouraia):<P>1. The Word an Adjective:<P>The term occurs only once in Scripture, in the definition of Philip\'s territory: tes Itouraias kai Trachonitidos choras, which the King James Version renders: "of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis," and Revised Version: "the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,1);">Lu 3:1</a>). Sir W.M. Ramsay has given reasons for the belief that this word was certainly never used as a noun by any writer before the time of Eusebius (Expos, 1894, IX, 51ff, 143ff, 288ff). It must be taken as an adjective indicating the country occupied by the Itureans.<P>2. The Itureans:<P>The descent of the Itureans must probably be traced to Jetur, son of Ishmael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,15);">Ge 25:15</a>), whose progeny were clearly numbered among the Arabian nomads. According to Eupolemus (circa 150 BC), quoted by Eusebius (Praep. Evang. IX, 30), they were associated with the Nabateans, Moabites and Ammonites against whom David warred on the east of the Jordan. They are often mentioned by Latin writers; their skill in archery seems greatly to have impressed the Romans. They were skillful archers (Caesar, Bell. Afr. 20); a lawless (Strabo, xvi.2,10) and predatory people (Cicero, Philipp. ii.112). In the Latin inscriptions Iturean soldiers have Syrian names (HJP, I, ii, 326). They would therefore be the most northerly of the confederates opposed to David (supra), and their country may naturally be sought in the neighborhood of Mt. Hermon.<P>3. Indications of Their Territory:<P>There is nothing to show when they moved from the desert to this district. Aristobulus made war against the Itureans, compelled many of them to be circumcised, and added a great part of their territory to Judea, 140 BC (Ant., XIII, xi, 3). Dio Cassius calls Lysanias "king of the Itureans" (xlix.32), and from him Zenodorus leased land which included Ulatha and Paneas, 25 BC. The capital of Lysanias was Chalcis, and he ruled over the land from Damascus to the sea. Josephus speaks of Soemus as a tetrarch in Lebanon (Vita, 11); while Tacitus calls him governor of the Itureans (Ann. xii.23). The country of Zenodorus, lying between Trachonitis and Galilee, and including Paneas and Ulatha, Augustus bestowed on Herod, 20 BC (Ant., XV, x, 3). In defining the tetrarchy of Philip, Josephus names Batanea, Trachonitis and Auranitis, but says nothing of the Itureans (Ant., XVII, xi, 4; BJ, II, vi, 3). Paneas and Ulatha were doubtless included, and this may have been Iturean territory (HJP, I, ii, 333). It seems probable, therefore, that the Itureans dwelt mainly in the mountains, and in the broad valley of Coele-Syria; but they may also have occupied the district to the southeast of Hermon, the modern Jedur. It is not possible to define more closely the Iturean country; indeed it is not clear whether Luke intended to indicate two separate parts of the dominion of Philip, or used names which to some extent overlapped.<P>It has been suggested that the name Jedur may be derived from the Hebrew yetur, and so be equivalent to Ituraea. But the derivation is impossible.``54';
|
|
isbe[4739]='Ivah`i\'-va.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IVVAH">IVVAH</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4740]='Ivory`i\'-vo-ri (1) shen, "tooth" (translated "ivory," <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,18);">1Ki 10:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,39);">22:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,17);">2Ch 9:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,8);">Ps 45:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,14);">So 5:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',7,4);">7:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,6,15);">Eze 27:6, 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,15);">Am 3:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',6,4);">6:4</a>);<P>(2) shenhabbim; Septuagint odontes elephdntinoi, "elephants\' teeth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,22);">1Ki 10:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,21);">2Ch 9:21</a>);<P>(3) elephantinos, "of ivory" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,12);">Re 18:12</a>)):<P>Shen occurs often, meaning "tooth" of man or beast. In the passages cited it is translated in English Versions of the Bible "ivory" (of "crag," <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,4,5);">1Sa 14:4-5</a>; "cliff," <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,28);">Job 39:28</a> twice; "flesh-hook of three teeth," <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,13);">1Sa 2:13</a>). Shenhabbim is thought to be a contracted form of shen ha-\'ibbim, i.e. ha, the article, and \'ibbim, plural of \'ibbah or \'ibba\'; compare Egyptian ab, ebu, "elephant," and compare Latin ebur, "ivory" (see Liddell and Scott, under the word elephas). On the other hand, it may be a question whether -bim is not a singular form connected with the Arabic fil, "elephant." If the word for "elephant" is not contained in shenhabbim, it occurs nowhere in the Hebrew Bible.<P>Ivory was probably obtained, as now, mainly from the African elephant. It was rare and expensive. It is mentioned in connection with the magnificence of Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,18,22);">1Ki 10:18-22</a>), being brought by the ships of Tarshish (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,17,21);">2Ch 9:17, 21</a>). An "ivory house" of Ahab is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,39);">1Ki 22:39</a>. It is mentioned among the luxuries of Israel in the denunciations of Amos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,15);">3:15</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',6,4);">6:4</A>). It occurs in the figurative language of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,8);">Ps 45:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,14);">So 5:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',7,4);">7:4</a>. It is used for ornamentation of the ships of the Tyrians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,6);">Eze 27:6</a>), who obtain it with ebony through the men of Dedan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,15);">27:15</a>). It is among the merchandise of Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,12);">Re 18:12</a>).<P>We do not learn of the use of elephants in war until a few centuries before the Christian era. In 1Macc 8:6, there is a reference to the defeat of Antiochus the Great, "having an hundred and twenty elephants," by Scipio Africanus in 190 BC. 1Macc 1:17 speaks of the invasion of Egypt by Antiochus Epiphanes with an army in which there were elephants. 1Macc 6:28-47 has a detailed account of a battle between Antiochus Eupator and Judas Maccabeus at Bethsura (Beth-zur). There were 32 elephants. Upon the "beasts" theria) there were "strong towers of wood"; "There were also upon every one two and thirty strong men, that fought upon them, beside the Indian that ruled him."<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',40,15);">Job 40:15</a>, the King James Version margin has for "behemoth," "the elephant, as some think."``37';
|
|
isbe[4741]='Ivory, Tower of`(mighdal hashen): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',7,4);">So 7:4</a> the neck of the Shulammite is compared in whiteness and stateliness to a (or the) tower of ivory. The definite article may suggest that the comparison is with some actual tower in or near Jerusalem; but more probably the language is simply a figure.``1';
|
|
isbe[4742]='Ivvah`iv\'-a (\'iwwah; Aba (= Ava), Aua, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,34);">2Ki 18:34</a>, Oudou, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,13);">2Ki 19:13</a>, apparently due to a misreading): The name is wanting in the Massoretic Text and Septuagint of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',36,19);">Isa 36:19</a>.<P>Ivvah was a city apparently conquered by the Assyrians, and is mentioned by them, in the verses quoted, with Hamath and Arpad, Sepharvaim and Hena. It has been assimilated with the Avva of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,24);">2Ki 17:24</a> as one of the places whence Sargon brought captives to Samaria, and identified with Hit on the Euphrates, between Anah and Ramadieh, but this seems improbable, as is also the suggestion that it is Emma, the modern \'Imm, between Antioch and Aleppo. Hommel (Expository Times, April,1898,330) upholds the view that Hena and Ivvah, or, as he prefers to read, Avvah, are not places at all, but the names of the two chief gods of Hamath, Arpad and Sepharvaim. This would be consistent with <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,34);">2Ki 18:34</a>; but <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,13);">19:13</A>: "Where is the king...of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivvah?" and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,31);">17:31</A>, where the gods of Sepharvaim are stated to be Adrammelech and Anammelech, raise serious difficulties. In all probability, the identification of Ivvah depends upon the correct localization of the twofold Sepharvaim, of which Hena and Ivvah may have been the names. The identification of Sepharvaim with the Babylonian Sip(p)ar is now practically abandoned.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SEPHARVAIM">SEPHARVAIM</a>`136';
|
|
isbe[4743]='Ivy`i\'-vi (kissos): The only mention of the word in all the sacred writings is in 2Macc 6:7 in connection with the oppression of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes: "On the day of the king\'s birth every month they were brought by bitter constraint to eat of the sacrifices; and when the feast of Bacchus (Dionysus) was kept, the Jews were compelled to go in procession to Dionysus, carrying ivy," this plant (Hedera helix) being sacred to the Greek god of wine and of the culture of the vine (compare Eur. Bacchae, passim). It was of ivy or of pine that the "corruptible crown" of the famous Isthmian games was made (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,25);">1Co 9:25</a>).``79';
|
|
isbe[4744]='Iyar`e-yar\'.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IYYAR">IYYAR</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4745]='Iye-Abarim`i-ye-ab\'-a-rim (\'iye ha-\'abharim, "the heaps of the Abarim"; the King James Version Ije-abarim; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,11);">Nu 21:11</a> the Septuagint reads Codex Vaticanus, Chalglei): A place in the journeyings of Israel named after Oboth, said to be "in the wilderness which is before Moab, toward the sunrising" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,11);">Nu 21:11</a>), "in the border of Moab" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,44);">Nu 33:44</a>). The indications of position here given are not sufficient to guide to any identification, and, so far, nothing has been discovered in the district to help us. Called simply "Iyim" (the King James Version "Iim") in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,45);">Nu 33:45</a>.``1';
|
|
isbe[4746]='Iyim`i\'-yim (iyim, "heaps"—the form of which, \'iye, is the construct):<P>(1) A short form of the name Iye-abarim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,45);">Nu 33:45</a>).<P>(2) A town in the territory of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,29);">Jos 15:29</a>; English Versions of the Bible wrongly "Iim"). It lay in the extreme south, "toward the border of Edom." It is not identified.``1';
|
|
isbe[4747]='Iyyar`e-yar\' (iyar; Iar): The 2nd month of the Jewish year, corresponding to May. It is not mentioned in the Bible.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CALENDAR">CALENDAR</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4748]='Izehar`iz\'-e-har, i\'-ze-har (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,19);">Nu 3:19</a> the King James Version).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IZHAR">IZHAR</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4749]='Izhar`iz\'-har (yitshar, "the shining one"):<P>(1) The father of Korah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,1);">Nu 16:1</a>), descended from a Kohathite Levite of this name, whose descendants formed a family, in the tribe of Levi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,18,21);">Ex 6:18, 21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,19,27);">Nu 3:19, 27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,18,38);">1Ch 6:18, 38</a>).<P>(2) A descendant of Judah, whose mother\'s name was Helah. the American Revised Version margin gives the name Zohar (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,7);">1Ch 4:7</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4750]='Izharites`iz\'-har-its (yitshari): The descendants of Izhar, son of Kohath, and grandson of Levi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,19,27);">Nu 3:19, 27</a>). In David\'s reign some of these were "over the treasures of the house of Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,23);">1Ch 26:23</a>), others "were for the outward business over Israel, for officers and judges" (ibid., <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,29);">26:29</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4751]='Izliah; Jezliah`iz-li\'-a (yizli\'ah, "Yah delivers"; the King James Version): A son of Elpaal, of the tribe of Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,18);">1Ch 8:18</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4752]='Izrahiah`iz-ra-hi\'-a (yizrachyah, "Yah appears, or shines"):<P>(1) A descendant of Issachar, grandson of Tola, only son of Uzzi (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,3);">1Ch 7:3</a>).<P>(2) The leader of the singing at the purification of the people, on the occasion of Nehemiah\'s reformation; here rendered "Jezrahiah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,42);">Ne 12:42</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4753]='Izrahite`iz\'-ra-hit (yizrach, "rising, shining"): Shamhuth, the captain of the 5th monthly course (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,8);">1Ch 27:8</a>), is called an "Izrahite." The name may be derived from the town or family of Izrah, but more likely is a corruption of the word "Zerahite," descendant of Zerah of Judah.``1';
|
|
isbe[4754]='Izri`iz\'-ri (yitsri, "creator," "former"): A man of the "sons of Jeduthun," leader of the fourth band of musicians, who served in the sanctuary (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,11);">1Ch 25:11</a>). Identical with Zeri (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,3);">25:3</A>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4755]='Izziah`iz-i\'-a (yizziyah, "Yah unites"; the King James Version Jeziah): One of the faithful Jews who put away their foreign wives. He belonged to the family of Parosh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,25);">Ezr 10:25</a>; 1Esdras 9:26, "Ieddias").``1';
|
|
isbe[4756]='Jaakan`ja\'-a-kan.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEEROTH+BENE+JAAKAN">BEEROTH BENE-JAAKAN</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4757]='Jaakobah`ja-a-ko\'-ba, ja-ak\'-o-ba (ya\'aqobhah, for meaning compare <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JACOB+(1)">JACOB, I,1,2</a>): <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,36);">1Ch 4:36</a>, a Simeonite prince.``1';
|
|
isbe[4758]='Jaala; Jaalah`ja\'-a-la, ja-a\'-la (ya\'ala\', meaning unknown, <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,58);">Ne 7:58</a>) and (ya\'alah, "mountain goat" (?),<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,56);">Ezr 2:56</a>): The name of a family of returned exiles, "children of Solomon\'s servants" = "Jeeli" in 1Esdras 5:33.``1';
|
|
isbe[4759]='Jaalam`ja\'-a-lam: the King James Version for <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JALAM">JALAM</A> (which see).``1';
|
|
isbe[4760]='Jaanai`ja\'-a-ni: the King James Version for <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JANAI">JANAI</A> (which see).``1';
|
|
