II. ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY
It is a matter of some delicacy to speak of the origin of the Hebrews. But whatever the historian’s individual bias, he has no resource but to treat the early history of this race exactly as he treats the early history of other races. It has already been pointed out again and again, that history knows nothing of racial beginnings.
We have noted that modern historians are disposed to begin their accounts of the history of the Israelites with the Egyptian sojourn. It is impossible, however, to avoid questioning as to the home of the people prior to that period, and at least a brief reference must be made to the traditional wanderings of the race in the earlier epoch. Whoever is disposed to feel that the modern historian in his iconoclastic treatment of the Hebrew records is passing beyond justifiable bounds, may be reminded that some of the greatest of living scholars are able to separate their ideas as to it into two classes, and to entertain two seemingly antagonistic sets of judgments regarding the entire subject of Hebrew history. As archæologists and historians they study the Hebrew records as human documents, to be judged by ordinary historical standards; while as theologians, they view the same documents through a prism of faith that gives them an altogether altered position. Perhaps this attitude of a certain school cannot be better expressed than in the words of the Rev. A. H. Sayce, Professor of Assyriology at Oxford, who is recognised everywhere as one of the highest authorities on oriental archæology.
In the preface to his Early History of the Hebrews Professor Sayce points out that “There is no infallible history any more than there is infallible philology; and if we are to understand the history of the Hebrews aright, we must deal with it as we should with the history of any other ancient people. The Old Testament writers were human; and in so far as they were historians, their conceptions and manner of writing history were the same as those of their oriental contemporaries. They were not European historians of the nineteenth century, and to treat them as such would be not only to pursue a radically false method, but to falsify the history they have recorded. No human history is, or can be, inerrant, and to claim inerrancy for the history of Israel is to introduce into Christianity the Hindu doctrine of the inerrancy of the Veda. For the historian, at any rate, the questions involved in a theological treatment of the Old Testament do not exist.” But after making these statements, Professor Sayce continues: “The present writer, accordingly, must be understood to speak throughout simply as an archæologist and historian. Theologically he accepts unreservedly whatever doctrine has been laid down by the Church as an article of the faith. But among these doctrines he fails to find any which forbids a free and impartial handling of Old Testament history.”
If so great an authority finds this attitude justifiable, surely it is open to every one to read the history of the Hebrews as interpreted according to modern ideas, and then to apply to it whatever prism of faith may suit his own fancy.[a]
THE AGE OF THE PATRIARCHS
[Sidenote: [ca. 2300 B.C.]]
The age of the patriarchs, according to Max Löhr, belongs to the prehistoric period of Israel, to the childhood of the nation; and nations, in their childhood, are like children, colouring everything with the brilliant hues of their imaginations and transforming the commonplace events of the beginnings of their national existence into marvellous fairy tales, narrating the deeds of the founders of the nation. This is as true of Israel as of other nations; and it is in this light that the modern historian reads the accounts of the patriarchs as recorded in Genesis, almost our only source of information, and endeavours to extract the small kernels of historic truth, which nearly all of them contain, from the surrounding mass of the legendary shells.
Abraham is the central figure in the record of the patriarchs. Some historians would take from him his historical personality. They believe that he was originally a local deity of Hebron, or other place; and that in the course of time he was transformed, through legendary alchemy, into one of the fathers of his race. But the chief value of Abraham’s character is not historical; it is religious. The Old Testament makes him the hero of faith, whose confidence in the goodness and justice of God cannot be shaken. The words of Goethe, in his fourth book of Poetry and Truth, concerning the patriarch can be applied especially to Abraham, and they indicate the source of his lofty religion:
“Their mode of life on the sea, the desert, and the pasture land, gave breadth and freedom to their convictions. The star-sown vault of heaven, under which they lived, ennobled their emotions; they were more than active and skilful hunters, more than industrious home-loving husbandmen; they believed that God was confiding in them, visiting them, taking an interest in them, leading and saving them.”
Even at the beginning, religion was the motive power in the history of Israel. Unshaken faith in God was the characteristic of all the patriarchs; and even if their knowledge of God was crude and imperfect, their faith in him was sublime.
If we consider the patriarchs as nomadic chiefs, at the head of one or more pastoral races, who willingly submitted to the command of men of superior wealth, courage, and energy, then we must look upon the wanderings of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and their successors, as a series of great racial migrations, extending over centuries, and resulting in frequent changes and reorganisations, with its final culmination into the historic nation of Israel.[c]
EARLY MOVEMENTS OF THE ISRAELITES
[Sidenote: [ca. 2300-1270 B.C.]]
The eminent historian, Bernhard Stade, takes a view of Israelitish traditions far less confiding than that of Max Löhr. According to the oldest tradition, he says, the people of Israel came from northern Mesopotamia; and Kharran (Haran), the city of Nachor (the Carrhæ of the Greeks and Romans on the south of the Armenian Mountains), was, according to the Yahvist and Elohist texts, the home of Abraham. Also Jacob’s two wives, Leah and Rachel, i.e. the Hebraic families of those names which early became extinct, came out of Kharran. There seems accordingly to have been an old tradition that certain Hebraic clans migrated from those districts to Palestine. Moreover, one can suppose that they there found family connections with whom they amalgamated; and this would be the interpretation of the marriage of Jacob with Leah and Rachel.
This tradition would not be at all incredible in itself, but another reason also can be cited for the emigration of Hebraic tribes from the district lying south of the Armenian Mountains. After the Hebrews, the Aramæan tribes came from the northwest into Syria, pushing on and absorbing parts of the Hebrew population, as the Hebrews drove on the Canaanites. The pressure of these Aramæan people may have already burdened the Hebrews and have driven them to migrate towards the southwest. But after all there is no historical certainty about these things, on account of the fragmentary character of the traditions and their complete mixture with mythological elements.
According to the sacred legend, the fathers of Israel (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), who were of Mesopotamian origin, dwelt for three generations in the country west of Jordan, settling in different places; but the third generation emigrated to Egypt, where Joseph, the great-grandson of Abraham, had already reached a high position. But the Hebrew legend tells us no more of the history of the emigrants while in Egypt until the time of their departure from the country, than do the Egyptian accounts thus far found.
THE EGYPTIAN SOJOURN
[Sidenote: [ca. 1270-1250 B.C.]]
Israel comes to Egypt a single family, and leaves the country a populous nation. Tradition connects the migration from Egypt into the land east of Jordan with the Levites, Moses and his brother Aaron, the forerunners and founders of the Israelitish priesthood. Moreover, the oldest form of the legend, as the Yahvistic text gives it, mentions only Moses. He is in it the liberator, leader, and priest of Israel. Neither the residence of the Patriarchs in the country west of Jordan, nor the stay of the Israelites in Egypt, have been historically proved, and the former is quite improbable.
Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham are heroes of the race, the first two being at the same time tribal names. The last three have been revered at celebrated sanctuaries; and it must not be overlooked that the sanctuary of the first ancestor is the least important one. Moreover, it is a fact, proved by the history of different sanctuaries of the land, that those of Israel were considered sacred by the original inhabitants. This is the case at Sichem and Gibeon; Bethel was likewise a Canaanitish town in earlier times. Hebron was Edomitish, probably in the first place Horitish, and the very name of Beersheba shows its Canaanitish origin.
If the ancient Israelites took over the sanctuaries from the original Canaanitish inhabitants, as we know definitely concerning some and must surmise in the case of others, and if they nevertheless maintain that these sanctuaries were founded by their fathers, the object of this assertion is merely to gain a legal title to the possession of these pre-Israelitic sacred spots, and to obliterate the fact of their non-Israelitish origin. We shall have to go even farther and say that the Israelites either adopted from the Canaanites the hero that was honoured in those places, or that they there localised a certain Hebraic hero. But in both cases there is no evidence of a pre-Egyptian sojourn of Israelitish families in the land west of Jordan. Moreover, the comparatively recent origin of the patriarchical tradition must be borne in mind.
It is not quite so bad, though not essentially better, with the question of the residence of Israel in Egypt before its migration to the land east of Jordan. That, in spite of the most anxious search of apologetic Egyptologists and theologians, no trace of Moses and the Hebrews has been found in the Egyptian records is just as suspicious as the fact that the Hebrew account says nothing about all that happened between the time of Joseph and that of Moses.
It seems as if the flight of story-spinning imagination had been sufficient to transpose both the historical personage of Moses and the eponymous hero, Joseph, together with the eponyms of the two tribes descended from him, to Egypt, but not to fill out the intervening period. Egypt has, however, been too often for longer or shorter periods the residence of Semitic families for one to dare to deny the possibility that some Hebrew tribes or families stayed in Egypt. But that the Hebrew people, to say nothing of the race of Israel, did not do so, follows necessarily from the origin of these terms.
So it is easily seen why the search of the Egyptologists for traces of the residence of the Children of Israel or the Hebrews in Egypt must be fruitless. If any Hebrew clan did stay there, its name is unknown, and the Egyptologists would not recognise it, even if they understood more of Hebraic antiquity. But in any case the search for the Pharaohs, under whom Israel entered and left Egypt, is a useless jugglery with dates and names; and it is also useless to attempt to discover the route by which Israel left Egypt.
Tradition makes the institution of the Jewish religion on Mount Sinai contemporaneous with the emigration from Egypt; and it has been often surmised, especially by Egyptologists, that Moses imposed upon Israel elements of Egyptian theology. But there is no basis in fact for this theory. It is not known what the Hebrews may have borrowed from the Egyptians. Part of that which has been put under that category is entirely foreign to the old Jewish religion, and was gradually and spontaneously evolved, and the rest plays no part in it at all. It is especially absurd to attribute the idea of the unity of God to Egyptian influences.
However, the worship of God which the Jews adopted at Sinai certainly was originally foreign to them. It is an error to suppose from the story that Moses represented himself to Israel as the ambassador of the God of their fathers, that he must have found among the people the faith of this one God. This theory would lessen the importance of Moses for the Old Testament religion. Like all founders of religion he endowed the people with a new creative idea which gave a fresh turn to their life, and this new idea was the worship of Jehovah as their ancestral God. For if we take away all that the worship of Israel gained upon the path it travelled in historical times, then, supposing such antiquity for the worship of Jehovah in Israel, there is left no fresh idea, from the adoption of which by the people a new epoch could date. Moses, then, would in the most favourable light be only a restorer or a reformer of the old Israelitish religion, and not the founder of a religion as he is rightly considered by priestly tradition.
Two further points must be noted in this connection. In the first place, we know nothing of Israel’s worship before the time of Moses; not a single tradition exists of it. But this cannot be wondered at; and it may be observed elsewhere also that after the adoption of a higher religion, all recollection of an earlier form of worship not only dies out, but is designedly destroyed. Secondly, however, it should be noted that the worship of Jehovah may have been in a more imperfect and undeveloped form among the people from whom Moses borrowed it, than that in which he imposed it on his race.
Many features of the sacred tradition show that the worship of Jehovah was originally foreign to Israel. To ancient Israel Jehovah dwells on Sinai, which, therefore, is the original seat of his worship. Moreover, confused as the accounts may seem in some particulars, the old tradition explicitly states that Moses, who imposes the worship of Jehovah upon Israel, is the son-in-law of the priest of an Arabian race; that is, that the priesthood of Moses and Levi is connected with an older non-Israelitish Jehovah priesthood.
This father-in-law of Moses is called in Exodus iii. 1, Jethro the priest of the Midianites, and in Exodus ii. 18, Reuel. Exodus xviii. contains a fairly authentic account of Jethro by the Elohist, and yet it is questionable whether this account really refers to him. It is, however, probable. In Numbers x. 29, his name appears as Hobab. And in Judges i. 16, the Kenites are brought into connection with the father-in-law of Moses; Judges iv. 2 likewise calls Hobab, Moses’ father-in-law, a Kenite; he, therefore, should rather have been called a priest of the Kenites.
That the Arabic or nomadic race, from which Moses borrowed the worship of Jehovah, was the tribe of the Kenites, is proved by the later history of this people, who henceforth are closely interwoven with the worship of Jehovah.
According to Numbers x. 29, and Judges i. 16, the Kenites joined the children of Israel in their journey to the land west of Jordan, and according to the latter passage “they went up out of the city of palm trees (Jericho), with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah.” In the south of the district of Judah, we meet in the earliest ages of the Kings a nomadic Kenite race, which was in friendly relations with Judah (1 Samuel xxx.), although dwelling among the Amalekites (1 Samuel xv. 6).
It is questionable whether, after such a definite proof as the latter passages, it can be maintained that the Kenites were in alliance with the Midianites, especially as the land of Midian lies on the east of the Persian Gulf, and the Midianites at the time of the birth of the Jewish kingdom lived on the east of Jordan.
In this connection may be cited the fact that a single Kenite clan was nomadic in the north, and that Ephraim was, according to Judges v. 14, of partly Amalekitish origin. Nevertheless these are all only surmises. The scarcity of the records deprives us of any clear light on the ancient ethnological relations.
The people of Israel, then, strengthened by Kenitish elements, migrated from the Sinaitic peninsula into the land east of Jordan. But we know neither by what route they went, the time when it happened, nor how long the journey took. To be sure, in Amos v. 25, it is stated that the people were in the wilderness for forty years. This round number is, however, not only doubtful in itself; it is still more so because it rests upon the assumption, proceeding from theological hypotheses, that the whole of the people which emigrated from Egypt, with the exception of Moses, Joshua, and Caleb, died in the desert for their unbelief and never saw the Holy Land.
The most ancient source of the Pentateuch probably knows nothing of this forty years’ wandering. The accuracy of the mention of the places, which were the stations of the wandering in the desert, cannot, however, be brought forward as historical proof of this time in the desert. These places, it goes without saying, have all, within historical times, been desert stations. But that Israel repaired to them is supported solely by the tradition of later times which, on the hypothesis that Israel came from the Sinaitic peninsula and, on the other hand, on the basis of its knowledge of the roads through the desert, constructed a picture of the way which the Israelites might have taken. Moreover, it is evident that the veneration by neighbouring peoples of some of the places in the doubtful territory influenced the tradition. Hence the choice of Kadesh-Barnea as a chief station, of Mount Horeb as the place of Aaron’s death, and of the mountains in the north of Moab, as the abode of Moses in his last days.