isbe[4761]='Jaar`ja\'-ar (ya\'ar, "forest" or "wood"): Is only once taken as a proper name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',132,6);">Ps 132:6</a> the Revised Version margin), "We found it in the field of Jaar." It may be a shortened form of the name Kiriath-jearim, where the ark had rested 20 years.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KIRIATH+JEARIM">KIRIATH-JEARIM</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4762]='Jaare-Oregim`ja\'-a-re-or\'-e-jim, -or\'e-gim (ya\'are\'oreghim): In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,19);">2Sa 21:19</a>, given as the name of a Bethlehemite, father of Elhanan, who is said to have slain Goliath the Gittite (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,\'1-\');">1Sa 17</a>). The name is not likely to be a man\'s name; the second part means "weavers" and occurs also as the last word of the verse in the Massoretic Text, so it is probably a scribal error here due to repetition. The first part is taken to be<P>(1) an error for ya\'ir (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JAIR">JAIR</A>), which is to be read in the parallel section in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,5);">1Ch 20:5</a>;<P>(2) in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,24);">2Sa 23:24</a> Elhanan is the son of Dodo, also a Bethlehemite, and Klostermann would read here Dodai as the name of Elhanan\'s father.``149';
|
|
isbe[4763]='Jaareshiah`ja-ar-e-shi\'-a (ya\'areshyah, meaning unknown): In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,27);">1Ch 8:27</a>, a Benjamite, "son" of Jeroham. The King James Version has "Jaresiah."``1';
|
|
isbe[4764]='Jaasai; Jaasau`ja\'-a-si, ja\'-a-so.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JAASU">JAASU</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4765]='Jaasiel`ja-a\'-si-el (ya\'asi\'el, "God makes" (?)): In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,47);">1Ch 11:47</a>, a Mezobaite, one of "the mighty men of the armies," and probably = "Jaasiel" of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,21);">1Ch 27:21</a>, "the son of Abner," and a Benjamite tribal prince of David\'s. the King James Version "Jasiel."``1';
|
|
isbe[4766]='Jaasu; Jassai; Jaasau`ja\'-a-su (the Revised Version (British and American) and Kethibh, ya\'asu, meaning uncertain); (the Revised Version margin and Qere, ya\'asay), (the King James Version): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,37);">Ezr 10:37</a>, one of those who had married foreign wives. Septuagint translates the consonantal text as a verb, kai epoiesan, "and they did." 1Esdras 9:34 has "Eliasis."``1';
|
|
isbe[4767]='Jaazaniah`ja-az-a-ni\'-a (ya\'azanyahu, in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,23);">2Ki 25:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,11);">Eze 8:11</a>; ya\'azanyah, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',35,3);">Jer 35:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',11,1);">Eze 11:1</a>, "Yah hears"):<P>(1) In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,23);">2Ki 25:23</a>, "son of the Maacathite," and one of the Judean "captains of the forces" who joined Gedaliah, the Babylonian governor appointed by Nebuchadrezzar over Judah, at Mizpah. He is the "Jezaniah" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',40,8);">Jer 40:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',42,1);">42:1</a>. Though not mentioned by name, he was presumably one of those captains who joined Johnnan in his attack on Ishmael after the latter had slain Gedaliah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,\'11-18\');">Jer 41:11-18</a>). He is also the same as Azariah of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,2);">Jer 43:2</a>, a name read by the Septuagint\'s Codex Vaticanus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',42,1);">42:1</A> also. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,5);">Jer 43:5</a> relates how Johnnan and his allies, Jaazaniah (= Azariah) among them, left Judah with the remnant, and took up their abode in Egypt.<P>(2) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',35,3);">Jer 35:3</a>, son of Jeremiah (not the prophet), and a chief of the Rechabite clansmen from whose "staunch adherence to the precepts of their ancestor" Jeremiah "points a lesson for his own countrymen" (Driver, Jeremiah, 215).<P>(3) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,11);">Eze 8:11</a>, son of Shaphan, and one of the seventy men of the ciders of Israel whom Ezekiel saw in a vision of Jerusalem offering incense to idols.<P>(4) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',11,1);">Eze 11:1</a>, son of Azzur, and one of the 25 men whom Ezekiel saw in his vision of Jerusalem, at the east door of the Lord\'s house, and against whose iniquity he was commanded to prophesy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',11,1,2,3);">11:1-13</A>).``149';
|
|
isbe[4768]='Jaazer`ja\'-a-zer (ya\'azer).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JAZER">JAZER</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4769]='Jaaziah`ja-a-zi\'-a (ya\'aziyahu, "Yah strengthens"): In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,26,27);">1Ch 24:26-27</a>, a Levite, "son" of Merari. But the Massoretic Text is corrupt. The Septuagint\'s Codex Vaticanus reads (Ozeid), which some take to suggest Uzziah (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,25);">27:25</A>); see Curtis, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles, 274-75; See Kittel, at the place.``1';
|
|
isbe[4770]='Jaaziel`ja-a\'-zi-el (ya\'azi\'el, "God strengthens"): In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,18);">1Ch 15:18</a>, a Levite, one of the musicians appointed to play upon instruments at the bringing up of the ark by David. Kittel and Curtis, following the Septuagint (Ozeiel), read "Uzziel," the name they adopt for Aziel in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,20);">15:20</a>, and for Jeiel in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,5);">16:5</A>.``1';
|
|
isbe[4771]='Jabal`ja\'-bal (yabhal, meaning uncertain): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,20);">Ge 4:20</a>, a son of Lamech by Adah. He is called \'the father of those who dwell in tents and (with) herds.\' So Gunkel, Gen<sup>3</sup>, 52, who says that the corresponding word in Arabic means "the herdsman who tends the camels." Skinner, Genesis, 120, says that both Jabal and Jubal suggest yobhel, which in Phoenician and Hebrew "means primarily \'ram,\' then \'ram\'s horn\' as a musical instrument, and finally \'joyous music\' (in the designation of the year of Jubilee)." See also Skinner, Genesis, 103, on the supposed connection in meaning with Abel.``149';
|
|
isbe[4772]='Jabbok`jab\'-ok (yabboq, "luxuriant river"): A stream in Eastern Palestine first named in the history of Jacob, as crossed by the patriarch on his return from Paddan-aram, after leaving Mahanaim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,22);">Ge 32:22</a>). On the bank of this river he had his strange conflict with an unknown antagonist. The Jabbok was the northern boundary of the territory of Sihon the Amorite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,24);">Nu 21:24</a>). It is also named as the border of Ammon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,16);">De 3:16</a>). It is now called Nahr ez-Zerqa, "river of blue," referring to the clear blue color of its water. It rises near to \'Amman—Rabbath Ammon—and makes a wide circuit, flowing first to the east, then to the northwest, until it is joined by the stream from Wady Jerash, at which point it turns westward, and flows, with many windings, to the Jordan, the confluence being just north of ed-Damiyeh. It drains a wider area than any other stream east of the Jordan, except the Yarmuk. The bed of the river is in a deep gorge with steep, and in many places precipitous, banks. It is a great cleft, cutting the land of Gilead in two. It is lined along its course by a luxuriant growth of oleander which, in season, lights up the valley with brilliant color. The length of the stream, taking no account of its innumerable windings, is about 60 miles. The mouth of the river has changed its position from time to time. In the lower reaches the vegetation is tropical. The river is fordable at many points, save when in full flood. The particular ford referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,\'1-\');">Ge 32</a> cannot now be identified.``54';
|
|
isbe[4773]='Jabesh`ja\'-besh (yabhesh): A short form of <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JABESH-GILEAD">JABESH-GILEAD</a> (which see).``1';
|
|
isbe[4774]='Jabesh-Gilead`ja\'-besh-gil\'-e-ad (yabhesh gil\'adh; or simply yabhish, "dry"): A city east of the Jordan, in the deliverance of which from Nahash the Ammonite Saul\'s military prowess was first displayed (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,1);">1Sa 11:1</a>). At an earlier time the inhabitants failed to share with their brethren in taking vengeance upon Benjamin. This laxity was terribly punished, only 400 virgins being spared alive, who afterward became wives to the Benjamites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',21,\'1-\');">Jud 21</a>). The gratitude of the inhabitants to Saul was affectingly proved after the disaster to that monarch on Gilboa (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,\'1-\');">1Sa 31</a>). David, hearing of their deed, sent an approving message, and sought to win their loyalty to himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,4);">2Sa 2:4</a>). Robinson (Biblical Researches, III, 39) thought it might be represented by ed-Deir, about 6 miles from Pella (Fachil), on the southern bank of Wady Yabis. The distance from Pella agrees with the statement of Eusebius, Onomasticon (s.v.). Others (Oliphant, Land of Gilead, 277f; Merrill, East of Jordan, 430, etc.) would identify it with the ruins of Meriamin, about 3 miles southeast of Pella, on the north of Wady Yabis. The site remains in doubt; but the ancient name still lingers in that of the valley, the stream from which enters the Jordan fully 9 miles southeast of Beisan.``54';
|
|
isbe[4775]='Jabez`ja\'-bez (ya\'bets, "sorrow" ("height)):<P>(1) Place: An unidentified town probably in the territory of Judah, occupied by scribes (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,55);">1Ch 2:55</a>). For an ingenious reconstruction of the passage see EB, under the word<P>(2) Person: The head of a family of Judah, noted for his "honorable" character, though "his mother bare him with sorrow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,9,10);">1Ch 4:9-10</a>), ya\'bets being interpreted as if it stood for ya\'tsebh, "he causes pain." The same play upon words recurs in his prayer, "that it be not to my sorrow!" His request was granted, "and the sorrow implied by his ominous name was averted by prayer" (Dummelow, in the place cited.).``1';
|
|
isbe[4776]='Jabin`ja\'-bin (yabhin, "one who is intelligent," "discerning." The word may have been a hereditary royal title among the Northern Canaanites. Compare the familiar usage of par\'oh melekh mitsrayim):<P>(1) "The king of Hazor," the leading city in Northern Palestine, who led an alliance against Joshua. He was defeated at the waters of Merom, his city was taken and he was slain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,\'1-9\');">Jos 11:1-9</a>).<P>(2) "The king of Canaan, that reigned (or had reigned) in Hazor." It is not clear whether he dwelt in Hazor or Harosheth, the home of Sisera, the captain of his host at the time of the story narrated in Jgs. He oppressed Israel in the days preceding the victory of Deborah and Barak. To the Israelites he must have been but a shadowy figure as compared with his powerful captain, Sisera, for the song makes no mention of him and there is nothing to indicate that he even took part in the battle that freed Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,2,7,17,23,24);">Jud 4:2, 7, 17, 23-24</a> bis; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',83,9,10);">Ps 83:9-10</a>).``80';
|
|
isbe[4777]='Jabneel; Jabneh`jab\'-ne-el, jab\'-ne (yabhne\'el, "God is builder"; Septuagint Lebna, Swete reads Lemna; the Apocrypha has Iamnia, Iamneia):<P>(1) A town on the northern border of the land assigned to Judah, near the western sea, mentioned in connection with Ekron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,11);">Jos 15:11</a>). The place is now represented by the modern village of Yebna which stands upon a hill a little to the south of the Nahr Rubin, about 12 or 13 miles south of Jaffa, on the road from there to Askelon, and about 4 miles from the sea. It had a port, now called Mina Rubin, a short distance south of the mouth of the river, some remains of which still exist. Its harbor was superior to that of Jaffa (PEFS,1875,167-68). It does not occur in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament except in the passage mentioned, but it appears under the form "Jabneh" (yabhneh) in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,6);">2Ch 26:6</a>, as is evident from the mention of Gath and Ashdod in connection with it. The Septuagint reads Gemna (Jabneh) where the Hebrew reads wa-yammah, "even unto the sea," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,46);">Jos 15:46</a>, where Ekron and Ashdod and other cities and villages are mentioned as belonging to Judah\'s inheritance. Josephus (Ant., V, i, 22) assigns it to the tribe of Dan. We have no mention of its being captured by Joshua or occupied by Judah until the reign of Uzziah who captured it and demolished its wall, in connection with his war upon the Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,6);">2Ch 26:6</a>). The position of Jabneel was strong and was the scene of many contests, both in the period of the monarchy and that of the Maccabees. It is mentioned frequently in the account of the wars of the latter with the Syrians. It was garrisoned by the Seleucid kings, and served as a base for raiding the territory of Judah. When Judas Maccabeus defeated Gorgias and the Syrians he pursued them to the plains of Jabneel, but did not take the fortress (1Macc 4:15). Gorgias was there attacked by the Jewish generals Joseph and Azarias, contrary to Judas\' orders, who were repulsed with loss (1Macc 5:56-60; Josephus, Ant, XII, viii, 6). Apollonius occupied it for King Demetrius (1Macc 10:69); and Cendebeus for Antiochus, and from there harassed the Jews (1Macc 15:40). Judas burned the port and navy of Jabneel (2Macc 12:8-9). It was taken by Simon in 142 BC (Josephus, Ant, XIII, vi, 7; BJ, I, ii, 2), together with Gazara and Joppa, but was restored to its inhabitants by Pompey in 62 BC (Ant., XIV, iv, 4), and was rebuilt by Gabinius in 57 BC (BJ, I, viii, 4). It was restored to the Jews by Augustus in 30 AD. Herod gave it to his sister Salome and she bequeathed it to Julia, the wife of Augustus (Ant., XVIII, ii, 2; BJ, II, ix, 1). The town and region were prosperous in Roman times, and when Jerusalem was besieged by Titus the Sanhedrin removed to Jabneel, and it afterward became the seat of a great rabbinical school (Milman, History of the Jews, II, 411-12), but was suppressed in the persecution under Hadrian. Antonius allowed it to be revived, but it was again suppressed because of hostile language on the part of the rabbis (ibid., 451-52). The Crusaders built there the castle of Ibelin, supposing it to be the site of Gath. It was occupied by the Saracens, and various inscriptions in Arabic of the 13th and 14th centuries have been found there (SWP, II, 441-42).<P>(2) A town of Naphtali mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,33);">Jos 19:33</a>, and supposed to be the site of the modern Yemma, southwest of the sea of Galilee (SWP, I, 365). It is the Kefr Yama of the Talmud``138';
|
|
isbe[4778]='Jacan`ja\'-kan (ya\'kan, meaning not known; the King James Version, Jachan): A chief of a family descended from Gad (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,13);">1Ch 5:13</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4779]='Jachin`ja\'-kin (yakhin, "he will establish"):<P>(1) The 4th son of Simeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,10);">Ge 46:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,15);">Ex 6:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,12);">Nu 26:12</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,24);">1Ch 4:24</a> his name is given as "Jarib" (compare the King James Version margin, the Revised Version margin). "Jachinites," the patronymic of the family, occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,12);">Nu 26:12</a>.<P>(2) Head of the 21st course of priests in the time of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,17);">1Ch 24:17</a>). It is used as a family name in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,10);">1Ch 9:10</a>, and as such also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,10);">Ne 11:10</a>, where some of the course are included in the list of those who, having returned from Babylon, willingly accepted the decision of the lot, and abandoned their rural retreats to become citizens and guardians of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,1);">Ne 11:1</a>f).``32';
|
|
isbe[4780]='Jachin And Boaz`ja\'-kin (yakhin, "he shall establish"; bo\'az, "in it is strength," <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,\'15-22\');">1Ki 7:15-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,16,17);">2Ki 25:16-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',3,\'15-17\');">2Ch 3:15-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',52,17);">Jer 52:17</a>): These were the names of the two bronze pillars that stood before the temple of Solomon. They were not used in supporting the building; their appearance, therefore, must have been solely due to moral and symbolic reasons. What these are it is not easy to say. The pillars were not altar pillars with hearths at their top, as supposed by W.R. Smith (Religion of the Semites, 191, 468); rather they were "pillars of witness," as was the pillar that witnessed the contract between Jacob and Laban (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,52);">Ge 31:52</a>). At difficulty arises about the height of the pillars. The writers in Kings and Jeremiah affirm that the pillars before the porch were 18 cubits high apiece (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,15);">1Ki 7:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',52,21);">Jer 52:21</a>), while the Chronicler states that they were 35 cubits (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',3,15);">2Ch 3:15</a>). Various methods have been suggested of reconciling this discrepancy, but it is more probable that there is a corruption in the Chronicler\'s number. On the contruction of the pillars and their capitals, see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPLE,+A1">TEMPLE</a>. At the final capture of Jerusalem they were broken up and the metal of which they were composed was sent to Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,13,16);">2Ki 25:13, 16</a>). In Ezekiel\'s ideal temple the two pillars are represented by pillars of wood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,49);">Eze 40:49</a>).``17';
|
|
isbe[4781]='Jacimus`ja\'-si-mus (Ant., XII, ix, 3).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALCIMUS">ALCIMUS</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4782]='Jacinth`ja\'-sinth.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HYACINTH">HYACINTH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STONES+PRECIOUS">STONES, PRECIOUS</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4783]='Jackal`jak\'-ol:<P>(1) tannim, "jackals," the King James Version "dragons"; compare Arabic tinan, "wolf"; and compare tannin, Arab tinnin, "sea monster" or "monster" the English Revised Version "dragon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',7,12);">Job 7:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',74,13);">Ps 74:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',148,7);">148:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',27,1);">Isa 27:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',51,9);">51:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,34);">Jer 51:34</a>), "serpent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,9,10,12);">Ex 7:9-10, 12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,33);">De 32:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,13);">Ps 91:13</a>), the King James Version "whale" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,21);">Ge 1:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',7,12);">Job 7:12</a>); but tannin, "jackals," the King James Version "sea monsters" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',4,3);">La 4:3</a>), "jackal\'s well," the King James Version "dragon well" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,13);">Ne 2:13</a>), and tannim, "monster," the King James Version and the English Revised Version "dragon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,3);">Eze 29:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',32,2);">32:2</a>).<P>(2) \'iyim, "wolves," the King James Version "wild beasts of the islands"; compare \'i, plural iyim, "island"; also \'ayyah, "a cry," \'awah, "to cry," "to howl"; Arabic \'auwa\', "to bark" (of dogs, wolves, or jackals); \'ibn \'awa\', colloquially wawi, "jackal."<P>(3) tsiyim, "wild beasts of the desert."<P>(4) \'ochim, "doleful creatures."<P>"Jackals" occurs as a translation of tannim, the King James Version "dragons," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,29);">Job 30:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',44,19);">Ps 44:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,22);">Isa 13:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,13);">34:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',35,7);">35:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,20);">43:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',9,11);">Jer 9:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,22);">10:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',14,6);">14:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,33);">49:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,37);">51:37</a>; of the feminine plural form tannoth in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',1,3);">Mal 1:3</a>, and of tannin in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,13);">Ne 2:13</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',4,3);">La 4:3</a>. Tannim is variously referred to a root meaning "to howl," and to a root meaning "to stretch out" trop. "to run swiftly, i.e. with outstretched neck and limb extended" (Gesenius). Either derivation would suit "wolf" equally as well as "jackal." The expression in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,22);">Jer 10:22</a>, "to make the cities of Judah a desolation, a dwelling-place of jackals," seems, however, especially appropriate of jackals. The same is true of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,13);">Isa 34:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',9,11);">Jer 9:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,33);">49:33</a>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,37);">51:37</a>.<P>The jackal (from Persian shaghal), Canis aureus, is found about the Mediterranean except in Western Europe. It ranges southward to Abyssinia, and eastward, in Southern Asia, to farther India. It is smaller than a large dog, has a moderately bushy tail, and is reddish brown with dark shadings above. It is cowardly and nocturnal. Like the fox, it is destructive to poultry, grapes, and vegetables, but is less fastidious, and readily devours the remains of others\' feasts. Jackals generally go about in small companies. Their peculiar howl may frequently be heard in the evening and at any time in the night. It begins with a high-pitched, long-drawn-out cry. This is repeated two or three times, each time in a higher key than before. Finally there are several short, loud, yelping barks. Often when one raises the cry others join in. Jackals are not infrequently confounded with foxes. They breed freely with dogs.<P>While tannim is the only word translated "jackal" in English Versions of the Bible, the words \'iyim, tsiyim, and \'ochim deserve attention. They, as well as tannim, evidently refer to wild creatures inhabiting desert places, but it is difficult to say for what animal each of the words stands. All four (together with benoth ya\'anah and se\'irim) are found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,21,22);">Isa 13:21-22</a>: "But wild beasts of the desert (tsiyim) shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures (\'ochim); and ostriches (benoth ya\'anah) shall dwell there, and wild goats (se\'irim) shall dance there. And wolves (\'iyim) shall cry in their castles, and jackals (tannim) in the pleasant palaces."<P>In the King James Version \'iyim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,22);">Isa 13:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,14);">34:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,39);">Jer 50:39</a>) is translated "wild beasts of the islands" (compare \'iyim, "islands"). the King James Version margin has merely the transliteration iim, the Revised Version (British and American) "wolves," the Revised Version margin "howling creatures." Gesenius suggests the jackal, which is certainly a howler. While the wolf has a blood-curdling howl, it is much more rarely heard than the jackal.<P>Tsiyim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',72,9);">Ps 72:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',74,14);">74:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,21);">Isa 13:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,13);">23:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,14);">34:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,39);">Jer 50:39</a>) has been considered akin to tsiyah, "drought" (compare \'erets tsiyah, "a dry land" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',63,1);">Ps 63:1</a>)), and is translated in the Revised Version (British and American) as follows: <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',72,9);">Ps 72:9</a>, "they that dwell in the wilderness"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',74,14);">74:14</A>, "the people inhabiting the wilderness"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,13);">Isa 23:13</a>, "them that dwell in the wilderness," the Revised Version margin "the beasts of the wilderness"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,21);">Isa 13:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,14);">34:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,39);">Jer 50:39</a>, "wild beasts of the desert." There would be some difficulty in referring tsiyim in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',72,9);">Ps 72:9</a> to beasts rather than to men, but that is not the case in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',74,14);">Ps 74:14</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,13);">Isa 23:13</a>. "Wild cats" have been suggested.<p>\'Ochim, "doleful creatures," perhaps onomatopoetic, occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,21);">Isa 13:21</a>. The translation "owls" has been suggested, and is not unsuitable to the context.<P>It is not impossible that tannim and \'iyim may be different names of the jackals. \'Iyim, tsiyim, and tannim occur together also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,13,14);">Isa 34:13-14</a>, and \'iyim and tsiyim in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,39);">Jer 50:39</a>. Their similarity in sound may have much to do with their collocation. The recognized word for "wolf," ze\'ebh (compare Arabic dhi\'b), occurs 7 times in the Old Testament.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRAGON">DRAGON</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WOLF">WOLF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZOOLOGY">ZOOLOGY</a>`37';
|
|
isbe[4784]='Jackal\'s Well`(\'en ha-tannin; Septuagint has pege ton sukon, "fountain of the figs"; the King James Version dragon well): A well or spring in the valley of Hinnom between the "Gate of the Gai" and the Dung Gate (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,13);">Ne 2:13</a>). No such source exists in the Wady er Rababi (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=HINNOM,+VALLEY+OF">HINNOM, VALLEY OF</a>) today, although it is very probable that a well sunk to the rock in the lower parts of this valley might strike a certain amount of water trickling down the valley-bottom. G.A. Smith suggests (Jerusalem, I, chapter iv) that this source may have arisen as the result of an earthquake, hence, the name "dragon," and have subsequently disappeared; but it is at least as likely that it received its name from the jackals which haunted this valley, as the pariah dogs do today, to consume the dead bodies which were thrown there.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HINNOM+VALLEY+OF">HINNOM, VALLEY OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JACKAL">JACKAL</a>`117';
|
|
isbe[4785]='Jacob (1)`ja\'-kub:<P><b>I. NAME</b><P class="in15">1. Form and Distribution<P class="in15">2. Etymology and Associations<P><b>II. HIS PLACE IN THE PATRIARCHAL SUCCESSION</b><P class="in15">1. As the Son of Isaac and Rebekah<P class="in15">2. As the Brother of Esau<P class="in15">3. As the Father of the Twelve<P><b>III. BIOGRAPHY</b><P class="in15">1. With Isaac in Canaan<P class="in15">2. To Aram and Back<P class="in15">3. In Canaan Again<P class="in15">4. Last Years in Egypt<P><b>IV. CHARACTER AND BELIEFS</b><P class="in15">1. Natural Qualities<P class="in15">2. Stages of Development<P class="in15">3. Attitude toward the Promise<P class="in15">4. How Far a "Type" of Israel<P><b>V. REFERENCES OUTSIDE OF GENESIS</b><P class="in15">1. In the Old Testament<P class="in15">2. In the New Testament<P><b>VI. MODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF JACOB</b><P class="in15">1. Personification of the Hebrew Nation<P class="in15">2. God and Demi-God<P class="in15">3. Character of Fiction<hr /><P>I. Name.<P>1. Form and Distribution:<P>ya\'aqobh (5 times ya\'aqowbh); Iakob, is in form a verb in the Qal imperfect, 3rd masculine singular. Like some 50 other Hebrew names of this same form, it has no subject for the verb expressed. But there are a number of independent indications that Jacob belongs to that large class of names consisting of a verb with some Divine name or title (in this case \'El) as the subject, from which the common abbreviated form is derived by omitting the subject.<P>(a) In Babylonian documents of the period of the Patriarchs, there occur such personal names as Ja-ku-bi, Ja-ku-ub-ilu (the former doubtless an abbreviation of the latter), and Aq-bu-u (compare Aq-bi-a-hu), according to Hilprecht a syncopated form for A-qu(?)-bu(-u), like Aq-bi-ili alongside of A-qa-bi-ili; all of which may be associated with the same root \'aqabh, as appears in Jacob (see H. Ranke, Early Babylonian Personal Names,1905,with annotations by Professor Hilprecht as editor, especially pp. 67, 113, 98 and 4).<P>(b) In the list of places in Palestine conquered by the Pharaoh Thutmose III appears a certain J\'qb\'r, which in Egyptian characters represents the Semitic letters ya\'aqobh-\'el, and which therefore seems to show that in the earlier half of the 15th century BC (so Petrie, Breasted) there was a place (not a tribe; see W. M. Muller, Asien und Europa, 162ff) in Central Palestine that bore a name in some way connected with "Jacob." Moreover, a Pharaoh of the Hyksos period bears a name that looks like ya\'aqobh-\'el (Spiegelberg, Orientalische Literaturzeitung, VII, 130).<P>(c) In the Jewish tractate Pirqe Abhoth, iii.l, we read of a Jew named \'Aqabhyah, which is a name composed of the same verbal root as that in Jacob, together with the Divine name Yahu (i.e. Yahweh) in its common abbreviated form. It should be noted that the personal names \'Aqqubh and Ya\'aqobhah (accent on the penult) also occur in the Old Testament, the former borne by no less than 4 different persons; also that in the Palmyrene inscriptions we find a person named \'ath\'aqobh, a name in which this same verb \'aqabh is preceded by the name of the god \'Ate, just as in \'Aqabhyah it is followed by the name Yahu.<P>2. Etymology and Associations:<P>Such being the form and distribution of the name, it remains to inquire: What do we know of its etymology and what were the associations it conveyed to the Hebrew ear?