It is then of little import for us to verify the route which Israel is said to have taken in its journey from the peninsula of Sinai to the land east of Jordan. We have already shown that there is no historical tradition concerning the conquest of the land east of Jordan, and that what is related about the conquest of the kingdom of Sichem by the Israelites under Moses is based upon conclusions as to the primitive condition of the country which are drawn from its condition at the time of the early Kings, but which are not free from misunderstanding.[e]
Before continuing with the critical narrative it may be well to glance over the biography of Moses as given in the Bible, Exodus and Deuteronomy.
BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF MOSES AND THE EXODUS
And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.--Exodus i. 22.
And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi.
And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months.
And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river’s brink.
And his sister stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him.
And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river; and her maidens walked along by the river’s side; and when she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her maid to fetch it.
And when she had opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she had compassion on him, and said, This is one of the Hebrews’ children.
Then said his sister to Pharaoh’s daughter, Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee?
And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child’s mother.
And Pharaoh’s daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the woman took the child, and nursed it.
And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.
And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.
And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.
And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?
And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known.
Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.--Exodus ii. 1-15.
Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover.
And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.
For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.
And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.
And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the Lord will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.
And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service?
That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.
And the children of Israel went away, and did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.
And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.
And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the Lord, as ye have said.
Also take your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also.
And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men.
And the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading-troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders.
And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment:
And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians.
And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.
And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.
And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt, for it was not leavened; because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual.
Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.--Exodus xii. 21-41.
And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the Lord shewed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan,
And all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah, unto the utmost sea,
And the south, and the plain of the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, unto Zoar.
And the Lord said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.
So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord.
And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.
And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.
And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.
And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses.
And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face,
In all the signs and the wonders, which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land,
And in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses shewed in the sight of all Israel.--Deuteronomy xxxiv.
ISRAEL’S EARLY NEIGHBOURS
To return to modern analytic accounts, it is noted by Stade that Israel never mastered the whole country west of the Jordan. The coast, with the exception of a few places, remained in the possession of the Canaanites, who, at the period of the Hebrew immigration, had long been organised into the prosperous and powerful commercial states known to us under the name of Phœnician. Nay, the influence, intellectual and material, of Akko, Sor (Tyre), and Sidon on the inland country was so great that it prevented the absorption of the original Canaanite population by the immigrant Israelites, and consequently the formation of compact Israelite tribes in the north.
As far as we know, the Israelites were always on a friendly footing with these Phœnician states. They could not avoid trading with one another, and commerce only thrives in time of peace. The Phœnician cities disposed of the produce of Palestine, the wheat of the land west of Jordan, the balsam of the Jordan lowlands, the male and female slaves taken in war, and they offered an ever ready market for the produce of the flocks. The Israelites, on the other hand, procured from them, in ancient times, all products of handicraft and art which could not be made by the inmates of each farm for themselves. Thus it comes about that to the Israelite, Canaanite and trader were synonymous terms.
This commerce, no less than the fact that the Phœnician cities were impregnable to their unpretentious strategy, obliged them to keep the peace. Furthermore, from the very moment the Philistines embarked on a career of conquest in Palestine, the interests of the Phœnician cities had been directed towards forming the inhabitants of the southern part of Syria, which they exploited commercially, into a strong political structure. For against the former the Israelites were the only allies to be had.
Of all the neighbours of the people of Israel, these Philistines were farthest removed from them in manners and customs. However, we must not conclude from this circumstance that no intermixture took place between the two. The legend of Samson is sufficient proof to the contrary. In the time of the first monarchy, in particular, numerous Philistines came to Israel to serve in the army and then continued to dwell in the land. Obed-Edom the Gittite, in whose house David left the Ark of the Covenant (1 Samuel vi. 19 seq.), was a Philistine.
According to Amos ix. 7; Deuteronomy ii. 23; Jeremiah xlvii. 4, the Philistines had migrated into Syria from Caphtor. Caphtor has often been conjectured to be the island of Crete. This may very well be the case, especially as--to judge from 1 Samuel xxx. 14--part of the territory of the Philistines was called the South of the Cretans [Cherethites], to distinguish it from the south of Judah and Caleb. In that case we should here have to do with a migration of Semites back from Crete, from which they may have been ousted by immigrant Hellenes. It is well known that in the description of Crete in the Odyssey XIX, 172-177, the statement occurs that various languages were spoken and five different races dwelt there, among whom were the Eteocretans (real Cretans), as well as Achæans, Cydonians, Dorians, and Pelasgians. The presence of Semites among the inhabitants of the island is proved by the name of one of its rivers, the Jardanus. And the names of the Philistines, their cities and institutions, prove them to have been Semites.
The Philistines dwelt in the tract of country southward from Jaffa to Gaza. But their settlements were by no means confined to the coast; on the contrary, they stretched inland to the mountains of Judah on the frontier of which Gath and Timnath lie. Only the seaboard population, at most, can have been of pure Philistine blood.
The Philistines, like the Israelites, gradually absorbed the autochthonous Canaanite population they found in possession. In the earliest days of the monarchy Judah and the Philistines are not neighbours along the whole eastern frontier of the latter, remnants of the Canaanite population lay between and were not amalgamated with Judah till later. Nor did the frontier afterwards always remain the same, as is well seen in the case of Libnah.
[Sidenote: [ca. 1250-1200 B.C.]]
Philistine territory was divided into the territory of the five cities of Gaza, Ashdod, Askalon, Gath, and Ekron, the so-called Philistine Pentapolis. Each of these districts was ruled by a prince, and these rulers were the five princes of the Philistines (sarne pelischim). They were the leaders in war.
The Philistines proved themselves to be a people of great military capacity. They possessed an organised army--chariots, horsemen, and foot-soldiers--who fought in regular battle array. Hence it came to pass that for a time they ruled over Israel.
In the very earliest times Israel’s neighbours on the northern frontier were also Canaanites. Northwards from Hermon stretched the kingdom of the Hittites, a Canaanite race, whose capital was Kadesh, situate on an artificial lake on the Orontes which is called the lake of Kedesh to this day. This kingdom of the Hittites was tributary to David. We find a Hittite in David’s bodyguard, Uriah, who had Bathsheba, an Israelite woman of good family, to wife. The connubium therefore existed between the Hittites and Israelites.
In the age of the XVIIIth, XIXth, and XXth Egyptian Dynasties this kingdom of the Hittites (or Kheta, as the Egyptians called them) was the mightiest in Anterior Asia. It engaged in fierce warfare with the Pharaohs of these dynasties. But the state of affairs in the north was gradually altered by the arrival of Aramæan tribes on the scene.
These last seem to have come from the Euphrates and the mountain regions of the north, and, like the Israelites, to have been pastoral tribes originally. Remnants of this race, speaking a group of northern Semitic dialects closely akin to Canaanite languages, are still to be found in these parts. They make their first appearance in Palestine in the north of the land east of Jordan. They founded the kingdoms of Damascus, Geshur, Ishtob, Maacah, and Zobah, against which David had to fight. They pressed steadily westwards rather than southwards. Like the Hebrews, they amalgamated with themselves the original Canaanite population they found in possession, and thus the Hittite nation was gradually merged into them.
But the Aramæans were no more capable of gaining the mastery over the emporiums of trade on the coast than the Hebrews had been. To the east of Jordan, Gilead was long the frontier province of the Hebrews. Hence arises the legend that Jacob and Laban set up a pillar there to witness the peace concluded between them (Genesis xxxi). They were the arch-enemies of Israel before the rise of the Assyrians. Under Assyrian, Persian, and even Greek rule, their language continued to make conquests in Palestine. By the time of the birth of Christ it had superseded all Semitic languages there and divided the ground with Greek alone. In later days a like fate befell the Aramæan language and nationality from the spread of Arabic.
The space between the southwestern border of Judah and the Philistines and the wall of Egypt had been occupied from time immemorial by nomadic tribes, which we are accustomed to call “Arabic,” a name that only came into use at a comparatively late period.
These desert tribes were the Amalekites, the Kenites, and the Ishmaelites. Of the Kenites and their relations with the Amalekites and Midianites we have already spoken. The Amalekites seem to have lived in a state of open hostility to the Israelites, and to have harassed them by predatory raids. Saul and David both fought against them. One body of the Amalekites appears afterwards to have joined itself to Edom; another to have been absorbed in Ephraim (Judges v. 14). The Ishmaelites and Israelites may, on the other hand, have been on friendly terms, although the divergence of their respective interests would naturally make the ungovernable nomads, who acknowledged a political authority, troublesome neighbours to husbandmen.
Thus the admirable description of her future son given by the angel of the Lord to Hagar at the well of Lahai-roi in Genesis xvi. 12, “He will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren,” is drawn straight from the life. The more friendly relations in which Ishmael and Israel stand with one another finds expression in the mythical genealogy which makes Ishmael half brother to Isaac and traces his descent from Hagar, the Egyptian, Abraham’s concubine. Hagar is, of course, the name of an Ishmaelite clan. We meet with another expression of the same relation when Keturah is given to Abraham as a concubine. This must likewise be understood as the name of an Ishmaelite clan. This mode of expression took its rise in the holy places of Beersheba, Beer-lahai-roi, and Hebron, which were probably visited by Israelites and Ishmaelites alike. One proof that the connubium existed between Israelites and Ishmaelites is the fact that Abigail, a sister of David, had an Ishmaelite husband, Ithra by name.
The name of Ishmaelite speedily disappears from history. We hear nothing of any catastrophe that overwhelmed the nation, and consequently it seems possible that Ishmael, like Israel, was in historic times merely the name of a confederation of distinct tribes. The confederation dissolved, and the name of Ishmael vanished with it, as the name of Israel would have vanished after the catastrophe of 722 had it not acquired a spiritual significance which rendered its transference to Judah possible. The post-Exilic Jews acquired the habit of calling all Arabs by the name of Ishmael. From the Jews the name and the idea passed over to the Arabs themselves. This explains why the name of Ishmael has been made by Arab genealogists the basis of every kind of speculation. The application of the term Ishmaelites to the Mohammedans is also to be referred to Jewish usage.[e]
THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN
On their departure from Egypt the Israelites might have entered Canaan direct by the route that skirted the Mediterranean, but there they would have been in danger of attack from the garrisons which occupied the Egyptian fortresses or from the Philistines. They therefore chose a much longer route, and betook themselves to the desert. The kings of Egypt possessed, or had possessed, important metallurgical works in the peninsula of Sinai. Perhaps the fugitives wished to seize upon them. The Bible does not say so, but some of the legends it relates might well incline us to believe it; the fashioning of the golden calf, the brazen serpent, and the ornaments of the tabernacle presuppose a settled position and a command of material ill compatible with the wandering life of a caravan, and easier to explain by an Israelite occupation of the copper mines of Sinai.
The transition from nomadic to sedentary life must of necessity have been slow and gradual, and there is nothing that obliges us to say with Goethe that the Bible exaggerates the length of the sojourn in the wilderness. Israel dreamed of a land flowing with milk and honey, but, pending its arrival there, led its flocks where they could find pasture, and settled as best it could in the lands of which it could possess itself. It endeavoured to conclude alliances with the inhabitants of the desert, who were of the same race; with the Midianites, for example, that they might serve “as eyes,” that is, as guides to the tribes. This alliance with the Midianites is indicated in the Bible by the visit of Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, who, when he hears of the passage of the Red Sea, proclaims Jehovah the greatest of all gods. But alien tribes did not always exhibit the same good will; witness the struggle against Amalek. It is probable that, on leaving Sinai, the Israelites bent their steps towards the frontiers of Canaan, and that, repulsed in that direction, they once more took the southern road and skirted the mountains of the land of the Edomites, so to turn towards the east. In Deuteronomy, Jehovah commands his people not to molest the Edomites, who had already been seized with dread of them, and even to pay for the food and water of which they should have need, because Jehovah had given Seir to Edom for an inheritance. The same admonition is given with regard to the Moabites and the Ammonites, for these peoples also had received their land from Jehovah.
The children of Lot, that is, the Ammonites and Moabites, were settled in the country east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan; but the Amorites, having crossed the Jordan, took part of the territory of the Moabites from them. The Israelites, who were then wandering in the deserts that lay to the east of the land of Moab, defeated the Amorites, probably with the help of the Moabites. The tribes of Reuben and Gad, who had doubtless borne the brunt of the conflict, occupied the land between the Arnon and the Jabbok, promising to co-operate later with the rest of the children of Israel. All the cities of the conquered country were “devoted,” that is to say, all the inhabitants were massacred, men, women and children; “there was none left remaining.” Immediately after this conquest the Bible places that of the land of Bashan, whose king, Og, was the last of the race of Giants (Rephaïm). All the inhabitants of Bashan were likewise massacred, according to Deuteronomy, and in the Bible these two wars are placed before the death of Moses. There are, however, several passages in the Book of Judges from which it must be inferred that the land of Bashan or Gilead was not conquered till later. As for the legend of Balaam, related in the Book of Numbers immediately after the conquest of Bashan, it is now acknowledged that it must have been composed during the last days of the kingdom of Israel, probably in the reign of Jeroboam II. It was inspired by hatred of Moab and contains allusions to Assyria. At the period of this conquest the Israelites had no reason to fear the Assyrians, of whose existence they were not even aware, and to them the Moabites, far from being enemies, were natural allies and auxiliaries, as were the Ammonites and the Edomites.
The conquest of Canaan is related in the Book of Joshua, which appears to have been written at the time of the Babylonian captivity. The thesis of political unity guaranteed by religious unity is supported, as in the Pentateuch, by a series of miracles. The miracle of the passage of the Red Sea is repeated at the passage of the Jordan. Joshua then besieges Jericho. “And it came to pass on the seventh day that they rose early at the dawning of the day, and compassed the city after the same manner seven times. And it came to pass at the seventh time, when the priests blew with the trumpets, Joshua said unto the people, Shout: for Jehovah hath given you the city. So the people shouted, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. And they devoted all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old, and ox and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” Only Rahab, the harlot, who had betrayed her country by hiding the spies sent out by Joshua, was spared with her family and all her house. “And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein.” And Joshua pronounced a curse upon the man that should build it again.
The Israelites then besieged the city of Ai, near Bethel, and, having taken it by a stratagem, treated it as they had treated Jericho. “And all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand.… So Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation, unto this day. And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until the eventide: and at the going down of the sun Joshua commanded, and they took his carcase from the tree, and cast it at the entering of the gate of the city, and raised thereon a great heap of stones, unto this day.” At the news of the destruction of Ai and Jericho, Adoni-zedek, king of Jerusalem, forms a coalition with the kings of Hebron, of Jarmuth, of Lachish, and of Eglon, and, hearing that Gibeon has treated with the enemy, they lay siege to the city which has betrayed their common cause. The Gibeonites call Joshua to their aid, and he departs from Gilgal with his army and comes up with the allied kings. “And Jehovah discomfited them before Israel, and he slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them by the way of the ascent of Beth-horon, and smote them unto Azekah and unto Makkedah. And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, while they were in the going down of Beth-horon, that Jehovah cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with the hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword. Then Joshua spake to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, ‘Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.’ And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the Upright? And the sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that Jehovah hearkened to the voice of a man, for Jehovah fought for Israel.”
The five kings, having taken refuge in a cave at Makkedah, are discovered, and when the people return to the camp after the extermination of the defeated army, they are brought before Joshua. All the chiefs of the men of war that had marched with him put their feet upon the necks of the kings, then Joshua causes them to be hanged on five trees, and in the evening their corpses are cast into the cave and great stones are rolled to the mouth of it. “And Joshua took Makkedah on that day and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he devoted and all the souls that were therein, he left none remaining.” The same formula is repeated in the Bible with melancholy monotony, in the case of the cities of Libnah and Lachish; the king of Gezer having attempted to help Lachish, “Joshua smote him and his people, until he had left none remaining.” And the Bible resumes the tale of massacres, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir are devoted with all their inhabitants, not one of whom is spared. “So Joshua smote all the land, the hill country, and the south, and the lowland, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but he devoted all that breathed, as Jehovah, the God of Israel, commanded.” Then it is the turn of the kings of the north; the king of Hazor and the other Canaanite kings take the field with a large army, “even as the sand that is upon the sea shore in multitude, with horses and chariots very many.” Joshua attacks them near the waters of Merom, pursues them to Zidon, and destroys them, “until he left none remaining”; he houghs their horses and burns their chariots with fire. Then he returns upon his footsteps and seizes Hazor, the chief city of all these kingdoms, and slays its king with the sword. “And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, having devoted them; there was none left that breathed: and he burnt Hazor with fire. And the cities of those kings and all the kings of them did Joshua take, and he smote them with the edge of the sword and devoted them, as Moses the servant of Jehovah commanded.… So Joshua took all that land, the hill country, and all the south, and all the land of Goshen, and the lowland, and the plain of Israel, from the bare mountain that goeth up unto Seir, even unto Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon under Mount Hermon: and all their kings he took, and smote them and put them to death.… For it was of Jehovah to harden their hearts, to come against Israel in battle, that he might devote them, that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as Jehovah commanded Moses.”
Such is the summary of the legend of the conquest as related in the Book of Joshua. The usual way of extracting from it such historical fact as it may contain is to suppress the miraculous circumstances, or to explain them, as well as may be, by natural causes. Serious criticism cannot rest satisfied with this method. Unfortunately, in the case of Jewish history, we have no such invaluable aid as the study of inscriptions supplies to the history of Egypt and Assyria. We have no other source of information than a book compiled several centuries after the event, from popular traditions more or less wrested for political ends. Nevertheless Biblical exegesis, by collecting a certain amount of scattered testimony, has succeeded in discovering the facts of the case. This is not the place to recapitulate this work of analysis, a summary of it may be found in the introduction to the Bible written by Professor Reuss, of the University of Strassburg. A comparison of all these materials for research leads scholars to the conclusion that the surest means of gaining a totally false impression of the conquest of Canaan is to abide by the view of it conveyed in the Book of Joshua.
That which this book tells us was accomplished in five years was as a matter of fact, very gradually accomplished in the course of two centuries and a half, for the conquest of the country and the complete subjugation of the Canaanites were not finally achieved until the reign of Solomon. It is precisely the same thing that happened in the conquest of the Peloponnesus by the Dorians, and of Roman Gaul by the Franks. From this we may infer, for the honour of the Israelites, that the frightful massacres related in the Book of Joshua have been greatly exaggerated by the compilers of the Bible, who regarded the extermination of the vanquished as among their ancestors’ titles to fame, and as a proof of their obedience to the commands of the national God of Israel. “We must not,” say the Dutch authors of The Family Bible, “imagine all the children of Israel gathered together in a single camp at Gilgal and all acting in concert. It would be much nearer the truth to imagine the Israelite tribes indulging in local and intermittent raids into the land of the Canaanites, who were perhaps enfeebled in consequence of a war with Ramses III, king of Egypt.”
The partition of the lands conquered or still to be conquered is given in the concluding chapters of the Book of Joshua, which are not by the same hand as the narrative of the conquest. The region to the east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan, afterwards known as Peræa, had been occupied ever since the time of Moses by the tribes of Reuben, Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh. Judah took the southern part of the land of Canaan, west of the Dead Sea. The small tribes of Simeon, Dan, and Benjamin grouped themselves about Judah, the first-named on the west, the other two on the north. These four tribes afterwards constituted the kingdom of Judah. Many portions of the territory assigned to them in this partition long remained in the occupation of alien peoples. Thus the Jebusites were first subjugated by David, who seized upon their city, thereafter called Jerusalem; the Philistines, whom Joshua had not ventured to attack, kept the five cities which they occupied on the Mediterranean coast, and these served as a refuge for the Anakim. At the period when the monarchy was instituted in Israel the sway of the Philistines extended over almost all the territory of Judah.
The powerful tribe of Ephraim, to which Joshua belonged, established itself in the middle of the land of Canaan, between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. The Ark of the Covenant, first set up at Gilgal, was afterwards carried to Shiloh, which became the common sanctuary of all the Israelite tribes. The tribe of Issachar settled to the north of the territory of Ephraim, along the Jordan, and the half-tribe of Manasseh farther to the west. Lastly, the tribes of Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali settled in the northern region, afterwards called Galilee; Asher spread abroad on the seacoast north of Carmel, but was not able to gain possession of the Phœnician cities within the border assigned to it; Zebulun encamped in the plain of Jezreel, northwest of Issachar, and Naphtali along the Upper Jordan, between the waters of Merom and the lake of Gennesareth. The tribe of Levi had no territory of its own, for, as the Bible frequently repeats, Jehovah was its inheritance. The Levites received forty-eight cities, scattered over the territory of the other tribes. Some of these cities were intended to serve as places of shelter for involuntary homicides; these were called cities of refuge.
The genealogies which take up so much space in the Bible show clearly the importance which the tribes of Israel attached to the descent from Abraham and Jacob. Nevertheless they were far from being a race of pure blood. Before their sojourn in Egypt they had allied themselves with the women of the country, as their own legends testify; of the sons of Jacob four are the issue of female slaves of whose descent we know nothing. Joseph weds the daughter of an Egyptian priest, Moses a Midianitess and an Ethiopian woman, and when his sister Miriam upbraids him for this mésalliance, Jehovah smites her with leprosy. On their departure from Egypt the Children of Israel are accompanied by “a mixed multitude,” who must have been incorporated into the tribes, for there is no subsequent mention of them. During the half-century which lies between the going forth out of Egypt and the conquest of Canaan there must have been unions with Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites. At the time of the invasion, wandering hordes of Arabs, too weak to make their way into Palestine by themselves, may have taken advantage of this opportunity to join the Israelite tribes; such were the children of Keni, the father-in-law of Moses, who accompanied the Children of Judah as far as the city of palm trees (Jericho). These Kenites or Kenizzites settled among the men of Judah and were ultimately merged in them; it was impossible to hold aloof from allies who had contributed their share towards victory.
After the conquest, unions with the indigenous peoples became very numerous. “The Children of Israel,” says the Book of Judges, “dwelt among the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods. And the Children of Israel did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, and forgot Jehovah their God, and served the Baalim and the Ashtaroth.” It was not the first time that they had been unfaithful to Jehovah; in the wilderness, for forty years, according to the prophet Amos, they had borne before them the image of Moloch and the star of their idols.
The position of the Israelites settled in the midst of the Canaanites was not everywhere the same; in some districts the earlier inhabitants had been exterminated or reduced to slavery, but in others they had remained in possession of the land, and the new-comers had only been able to take up their abode there on payment of tribute. Oftenest of all, the old inhabitants and the new lived side by side on a footing of armed neutrality, frequently disturbed by feuds, each on the watch for an opportunity of subjugating or expelling the other. After the Israelites had settled in various parts of the country, the Canaanites, the Amorites, and the Philistines took their revenge, and made them pay by instalments for the outrages of the invasion. The stronger tribes did not succour the weaker, for the tie that bound them together was religious, not political, and was growing weaker and weaker; hence the Bible invariably attributes the defeats of the Israelites to their neglect of the national religion.
“And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he delivered them into the hand of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about. Whithersoever they went out, the hand of Jehovah was against them for evil, as Jehovah had sworn unto them; and they were sore distressed. And Jehovah raised up judges, which saved them out of the hand of those that spoiled them. And when Jehovah raised them up judges, then Jehovah was with the judge, and saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented Jehovah because of their groaning by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them. But it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they turned back and dealt more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their doings, nor from their stubborn way.”[g]
III. THE JUDGES
[Sidenote: [ca. 1200-1020 B.C.]]
The Bible gives the title of Judges (Sophetim) to those “deliverers” whom Jehovah raised up from time to time; but they were not elective magistrates, like the Suffetes of Carthage, who bore the same name; they were valiant chieftains who placed themselves at the head of a band of patriots to free their own tribes. Some successful exploit would give them a kind of moral authority for the remainder of their lives, but they were not invested with regular powers recognised by the whole nation. Though the Bible is careful to state the duration of the government of each one, these figures cannot serve as the basis of a sound chronology, for it is probable that many of the judges were contemporary and belonged to different tribes. We are given details concerning three or four of them; others are merely named. The first of whom mention is made is Othniel, the nephew of Caleb, who delivers the tribes of the north from the dominion of the king of Mesopotamia. Then a king of Moab takes possession of Jericho and oppresses Israel for eighteen years; Ehud the Benjamite slays him by treachery and delivers the land. The Bible next names Shamgar, the son of Anath, who slew six hundred Philistines with an ox goad. The much longer narrative of the expedition of Barak and Deborah seems to be historical in character. It tells of the defeat of Sisera and his death at the hands of Jael (Judges iv.). On this occasion Deborah composed a savage and spirited canticle, the oldest piece of Hebrew poetry that has come down to us.
The invasion of Canaan by the Israelites was not an unexampled occurrence; in all ages the nomadic Bedouins of the desert had cast covetous glances at the fertile cultivated plains of Palestine. When the tribes of Israel had succeeded in establishing themselves there, they, in their turn, were forced to defend themselves against fresh hordes of invaders. “Because of Midian the Children of Israel made them the dens which are in the mountains, and in the caves, and the strongholds. And so it was, when Israel had sown, that the Midianites came up, and the Amalekites, and the Children of the East; they came up against them and destroyed the increase of the earth, till thou come unto Gaza, and left no sustenance in Israel, neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass.”
A peasant of the tribe of Manasseh placed himself at the head of a few resolute men and delivered Israel. His name was Jerubbaal, and he was surnamed Gideon, that is, the Sword, just as Judas, the Asmonæan was surnamed Maccabæus, that is, the Hammer. The little band, with torches and trumpets, made a night attack on the camp of the Midianites, who were seized with panic and slew one another. Gideon sent messengers to the men of Ephraim who hastened up to cut off the retreat of the fugitives at the ford of the Jordan.
The Children of Israel said to Gideon, “Rule thou over us, both thou and thy son, and thy son’s son also: for thou hast saved us out of the hand of Midian.” He answered, “I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you, Jehovah shall rule over you.” After his death one of his seventy sons, Abimelech, had himself proclaimed king at Shechem, and had himself proclaimed king by the oak of Shechem. Civil war broke out. Shechem was destroyed and its ruins sown with salt. Abimelech set fire to the tower of the temple of Baal-berith, where the principal inhabitants of the city had taken refuge; a thousand souls perished in it. He next besieged the city of Thebez; the inhabitants shut themselves up in the citadel; and as he drew near to set it on fire, a woman cast a millstone on his head, and he commanded his armour bearer to kill him, that he might not die by the hand of a woman.
After repulsing the invasion of the Midianites, the tribe of Manasseh, whose territory lay on both banks of the Jordan, were desirous of enlarging their borders to the east, and completed the conquest of the land of Bashan. The Ammonites, however, laid claim to the country, which had formerly belonged to them. They gathered together and encamped at Gilead. “And it was so, that when the children of Ammon made war against Israel, the elders of Gilead went to fetch Jephthah out of the land of Tob; and they said unto Jephthah, Come and be our chief, that we may fight with the Children of Ammon. And Jephthah vowed a vow unto Jehovah, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver the children of Ammon into mine hand, then shall it be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Jehovah’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over unto the Children of Ammon to fight against them, and Jehovah delivered them into his hand. And Jephthah came to Mizpah unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and dances; and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto Jehovah, and I cannot go back. And she said unto him, My father, thou hast opened thy mouth unto Jehovah; do unto me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as Jehovah hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies. And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may depart and go down upon the mountains and bewail my virginity, I and my companions. And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she had not known man. And it was a custom in Israel, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.”
There is so great a resemblance between this tradition and the Greek legend of the sacrifice of Iphigenia that we may well believe that one was borrowed from the other. It may be that Phœnician mariners, or even Israelite prisoners sold into slavery on the coast of Asia Minor, recounted the tragic story of a general who gained the victory at the price of the sacrifice of his daughter. The very name of Iphigenia seems to be no more than a Greek translation of the words “daughter of Jephthah.” The legend is unknown to Homer. Euripides borrowed it from a cyclic poem, the Cypria. According to this poem the sacrifice was not consummated; the goddess substituted a hind for the maiden. Some theologians have tried to extenuate the sacrifice of Jephthah in the same way, and have maintained that his daughter was vowed to perpetual celibacy. This explanation, however, has failed to win acceptance. “The text,” says M. Munk, “leaves no room to doubt that Jephthah did actually offer up his daughter as a burnt offering, and Josephus expressly says so” (Antiq., V, 7, 10).
While the tribes of the north were striving with the Canaanites, and those of the east with the Midianites and Ammonites, the tribes of the south were not always successful in defending their independence against the Philistines. The isolated position of the Israelite tribes made it possible for the Philistines to subjugate those in their immediate neighbourhood. The resistance of Israel to this suppression is personified in Samson, the hero of the tribe of Dan, the Israelitish Hercules.