<P>The verb in all its usages is capable of deduction, by simple association of ideas, from the noun "heel." "To heel" might mean:<P>(a) "to take hold of by the heel" (so probably <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',12,3);">Ho 12:3</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,36);">Ge 27:36</a>);<P>(b) "to follow with evil intent," "to supplant" or in general "to deceive" (so <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,36);">Ge 27:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',9,4);">Jer 9:4</a>, where the parallel, "go about with slanders," is interesting because the word so translated is akin to the noun "foot," as "supplant" is to "heel");<P>(c) "to follow with good intent," whether as a slave (compare our English "to heel," of a dog) for service, or as a guard for protection, hence, "to guard" (so in Ethiopic), "to keep guard over", and thus "to restrain" (so <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',37,4);">Job 37:4</a>);<P>(d) "to follow," "to succeed," "to take the place of another" (so Arabic, and the Hebrew noun \'eqebh, "consequence," "recompense," whether of reward or punishment).<P>Among these four significations, which most commends itself as the original intent in the use of this verb to form a proper name? The answer to this question depends upon the degree of strength with which the Divine name was felt to be the subject of the verb As Jacob-el, the simplest interpretation of the name is undoubtedly, as Baethgen urges (Beitrage zur sem. Religionsgeschichte, 158), "God rewardeth" (d) above), like Nathanael, "God hath given," etc. But we have already seen that centuries before the time when Jacob is said to have been born, this name was shortened by dropping the Divine subject; and in this shortened form it would be more likely to call up in the minds of all Semites who used it, associations with the primary, physical notion of its root (a) above). Hence, there is no ground to deny that even in the patriarchal period, this familiar personal name Jacob lay ready at hand—a name ready made, as it were—for this child, in view of the peculiar circumstances of its birth; we may say, indeed, one could not escape the use of it. (A parallel case, perhaps, is <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,28,30);">Ge 38:28, 30</a>, Zerah; compare Zerahiah.) The associations of this root in everyday use in Jacob\'s family to mean "to supplant" led to the fresh realization of its appropriateness to his character and conduct when he was grown (b) above). This construction does not interfere with a connection between the patriarch Jacob and the "Jacob-els" referred to above (under 1, (b)), should that connection on other grounds appear probable. Such a longer form was perhaps for every "Jacob" an alternative form of his name, and under certain circumstances may have been used by or of even the patriarch Jacob.<P>II. Place in the Patriarchal Succession.<P>1. As the Son of Isaac and Rebekah:<P>In the dynasty of the "heirs of the promise," Jacob takes his place, first, as the successor of Isaac. In Isaac\'s life the most significant single fact had been his marriage with Rebekah instead of with a woman of Canaan. Jacob therefore represents the first generation of those who are determinately separate from their environment. Abraham and his household were immigrants in Canaan; Jacob and Esau were natives of Canaan in the second generation, yet had not a drop of Canaanitish blood in their veins. Their birth was delayed till 20 years after the marriage of their parents. Rebekah\'s barrenness had certainly the same effect, and probably the same purpose, as that of Sarah: it drove Isaac to Divine aid, demanded of him as it had of Abraham that "faith and patience" through which they "inherited the promises" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,12);">Heb 6:12</a>), and made the children of this pair also the evident gift of God\'s grace, so that Isaac was the better able "by faith" to "bless Jacob and Esau even concerning things to come" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,20);">Heb 11:20</a>).<P>2. As the Brother of Esau:<P>These twin brothers therefore share thus far the same relation to their parents and to what their parents transmit to them. But here the likeness ceases. "Being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto (Rebecca), The elder shall serve the younger" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,11,12);">Ro 9:11-12</a>). In the Genesis-narrative, without any doctrinal assertions either adduced to explain it, or deduced from it, the fact is nevertheless made as clear as it is in Malachi or Romans, that Esau is rejected, and Jacob is chosen as a link in the chain of inheritance that receives and transmits the promise.<P>3. As Father of the Twelve:<P>With Jacob the last person is reached who, for his own generation, thus sums up in a single individual "the seed" of promise. He becomes the father of 12 sons, who are the progenitors of the tribes of the "peculiar people." It is for this reason that this people bears his name, and not that of his father Isaac or that of his grandfather Abraham. The "children of Israel," the "house of Jacob," are the totality of the seed of the promise. The Edomites too are children of Isaac. Ishmaelites equally with Israelites boast of descent from Abraham. But the twelve tribes that called themselves "Israel" were all descendants of Jacob, and were the only descendants of Jacob on the agnatic principle of family-constitution.<P>III. Biography.<P>The life of a wanderer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',26,5);">De 26:5</a> the Revised Version, margin) such as Jacob was, may often be best divided on the geographical principle. Jacob\'s career falls into the four distinct periods: that of his residence with Isaac in Canaan, that of his residence with Laban in Aram, that of his independent life in Canaan and that of his migration to Egypt.<P>1. With Isaac in Canaan:<P>Jacob\'s birth was remarkable in respect of<P>(a) its delay for 20 years as noted above,<P>(b) that condition of his mother which led to the Divine oracle concerning his future greatness and supremacy, and<P>(c) the unusual phenomenon that gave him his name: "he holds by the heel" (see above, I, 2).<P>Unlike his twin brother, Jacob seems to have been free from any physical peculiarities; his smoothness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,11);">Ge 27:11</a>) is only predicated of him in contrast to Esau\'s hairiness. These brothers, as they developed, grew apart in tastes and habits. Jacob, like his father in his quiet manner of life and (for that reason perhaps) the companion and favorite of his mother, found early the opportunity to obtain Esau\'s sworn renunciation of his right of primogeniture, by taking advantage of his habits, his impulsiveness and his fundamental indifference to the higher things of the family, the things of the future (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,32);">Ge 25:32</a>). It was not until long afterward that the companion scene to this first "supplanting" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,36);">Ge 27:36</a>) was enacted. Both sons meanwhile are to be thought of simply as members of Isaac\'s following, during all the period of his successive sojourns in Gerar, the Valley of Gerar and Beersheba (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,\'1-\');">Ge 26</a>). Within this period, when the brothers were 40 years of age, occurred Esau\'s marriage with two Hittite women. Jacob, remembering his own mother\'s origin, bided his time to find the woman who should be the mother of his children. The question whether she should be brought to him, as Rebekah was to Isaac, or he should go to find her, was settled at last by a family feud that only his absence could heal. This feud was occasioned by the fraud that Jacob at Rebekah\'s behest practiced upon his father and brother, when these two were minded to nullify the clearly revealed purpose of the oracle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,23);">Ge 25:23</a>) and the sanctions of a solemn oath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,33);">Ge 25:33</a>). Isaac\'s partiality for Esau arose perhaps as much from Esau\'s resemblance to the active, impulsive nature of his mother, as from the sensual gratification afforded Isaac by the savory dishes his son\'s hunting supplied. At any rate, this partiality defeated itself because it overreached itself. The wife, who had learned to be eyes and ears for a husband\'s failing senses, detected the secret scheme, counterplotted with as much skill as unscrupulousness, and while she obtained the paternal blessing for her favorite son, fell nevertheless under the painful necessity of choosing between losing him through his brother\'s revenge or losing him by absence from home. She chose, of course, the latter alternative, and herself brought about Jacob\'s departure, by pleading to Isaac the necessity for obtaining a woman as Jacob\'s wife of a sort different from the Canaanitish women that Esau had married. Thus ends the first portion of Jacob\'s life.<P>2. To Aram and Back:<P>It is no young man that sets out thus to escape a brother\'s vengeance, and perhaps to find a wife at length among his mother\'s kindred. It was long before this that Esau at the age of forty had married the Hittite women (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,34);">Ge 26:34</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,46);">27:46</A>). Yet to one who had hitherto spent his life subordinate to his father, indulged by his mother, in awe of a brother\'s physical superiority, and "dwelling in tents, a quiet (domestic) man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,27);">Ge 25:27</a>), this journey of 500 or 600 miles, with no one to guide, counsel or defend, was as new an experience as if he had really been the stripling that he is sometimes represented to have been. All the most significant chapters in life awaited him: self-determination, love, marriage, fatherhood, domestic provision and administration, adjustment of his relations with men, and above all a personal and independent religious experience.<P>Of these things, all were to come to him in the 20 years of absence from Canaan, and the last was to come first; for the dream of Jacob at Beth-el was of course but the opening scene in the long drama of God\'s direct dealing with Jacob. Yet it was the determinative scene, for God in His latest and fullest manifestation to Jacob was just "the God of Beth-el" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,7);">Ge 35:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,3);">48:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,24);">49:24</a>).<P>With the arrival at Haran came love at once, though not for 7 years the consummation of that love. Its strength is naively indicated by the writer in two ways: impliedly in the sudden output of physical power at the well-side (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,10);">Ge 29:10</a>), and expressly in the patient years of toil for Rachel\'s sake, which "seemed unto him but a few days for the love he had to her" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,20);">Ge 29:20</a>). Jacob is not primarily to be blamed for the polygamy that brought trouble into his home-life and sowed the seeds of division and jealousy in the nation of the future. Although much of Israel\'s history can be summed up in the rivalry of Leah and Rachel—Judah and Joseph—yet it was not Jacob\'s choice but Laban\'s fraud that introduced this cause of schism. At the end of his 7 years\' labor Jacob received as wife not Rachel but Leah, on the belated plea that to give the younger daughter before the elder was not the custom of the country. This was the first of the "ten times" that Laban "changed the wages" of Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,7,41);">Ge 31:7, 41</a>). Rachel became Jacob\'s wife 7 days after Leah, and for this second wife he "served 7 other years." During these 7 years were born most of the sons and daughters (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,35);">Ge 37:35</a>) that formed the actual family, the nucleus of that large caravan that Jacob took back with him to Canaan. Dinah is the only daughter named; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,21);">Ge 30:21</a> is obviously in preparation for the story of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,\'1-\');">Ge 34</a> (see especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,31);">34:31</a>). Four sons of Leah were the oldest: Reuben, with the right of primogeniture, Simeon, Levi and Judah. Next came the 4 sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, the personal slaves of the two wives (compare <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ABRAHAM">ABRAHAM, iv, 2</A>); the two pairs of sons were probably of about the same age (compare order in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,\'1-\');">Ge 49</a>). Leah\'s 5th and 6th sons were separated by an interval of uncertain length from her older group. And Joseph, the youngest son born in Haran, was Rachel\'s first child, equally beloved by his mother, and by his father for her sake (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,2);">33:2</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,20);">44:20</A>), as well as because he was the youngest of the eleven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,3);">37:3</A>).<P>Jacob\'s years of service for his wives were followed by 6 years of service rendered for a stipulated wage. Laban\'s cunning in limiting the amount of this wage in a variety of ways was matched by Jacob\'s cunning in devising means to overreach his uncle, so that the penniless wanderer of 20 years before becomes the wealthy proprietor of countless cattle and of the hosts of slaves necessary for their care (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,10);">Ge 32:10</a>). At the same time the apology of Jacob for his conduct during this entire period of residence in Haran is spirited (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,\'36-42\');">Ge 31:36-42</a>); it is apparently unanswerable by Laban (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,43);">Ge 31:43</a>); and it is confirmed, both by the evident concurrence of Leah and Rachel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,\'14-16\');">Ge 31:14-16</a>), and by indications in the narrative that the justice (not merely the partiality) of God gave to each party his due recompense: to Jacob the rich returns of skillful, patient industry; to Laban rebuke and warning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,\'5-13\',24,29,42);">Ge 31:5-13, 24, 29, 42</a>).<P>The manner of Jacob\'s departure from Haran was determined by the strained relations between his uncle and himself. His motive in going, however, is represented as being fundamentally the desire to terminate an absence from his father\'s country that had already grown too long (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,30);">Ge 31:30</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,25);">Ge 30:25</a>)—a desire which in fact presented itself to him in the form of a revelation of God\'s own purpose and command (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,3);">Ge 31:3</a>). Unhappily, his clear record was stained by the act of another than himself, who nevertheless, as a member of his family, entailed thus upon him the burden of responsibility. Rachel, like Laban her father, was devoted to the superstition that manifested itself in the keeping and consulting of teraphim, a custom which, whether more nearly akin to fetishism, totemism, or ancestor-worship, was felt to be incompatible with the worship of the one true God. (Note that the "teraphim" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,19,34);">Ge 31:19, 34</a>f are the same as the "gods" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,30,43);">31:30,32</A> and, apparently, of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,2,4);">35:2,4</a>.) This theft furnished Laban with a pretext for pursuit. What he meant to do he probably knew but imperfectly himself. Coercion of some sort he would doubtless have brought to bear upon Jacob and his caravan, had he not recognized in a dream the God whom Jacob worshipped, and heard Him utter a word of warning against the use of violence. Laban failed to find his stolen gods, for his daughter was as crafty and ready-witted as he. The whole adventure ended in a formal reconciliation, with the usual sacrificial and memorial token (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,\'43-55\');">Ge 31:43-55</a>).