Samson cannot be considered an historical figure. He appears to bear a strong resemblance to Samdan, the Assyrian Hercules, and, generally speaking, to all solar divinities. Like Apollo, his hair has never been cut; like Hercules he subdues lions and is himself subdued by women. The metamorphosis of an ancient divinity into a local hero is of common occurrence in all mythologies. The existence of a city of the sun, Beth-shemesh, within the borders of the tribe of Dan, leads us to suppose that the oldest inhabitants paid peculiar honours to the sun; it is natural that the Israelites, who held a different religion, should graft the legend of a hero on the fables current in the locality.
As a sequel to the legend of Samson, we find two narratives which form, as it were, an appendix to the Book of Judges. The first seems to refer to the actual period of the conquest, for the tribe of Dan had no territory as yet, and sought an inheritance to dwell in. Five men were sent out to explore the land. “And they came unto their brethren to Zorah and Eshtaol; and said unto them, Arise, and let us go up against them; for we have seen the land, and, behold, it is very good: but keep ye silence, be not slothful to go and to enter in to possess the land.”
As they pass through the hill country of Ephraim, their spies inform them that, in the house of a certain man named Micah, there is an ephod, teraphim, and a graven image, under the charge of a Levite. They represent to the Levite that it will be to his advantage to be the priest of a tribe rather than the chaplain of a private individual, and carry him off, taking the graven image, the ephod, and the teraphim with them. Micah pursues him and complains of the theft, they bid him hold his peace or they will set fire to his house. Then the Danites come to Laish: “They came unto a people quiet and secure, and smote them with the edge of the sword; and they burnt the city with fire.… And the children of Dan set up for themselves the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land. So they set them up Micah’s graven image which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh.” If we attribute the Decalogue, with its prohibition of graven images, to Moses, we must suppose that the precepts of the lawgiver had been very quickly forgotten, even in his own family.
The story of the Levite of Ephraim throws a yet more melancholy light on the morals of the Israelites. The wife of this Levite is outraged and murdered by a band of men at Gibeah, of the tribe of Benjamin. The husband cuts the corpse into twelve pieces, which he sends to the twelve tribes of Israel. And all men, when they saw it, said, “There was no such deed done since the day when the Children of Israel came up out of Egypt.” The Benjamites are required to give up the culprits, they refuse and take up arms, to the number of twenty-six thousand men. The other tribes put four hundred thousand soldiers in the field, according to the Bible, and inquire of Jehovah who shall march first to battle. Jehovah appoints the tribe of Judah. But twice in succession the Benjamites come forth out of Gibeah and gain the advantage over the enormous army of Israel, which loses forty thousand men in two days. The people go up to Bethel, where the Ark of the Covenant then was; they fast, they offer burnt offerings, and Jehovah promises them the victory. The attacking force surrounds the enemy, and defeats them with such slaughter that only six hundred men escape and take refuge in the wilderness. The victors burn all the cities of Benjamin and put all their inhabitants to the sword.
After this vengeance, however, they regret the annihilation of a whole tribe, and offer terms of peace to the six hundred survivors of the Benjamites.
At the beginning and at the end of this narrative the Bible says that in those days there was no king in Israel, and that every man did that which was right in his own eyes. The author imagines that thus he can explain the atrocities he has related; but there was no king in the Greek cities either, and nothing of this kind took place there.
We may be astonished that a nation which “rose up as one man to punish a crime and blot out a stain from Israel” should not be able to unite to repulse a foreign foe. But this contrast is not enough to cast doubt upon the Bible narrative; it is unhappily true that an age and a country may witness at one and the same time the most merciless reprisals in civil war and the most deplorable weakness in face of the outside world. The Philistines had already subjugated the southern tribes, Dan, Judah, and Zebulun; they were now menacing those of the centre.
The Israelites remembered that after their coming forth out of Egypt the Ark of the Covenant had led them to the conquest of Canaan, and they thought that now again it would insure them the victory. The Ark was at that time at Shiloh, under the charge of the aged Eli, who combined the office of high priest with the title of Judge in Israel. So the Ark was brought from thence in charge of the two sons of Eli. But its presence was after all of no avail. “Israel was smitten, and they fled every man to his tent: and there was a very great slaughter; for there fell of Israel thirty thousand footmen. And the Ark of the God was taken; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain.”
Such a blow could not but daunt the spirit of the nation. As a matter of fact, the Philistines did not keep the trophy long; believing that the presence of a hostile god would bring misfortune upon them, they sent the Ark of the Covenant back to the Israelites. But to prevent any attempt at rebellion, they forbade the vanquished to bear arms and carried off all the smiths, so that no Israelite could mend his plough unless he went to the Philistines.
The reawakening of the national sentiment took the form of a revival of religious zeal, as it does among the Arabs of this day. The initiative in this religious movement is attributed to Samuel, of the tribe of Ephraim. From his childhood he had been dedicated to the service of Jehovah, and he was early believed to receive direct communication from God. He was therefore what was called a nabi (inspired person). This word is usually translated by “prophet,” which signifies soothsayer, because such inspired persons were supposed to be gifted with the power of foreseeing the future, and themselves believed that they possessed it.
The distinction between priests and prophets is clearly marked, even in the legend of Moses; for the lawgiver, the interpreter of Jehovah, reserves the sacerdotal office, not for his own descendants, but for those of his brother Aaron. This distinction is not peculiar to the Hebrews; the Greeks also had soothsayers, who received inspiration from a god, and priests, or rather sacristans, who were charged with the maintenance of the temples and superintended the ceremonial of worship. The Hebrew priesthood became by degree an exclusive caste; prophecy which had its origin in personal inspiration, could not be hereditary, for the spirit bloweth where it listeth. There were no priestesses among the Israelites, though there were prophetesses, like Miriam the sister of Moses, or Deborah. In the same way it was a woman, the Pythia, who transmitted the oracles of Apollo at Delphi.
Samuel tried to make prophecy a permanent institution. After the death of Eli he went back to his own home, Ramah, a city of Benjamin, and there founded a college or convent of prophets (najoth). There were similar schools at Bethel, Gilgal, and Jericho. The members of these brotherhoods lived in community, for enthusiasm is contagious. Music was the means employed to call down inspiration. With the prophets of Israel, as with the Pythia of Delphi, the ecstasy was the result of a morbid excitation, a kind of intoxication, an intermittent delirium; when this phase of exaltation was over the prophet became an ordinary man once more.
But the trait that distinguishes the religious institutions of the Hebrews from anything analogous that may have existed at other times and in other countries, is their exclusively national character and their attitude of unvarying hostility towards the outer world. The religion of Israel is intolerant because it is but the ideal form of a fanatical patriotism. For this reason every awakening of public spirit among the Hebrews manifests itself by a fresh outbreak of invective against the religions of their neighbours.[d]
IV. SAMUEL AND SAUL
We come now to the period when, for the first time, Israel as a nation attains sufficient unity to come under the control of a single monarch. Samuel, the last of the judges, causes Saul to be elected king of the united tribes. Saul is succeeded by David, and he in turn by his son Solomon. The three reigns cover a period of about ninety years, from 1020 to 930 B.C. For this brief period alone all Israel is united into a somewhat homogeneous monarchy. But even at best, it is the powerful hand of David more than any national unity of spirit that holds the various tribes together; and under Solomon, dissensions are gathering force, which are to cause the disruption of the kingdom immediately after that monarch’s death.
As the latter day Jew looked back upon this period, across an interval of centuries, it seemed to him that the kingdom of Israel, in this its time of relative might, had shone as a star of the first magnitude in the oriental firmament. But in truth it was only the eye of national prejudice that could thus magnify the mild effulgence of Hebrew glory. In reality, the kingdom of Israel, even under David, was but a petty state; and such power as it seemed to wield was due largely to the momentary weakness of surrounding nations. It chanced that the epoch of Hebrew monarchy was contemporary with the XXIst Dynasty of Egypt, during which time that land was governed simultaneously by the Tanites and high priests, whose dissensions so weakened the government that the chief authority gradually passed into the hands of the commanders of Libyan mercenaries. Torn thus by internal dissensions, Egypt had little time to think of external conquests. Meantime a condition of things not altogether dissimilar existed in Mesopotamia. Babylonia and Assyria were struggling one against the other, and mutual antagonism weakened each principality.
It was this temporary lull in the warlike activities of the really great oriental nations that enabled the Israelites to achieve a momentary position of relative consequence, which traditionalists of a later day were able, with some slight show of verisimilitude, to magnify into a period of actual glory. “Man to console himself for a destiny most frequently leaden,” says Ernest Renan,[1] speaking of the last great Hebrew monarchs, “is constrained to imagine brilliant ages in the past, a kind of fireworks which did not last, but produced a charming effect. In spite of the anathemas of prophets and the disparagements of the northern tribes, Solomon left, amongst a section of the people, an admiration that expressed itself, after a lapse of two or three hundred years, in the half-legendary history which figures in the Books of the Kings. The misfortunes of the nation only served to excite these visions of a lost ideal. Solomon became the pivot of the Jewish agada, [the legendary element of the Talmud]. To the author of Ecclesiastes he is already the richest and most powerful of men. In the Gospels he is the embodiment of all human splendour. A luxuriant garden of myths grew up around him. Mohammed fed on it; then on the wings of Islamism this shower of fables, variegated with a thousand hues, spread through the whole world the magic name of Soleyman. The historic fact concealed behind these marvellous stories was roughly this: A thousand years before Christ there reigned in a petty acropolis in Syria, a petty sovereign, intelligent, and unencumbered by national prejudices, understanding nothing of the true vocation of his race, and wise according to the ideas of that time, though it cannot be said that he was superior in morality to the average Eastern monarchs of all ages. The intelligence which evidently characterised him, early won him a reputation for philosophy and learning. Each age understood this learning and philosophy according to the style which predominated. Thus Solomon was in turn parabolist, naturalist, sceptic, magician, astrologer, alchemist, cabalist.”
With these corrective views in mind, we may turn to the history of Israel in its golden epoch, with less fear of gaining an incorrect historical image. We shall be still further guarded if we recall that it is very doubtful whether any of the Hebrew writings now extant were in existence in the time of David and Solomon. By this it is not meant to deny that the Israelites of that day knew how to write. Doubtless the works of that period were drawn upon by later compilers. But by far the larger number of records ostensibly dating from this time must be ascribed to a much later period. It is held by Renan that “the only part of the Hebrew literature now preserved, which might be attributed to Solomon, is that portion of the Book of Proverbs which extends from verse one of the tenth chapter to the sixteenth verse of the twenty-second chapter.” And even this, it is alleged, cannot in all probability be the work of Solomon himself. “Not only have we no work of Solomon’s,” says Renan, “but it is probable that he did not write at all.” Even if such iconoclastic views as this are accepted, it does not follow that we have no knowledge of the true history of Israel in this period. The fact is quite the contrary; however much tradition may have befogged the view, the time of Hebrew monarchy is a truly historical epoch, the main outlines of which are clearly preserved. We turn now to the detailed examination of this interesting period.[a]
SAMUEL AND SAUL
[Sidenote: [ca. 1020 B.C.]]
It was not only the Philistines with whom Saul had to contend. The Amalekites invaded the country from the south, devastating it as they went. Saul defeated them, marched through their territory, and made their king, Agag, prisoner. All the Amalekites taken were destroyed with the edge of the sword, and the same was done to all such cattle as were useless; the captive Agag and the best of the animals were brought back in triumph to Gilgal, through the territory of the tribe of Judah.
Samuel came from Ramah, where he had lived since the loss of the holy Ark, to offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and said to Saul: “What meaneth this bleating of the sheep in mine ears and the lowing of the oxen which I hear? Thou hast done evil in the sight of Jehovah.” He was displeased because all that lived had not been utterly destroyed, and would not offer the sacrifice. The victorious king was submissive enough to confess his fault. “I have sinned,” he said, “yet honour me now I pray thee before the elders of my people, and turn again with me that I may worship the Lord thy God.” Then Samuel demanded that the captive king of Amalek should be brought before him. This was done, and Samuel said to him, “As thy sword has made women childless, so shall thy mother be made childless among women.” And “Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.”
King Saul, so the story continues in summary fashion, performed mighty deeds of valour, and when he saw any strong man or any valiant man, he took him unto him and fought against all the enemies of Israel on every side, against Moab and against Edom and against the kings of Zobah (in the north); and the war was sore against the Philistines so long as Saul lived, and wherever he turned he conquered. His sword never came back empty, and the daughters of Israel could clothe themselves in purple from the spoil of his victories and adorn their garments with gold. By these long and hard struggles, Saul succeeded in destroying the lordship of the Philistines over Israel and breaking the power of their arms, and “delivered Israel out of the hands of them that spoiled them.” In Saul’s hands the royal power accomplished what the Israelites had expected when they placed it there. Supported by his son Jonathan and his cousin Abner, whom as a distinguished warrior the king had made the captain of his host, Saul had become the saviour of Israel; but for him the tribes on the hither side of Jordan would have been subdued by the Philistines, those beyond Jordan by the Ammonites and Moabites, and they would probably have completely succumbed to their power. He sought also to improve the state of affairs within the country; it is reported that “in his zeal for Israel,” he brought the Hivites of Gibeon to submission and obedience; the wizards and the conjurors of the dead he had put away out of the country.
THE RISE OF DAVID
[Sidenote: [ca. 1020-1010 B.C.]]
As king, Saul remained faithful to the simple manners of his early life. When not in the field, which was, however, generally the case, he lived on his own portion at Gibeah. There was no question of state, dignitaries, ceremonial, or a harem. His wife, Ahinoam, had borne Saul three sons besides Jonathan: Abinadab, Malchishua, and Ishbosheth [Eshbaal], and two daughters, Merab and Michal; the elder, Merab, was married to Adriel, the son of Barzillai.
It was the ambition, the intrigues, and the rebellion of a man whom Saul had himself raised from obscurity, which not only robbed the latter of the reward of his deeds and his house of the throne, but also deprived Israel of all the fruits of so many and such great efforts, and once more set the fate of the nation at stake.
David, the son of Jesse of Bethlehem, in the tribe of Judah, belonged “to the valiant men whom Saul had taken to himself”; he had distinguished himself in the struggle against the Philistines, and the king had made him his armour bearer and sent him out frequently against them; with fortune on his side David’s expeditions succeeded better than those of other captains. Thus he was beloved in the eyes of the people and of the king’s servants, and Jonathan, the brave son of Saul, “made a covenant with David, for he loved him as his own soul.” In Saul’s house David was trusted and honoured before the other warriors. Saul made him a captain of a thousand and gave him the command of the bodyguard. After Abner, David was the first of Saul’s followers and ate at his table. Saul even went farther; he gave David his second daughter Michal to wife, because she loved him, though David had himself refused to take her. “What am I,” said David, “and what is my life or my father’s family that I should be the king’s son-in-law? But I am a poor man and lightly esteemed.”
After this, Saul was seized with a suspicion of David, fearing lest this man whom he had raised so high and had made his son-in-law, and who was the bosom friend of his son, should conspire against him and his house in alliance with Samuel and other priests who had not abandoned their unfriendly attitude towards the newly established throne and the man who filled it.
It is related that Saul thrust at David with a spear, but that the latter avoided the blow and fled to his house. Then Saul commanded that the house should be surrounded, that David might be killed the next day. But Michal let David down in the night from a window, and laid the household god in the bed in his place, covered it up with a cloth, and placed the fly-net of goat’s hair over the face of the image. Meantime David fled to Samuel at Ramah and hid with him at Naioth until Saul learned his whereabouts. Then David escaped to Nob, where the priest Ahimelech inquired of Jehovah for him and gave him provisions and a sword, and thence he fled farther to the Philistine prince, Achish, king of Gath.
Saul blamed his daughter for having helped David out of his difficulties, and said to Jonathan: “As long as the son of Jesse liveth, thou shalt not be established nor thy kingdom.” Then he held a strict trial of the priests, under the tamarisk at Gibeah. When the priests of Nob were brought before him, Saul asked Ahimelech: “Why have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse, that he should rise against me? Thou shalt surely die. Slay the priests,” he cried to his bodyguard; “their hand is with David and because they knew when he fled and did not shew it to me.” But the servants of the king would not put forth their hand to fall upon the priests of the Lord. And the king said to Doeg, “Turn thou and fall upon the priests.” And Doeg the Edomite turned and fell upon the priests, and slew on that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod.
“And Nob, the city of the priests, smote he with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and sucklings, and oxen, and asses, and sheep, with the edge of the sword.
“And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David. And Abiathar shewed David that Saul had slain the Lord’s priests.”
DAVID IN REVOLT AGAINST SAUL
We do not know exactly how far Saul’s suspicion of David was justified: from the story which has been revised and worked up with a view to prejudicing us in David’s favour, we can only perceive that the son of Jesse actually was in close alliance with the priests, and David’s own actions after he had broken with Saul are evidence of far-reaching and carefully laid schemes, the means of whose execution were not too scrupulous. But whether Saul had perceived David’s ambitious intentions in good time, or had gone too far in his proceedings against him, in either case he had committed an error: David was by no means content with escaping from the king’s anger; if wrong had been done him he far outdid it by his own acts. The Philistines would neither have received in Gath a dangerous enemy like David, who had done them so much injury, nor have spared his life, if he had not agreed to support them for the future in their struggle against Saul. David also entered into relations with other enemies of his country.
His father and mother he took to the king of Moab, to secure them against Saul’s vengeance. He then threw himself into the desolate tracts of eastern Judea about the Dead Sea, and here he attempted to organise a rising; he probably counted on the adhesion of the tribe of Judah, to which he belonged, as he might reckon on their jealousy of the king from the little tribe of Benjamin, although the tribe of Judah should have been especially grateful to Saul, since it had been the one to suffer longest under the Philistine dominion. His father’s house really gathered round him, “and all the oppressed, and whosoever had a creditor and whosoever had a grievance.” They were for the most part people of the tribe of Judah, with some from Benjamin and others from Gad, beyond Jordan--four to six hundred men, who assembled round David in the cave of Adullam. This was no great result, and David found himself compelled to lead a robber existence with this band, and by so doing he ran the danger of rousing the inhabitants of the neighbourhood against him.
He therefore tried a middle course and sent to a rich man, Nabal of Carmel, who possessed three thousand sheep and one thousand goats, and who was a descendant of that Caleb who had here once founded a lordship for himself with the sword. David sent to say that he had taken nothing from Nabal’s flocks, and to ask if the latter would not, therefore, send him and his the means of subsistence. But Nabal answered David’s messenger: “Who is David and who is the son of Jesse; there be many servants nowadays that break away every man from his master.” Then David set out, by night, to fall on Nabal’s house and flocks. On the way he was met by Nabal’s wife Abigail, who, in her dread of the freebooters, had had some asses laden with slaughtered sheep, bread, jars of wine, figs, and raisin cakes, to take secretly to David’s camp. “Blessed be thy advice, woman,” said David, “for as the Lord God of Israel liveth, hadst thou not met me, surely by the morning light there had been none left of Nabal and his house.” Nabal miraculously died ten days after this incident. David reflected that so rich a possession in this region could not but be useful. Saul’s daughter was lost to him, so he sent some servants to Abigail at Carmel. They said: “David sent us unto thee, to take thee to him to wife.” And Abigail arose and bowed herself on her face to the earth and said, ‘Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.’ Then she arose with five of her maidens, and went after the messengers of David and became his wife. In fact, this marriage seems to have been of great assistance to David’s enterprise. The southern towns of Judah--Aroer, Hormah, Ramoth, Jattir, Eshtemoa, even Hebron itself, declared for him. From here David endeavoured to press forward to the north and made himself master of the fortified city of Keilah.
When Saul was informed of this, he said: “God hath delivered him into mine hand, for he is shut in by entering into a town that hath gates and bars.” As Saul approached, David bade Abiathar the priest, who had fled to him from Nob with the image of Jehovah, to bring the image. David inquired of it: “Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hands of Saul; O Lord God of Israel, I beseech thee tell thy servant.” And Jehovah said, “They will deliver thee up.” Then David despaired of holding the town and fled to Ziph and Maon in the wilderness by the Dead Sea. But Saul followed and overtook him: nothing but a mountain now divided David’s band from the king. David was already surrounded and lost--when a message reached Saul: “The Philistines have invaded the land.”
It was probably an expedition that the Philistines had undertaken in aid of the hard-pressed rebels. Saul immediately abandoned the pursuit and marched against the foreigner. But David named the rock the Rock of Escapes. After the king had beaten the Philistines he took three thousand men from the army that he might completely quell the rebellion. David had retreated farther east, on the border of the Dead Sea in the neighbourhood of Engedi, “upon the rocks of the wild goats,” and here Saul reduced him to such straits that he despaired of maintaining himself in Judah and got away to the Philistines with his following. The rising was at an end.
David’s attempt to induce the tribe of Judah to secede from Saul, had completely failed. Driven from the soil on which he had raised the standard of revolt, he no longer hesitated to formally enter the service of the Philistines, and the latter welcomed the support of a brave and clever rebel, knowing that though once their enemy, he had already given much trouble in Judah to the arms of Saul, whose force they had so often felt and who had snatched from them their dominion over Israel, and aware that his resentment against his benefactor and master might prove of the greatest service to them, King Achish of Gath, to whom David had a second time fled, declared: “He hath made his people Israel utterly to abhor him; therefore he shall be my servant forever.” And he gave him and his band of freebooters the town of Ziklag as a dwelling-place. David was now established at Ziklag as a vassal of Achish. At the latter’s command he had to march to battle and also to deliver up a share of the booty taken, and from Ziklag in the territory of the Philistines he and his small army, still recruited from the discontented of Israel who fled to David across the frontier, conducted a guerilla warfare against Saul and his native country. In these expeditions David was shrewd enough to spare his former adherents in Judah, the towns which had once declared for him, and to direct his attacks solely against the followers of Saul; he even secretly maintained relations with his party in Judah, and out of the booty derived from his warlike and plundering raids he sent presents to the elders of those towns which were well-disposed towards him.
David had dwelt some time in Ziklag when the Philistines assembled their whole force against Saul. When the princes of the Philistines reviewed the army and made the various sections pass before them, David and his men also came amongst the soldiers of Achish. Then said the other princes to Achish: “What do these Hebrews here? Let David not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us and go over to his master that he might once more gain favour with Saul with our heads.” Achish trusted David and said: “He has already been with me for some time, for years. I have found nothing against him up till now.” But the other princes insisted. When Achish informed David that he could not accompany the army, the latter answered: “But what have I done and what hast thou found in thy servant so long as I have been with thee unto this day, that I may not go fight against the enemies of my king?” But in spite of his urgent wish David was sent back.
[Sidenote: [ca. 1010-1002 B.C.]]
The army of the Philistines penetrated far into Israel; but north of the territory of the tribe of Ephraim, on the mountain of Gilboa, Saul encamped opposite them with the army of the Israelites. The battle was a fierce one. Abinadab and Malchishua, the sons of Saul, fell, and Jonathan himself was slain. The ranks of the Israelites gave way and the enemies’ archers attained the king.
THE DEATH OF SAUL AND THE STRUGGLE FOR THE SUCCESSION
Saul was determined not to survive the fall of his sons and his first defeat. He called to his armour bearer: “Draw thy sword and kill me, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through and abuse me.” But the faithful servant refused to lay hands on his lord; then Saul fell on his own sword, and the armour bearer followed the king’s example. The army of the Israelites fled in every direction and the inhabitants of many towns escaped from the Philistines by retreating across the Jordan.
The dread which Saul had inspired in the enemies of Israel and how great a shield he had been to his own people, was shown after his death. The Israelites sang laments for him.
“The gazelle, oh Israel, is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen. Tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askalon, lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph. Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew, neither let there be rain upon you, nor fields of offerings. For there the shield of the mighty is vilely cast away, the shield of Saul. From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty the bow of Jonathan turned not back and the sword of Saul returned not empty. Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions. Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet with other delights; who put ornaments of gold upon your apparel. How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle!” The Philistines rejoiced when they found the body of Saul on Mount Gilboa. They took away the arms of the dead king and sent them round through their whole country, to convince all men that the dreaded leader of Israel was really dead. Then the arms were hung up in the temple of Astarte. The head of the corpse the Philistines hewed from the body, and hung it up in the temple of Dagon; the trunk, and the bodies of Saul’s three sons, they placed in the market at Beth-shan, in the territory of the tribe of Manasseh.
The men of Jabesh in Gilead, which Saul had once saved in its sorest need, arose and secretly stole away the corpse of Saul and the corpses of his three sons from the market-place of Beth-shan, burnt them at Jabesh and there buried them under the tamarisk; and they fasted and mourned over Saul seven days.
But the other tribes also preserved a faithful memory of the fallen king. Saul’s youngest son alone survived; he had escaped across the Jordan with Abner, Saul’s captain of the host. Although a single battle had destroyed all that Saul had won in long and painful struggles and although the Philistines were again masters of the hither side of Jordan, as in the dreary days before the reign of Saul, yet the tribes beyond Jordan recognised Ishbosheth [Eshbaal] as their lawful king. He was, however, obliged to fix his seat at Mahanaim, east of Jordan. Abner’s courage and energy succeeded in gradually bringing back the fruits of the Philistine victory at Gilboa, and in freeing the territory of the northern tribes, including Ephraim and Benjamin, from the yoke of the Philistines.
Whilst Abner was doing his utmost to save the wrecks of Saul’s dominion for the king’s son, and to drive the Philistines out of the country, David had been looking after his own interests. After the defeat of Gilboa, many had hastened to him at Ziklag. David had been a notable warrior, and there was a certainty of finding protection from the Philistines’ vassal. Those towns of the tribe of Judah which had formally adhered to David, also now for the most part went over to him, and indeed the tribe of Judah was more accustomed than the others to the Philistines’ rule. David inquired of Jehovah whether he should go up from Ziklag to any of the cities of Judah, and Jehovah answered: “To Hebron.” He did so, “and the men of Judah came and there they anointed David, king over the house of Judah, for only the house of Judah followed David.” Thus David had succeeded in achieving what he had failed to accomplish in Saul’s life-time, and had founded an independent sovereignty in the territory of the tribe of Judah. At first he ruled there from Hebron in peace, as the vassal of the Philistines so long as Abner had to fight with the latter. But when Ishbosheth’s government was once more established in the north and centre of the country, Abner, to complete the liberation of Israel, was obliged to attack David as he had done the Philistines.
“There was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David,” says the tradition. It continued during several years, without any decisive issue, when a breach between Abner and Ishbosheth gave David his advantage, and finally won him the throne of Saul. Ishbosheth appears to have become distrustful of Abner, to whom he owed everything. When Abner took to himself Saul’s concubine Rizpah, Ishbosheth imagined that he intended by this means to acquire a claim to the throne, in order to be able to seize the government himself; and he did not conceal his resentment. Then Abner turned from the man whom he had raised to greatness, and opened secret negotiations with David. David responded gladly.
With characteristic cunning he first demanded the restoration of his wife, Michal, Saul’s daughter, whom, after David’s rebellion, Saul had given in marriage to another man. David had learnt to know the Israelites’ attachment to Saul, and saw that nothing would bring him nearer to the throne than a renewal of the union with Saul’s family; then, if none of Saul’s descendants remained except his daughter, he himself would be actually the rightful heir. Abner sent Michal to him, and went himself to Hebron, to arrange for handing over the kingdom. An agreement had been arrived at. Abner had accomplished his task, and was already on his way home to Mahanaim, when Joab, David’s captain, sent to call him back. He came, and Joab led him aside under the gate as though he had some private words to say to him, instead of which he thrust him through the body with his sword. David protested his innocence (Abner must have had many friends and followers among the Israelites) and mourned over Abner’s death. The corpse was solemnly interred at Hebron and David went in sackcloth behind the bier, but Joab was left unpunished. More just was the Israelites’ lament for Abner’s death. “Must Abner die as the godless dieth?” they sang. “Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters; as a man falleth before the sons of iniquity fellest thou.”
[Sidenote: [ca. 1002 B.C.]]
When the news of Abner’s death came to Mahanaim, Ishbosheth’s “hands were feeble, and all the Israelites were troubled.” The pillar of the kingdom had fallen. The two captains thought to earn David’s gratitude. While Ishbosheth was taking his midday rest on his bed in the sleeping chamber, they crept unnoticed into the house, hewed off the head of their king, and brought it with all speed to David at Hebron. This murder also must have been welcome to David; it brought him quickly to his goal; but he would not reward the agents--he had them both hanged.