<P>After Laban, Esau. One danger is no sooner escaped than a worse threatens. Yet between them lies the pledge of Divine presence and protection in the vision of God\'s host at Mahanaim: just a simple statement, with none of the fanciful detail that popular story-telling loves, but the sober record of a tradition to which the supernatural was matter of fact. Even the longer passage that preserves the occurrence at Peniel is conceived in the same spirit. What the revelation of the host of God had not sufficed to teach this faithless, anxious, scheming patriarch, that God sought to teach him in the night-struggle, with its ineffaceable physical memorial of a human impotence that can compass no more than to cling to Divine omnipotence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,\'22-32\');">Ge 32:22-32</a>). The devices of crafty Jacob to disarm an offended and supposedly implacable brother proved as useless as that bootless wrestling of the night before; Esau\'s peculiar disposition was not of Jacob\'s making, but of God\'s, and to it alone Jacob owed his safety. The practical wisdom of Jacob dictated his insistence upon bringing to a speedy termination the proposed association with his changeable brother, amid the difficulties of a journey that could not be shared by such divergent social and racial elements as Esau\'s armed host and Jacob\'s caravan, without discontent on the one side and disaster on the other. The brothers part, not to meet again until they meet to bury their father at Hebron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,29);">Ge 35:29</a>).<P>3. In Canaan Again:<P>Before Jacob\'s arrival in the south of Canaan where his father yet lived and where his own youth had been spent, he passed through a period of wandering in Central Palestine, somewhat similar to that narrated of his grandfather Abraham. To any such nomad, wandering slowly from Aram toward Egypt, a period of residence in the region of Mt. Ephraim was a natural chapter in his book of travels. Jacob\'s longer stops, recorded for us, were<P>(1) at Succoth, east of the Jordan near Peniel,<P>(2) at Shechem and<P>(3) at Beth-el.<P>Nothing worthy of record occurred at Succoth, but the stay at Shechem was eventful. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,\'1-\');">Genesis 34</a>, which tells the story of Dinah\'s seduction and her brother\'s revenge, throws as much light upon the relations of Jacob and the Canaanites, as does chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">14</A> or chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'1-\');">23</a> upon Abraham\'s relations, or chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,\'1-\');">26</A> upon Isaac\'s relations, with such settled inhabitants of the land. There is a strange blending of moral and immoral elements in Jacob and his family as portrayed in this contretemps. There is the persistent tradition of separateness from the Canaanites bequeathed from Abraham\'s day (chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,\'1-\');">24</A>), together with a growing family consciousness and sense of superiority (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,7,14,31);">34:7,14,31</A>). And at the same time there is indifference to their unique moral station among the environing tribes, shown in Dinah\'s social relations with them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,1);">34:1</A>), in the treachery and cruelty of Simeon and Levi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,\'25-29\');">34:25-29</a>), and in Jacob\'s greater concern for the security of his possessions than for the preservation of his good name (verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,30);">30</A>).<P>It was this concern for the safety of the family and its wealth that achieved the end which dread of social absorption would apparently never have achieved—the termination of a long residence where there was moral danger for all. For a second time Jacob had fairly to be driven to Beth-el. Safety from his foes was again a gift of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,5);">Ge 35:5</a>), and in a renewal of the old forgotten ideals of consecration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,\'2-8\');">Ge 35:2-8</a>), he and all his following move from the painful associations of Shechem to the hallowed associations of Beth-el. Here were renewed the various phases of all God\'s earlier communications to this patriarch and to his fathers before him. The new name of Israel, hitherto so ill deserved, is henceforth to find realization in his life; his fathers\' God is to be his God; his seed is to inherit the land of promise, and is to be no mean tribe, but a group of peoples with kings to rule over them like the nations round about (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,\'9-12\');">Ge 35:9-12</a>). No wonder that Jacob here raises anew his monument of stone—emblem of the "Stone of Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,24);">Ge 49:24</a>)—and stamps forever, by this public act, upon ancient Luz (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,6);">Ge 35:6</a>), the name of Beth-el which he had privately given it years before (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,19);">Ge 28:19</a>).<P>Losses and griefs characterized the family life of the patriarch at this period. The death of his mother\'s Syrian nurse at Beth-el (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,8);">Ge 35:8</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,59);">Ge 24:59</a>) was followed by the death of his beloved wife Rachel at Ephrath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,19);">Ge 35:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,7);">48:7</a>) in bringing forth the youngest of his 12 sons, Benjamin. At about the same time the eldest of the 12, Reuben, forfeited the honor of his station in the family by an act that showed all too clearly the effect of recent association with Canaanites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,22);">Ge 35:22</a>). Finally, death claimed Jacob\'s aged father, whose latest years had been robbed of the companionship, not only of this son, but also of the son whom his partiality had all but made a fratricide; at Isaac\'s grave in Hebron the ill-matched brothers met once more, thenceforth to go their separate ways, both in their personal careers and in their descendants\' history (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,29);">Ge 35:29</a>).<P>Jacob now is by right of patriarchal custom head of all the family. He too takes up his residence at Hebron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,14);">Ge 37:14</a>), and the story of the family fortunes is now pursued under the new title of "the generations of Jacob" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,2);">Ge 37:2</a>). True, most of this story revolves about Joseph, the youngest of the family save Benjamin; yet the occurrence of passages like <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,\'1-\');">Ge 38</a>, devoted exclusively to Judah\'s affairs, or <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,\'8-27\');">46:8-27</a>, the enumeration of Jacob\'s entire family through its secondary ramifications, or <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,\'1-\');">Ge 49</a>, the blessing of Jacob on all his sons—all these prove that Jacob, not Joseph, is the true center of the narrative until his death. As long as he lives he is the real head of his house, and not merely a superannuated veteran like Isaac. Not only Joseph, the boy of 17 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,2);">37:2</A>), but also the self-willed elder sons, even a score of years later, come and go at his bidding (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,\'1-\');">Ge 42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,\'1-\');">43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,\'1-\');">44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,\'1-\');">45</a>). Joseph\'s dearest thought, as it is his first thought, is for his aged father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,7,27);">43:7,27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,19);">44:19</a>; and especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,3,9,13,23);">45:3,9,13,23</A>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,29);">46:29</A>).<P>4. Last Years in Egypt:<P>It is this devotion of Joseph that results in Jacob\'s migration to Egypt. What honors there Joseph can show his father he shows him: he presents him to Pharaoh, who for Joseph\'s sake receives him with dignity, and assigns him a home and sustenance for himself and all his people as honored guests of the land of Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,\'7-12\');">Ge 47:7-12</a>). Yet in Beersheba, while en route to Egypt, Jacob had obtained a greater honor than this reception by Pharaoh. He had found there, as ready to respond to his sacrifices as ever to those of his fathers, the God of his father Isaac, and had received the gracious assurance of Divine guidance in this momentous journey, fraught with so vast a significance for the future nation and the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,\'1-4\');">Ge 46:1-4</a>): God Himself would go with him into Egypt and give him, not merely the gratification of once more embracing his long-lost son, but the fulfillment of the covenant-promise (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,\'13-16\');">Ge 15:13-16</a>) that he and his were not turning their backs upon Canaan forever. Though 130 years of age when he stood before Pharaoh, Jacob felt his days to have been "few" as well as "evil," in comparison with those of his fathers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,9);">Ge 47:9</a>). And in fact he had yet 17 years to live in Goshen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,28);">Ge 47:28</a>).<P>These last days are passed over without record, save of the growth and prosperity of the family. But at their close came the impartation of the ancestral blessings, with the last will of the dying patriarch. After adopting Joseph\'s sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, as his own, Jacob blesses them, preferring the younger to the elder as he himself had once been preferred to Esau, and assigns to Joseph the "double portion" of the firstborn—that "preeminence" which he denies to Reuben (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,22);">Ge 48:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,4);">49:4</a>). In poetry that combines with the warm emotion and glowing imagery of its style and the unsurpassed elevation of its diction, a lyrical fervor of religious sentiment which demands for its author a personality that had passed through just such course of tuition as Jacob had experienced, the last words of Jacob, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,\'1-\');">Ge 49</a>, mark a turning-point in the history of the people of God. This is a translation of biography into prophecy. On the assumption that it is genuine, we may confidently aver that it was simply unforgetable by those who heard it. Its auditors were its theme. Their descendants were its fulfillment. Neither the one class nor the other could ever let it pass out of memory.<P>It was "by faith," we are well reminded, that Jacob "blessed" and "worshipped" "when he was dying" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,21);">Heb 11:21</a>). For he held to the promises of God, and even in the hour of dissolution looked for the fulfillment of the covenant, according to which Canaan should belong to him and to his seed after him. He therefore set Joseph an example, by "giving commandment concerning his bones," that they might rest in the burial-place of Abraham and Isaac near Hebron. To the accomplishment of this mission Joseph and all his brethren addressed themselves after their father\'s decease and the 70 days of official mourning. Followed by a "very great company" of the notables of Egypt, including royal officials and representatives of the royal family, this Hebrew tribe carried up to sepulture in the land of promise the embalmed body of the patriarch from whom henceforth they were to take their tribal name, lamented him according to custom for 7 days, and then returned to their temporary home in Egypt, till their children should at length be "called" thence to become God\'s son" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',11,1);">Ho 11:1</a>) and inherit His promises to their father Jacob.<P>IV. Character and Beliefs.<P>In the course of this account of Jacob\'s career the inward as well as the outward fortunes of the man have somewhat appeared. Yet a more comprehensive view of the kind of man he was will not be superfluous at this point. With what disposition was he endowed—the natural nucleus for acquired characteristics and habits? Through what stages did he pass in the development of his beliefs and his character? In particular, what attitude did he maintain toward the most significant thing in his life, the promise of God to his house? And lastly, what resemblances may be traced in Israel the man to Israel the nation, of such sort that the one may be regarded as "typical" of the other? These matters deserve more than a passing notice.<P>1. Natural Qualities:<P>From his father, Jacob inherited that domesticity and affectionate attachment to his home circle which appears in his life from beginning to end. He inherited shrewdness, initiative and resourcefulness from Rebekah—qualities which she shared apparently with her brother Laban and all his family. The conspicuous ethical faults of Abraham and Isaac alike are want of candor and want of courage. It is not surprising, therefore, to find the same failings in Jacob. Deceit and cowardice are visible again and again in the impartial record of his life. Both spring from unbelief. They belong to the natural man. God\'s transformation of this man was wrought by faith—by awakening and nourishing in him a simple trust in the truth and power of the Divine word. For Jacob was not at any time in his career indifferent to the things of the spirit, the things unseen and belonging to the future. Unlike Esau, he was not callous to the touch of God. Whether through inheritance, or as a fruit of early teaching, he had as the inestimable treasure, the true capital of his spiritual career, a firm conviction of the value of what God had promised, and a supreme ambition to obtain it for himself and his children. But against the Divine plan for the attainment of this goal by faith, there worked in Jacob constantly his natural qualities, the non-moral as well as the immoral qualities, that urged him to save himself and his fortunes by "works"—by sagacity, cunning, compromise, pertinacity—anything and everything that would anticipate God\'s accomplishing His purpose in His own time and His own way. In short, "the end justifies the means" is the program that, more than all others, finds illustration and rebuke in the character of Jacob.<P>2. Stages of Development:<P>Starting with such a combination of natural endowments, social, practical, ethical, Jacob passed through a course of Divine tuition, which, by building upon some of them, repressing others and transfiguring the remainder, issued in the triumph of grace over nature, in the transformation of a Jacob into an Israel. This tuition has been well analyzed by a recent writer (Thomas, Genesis, III, 204f) into the school of sorrow, the school of providence and the school of grace. Under the head of sorrow, it is not difficult to recall many experiences in the career just reviewed: long exile; disappointment; sinful passions of greed, anger, lust and envy in others, of which Jacob was the victim; perplexity; and, again and again, bereavement of those he held most dear.