DAVID SECURES THE CROWN
The throne of Saul was vacant, and David, the husband of his daughter, was at the head of no inconsiderable power; whom else could the tribes of Israel, which had obeyed Ishbosheth, now raise to the throne, if the melancholy division was to be brought to an end and the people again united under one rule? The elders of the tribes were wise enough to judge the situation aright. So the whole people came together at Hebron; in full assembly David was raised to the throne of all Israel, and anointed by the elders. All was joy, harmony, and hope, that, after the close of the long, fraternal quarrel, better times might now be in store.
Eight years had gone by since Saul had fallen at Gilboa, and David had at last attained the object which he had persistently aimed at through so many changes of fortune. But he did not feel secure so long as male descendants of Saul were still surviving. Still he would not lay hands on them himself. Now the Hivites of Gibeon nourished a deadly hatred against Saul’s family, because, “in his zeal for the children of Israel,” Saul’s hand had lain heavy upon them. David offered “to make atonement for the wrong which Saul had done them,” and thereupon they demanded: because their land had borne no fruit for three years, that seven men of Saul’s family should be delivered to them “to be hanged before Jehovah at Gibeah,” the home of Saul. Just seven male descendants of Saul survived, two sons of his concubine, Rizpah, and five grandsons, whom Saul’s eldest daughter had borne to Adriel. These David took and “delivered into the hands of the Gibeonites and they hanged them in the hill before Jehovah.”
Only Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s son, David spared, remembering his oath of friendship to Jonathan. Moreover, Mephibosheth was young and lame in both feet; in the night of terror after the battle of Gilboa, his nurse had let him fall. David left him his inheritance intact, in so far that he was allowed to take possession of Saul’s portion in Gibeah, and the king ordered that the bones of Saul and Jonathan should be brought from Jabesh to Zelah near Gibeah, where Saul’s father rested. In the tribe of Benjamin, which had been Saul’s and, among the friends of his house, David’s deeds were not forgotten; these men hated “David, the man of blood.”[c]
FOOTNOTES
[1] Histoire du Peuple d’Israel, Paris, 1889, p. 175.
V. DAVID’S REIGN
[Sidenote: [ca. 1002-990 B.C.]]
The eyes of Israel were now all turned to David. All the tribes of Israel, in the persons of their nobles, came to Hebron and said: “Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. And moreover, in times past, even when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the Lord thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel.” Thereupon the elders of Israel anointed David to be their king before Jehovah in Hebron. Nothing denotes more clearly than these words of our chronicler, the idea which animated all Israel in calling upon David to mount the throne of Saul. He still lived in their memory as the renowned leader in the struggle with the Philistines. And the memory of the days of Saul must have been all the more vivid, the more inglorious and mean the present appeared.
David could consequently be in no doubt as to his first task as newly elected king of Israel. Israel must be again free, and the Philistines thrown back on their coasts. Nothing else was intended when the tribes invited him to be their prince. And, like Saul in former days, by this means alone could David permanently retain the confidence with which the tribes approached him at his anointing.
In the country of the Philistines also, the significance of what had passed in Hebron was quickly perceived. There was probably no need of many words and messages to announce that the position of vassal to Philistia, in which David had hitherto stood, was at an end. If Saul’s kingdom had passed to David, between him and the Philistines the cause of Israel still retained the same rights as in the days of Saul. In spite of this, David seems to have been attacked sooner than he could have anticipated; immediately, on the news of his anointing at Hebron, the Philistines invaded Judah. David seems to have been taken unawares, and Israel’s attempt to make itself independent through him, to have been nipped in the bud. Beitlahm (Bible Bethlehem) David’s home, was quickly occupied, and Hebron was threatened. David was warned, but having no time to summon the militia, was compelled to withdraw hastily to the cave of Adullam, which stronghold had long ago been intrusted to him. Here he seems to have remained some time, until he had collected his forces, and later he succeeded in inflicting a sensible defeat on the Philistines, who had fixed their camp in the land of giants, the so-called plain of Rephaim north of Jebus, opposite Gibeon.
But it must be confessed that the Philistines were not annihilated, or even merely reduced to quiescence by this. The struggle was again renewed on the occasion of a second invasion of Judah by the enemy. In obedience to Jehovah’s oracle, David passed round the Philistines, who had again encamped in the land of giants, and attacked them from the north, i.e. from behind. He smote them from Gibeon to Gezer.
For the time the Philistines seemed to have remained quiet after these two defeats, which David had inflicted on them within so short a time. But their power was not yet broken, and David must have fought many and doubtless severe battles before Israel had rest from the Philistines. Many a reminiscence of David and his heroes, many a bold feat of his valiant host, lived on through subsequent generations and was referred to this very struggle. At one time it is David’s own life which is at stake, at another, Goliath of Gath is slain, the enemy who has also lent his name to the unknown Philistine giant whom David had formerly killed. Finally, by a decisive battle, David succeeds in winning the Philistine’s capital and with it their whole country. From this time forward the power of the Philistines is broken. Never afterwards do they appear as the enemies of Israel. From the time of David the relations between the two nations are essentially peaceful. Nor, in spite of his victories, did David subjugate Philistia or destroy her nationality. He was content to have won back Israel’s position, defeated the enemy, and kept peace with him. It even appears that moderately friendly relations were opened between the rivals. Indeed, so little were the Philistines now considered as the hereditary foes of Israel, that David chooses his bodyguard from amongst them.
But David was not content with the success he had so far attained. Israel was not merely to be free. Israel was to be united, and raised to a position commanding respect among the neighbouring states. Step by step, David brought this aim nearer fulfilment. He trained the tribes to give new and better expression to their cohesion than had formerly been possible; he fitted them to guide their destinies according to his own ideal; thanks to him, for a time, Israel was even able to have a decisive voice in the council of the peoples of Anterior Asia, who dwelt west of the Euphrates. No wonder, then, that Israel knows no greater king than David, and that his name is the expression, to the most remote posterity, of all the magnificence and all the splendour which could ever have been imagined in Israel. David was and remains the greatest man next to Moses in the history of Israel, and is at the same time the most popular.
It was not David’s work which awakened in the tribes of Israel the consciousness that they formed an unit, a single people, nor that for a transitory period they acted as one nation. Moses, and again later, Saul, even Deborah for some of the tribes, had given expression to this ideal unity, and temporarily realised it. The tribes must now long have known that they were the limbs of a single nation. But always, as had been lately manifested in Saul, the strength was lacking to maintain what had been momentarily acquired. What was especially wanted even when liberty had been won, was a national centre, round which the life of the nation, political as well as religious, might gather. Only when this was attained could the unification be really complete, and any sort of permanence be guaranteed for the liberty won by the sword. Saul, with inconceivable shortsightedness, did little or nothing towards this object. The national sanctuary, first lost and afterwards again recovered, he had left standing in an obscure corner of Israel, and had fixed his royal abode in his native Benjamite city of Gibeah where he had lived as a peasant, and which had neither past nor future--the best evidence that Saul lacked the kingly faculty. David saw deeper than Saul. If Saul was an able warrior, who, when he had sheathed his sword, returned to his cattle at Gibeah, David, on the contrary, was a born ruler. He recognised that religion and national life needed a centre, unity a base, national power a place of assembly--in short that if the country was to maintain its unity and independence, it must have a capital worthy of royalty and fitted to secure it.
[Sidenote: [ca. 990 B.C.]]
Immediately after the conclusion of the first Philistine wars, David proceeded to the accomplishment of this object. His choice bears witness to his genius. Hebron, lying at the southern end of the country, and being moreover the capital of his own tribe, could be suited, neither by its position nor its tribal character, to form the centre of the new kingdom, which must be superior to the ancient tribal distinctions. Saul’s residence of Gibeah was disqualified on similar grounds, and probably also strategically unimportant. On the other hand, the fortress of Jebus answered, as did no other place in Israel, to what David sought. Furnished by nature with the attributes of an almost impregnable stronghold from a strategical point of view, Jebus is one of the most important places in the country. At the middle point of the traffic between the Mediterranean and the East, as of that between Syria and Egypt, it is a natural centre for trade and commerce. As it was still in the possession of the Canaanites, it was well qualified to remain aloof from the contention for precedence among the tribes. And yet again as it lay not far from David’s birthplace, Jebus provided for the preservation of David’s kingship and of that connection with the tribe of Judah which was to a certain extent indispensable. In fact, David’s choice of Jebus--henceforth called Jerusalem in the Old Testament--as capital of his kingdom, was an act of incalculably wide-reaching importance. It is quite impossible to say what would have become of Judah and the throne of David in the centuries which followed Solomon’s death, but for the possession of Jerusalem. Of the part played by Jerusalem in the destinies of Israel, both before and after the exile, every one who knows the story is aware. If David’s successful fight for liberty against the Philistines was the first jewel which he added to his newly acquired crown, the second was the town of Jerusalem, which he now won and raised to be the royal city of Israel.
Jebus had hitherto been a relic of that large territory forming with Gibeon, Beeroth, Kirjath-jearim and Chephirah, a Canaanitish strip of land, which once, in the period of the conquest and for a considerable time after, had extended into the possession of Israel. In course of time, most of this land, so long beyond the borders of Israel, had been absorbed. Finally Saul had exerted himself in the matter by the application of force. Only Jebus, with its strong rock-citadel Zion, had obstinately resisted all attacks. Its possessors seem to have formed a singular little Canaanitish nation, called, from their town, the Jebusites.
David’s attempt to win the Jebusites and their town for Israel by peaceful means, miscarried. Their rocky eyrie, Zion, appeared to the Jebusites so strong that the lame and blind would suffice to defend it. Undismayed by their scorn, David proceeded to use force, and stormed town and citadel. The citadel he took possession of himself and called it David’s citadel (the city of David) after having first restored the building for his own purposes. Hiram of Tyre, to whom the friendship of his powerful neighbour must have been a matter of some importance, is said to have assisted him with cedar wood and workmen. The former masters of the town seem, like the Philistines after them, not to have been treated according to the usage of war, but to have been spared. At least in later times we find the Jebusites living with Israel in Jerusalem.
DAVID’S GREATNESS IN TIME OF PEACE
But the conquest of Jerusalem by David, and the selection of this town as the capital of the country, had yet a further significance. A royal sanctuary was a necessary adjunct to the king’s residence and the capital of the country. But religion in Israel was a popular institution. No affair which touched the whole nation could dispense with it. The national capital, the centre of the life of the people, must, if it were to answer its purpose, also be the centre of the religious life. In order, therefore, to make Jerusalem, as a capital, what it might be and what by David’s means it actually was to become for Israel, it must be the centre of Jehovah’s worship.
David’s greatness is raised to a still higher level by the fact that he thought of this also. History is made by the man who recognises the spirit of his time and of his country, and is in a position to step forward and act decisively in consonance with it. David perceived that the spirit of his nation and its destiny only worked in the close connection of the national with the religious life. He had an eye for the most secret inner existence of his nation, according to which it must be the people of religion, God’s people. Thus he became at once the historical, and what was inseparable from this, the religious hero of Israel. We need neither overlook the weakness and despotic whims of David, nor transform the man, by nature a hero, into a feeble saint, in order to appreciate his deep religious character and his importance for the religion of Israel. As David had glorified Israel’s past, so he had done for its future, and in days of tribulation his name revived Israel’s sinking hope and faith in God. Jehovah, the God of Israel, became through him the chief dweller at Jerusalem, the neighbour and almost the household companion, nay more, the host and father of its king. Jerusalem, the royal city, is at the same time the city of God, the holy city; David’s Dynasty is Jehovah’s royal house, and its members Jehovah’s sons, and even the hero of the last days, who shall save Israel and the world from all their woes, can henceforth be pictured in no other way than as a second David, the great son and antitype of the glorious founder of the holy city.
The ancient sanctuary of the time of Moses, the Ark of God, had been almost forgotten since the evil days when it fell into the enemy’s hand. The Philistines indeed, smitten with a solemn awe, had restored the ark. But neither Saul nor the priesthood of Nob, which had succeeded that of Shiloh, nor any one else in Israel, had interested himself in it. It might seem that its sojourn in the enemies’ country had desecrated it. Or probably the small measure of good fortune it had brought to the arms of Israel’s hosts at Aphek had shaken the belief in its virtue.
Not so David. The scruples of superstitious Saul and of his age, did not terrify him. He saw what the Ark of God was and that it was what he needed: the ancient sanctuary of Israel, which assured Jehovah’s presence in the desert, and with which great memories were connected. For him the fact that it had long, and perhaps in the first instance, had its location with the tribe of Joseph, could only be an additional reason for once more restoring it to honour. Everything must depend on his winning over to himself and Jerusalem that northern group of the tribes.
Thus the Ark of God was fetched in solemn procession and in the presence of the whole people from Baal Jehuda [Bible, Baalah (Kirjath-jearim) in Judah] where it stood in the house of a private individual. But an accident which befell the driver of the cart upon which it was carried, perplexed David. The fancy he had thought dispelled, that Jehovah’s hand of blessing was withdrawn from the ark, now appeared to be founded on the truth. He did not venture to conduct it to Zion. It was only when even a foreigner, Obed Edom of Gath, in whose house the Ark had been left for three months, derived blessing from it, that David carried out his intention. With rejoicing and the sound of trumpet, the people led Jehovah to Zion. David himself executed the motions of dancing before the Ark, clad in the linen garment of a priest, and fulfilled as chief the priestly office before Jehovah in Zion. Michal, Saul’s proud daughter, was ashamed of her husband for degrading himself before his serving men and maids. David was proud of having been honoured before Jehovah. There was in him a truly religious nature, which did not scruple to go even to the verge of what were, even for that age, religious eccentricities.
It must be in the highest degree astonishing that David built no temple for the Ark. If he fetched it to his capital and his palace, he must also have meant to erect there a fitting resting-place for Jehovah. Since he did not do so, he must have been guided by special reasons and considerations. If, as the history of Samuel hints, the Ark had already a temple of its own in Shiloh, it can be positively said that only a divine oracle could have withheld David from building a fitting temple. Without such a definite declaration of Jehovah’s will, it would have been culpable indifference and criminal contempt for the Majesty of Jehovah for David to have built no temple. There is consequently no real grounds to discredit as a late invention the tradition of David’s firm intention to build Jehovah a temple on Zion and its prevention by a prophetic saying. The rather late compilation of the writings concerning it cannot be taken into consideration, in face of such overwhelming inherent grounds for the truth of the fact. Nay, it is believeable that already on this occasion a prophetic saying furnished David with the prospect of the continuance of his dynasty.
FURTHER WARS BREAK OUT
[Sidenote: [ca. 990-980 B.C.]]
David was not left to the peaceful enjoyment of what he had already acquired. It could scarcely have been otherwise, and David would hardly have desired that it should. If Israel were to be master in Syria, if her borders were to be secured and the independence so often contested by surrounding peoples were to be rendered indisputable, explanations with her remaining neighbours must take place. David could not then possibly rest content with the acquisition of the kingship over all Israel, and the overthrow of the Philistines. The occasion, not undesired by David, came from without, from Ammon. The Ammonites soon joined themselves with the various Aramaic peoples, so that, when he had conquered them, David was master of all the border country to the north and east of Israel.
It is extremely doubtful whether the Ammonites were permanently subdued. At a later period their territory did not belong to Israel, but it probably did in David’s time. In any case the marauding eastern tribes which had so often threatened Israel, were for the present reduced to quiescence. The frontier of David’s kingdom was now secured in the east as far as to the desert. In the north his rule extended to Lebanon and Hebron. Even the rulers of the territories lying farther to the north and east sought his friendship. As for instance, King Toi of Hamath on the Orontes, who had lived at feud with Hadad-ezer and consequently could only be grateful to David for his overthrow. Also King Talmai of Geshur, a district of Hermon, southwest of Damascus. A daughter of his was one of David’s wives. She became the mother of Absalom.
The Phœnicians had even better reason than these northern neighbours to keep on good terms with David. Nothing but gain could result to their commercial operations from the existence in the interior of Palestine of a powerful and well-ordered state, such as David was striving after. Their king, Hiram of Tyre, concluded a friendly alliance with David, which continued under Solomon.
Thus David’s kingdom stretched from the Red Sea to Lebanon. It was the ruling power in Syria. It stood in uncontested power. It had no longer any adversary to fear. Next to David the greatest share in this result was due to Joab, his chief general--especially as David did not latterly often take the field himself. From beginning to end he remained faithfully devoted to David, unshaken through all the storms and vicissitudes of fortune--a warrior to whose keen sword success was never denied, but also a man of rude violence and unbridled selfishness, to whom no bond seemed sacred, no means to be rejected.
It is obvious that in such quarrels as he had to conduct on all sides, David had need of a carefully administered and well-disciplined army. The nucleus of his troops, a kind of guard on whom he could implicitly rely, consisted of those six hundred men, who, long ago, in the days of his flight from Saul, had gathered round him and had remained true to him during his persecution. When David became king, they, of course, stayed with him. Henceforth they represented his bodyguard, and bore the name of Gibborim, the “Heroes.” In war, special tasks were, as a matter of course, assigned to them. The gaps in the circles of these picked troops, which resulted from David’s numerous wars, were afterwards filled up after the victories over the Philistines--for reasons which are explained by the purpose of the force as the king’s bodyguard. The recruits were chiefly foreigners, especially Philistines and Cretan mercenaries of cognate race. Thus this whole force soon bore the name of Cretans and Philistines.
Important as this picked body was at all times to David, it could not possibly suffice for his great campaigns. David recognised that for wars such as he had to conduct, a permanent and reliable military organisation was necessary for Israel, even in time of peace, so that even then Israel’s troops might be under surveillance and no tribe be able to evade its duty in the moment of war. The census of the people undertaken by David’s chief captain, Joab, served this object. It was to secure the supervision of those capable of bearing arms in Israel, and to afford a groundwork for that organisation. Joab spent three-quarters of a year on the way; he extended his journey to Kadesh on the Orontes, the capital of the once mighty Hittite empire, which, consequently, if the statement is correct, had also been subdued by David. Soon after this numbering, a destructive pestilence fell upon Israel. In this David recognised Jehovah’s avenging hand. We have other reasons to assume that David’s remodelling of the army was not the cause of his success in the struggle with the neighbouring peoples. It appears only to have been taken in hand as a result of the information here collected, and as a measure which might be of value at a subsequent period.
The close of David’s history, so far as it is not dominated by the well-known occurrences in his own family, might be said to be comprised in two episodes, which concern his relations to the few surviving members of the family of his predecessor, Saul. They probably belong to the time before David’s foreign wars, but stand in our narrative in no historical sequence, so that it is difficult to define their date exactly. The second of them is to be judged from the first.
According to this, David, doubtless some time after the whole of Saul’s kingdom has fallen to him, and he had firmly established himself in Zion, felt constrained to exercise some grace towards the surviving posterity of Saul, in memory of the friendship which had united him to Saul’s son, Jonathan. On inquiry it appeared that a son of Jonathan’s, named Meribaal (or Mephibosheth) was still alive. He was lame from a child, and lived, as it seems, in profound seclusion--probably from fear of David’s vengeance--in Lodebar. David had Meribaal brought before him, and presented him with his grandfather’s possessions. It would seem, therefore, that for a time this had been assumed by David. He was, however, to take up his abode at Jerusalem, and Saul’s servant, Ziba, was to cultivate the estate in Gibeah. David here joins magnanimity and policy. He magnanimously pardons Meribaal, who might regard his life as forfeited, and also makes him royal gifts. But he also does not omit to separate the prince from his family and Saul’s royal seat, and to keep him under his own eyes in Jerusalem. He, as well as the nobles of Benjamin, were to be removed from everything which might remind them of the ancient claims of Saul.
If David here exercised magnanimity in a manner which no one could have expected of him, it is not probable that, in another instance of which we are apprised he was influenced by a desire to exterminate the house of Saul. The town of Gibeon, which an ancient compact had secured in its Canaanitish integrity, had suffered violence from Saul “in his zeal for Israel.” It is to be presumed that he made an attack on Gibeon, and executed a sanguinary punishment on a part of the Canaanite population. For this breach of faith, the guilt of blood lay on Saul and on Israel and must be expiated. Once in David’s time, some time after the above described event, the land had been scourged for three years with drought and famine. David questioned Jehovah concerning it, and its cause is named as the blood-guiltiness weighing on the house of Saul, and therefore--for the king represents the people--on Israel. The citizens of the injured Gibeon were to decide on the atonement. They demanded blood for blood; seven male descendants of Saul were delivered to the Gibeonites and by them “hanged up before Jehovah.” They were Saul’s two sons by his concubine Rizpah, who had once caused the breach between Abner and Eshbaal (Ishbosheth), besides Saul’s five grandsons from the marriage of Merab (the correct reading instead of Michal, lxx. Luc. Pesh.) with Adriel the son of Barzillai of Abel-meholah. Jonathan’s son, Meribaal, was spared for the sake of David’s bond of brotherhood with Jonathan. In her profound mother-love Rizpah kept watch by her slaughtered sons, scaring wild beasts and birds of prey from the corpses, till at last rain fell as a token that Jehovah’s anger was appeased. The bodies could now be buried. David collected their bones and had them deposited in the hereditary sepulchre of Kish at Gibeah. Saul’s house fell, but scarcely with David’s consent--a sacrifice to the religious belief of the time.
DAVID AND ABSALOM
[Sidenote: [ca. 990-970 B.C.]]
David had gloriously overcome the foes of Israel, but he had not attained to winning the mastery over his own unruly passions. The same man who could guide his people step by step with strength and dexterity, did not possess enough firmness of will to train his own sons. The bitter fruit could not fail to appear. Our records tell the story, with a plain objectivity, with an unsparing impartiality, and from a high moral standpoint that it would be hard to parallel.
Whilst Joab is with the army before Rabbath-Ammon, David transgresses with the wife of a captain who has gone to the war. In order to escape the responsibility for the consequences which do not fail to follow, David had Uriah, the husband, sent home with a message concerning the state of the war. But, ostensibly from a feeling of soldierly duty, although he probably knew what had happened, he refuses to visit his wife and hastens back to the army. Only one means now remains to hide the king’s fault. David gives Uriah a letter to Joab which disposes of the troublesome accuser. Joab must place him at a dangerous place in the battle and leave him to his fate. The plan succeeds; Uriah’s wife Bathsheba duly bewailed her spouse and then became the wife of her seducer.
When Bathsheba had given birth to a child, that which Uriah had already suspected or discovered could no longer be concealed, and the prophet Nathan becomes spokesman for the public conscience. First in a parable, and then in plain language, he announces to David the judgment of Jehovah. David, thereby showing his true greatness, instead of being angered by Nathan, owns his guilt. The child falls sick, and, in spite of David’s prayer, dies after seven days. In the child’s death David recognises Jehovah’s judgment on his own sin. But he cannot prevent his example from speedily ripening into evil fruit in his grown sons.
His first-born, Amnon, is consumed by a passion for his half-sister, Tamar. By a stratagem, suggested by an unscrupulous flatterer at the court, he manages to get her into his power. A feigned sickness offers an excuse for her visit to him. When the deed has been accomplished, he roughly thrusts the dishonoured maiden from him with pitiless violence, a sure sign that it was not love, but savage desire which had prompted him.
It is as though we were watching a Greek tragedy of fate, when we follow the chronicler’s relation of how the evil deed brought forth evil. Now in fatal succession, guilt is heaped on guilt. The father had begun with open adultery, and had then sought to veil his guilt by hypocrisy and to cover it with blood. He could not, therefore, be surprised if his children did not shrink from the violation of honour, or even from incest, and thence allowed themselves to pass to murder and rebellion.
After what he had done himself, David had not the courage to punish Amnon’s crime, save with words. So another of his sons, Tamar’s own brother Absalom, took it on himself to avenge the outrage on his sister. But he knew how to wait till opportunity offered. Two years after the crime had been committed, Absalom invited the king’s court to the festival of the sheep-shearing at his estate of Baal Hazar. Amnon and the other princes attended. During the meal, Amnon was struck down unawares by Absalom’s people. The others fled homewards, and Absalom to Geshur to his grandfather, Talmai. Three years he remained there in exile, till, by a stratagem of Joab, he succeeded in altering the king’s disposition towards him. Absalom was permitted to return to Jerusalem, but for two years more he was forbidden to appear before the king’s eyes. Finally he succeeded, again through Joab’s intervention, in obtaining a complete pardon.
No good came to David from his pardon of Absalom. To the son’s ambitious and imperious spirit, were now joined spite and the desire to revenge the wrong which he believed, or professed to believe, had been done him. Established in his rights as heir to the throne, he took advantage of his newly acquired position to steal the hearts of the people from the king, who was now growing old. And, not content with the prospect of eventually becoming his father’s lawful successor, he laid a malicious plan for the premature supersession of the king. For the space of four years he secretly prepared what he had in mind, winning over the people by royal splendour and popular mildness, and obtaining accomplices and comrades for his treacherous plans. Fully equipped, he passed to open rebellion against the unsuspecting king.
[Sidenote: [ca. 970 B.C.]]
He desired, with the king’s permission, to make sacrifice in the ancient, sacred Hebron, the discarded, and consequently discontented, capital of Judah. Messengers who left Jerusalem at the same time as he did, announced throughout Israel Absalom’s approaching succession. Here in Hebron, supported by Jewish tribal chiefs, Absalom unfurled the standard of rebellion. Soon a considerable number of the men of Israel rallied round him.
To David, the news of Absalom’s rising was a thunderbolt from a clear sky. It found him unsuspecting and completely unprepared. Not only in Judah but in the remaining portion of Israel, David’s government must have aroused discontent. Beyond his six hundred faithful followers, he seems for the moment to have been able to count on little support in the country west of Jordan. Only the east, which had formerly stood firmly by the house of Saul, appears also to have remained true to him. Even in his strong capital he did not feel himself safe for an instant from a sudden attack of Absalom, and decided to leave it.
Even now, reduced to the sorest straits ever experienced in his stirring life, the trust in God, the courage and wisdom which had so often sustained him, did not forsake David. Leaving his harem behind in the palace, he flees across the Kidron to Jordan. His bodyguard, his household, and what remains to him, accompanies his flight, including the priests Zadok and Abiathar with the Ark of God. David bids them return to Jerusalem; he cherishes the hope that Jehovah will not forsake his city. Moreover, the priests will be able secretly to inform him through their sons Jonathan and Ahimaaz of what is passing in the city. With the same object he sends back the faithful Hushai, commissioning him to appear as a partisan of Absalom and to frustrate the counsels of the crafty Ahitophel, who has gone over to Absalom.
David was now soon to learn that Absalom’s appeal to Israel had also found a willing ear in Saul’s house and tribe. He was still at the Mount of Olives when Meribaal’s steward, Ziba, met him with the message that his master had joined Absalom in the hope of recovering the throne of his grandfather. Soon afterwards in Bahurin a notable Benjamite, Shimei, comes upon him. He receives him with fierce reproaches, which betray plainly enough how fresh was the hold retained over many irreconcilables by the memory of Saul and his house’s bloody fall, though of this David was guiltless.
Absalom took possession of the empty capital. He showed the people that he had entered upon the succession to David, by appropriating to himself the latter’s harem. If Absalom meant to secure his throne, David must first be removed. Now, before he had collected an army, this would be an easy matter, since Absalom had already considerable force. This, in view of the present state of things, was the counsel of Ahitophel. But Absalom’s destiny willed it that he should not follow this advice. It flattered the vanity of the king’s son to let one of David’s former adherents also speak. Hushai’s stratagem succeeded in befooling the deluded man, and his fate was sealed. He worked on Absalom’s dread of David’s brave and daring host, and induced him to wait till he should have collected round him the forces of all Israel. At the same time he informed David, through the priests, of what he had counselled.
David was now master of the situation, and his decision was immediately taken. He crossed the Jordan, went to Eshbaal’s (Ishbosheth) former capital, Mahanaim, and employed the time allowed him in gathering an army.
Meanwhile Absalom had also crossed the Jordan. In the country east of that river a battle could not be avoided. David’s army marched in three bodies, led by Joab, Abishai, and the Gittite Ittai. Absalom’s commander was David’s nephew Amasa, who was the son of an Ishmaelite Ithra and David’s sister Abigail. David himself, on the earnest entreaty of his people, remained behind in Mahanaim. In the wood of Ephraim--which must have been the name of a wooded district east of Jordan--the decisive struggle took place. Absalom’s host, though far more numerous, for they stand to the narrator for “all Israel,” made no stand before David’s men. In the hurry of the flight Absalom is caught by his long waving hair in the branches of a terebinth. The mule gallops on. Swinging thus between heaven and earth, he is found by a common soldier who informs Joab of what he has seen. That savage warrior knows no mercy. Even David’s special injunction which had restrained the soldier meets with no regard from him. He rates the man’s weakness and himself thrusts three darts into Absalom’s body. Immediately afterwards he causes trumpet-calls to announce the end of the pursuit. Absalom’s body is thrown into a pit and covered with stones.