<P>But besides these sorrows, God\'s providence dealt with him in ways most remarkable, and perhaps more instructive for the study of such Divine dealings than in the case of any other character in the Old Testament. By alternate giving and withholding, by danger here and deliverance there, by good and evil report, now by failure of "best laid schemes" and now by success with seemingly inadequate means, God developed in him the habit—not native to him as it seems to have been in part to Abraham and to Joseph, —of reliance on Divine power and guidance, of accepting the Divine will, of realizing the Divine nearness and faithfulness.<P>And lastly, there are those admirably graded lessons in the grace of God, that were imparted in the series of Divine appearances to the patriarch, at Beth-el, at Haran, at Peniel, at Beth-el again and at Beersheba. For if the substance of these Divine revelations be compared, it will be found that all are alike in the assurance (1) that God is with him to bless; (2) that the changes of his life are ordained of God and are for his ultimate good; and (3) that he is the heir of the ancestral promises.<P>It will further be found that they may be arranged in a variety of ways, according as one or another of the revelations be viewed as the climax. Thus (1), agreeing with the chronological order, the appearance at Beersheba may well be regarded as the climax of them all. Abraham had gone to Egypt to escape a famine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,10);">Ge 12:10</a>), but he went without revelation, and returned with bitter experience of his error. Isaac essayed to go to Egypt for the same cause (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,1);">Ge 26:1</a>f), and was prevented by revelation. Jacob now goes to Egypt, but he goes with the express approval of the God of his fathers, and with the explicit assurance that the same Divine providence which ordained this removal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,20);">Ge 50:20</a>) will see that it does not frustrate any of the promises of God. This was a crisis in the history of the "Kingdom of God" on a paragraph with events like the Exodus, the Exile, or the Return.<P>(2) In its significance for his personal history, the first of these revelations was unique. Beth-el witnessed Jacob\'s choice, evidently for the first time, of his fathers\' God as his God. And though we find Jacob later tolerating idolatry in his household and compromising his religious testimony by sin, we never find a hint of his own unfaithfulness to this first and final religious choice. This is further confirmed by the attachment of his later revelations to this primary one, as though this lent them the significance of continuity, and made possible the unity of his religious experience. So at Haran it was the "God of Beth-el" who directed his return (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,13);">Ge 31:13</a>); at Shechem it was to Beth-el that he was directed, in order that he might at length fulfill his Beth-el vow, by erecting there an altar to the God who had there appeared to him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,1);">Ge 35:1</a>); and at Beth-el finally the promise of former years was renewed to him who was henceforth to be Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,\'9-15\');">Ge 35:9-15</a>).<P>(3) Though thus punctuated with the supernatural, the only striking bit of the marvelous in all this biography is the night scene at Peniel. And this too may justly be claimed as a climax in Jacob\'s development. There he first received his new name, and though he deserved it as little in many scenes thereafter as he had deserved it before, yet the same could be said of many a man who has "seen the face of God," but has yet to grasp, like Jacob, the lesson that the way to overcome is through the helpless but clinging importunity of faith.<P>(4) Rather than in any of the other scenes, however, it was at Beth-el the second time that the patriarch reached the topmost rung on the ladder of development. As already noticed, the substance of all the earlier revelations is here renewed and combined. It is no wonder that after this solemn theophany we find Jacob, like Moses later, \'enduring as seeing him who is invisible\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,27);">Heb 11:27</a>), and "waiting for the salvation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,18);">Ge 49:18</a>) of a God \'who is not ashamed of him, to be called his God\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,16);">Heb 11:16</a>), but is repeatedly called "the God of Jacob."<P>Finally, such a comparison of these revelations to Jacob reveals a variety in the way God makes Himself known. In the first revelation, naturally, the effort is made chiefly to impress upon its recipient the identity of the revealing God with the God of his fathers. And it has been remarked already that in the later revelations the same care is taken to identify the Revealer with the One who gave that first revelation, or else to identify Him, as then, with the God of the fathers. Yet, in addition to this, there is a richness and suitability in the Divine names revealed, which a mechanical theory of literary sources not only leaves unexplained but fails even to recognize. At Beth-el first it is Yahweh, the personal name of this God, the God of his fathers, who enters into a new personal relation with Jacob; now, of all times in his career, he needs to know God by the differential mark that distinguishes Him absolutely from other gods, that there may never be confusion as to Yahweh\'s identity. But this matter is settled for Jacob once for all. Thenceforth one of the ordinary terms for deity, with or without an attributive adjunct, serves to lift the patriarch\'s soul into communication with his Divine Interlocutor. The most general word of all in the Semitic tongues for deity is \'El, the word used in the revelations to Jacob at Haran in Genesis (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,13);">31:13</A>), at Shechem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,1);">35:1</A>), at Beth-el the second time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,11);">35:11</A>) and at Beersheba (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,3);">46:3</A>). But it is never used alone. Like Allah in the Arabic language (= the God), so \'El with the definite article before it serves to designate in Hebrew a particular divinity, not deity in general. Or else \'El without the article is made definite by some genitive phrase that supplies the necessary identification: so in Jacob\'s case, El-beth-el (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,7);">35:7</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,13);">31:13</a>) or El-Elohe-Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,20);">33:20</a>). Or, lastly, there is added to \'El some determining title, with the force of an adjective, as Shaddai (translated "Almighty") in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,11);">35:11</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,3);">43:3</A>). In clear distinction from this word, \'El, with its archaic or poetic flavor, is the common Hebrew word for God, \'Elohim. But while \'Elohim is used regularly by the narrator of the Jacob-stories in speaking, or in letting his actors speak, of Jacob\'s God, who to the monotheistic writer is of course the God and his own God, he never puts this word thus absolutely into the mouth of the revealing Deity. Jacob can say, when he awakes from his dream, "This is the house of \'Elohim," but God says to him in the dream, "I am the God (\'Elohim) of thy father" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,17);">28:17</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,13);">13</A>). At Mahanaim Jacob says, "This is the host of \'Elohim" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,2);">32:2</A>), but at Beersheba God says to Jacob, "I am...the God (\'Elohim) of thy father" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,3);">46:3</A>). Such are the distinctions maintained in the use of these words, all of them used of the same God, yet chosen in each case to fit the circumstances of speaker, hearer and situation.<P>The only passage in the story of Jacob that might appear to be an exception does in fact but prove the rule. At Peniel the angel of God explains the new name of Israel by saying, "Thou hast striven with God (\'Elohim) and with men, and hast prevailed." Here the contrast with "men" proves that \'Elohim without the article is just the right expression, even on the lips of Deity: neither Deity nor humanity has prevailed against Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,28);">Ge 32:28</a>).<P>Throughout the entire story of Jacob, therefore, his relations with Yahweh his God, after they were once established (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,\'13-16\');">Ge 28:13-16</a>), are narrated in terms that emphasize the Divinity of Him who had thus entered into covenant-relationship with him: His Divinity—that is to say, those attributes in which His Divinity manifested itself in His dealings with Jacob.<P>3. Attitude toward the Promise:<P>From the foregoing, two things appear with respect to Jacob\'s attitude toward the promise of God. First, with all his faults and vices he yet was spiritually sensitive; he responded to the approaches of his God concerning things of a value wholly spiritual—future good, moral and spiritual blessings. And second, he was capable of progress in these matters; that is, his reaction to the Divine tuition would appear, if charted, as a series of elevations, separated one from another, to be sure, by low levels and deep declines, yet each one higher than the last, and all taken collectively lifting the whole average up and up, till in the end faith has triumphed over sight, the future over present good, a yet unpossessed but Divinely promised Canaan over all the comfort and honors of Egypt, and the aged patriarch lives only to "wait for Yahweh\'s salvation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,18);">Ge 49:18</a>).<P>The contrast of Jacob with Esau furnishes perhaps the best means of grasping the significance of these two facts for an estimate of Jacob\'s attitude toward the promise. For in the first place, Esau, who possessed so much that Jacob lacked—directness, manliness, a sort of bonhomie, that made him superficially more attractive than his brother—Esau shows nowhere any real "sense" for things spiritual. The author of Hebrews has caught the man in the flash of a single word, "profane" bebelos)—of course, in the older, broader, etymological meaning of the term. Esau\'s desires dwelt in the world of the non-sacred; they did not aspire to that world of nearness to God, where one must \'put off the shoes from off his feet, because the place whereon he stands is holy ground.\' And in the second place, there is no sign of growth in Esau. What we see him in his father\'s encampment, that we see him to the end—so far as appears from the laconic story. With the virtues as well as the vices of the man who lives for the present—forgiving when strong enough to revenge, condescending when flattered, proud of power and independent of parental control or family tradition—Esau is as impartially depicted by the sacred historian as if the writer had been an Edomite instead of an Israelite: the sketch is evidently true to life, both from its objectivity and from its coherence.<P>Now what Esau was, Jacob was not. His fault in connection with the promises of God, the family tradition, the ancestral blessing, lay not in despising them, but in seeking them in immoral ways. Good was his aim; but he was ready to "do evil that good might come." He was always tempted to be his own Providence, and God\'s training was clearly directed, both by providential leadings and by gracious disclosures, to this corresponding purpose: to enlighten Jacob as to the nature of the promise; to assure him that it was his by grace; to awaken personal faith in its Divine Giver; and to supplement his "faith" by that "patience" without which none can "inherit the promises." The faith that accepts was to issue at length in the faith that waits.<P>4. How Far a "Type" of Israel:<P>A nation was to take its name from Jacob-Israel, and there are some passages of Scripture where it is uncertain whether the name designates the nation or its ancestor. In their respective relations to God and to the world of men and nations, there is a true sense in which the father was a "type" of the children. It is probably only a play of fancy that would discover a parallel in their respective careers, between the successive stages of life in the father\'s home (Canaan), life in exile, a return, and a second exile. But it is not fanciful to note the resemblance between Jacob\'s character and that of his descendants. With few exceptions the qualities mentioned above (IV, 2) will be found, mutatis mutandis, to be equally applicable to the nation of Israel. And even that curriculum in which the patriarch learned of God may be viewed as a type of the school in which the Hebrew people—not all of them, nor even the mass, but the "remnant" who approximated to the ideal Israel of the prophets, the "servant of Yahweh"—were taught the lessons of faith and patience, of renunciation and consecration, that appear with growing clearness on the pages of Isaiah, of Habakkuk, of Jeremiah, of Malachi. This is apparently Hosea\'s point of view in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',12,\'2-4\',12);">Ho 12:2-4, 12</a>.<P>A word of caution, however, is needed at this point. There are limits to this equation. Even critics who regard Jacob under his title of Israel as merely the eponymous hero, created by legend to be the forefather of the nation (compare below, VI, 1), must confess that Jacob as Jacob is no such neutral creature, dressed only in the colors of his children\'s racial qualities. There is a large residuum in Jacob, after all parallelisms have been traced, that refuses to fit the lines of Hebrew national character or history, and his typical relation in fact lies chiefly in the direction of the covenant-inheritance, after the fashion of Malachi\'s allusion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',1,2);">Mal 1:2</a>), interpreted by Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,\'10-13\');">Ro 9:10-13</a>).<P>V. References Outside of Genesis.<P>Under his two names this personage Jacob or Israel is more frequently mentioned than any other in the whole of sacred history. Yet in the vast majority of cases the nation descended from him is intended by the name, which in the form of "Jacob" or "Israel" contains not the slightest, and in the form "children of Israel," "house of Jacob" and the like, only the slightest, if any, allusion to the patriarch himself. But there still remain many passages in both Testaments where the Jacob or Israel of Genesis is clearly alluded to.<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>There is a considerable group of passages that refer to him as the last of the patriarchal triumvirate—Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: so particularly of Yahweh as the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," and of the covenant-oath as having been "sworn unto Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." And naturally the nation that is known by his name is frequently called by some phrase, equivalent to the formal bene yisra\'el, yet through its unusualness lending more significance to the idea of their derivation from him: so "seed of Jacob" and (frequently) "house of Jacob (Israel)." But there are a few Old Testament passages outside of Genesis in which so much of Jacob\'s history has been preserved, that from these allusions alone a fair notion might have been gathered concerning the Hebrews\' tradition of their common ancestor, even if all the story in Gen had been lost. These passages are: <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,3,4,32);">Jos 24:3-4, 32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,\'10-23\');">Ps 105:10-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',12,\'2-4\',12);">Ho 12:2-4, 12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',1,2);">Mal 1:2</a>f. Besides these, there are other allusions, scattered a word here and a sentence there, from all of which together we learn as follows. God gave to Isaac twin sons, Esau and Jacob, the latter at birth taking the former by the heel. God elected Jacob to be the recipient of the covenant-promise made to his father Isaac and to his grandfather Abraham; and this choice involved the rejection of Esau. Yahweh appeared to Jacob at Beth-el and told him the land of Canaan was to be his and his seed\'s after him forever. Circumstances not explained caused Jacob to flee from his home in Canaan to Aram, where he served as a shepherd to obtain a wife as his wage. He became the father of 12 sons. He strove with the angel of God and prevailed amid earnest supplication. His name was by Yahweh Himself changed to Israel. Under Divine protection as God\'s chosen one and representative, his life was that of a wanderer from place to place; once only he bought a piece of land, for a hundred pieces, near Shechem, from Hamor, the father of Shechem. A famine drove him down to Egypt, but not without providential preparation for the reception there of himself and all his family, through the remarkable fortunes of his son Joseph, sold, exiled, imprisoned, delivered, and exalted to a position where he could dispose of rulers and nations. In Egypt the children of Jacob multiplied rapidly, and at his death he made the sons of Joseph the heirs of the only portion of Canaanitish soil that he had acquired.<P>From this it appears, first, that not much that is essential in the biography of Jacob would have perished though Genesis had been lost; and, second, that the sum of the incidental allusions outside Genesis resemble the total impression of the narratives in Genesis—in other words, that the Biblical tradition is self-consistent. And it runs back to a date (Hosea, 8th century BC) little farther removed from the events recounted than the length of time that separates our own day from the Norman conquest, or the Fall of Constantinople from the Hegira, or Jesus Christ from Solomon.<P>2. In the New Testament:<P>In the New Testament also there are, besides the references to Jacob simply as the father of his nation, several passages that recall events in his life or traits of his character. These are: <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,5,6,12);">Joh 4:5-6, 12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,12,14,15,16);">Ac 7:12, 14-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,\'10-13\');">Ro 9:10-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,9,20);">Heb 11:9, 20</a>f. In the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman it appears that the Samaritans cherished the association of Jacob with the ground he bought near Shechem, and with the well he dug while sojourning there with his sons and his flocks; they prided themselves on its transmission to them through Joseph, not to the hated Jews through Judah, and magnified themselves in magnifying Jacob\'s "greatness" and calling him "our father." Stephen\'s speech, as Luke reports it, includes in its rapid historical flight a hint or two about Jacob beyond the bare fact of his place in the tribal genealogy. Moved by the famine prevailing in Egypt and Canaan, Jacob twice dispatches his sons to buy grain in Egypt, and the second time Joseph is made known to his brothers, and his race becomes manifest to Pharaoh. At Joseph\'s behest, Jacob and all the family remove to Egypt. There all remain until their death, but the "fathers" (Joseph and his brethren; compare Jerome, Epistola cviii, edition Migne) are buried in the family possession near Shechem. (Here emerges one of those divergences from the Old Testament tradition that are a notable feature of Stephen\'s speech, and that have furnished occasion for much speculation upon their origin, value and implications. See commentaries on Acts.) Paul\'s interest in Jacob appears in connection with his discussion of Divine election, where he calls attention to the oracle of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,23);">Ge 25:23</a> and to the use already made of the passage by Malachi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',1,2);">1:2</A>f), and reminds his readers that this choice of Jacob and rejection of Esau was made by God even before these twin sons of Isaac and Rebecca were born. Finally, the author of He, when charting the heroes of faith, focuses his glass for a moment upon Jacob: first, as sharing with Abraham and Isaac the promise of God and the life of unworldly, expectant faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,9);">Heb 11:9</a>); and second, as receiving from Isaac, and at his death transmitting to his grandsons, blessings that had value only for one who worships and believes a God with power over "things to come" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,20);">Heb 11:20</a>f).<P>VI. Modern Interpretations of Jacob.<P>For those who see in the patriarchal narratives anything—myth, legend, saga—rather than true biography, there is, of course, a different interpretation of the characters and events portrayed in the familiar Genesis-stories, and a different value placed upon the stories themselves.<P>Apart from the allegorizing treatment accorded them by Philo the Jew and early Christian writers of like mind (see specimen in <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ABRAHAM">ABRAHAM</a>), these views belong to modern criticism. To critics who make Hebrew history begin with the settlement of Canaan by the nomad Israelites fresh from the desert, even the Mosaic age and the Egyptian residence are totally unhistorical—much more so these tales of a pre-Mosaic patriarchal age. Yet even those writers who admit the broad outlines of a residence of the tribes in Egypt, an exodus of some sort, and a founder of the nation named Moses, are for the most part skeptical of this cycle of family figures and fortunes in a remote age, with its nomads wandering between Mesopotamia and Canaan. and to and fro in Canaan, its circumstantial acquaintance with the names and relationships of each individual through those 4 long patriarchal generations, and its obvious foreshadowing of much that the later tribes were on this same soil to act out centuries later. This, we are told, is not history. Whatever else it may be, it is not a reliable account of such memorable events as compel their own immortality in the memories and through the written records of mankind.<P>1. Personification of the Hebrew Nation:<P>The commonest view held, collectively of the entire narrative, specifically of Jacob, is that which sees here the precipitate from a pure solution of the national character and fortunes. Wellhausen, e.g., says (Prolegomena(6), 316): "The material here is not mythical, but national; therefore clearer (namely, than in <span class="noTag">Ge 1-11</span>) and in a certain sense historical. To be sure there is no historical knowledge to be gained here about the patriarchs, but only about the time in which the stories concerning them arose in the people of Israel; this later time with its inward and outward characteristics is here unintentionally projected into the gray antiquity and mirrored therein like a glorified phantasm ....(p. 318). Jacob is more realistically drawn than the other two (Abraham and Isaac)." In section IV, 4, above, we observed that, while many of Jacob\'s personal qualities prefigured the qualities of the later Hebrew people, there were some others that did not at all fit this equation. Wellhausen himself remarks this, in regard to the contrast between warlike Israel and the peaceful ancestors they invented for themselves. In his attempt to account for this contrast, he can only urge that a nation condemned to eternal wars would naturally look back upon, as well as forward to, a golden age of peace. (An alternative explanation he states, only to reject.) He fails to observe that this plea does not in the least alter the fact—his plea is indeed but a restatement of the fact—that this phenomenon is absolutely at variance with his hypothesis of how these stories of Jacob and the rest came to be what they are (see Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstamme, 250ff).<P>2. God and Demi-God:<P>This general view, which when carried to its extreme implications (as by Steuernagel, Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stamme in Kanaan, 1901) comes perilously near the reductio ad absurdum that is its own refutation, has been rejected by that whole group of critics, who, following Noldeke, see in Jacob, as in so many others of the patriarchs, an original deity (myth), first abased to the grade of a hero (heroic legend), and at last degraded to the level of a clown (tales of jest or marvel). Adherents of this trend of interpretation differ widely among themselves as to details, but Jacob is generally regarded as a Canaanitish deity, whose local shrine was at Shechem, Beth-el or Peniel, and whose cult was taken over by the Hebrews, their own object of worship being substituted for him, and the outstanding features of his personality being made over into a hero that Israel appropriated as their national ancestor, even to the extent of giving him the secondary name of Israel. Stade attempted a combination of this "mythical" view with the "national" view in the interest of his theory of primitive animism, by making the patriarch a "mythological figure revered as an eponymous hero." This theory, in any form, requires the assumption, which there is nothing to support, that Jacob (or Jacob-el) is a name originally belonging to a deity and framed to fit his supposed character. At first, then, it meant "\'El deceives" or "\'El recompenses" (so B. Luther, ZATW, 1901, 60ff; compare also the same writer, as well as Meyer himself, in the latter\'s Israeliten, etc., 109ff, 271ff). Meyer proposes the monstrosity of a nominal sentence with the translation, "\' He deceives\' is \'El." Thus, the first element of the name Jacob came to be felt as the name itself (= "Jacob is God"), and it was launched upon its course of evolution into the human personage that Genesis knows. It suffices to say with regard to all this, that in addition to its being inherently improbable—not to say, unproved—it goes directly in the face of the archaeological evidence adduced under I,1,above. The simple fact that Jacob(-el) was a personal name for men, of everyday occurrence in the 2nd-3rd millenniums BC, is quite enough to overthrow this whole hypothesis; for, as Luther himself remarks (op. cit., 65), the above evolution of the name is essential to the "mythical" theory: "when this alteration took place cannot be told; yet it has to be postulated, since otherwise it remains inexplicable, how personal names could arise out of these formations (like Jacob-el) by rejection of the \'El."<P>3. Character of Fiction:<P>The inadequacy of the two theories hitherto advanced to account for the facts of Genesis being thus evident, Gunkel and others have explicitly rejected them and enunciated a third theory, which may be called the saga-theory. According to Gunkel, "to understand the persons of Genesis as nations is by no means a general key to their interpretation"; and, "against the whole assumption that the principal patriarchal figures are originally gods is this fact first and foremost, that the names Jacob and Abraham are shown by the Babylonian to be customary personal names, and furthermore that the tales about them cannot be understood at all as echoes of original myths." In place of these discredited views Gunkel (compare also Gressmann, ZATW, 1910, 1ff) makes of Jacob simply a character in the stories (marvelous, humorous, pathetic and the like) current in ancient Israel, especially on the lips of the professional story-teller. Whereas much of the material in these stories came to the Hebrews from the Babylonians, Canaanites or Egyptians, Jacob himself is declared to have belonged to the old Hebrew saga, with its flavor of nomadic desert life and sheep-raising. "The original Jacob may be the sly shepherd Jacob, who fools the hunter Esau; another tale, of the deceit of a father-in-law by his son-in-law, was added to it—the more naturally because both are shepherds; a third cycle, about an old man that loves his youngest son, was transferred to this figure, and that youngest son received the name of Joseph at a time when Jacob was identified with Israel\'s assumed ancestor \'Israel.\' Thus our result is, that the most important patriarchs are creations of fiction" (Schriften des Altes Testament, 5te Lieferung, 42).<P>It is so obvious that this new attitude toward the patriarchs lends itself to a more sympathetic criticism of the narrative of Genesis, that critics who adopt it are at pains to deny any intention on their part of rehabilitating Jacob and others as historical figures. "Saga," we are told, "is not capable of preserving through so many centuries a picture" of the real character or deeds of its heroes, even supposing that persons bearing these names once actually lived; and we are reminded of the contrast between the Etzel of saga and the Attila of history, the Dietrich of saga and the Theodoric of history. But as against this we need to note, first, that the long and involved course of development through which, ex hypothesi, these stories have passed before reaching their final stage (the Jahwist document (Jahwist), 9th century BC; Gunkel, op. cit.,8,46) involves a very high antiquity for the earlier stages, and thus reduces to a narrow strip of time those "so many centuries" that are supposed to separate the actual Jacob from the Jacob of saga (compare <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ABRAHAM">ABRAHAM, vii, 4</A>); and second, that the presuppositions as to the origin, nature and value of saga with which this school of criticism operates are, for the most part, only an elaborate statement of the undisputed major premise in a syllogism, of which the minor premise is: the Genesis-stories are saga. Against this last proposition, however, there lie many weighty considerations, that are by no means counterbalanced by those resemblances of a general sort which any student of comparative literature can easily discern (see also Baethgen, op. cit., 158).`<a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JACOB+(2)">JACOB (2)`15';
|
|
isbe[4786]='Jacob (2)`(ya\'aqobh; Iakob):<P>(1) The patriarch (see preceding article <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JACOB+(1)">JACOB (1)</A>).<P>(2) The father of Joseph the husband of Mary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,15,16);">Mt 1:15-16</a>).<P>(3) Patronymic denoting the Israelites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,21);">Isa 10:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,1);">14:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,16);">Jer 10:16</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4787]='Jacob\'s Well`(pege tou Iakob):<P>1. Position of Well:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,3);">Joh 4:3</a>ff we read that our Lord "left Judea, and departed again into Galilee. And he must needs pass through Samaria. So he cometh to a city of Samaria, called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph: and Jacob\'s well was there." When Jacob came to Shechem on his return from Paddanaram he encamped "before," i.e. east of the city, and bought the land on which he had spread his tent (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,18);">Ge 33:18</a>f). This is doubtless the "portion" (Hebrew shekhem) spoken of in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,22);">Ge 48:22</a>; although there it is said to have been taken with sword and bow from the Amorites. Where the pass of Shechem opens to the east, near the northern edge of the valley, lies the traditional tomb of Joseph. On the other side of the vale, close to the base of Gerizim, is the well universally known as Bir Ya\'qub, "the well of Jacob." The position meets perfectly the requirements of the narrative. The main road from the south splits a little to the east, one arm leading westward through the pass, the other going more directly to the north. It is probable that these paths follow pretty closely the ancient tracks; and both would be frequented in Jesus\' day. Which of them He took we cannot tell; but, in any case, this well lay in the fork between them, and could be approached with equal ease from either.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=SYCHAR">SYCHAR</A>.<P>2. Why Dug:<P>In the chapter quoted, it is said that Jacob dug the well (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,12);">Jhn 48:12</a>). The Old Testament says nothing of this. With the copious springs at \'Ain \'Askar and Balata, one might ask why a well should have been dug here at all. We must remember that in the East, very strict laws have always governed the use of water, especially when there were large herds to be considered. The purchase of land here may not have secured for Jacob such supplies as he required. There was danger of strife between rival herdsmen. The patriarch, therefore, may have dug the well in the interests of peace, and also to preserve his own independence.<P>3. Consensus of Tradition:<P>Jew, Samaritan, Moslem and Christian agree in associating this well with the patriarch Jacob. This creates a strong presumption in favor of the tradition: and there is no good reason to doubt its truth. Standing at the brink of the well, over-shadowed by the giant bulk of Gerizim, one feels how naturally it would be spoken of as "this mountain."<P>4. Description:<P>For long the well was unprotected, opening among the ruins of a vaulted chamber some feet below the surface of the ground. Major Anderson describes it (Recovery of Jerusalem, 465) as having "a narrow opening, just wide enough to allow the body of a man to pass through with arms uplifted, and this narrow neck, which is about 4 ft. long, opens into the well itself, which is cylindrically shaped, and about 7 ft. 6 inches in diameter. The mouth and upper part of the well are built of masonry, and the well appears to have been sunk through a mixture of alluvial soil and limestone fragments, till a compact bed of mountain limestone was reached, having horizontal strata which could be easily worked; and the interior of the well presents the appearance of having been lined throughout with rough masonry." The depth was doubtless much greater in ancient times; but much rubbish has fallen into it, and now it is not more than 75 ft. deep. It is fed by no spring, nor is the water conducted to it along the surface, as to a cistern. Its supplies depend entirely upon rainfall and percolation. Possibly, therefore, the water may never have approached the brim. The woman says "the well is deep." Pege, "spring," does not, therefore, strictly apply to it, but rather "tank" or "reservoir," phrear, the word actually used in verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,11);">11</a>f. The modern inhabitants of Nablus highly esteem the "light" water of the well as compared with the "heavy" or "hard" water of the neighboring springs. It usually lasts till about the end of May; then the well is dry till the return of the rain. Its contents, therefore, differ from the "living" water of the perennial spring.<P>From the narratives of the pilgrims we learn that at different times churches have been built over the well. The Moslems probably demolished the last of them after the overthrow of the Crusaders in 1187. A description of the ruins with drawings, as they were 30 years ago, is given in PEF, II,174,etc. A stone found in 1881 may have been the original cover of the well. It measures 3 ft. 9 inches X 2 ft. 7 inches X 1 ft. 6 in. The aperture in the center <span class="noTag">is</span> 13 in. in diameter; and in its sides are grooves worn by the ropes used in drawing up the water (PEFS,1881,212ff).<P>5. Present Condition:<P>Some years ago the plot of ground containing the well was purchased by the authorities of the Greek church, and it has been surrounded by a wall. A chapel has been built over the well, and a large church building has also been erected beside it.``54';
|
|
isbe[4788]='Jacob, Testament of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4789]='Jacubus`ja-ku\'-bus (Iakoubos; Codex Vaticanus reads Iarsouboos): In 1Esdras 9:48 = "Akkub" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,7);">Ne 8:7</a>, a Levite who helped in the exposition of the law.``1';
|
|
isbe[4790]='Jada`ja\'-da (yadha\', "the knowing one"): Son of Onam and grandson of Jerahmeel by his wife Atarah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,26,28,32);">1Ch 2:26, 28, 32</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4791]='Jadau`ja\'-do, ja-da\'-u (yiddo, Kethibh; yadday, Qere the King James Version; but the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=IDDO">IDDO</A>): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,43);">Ezr 10:43</a>, one of those who had married foreign wives. the Revised Version margin has "Jaddai" (= "Edos," 1Esdras 9:35).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IDDO">IDDO</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4792]='Jaddai`jad\'-i, jad\'-a-i.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IDDO">IDDO</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JADAU">JADAU</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4793]='Jaddua`jad\'-u-a, ja-du\'-a (yaddua\', "known"):<P>(1) One of the "chiefs of the people" who with Nehemiah sealed the covenant, thus signifying their voluntary acceptance of the law and their solemn promise to submit to its yoke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,21);">Ne 10:21 (Hebrew 22)</a>).<P>(2) Son of Jonathan or Johanan, and great-grandson of Eliashib, the high priest in Nehemiah\'s time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,11,22);">Ne 12:11, 22</a>). He is the last of the high priests mentioned in the Old Testament, and held office during the reign of Darius the Persian, i.e. Darius III Codomannus, the last king of Persia (336-332 BC), who was overthrown by Alexander the Great. It is doubtless to him that Josephus refers in his romantic account of Alexander\'s entrance into Jerusalem (Ant., XI, viii, 4f; vii, 2; viii, 7).``32';
|
|
isbe[4794]='Jaddus`jad\'-us (Codex Vaticanus, Iaddous; Codex Alexandrinus, Ioddous): the King James Version has "Addus" = Barzillai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,61);">Ezr 2:61</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,63);">Ne 7:63</a>). Jaddus was removed from the office of the priesthood because he could not prove his right to it after the return to Jerusalem under Zerubbabel (1Esdras 5:38). He is called Barzillai in the. Old Testament, because he married Augia, the daughter of Zorzelleus (Barzillai the Gileadite, in the Old Testament).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BARZILLAI">BARZILLAI</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4795]='Jadon`ja\'-don (yadhon, perhaps "he will judge" or "plead"): One who helped to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem in company with the men of Gibeon and of Mizpah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,7);">Ne 3:7</a>). He is called the "Meronothite," and another Meronothite is referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,30);">1Ch 27:30</a>, but there is no mention of a place Meronoth. Jadon is the name given by Josephus (Ant., VIII, viii, 5; ix, 1) to "the man of God" from Judah who confronted Jeroboam as he burned incense at the altar in Bethel, and who was afterward deceived by the lie of the old prophet (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',13,\'1-\');">1Ki 13</a>). Josephus may probably have meant Iddo the seer, whose visions concerning Jeroboam (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,29);">2Ch 9:29</a>) led to his being identified in Jewish tradition with "the man of God", from Judah.``32';
|
|
isbe[4796]='Jael`ja\'-el (ya\'el, "a wild or mountain goat," as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,18);">Ps 104:18</a>; Iael): The wife of Heber the Kenite and the slayer of Sisera (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,\'17-22\');">Jud 4:17-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'2-31\');">5:2-31</a>). Jael emerges from obscurity by this single deed, and by the kindest construction can hardly be said to have reached an enviable fame. The history of this event is clear. For years Jabin the king of Canaan had oppressed Israel. For twenty years the Israelites had been subject to him, and, in largest measure, the instrument of their subjugation had been Sisera, the king\'s general, the "man of the iron chariots." Deborah, a prophetess of Israel, by her passion for freedom, had roused the tribes of Israel to do battle against Sisera. They defeated him at "Taanach by the waters of Megiddo," but Sisera sought in flight to save himself. He came to the "oaks of the wanderers," where the tribe of Heber lived. Here he sought, and was probably invited, to take shelter in the tent of Jael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,\'17-18\');">Jud 4:17-18</a>). There are two accounts of the subsequent events—one a prose narrative (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,\'19-22\');">Jud 4:19-22</a>), the other a poetic one, found in Deborah\'s song of triumph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'24-27\');">Jud 5:24-27</a>). The two accounts are as nearly in agreement as could be expected, considering their difference in form.<P>It is evident that the tribe of Heber was regarded by both parties to the struggle as being neutral. They were descendants of Jethro, and hence, had the confidence of the Israelites. Though they had suffered somewhat at the hands of the Canaanites they had made a formal contract of peace with Jabin. Naturally Sisera could turn to the tents of Heber in Kedesh-naphtali with some confidence. The current laws of hospitality gave an added element of safety. Whether Jael met Sisera and urged him to enter her tent and rest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,18);">Jud 4:18</a>), or only invited him after his appeal for refuge, the fact remains that he was her guest, was in the sanctuary of her home, and protected by the laws of hospitality: She gave him milk to drink, a mantle for covering, and apparently acquiesced in his request that she should stand guard at the tent and deny his presence to any pursuers. When sleep came to the wearied fugitive she took a "tent-pin, and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the pin into his temples" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,21);">Jud 4:21</a>), and having murdered him, goes forth to meet Barak the Israelite general and claims the credit for her deed. Some critics suggest that Sisera was not asleep when murdered, and thus try to convert Jael\'s treachery into strategy. But to kill your guest while he is drinking the milk of hospitality is little less culpable than to murder him while asleep. There is no evidence that Sisera offered Jael any insult or violence, and but little probability that she acted under any spiritual or Divine suggestion. It is really impossible to justify Jael\'s act, though it is not impossible to understand it or properly to appreciate Deborah\'s approval of the act as found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,24);">Jud 5:24</a>. The motive of Jael may have been a mixed one. She may have been a sympathizer with Israel and with the religion of Israel. But the narrative scarcely warrants the interpretation that she felt herself as one called to render "stern justice on an enemy of God" (Expositor\'s Bible). Jael was unquestionably prudential. Sisera was in flight and Barak in pursuit. Probably her sympathy was with Barak, but certainly reflection would show her that it would not be wisdom to permit Barak to find Sisera in her tent. She knew, too, that death would be Sisera\'s portion should he be captured—therefore she would kill him and thus cement a friendship with the conqueror.<P>As to Deborah\'s praise of Jael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,24);">Jud 5:24</a>), there is no call to think that in her hour of triumph she was either capable of or intending to appraise the moral quality of Jael\'s deed. Her country\'s enemy was dead and that too at the hand of a woman. The woman who would kill Sisera must be the friend of Israel. Deborah had no question of the propriety of meting out death to a defeated persecutor. Her times were not such as to raise this question. The method of his death mattered little to her, for all the laws of peace were abrogated in the times of war. Therefore Jael was blessed among women by all who loved Israel. Whether Deborah thought her also to be worthy of the blessing of God we may not tell. At any rate there is no need for us to try to justify the treachery of Jael in order to explain the words of Deborah.``158';
|
|
isbe[4797]='Jagur`ja\'-gur (yaghur): An unidentified town on the Edomite frontier of Judah in the south (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,21);">Jos 15:21</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[4798]='Jah`ja.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOD,+NAMES+OF">GOD, NAMES OF</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[4799]='Jahath`ja\'-hath (yachath, perhaps for yachteh, yachatheh, "he (God) will snatch up"):<P>(1) Son of Reaiah, son of Shobal, a descendant of Judah, and father of Ahumai and Lahad, the families of the Zorathites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,2);">1Ch 4:2</a>).<P>(2) A frequent name for a descendant of Levi:<P class="in15">(a) Son of Libni, son of Gershom, the eldest son of Levi (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,20,43);">1Ch 6:20, 43 (Hebrew 6:5, 28)</a>, where "son of Libni" is omitted).<P class="in15">(b) Son of Shimei, son of Gershom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,10);">1Ch 23:10</a>f).<P class="in15">(c) One of the "sons" of Shelomoth, a descendant of Izhar, son of Kohath, the second son of Levi (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,22);">1Ch 24:22</a>).<P class="in15">(d) A descendant of Merari, the third son of Levi, and an overseer in the repairing of the temple in the reign of Josiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,12);">2Ch 34:12</a>).``32';
|
|
isbe[4800]='Jahaz`ja\'-haz (yahats, <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',16,4);">Isa 16:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,34);">Jer 48:34</a>, yahatsah, or yahtsah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,23);">Nu 21:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,32);">De 2:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,18);">Jos 13:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,36);">21:36</a>, the King James Version "Jahazah"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,20);">Jud 11:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,21);">Jer 48:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,78);">1Ch 6:78</a>, "Jahzah"): This is the place where in a great battle Israel overwhelmed Sihon king of the Amorites, and then took possession of all his territory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,23);">Nu 21:23</a>, etc.). It is named along with Beth-baal-meon and Kedemoth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,18);">Jos 13:18</a>), with Kedemoth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,37);">Jos 21:37</a>) pointing to a position in the southeast of the Amorite territory. It was given to Reuben by Moses, and was one of the cities in the portion of that tribe assigned to the Merarite Levites. Mesha (MS, ll. 18 if) says that the king of Israel dwelt in Jahaz when at war with him. Mesha drove him out, and the city passed into the hands of Moab. It is referred to as a city of Moab in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',15,4);">Isa 15:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,21,34);">Jer 48:21, 34</a>. Cheyne thinks that either Jahaz or Kedemoth must be represented today by the important ruins of Umm er-Recac, about 2 1/2 hours north of Dibon toward the desert (EB, under the word). No certain identification is possible.``54';
|
|
</script>
|
|
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
|
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
|
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script> |