David, seated at the gate of Mahanaim, awaits the issue. The watchman perceives a man running up from the battle-field, then a second: in the first he recognises Zadok’s son, Ahimaaz, who had already done good messenger work in Jerusalem. Outrunning Joab’s messenger, he brings tidings of David’s victory. The father’s heart thinks only of Absalom. Asked concerning him, Ahimaaz evades the question. Meantime the other runner has come up and tells bluntly what has happened. The king trembles. Deeply moved, he mounts into the upper chamber of the gate-house, breaking out into loud lamentations over his son. He remained there a long time in his sorrow, not even heeding the victorious army which had meantime marched up. Joab’s anger at this treatment of his brave and faithful troops was not small. It was only his vigorous words which succeeded in inducing the king to rouse himself and master his sorrow.
As was to be expected, the people’s conscience revived after the sword had spoken. The revolted tribes, mindful of Israel’s debt of gratitude to David, and, perhaps, in obedience to the ancient grudge against Judah, once more turned penitently to David. Only Judah still stood defiantly apart. It is distinctly apparent that David’s own tribe had been the home of the conspiracy. The first thing, as David believed, was to win it over. He entered into negotiation with the elders of the tribe of Judah, and even offered Amasa Joab’s place in the army. Perhaps an ancient cause of Judah’s discontent was by this means removed.
The men of Judah now brought David across the Jordan with much ceremony, the Shimei before mentioned joining them at the head of one thousand Benjamites. David magnanimously pardoned him. Ziba, too, was active in David’s service. Soon the lame Meribaal also appeared to clear himself from Ziba’s accusation. David, not wholly trusting in his innocence, restored to him only half of his possessions. In Gilgal, the rest of the army encountered David’s train. The pre-eminence accorded by David to the stiff-necked men of Judah, breeds very comprehensible ill will. The feud between north and south threatens to break out anew.
Indeed, a portion of the tribe of David could not even now manage to restrain its enmity towards him. Sheba-ben-Bichri of Benjamin once more sounded the call to arms against the king. A considerable section of Israel seems to have again responded to the summons to revolt. But this time Judah remained steadfast and conducted David back to Jerusalem. In accordance with David’s promise, Amasa was to summon the militia of Judah to face the rebels. Joab was not the man to endure patiently a slight which he had not wholly deserved. As Amasa delayed, Joab once more contrived to render himself indispensable to the king. Him, also, David sent out to battle against Sheba with the bodyguard. At Gibeon they came upon Amasa. Like Abner before him, he fell by Joab’s hand.
The rebels had gone north. Joab pursued and drove them to the uttermost borders of the Israelite territory. In Abel-beth-maacha, near Dan and the sources of Jordan, Sheba succeeded in making a stand. Joab prepared to storm the town. Then, in response to his demand, the rebel’s head was thrown to him over the wall. Joab departed, and spared the faithful city.
With this, David’s control over the course of events comes to an end. What followed was scarcely of his doing. For a quiet and undisturbed period David may still have held the reins in Israel; then we find him as a worn-out old man, scarcely master of his own will, and in the hands of a court and harem not too nice in their aims and methods. As far as history is concerned, David had disappeared from the scene.
The outline of David’s character stands more clearly in the light of history than that of Saul. Israel’s greatness and Jehovah’s honour are David’s first precepts, and this fact also secured for him the gratitude of Israel and the love and respect of posterity for all time. Nor could they be obscured by the truly gigantic shadow of the man of violence. David towers head and shoulders above the average human ruler. He also stands out prominently beyond both the kings of Israel who followed him and his predecessor Saul, in respect of grandeur, magnanimity, wisdom, tenacity, strength, and skill in victory as in rule. Even in the extravagance of his personal and despotic passions there are few who come up to him.
But even in his weaknesses David’s greatness of soul always reappears in its original beauty. David’s despotic whim seduced Bathsheba and basely murdered Uriah--but bowed, in righteous sense of guilt and unfeigned repentance, to the judgment of the people and the uncompromising sentence of Jehovah’s prophet. David’s paternal weakness was responsible for Amnon’s crime and Absalom’s rebellion--but the father’s heart did not cease to beat warmly for the son who had sinned so deeply. David’s weakness comes home to us in his noble sorrow over Absalom, and is, in our eyes, a striking instance of paternal fidelity. David’s magnanimity may seem to have degenerated into want of firmness in regard to Joab--though we have too little insight into the exact course of events to be able to form a conclusive judgment--but as concerns Saul and his house, as well as Shimei and Amasa, it is indisputable. Poetic endowment and religious zeal are so much the characteristics of his nature, that the possibility of David’s having taken an active share in the beginnings of the religious lyric in Israel will scarcely be called in question.[b]
RENAN’S ESTIMATE OF DAVID
David died at the age of about sixty-six years, after a thirty-years’ reign, and in his palace of Zion. He was buried close by, in a tomb hollowed in the rock, at the foot of the hill on which stood the city of David. All this happened about one thousand years before Christ.
A thousand years before Christ. This fact must not be forgotten in seeking to gain an idea of a character so complex as that of David, in endeavouring to form a picture of the singularly defective and violent world which has just unfolded itself before our eyes. It may be said that religion in the true sense was not yet born. The god, Jehovah, who is daily assuming in Israel an importance without parallel, is of a revolting partiality. He brings success to his servants; this is what is supposed to have been observed, and this makes him very strong. There is as yet no instance of a servant of Jehovah, whom Jehovah has abandoned. David’s profession of faith may be summed up in one word: “Jehovah who preserved my life from all danger.” Jehovah is a sure refuge, a rock whence one may defy one’s enemy, a buckler, a saviour. The servant of Jehovah is in all things a privileged being. Oh, it is a wise thing to be a scrupulous servant of Jehovah!
It was above all in this sense that the reign of David was of extreme religious importance. David’s was the first grand success made in the name and by the influence of Jehovah. The success of David, confirmed by the fact that his descendants succeeded him on the throne, was the palpable demonstration of Jehovah’s power. The victories of Jehovah’s servants are the victories of Jehovah himself; the strong god is he who wins. This idea differs little from that of Islam, whose vindication has scarcely any other support than that of success. Islam is true, for God has given it the victory. Jehovah is the true God by proof of experience; he gives the victory to the faithful. A brutal realism saw nothing beyond this triumph of material fact. But what is to happen on the day when the servant of Jehovah shall be poor, dishonoured, persecuted for his fidelity to Jehovah? The element of the grandiose and the extraordinary reserved for that day, may be perceived from the struggle of the Israelite conscience up to the present time.[c]
VI. SOLOMON IN HIS GLORY
The picture of the last period of King David’s life is clouded by the struggle for the succession. The true circumstances of Solomon’s accession will forever remain to some extent obscure, owing to the incompleteness of our information. We give the account as found in the records we possess.
David had grown old and needed careful attendance. At the court the question as to who should succeed him could not remain in abeyance. According to order of birth, David’s fourth son, Adonijah, stood next to the throne after Absalom’s death. In fact, Adonijah regarded himself as the heir, and went so far as to exercise the rights of heir-apparent, even in public, as Absalom had done. A part of the court, and an influential portion of the people, seem also to have fully recognised Adonijah as the future king. David himself, who tenderly loved Adonijah, and had regarded him as taking the place of the Absalom whom he still mourned, did not venture to oppose him. Adonijah had the same mother (Haggith) as Absalom.
But Adonijah’s hopes did not meet with universal acceptance at the court. It is true that he succeeded in winning over Joab and the priest Abiathar, to his cause. But on the other side stood Bathsheba, who was exerting herself to obtain the succession for her son Solomon. Her cause was favoured by the priest Zadok, the prophet Nathan, and Benaiah, the captain of the royal bodyguard. Thus in the last days of David’s life, two parties stood opposed to one another at the court.
One day Adonijah gave a banquet to his followers at the serpent-stone (En-rogel), a sacrificial stone in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Nathan, who was, as it appears, the spiritual head of the opposition, feared lest the banquet should end, like that of Absalom in Hebron, with the hailing of Adonijah as king. This would mean the ruin of Solomon’s cause. It was therefore an occasion for prompt measures. Bathsheba must at once inform the king of what was happening at the serpent-stone; she must remind David of a former promise that gave a prospect of Solomon’s succession, and obtain its immediate confirmation.
Bathsheba did what she was told. According to agreement, Nathan, after a short interval, follows her to the king’s presence, to lend her words emphasis. He even professes to have already heard the cry of the conspirators, “Long live King Adonijah.” The two succeed in arousing the king’s suspicions. He is convinced that again in his old age he is to be deprived of the throne and become the victim of a conspiracy of one of his sons. At once he solemnly adjudges the succession to Solomon. By David’s command the latter is conducted on the king’s own mule to Gihon, a sacred spring near Jerusalem, anointed by Zadok and Nathan, hailed as king, and solemnly enthroned. The joyful acclamations of the people and the noise of the trumpets, reach the ears of the banqueters, who are not far off. They have scarcely time to ask the cause, when Jonathan, Abiathar’s son, brings tidings of what has occurred. Solomon is king. Adonijah has no resource but the altar, at whose horns he implores bare life from his more fortunate brother. He does homage to the latter and is granted his life.
[Sidenote: [ca. 970-960 B.C.]]
Solomon is thereupon proclaimed King, and now before David bows his head in death he lays on his successor a charge which he has closely at heart. He reminds him that Joab’s deeds of blood against Abner and Amasa have not yet been expiated, and puts him in mind of the services rendered to him by Barzillai, and of Shimei’s curses upon his house. Barzillai he is to reward loyally; the other two he shall not let go down to sheol (i.e. the Hebrew hades) in peace.
THE EARLY YEARS OF SOLOMON’S REIGN
David had scarcely closed his eyes when the desire for the throne was again roused in Adonijah, whom Solomon had pardoned. Through Bathsheba’s intervention he requested Solomon to give him David’s nurse, Abishag, to wife. What this wish meant, according to the conception of the period, we know from Absalom’s behaviour towards David’s harem. Solomon saw through Adonijah’s daring plans, and the latter paid with his life. The fate of Adonijah’s most distinguished partisans was also decided. Abiathar was relieved of his priestly office, but his life was spared in consideration of the services he had rendered to David in trouble and prosperity. He was banished to Anathoth, and his former colleague, Zadok, took his place. Joab, foreboding evil, fled to the altar of Jehovah, but there was no mercy for him. Appealing to his ancient blood-guiltiness, Solomon had him hewn down. Finally Shimei, who had not shared in Adonijah’s attempts, was for the time being confined to Jerusalem, and, soon after, when in opposition to the king’s command he left the city, he was executed.
This is the account contained in 1 Kings i.-ii. Many have recently taken the view that the first part distinctly contains the story of a palace intrigue, set on foot by Nathan and Bathsheba in favour of Solomon against Adonijah’s succession; while the second part of the narrative has been recognised as an only partially veiled attempt to avert from Solomon the responsibility for the bloody deeds with which he thought to establish his newly acquired throne.
The fact that there hitherto had been no word of Solomon’s succession seems to be decidedly in favour of this view. If Adonijah was the innocent victim of a court intrigue, it must be assumed that Bathsheba and Nathan persuaded the weak old king into acknowledging a promise he had never given, but which he now gladly adopted in his anxiety for the peace of his last days. This conception seems also to be favoured by the additional circumstance, that the narrator, obviously in an access of intentional irony, does not give an account of his own respecting Adonijah’s criminal intentions at the sacrificial feast, but makes Nathan give his detailed version in the king’s presence. Finally, as regards the second part of the narrative, in the passage concerning David’s last dispositions, the traces of a later hand are distinctly visible, suggesting the idea that the whole passage is of late origin. This also lends support to the notion that, both according to the original account and also in reality, Solomon at least removed Joab from his path, not on account of his earlier but by reason of his later conduct, and not in compliance with David’s wish, but for being a partisan of Adonijah.
But the literary basis of this last conception is not sufficiently secure. It is just those portions of David’s last words which refer to Joab and Shimei, which are indisputably old, while the whole passage comes from our most authentic sources. Besides, as a matter of fact, such a wish on David’s part does not in itself awaken such grave doubts as might appear. Only we must guard against trying to measure the distant past by our own moral feelings, and we must bear in mind what David, following the cruel faith of his time, did to the house of Saul, in order to blot out the stain of an ancient deed of blood which still lay on it. Thus it cannot really appear strange that he should have been tormented by an uneasy fear at the guilt and curse of a past, which, one day, when he was gone, might strike his house as that guilt of blood had chastised the house of Saul.
[Sidenote: [ca. 960-950 B.C.]]
With Abiathar’s removal from the priesthood, an act of the highest importance for the history of religion in Israel was accomplished. In place of the house of Eli, which had already been severely threatened in the time of Saul, but had finally recovered itself under David’s favour, a new priesthood appeared on the scene. How significant the change was is shown by the circumstance that a prophetic reference to it is already made in the story of Eli. Eli derived his priesthood and that of his family from Egypt and probably from the father of the priesthood, Aaron. In what Zadok’s claim consisted we do not know. He can hardly have been the first of an entirely new line, and thus not even a Levite. Solomon would have guarded against putting in Abiathar’s stead a priest of quite unpriestly blood. Henceforth the “Bene- (sons of) Zadok” hold possession of the priesthood at Jerusalem. And after the erection of the temple they succeeded in bringing this priesthood, and with it their own house, to high prosperity and power.
Solomon’s task as king was clear. As David’s successor he was heir to great wealth; he had only to preserve what David had created and to confirm himself in its possession. Abroad he had to maintain the extraordinary prestige which Israel had acquired; at home to make the unity of the tribes, which David had completed, a permanent thing, and to chain Israel to the house of the great king.
In the last Solomon did not succeed. For himself, as far as we can see, he seems to have been possessed of sufficient force and skill. As long as he lived, David’s kingdom remained in his hands, if not undisputed, still in the main undiminished. And if he did not contrive, or did not care, to make the tribes of Israel contented under his sway, yet, during his reign, matters did not come to an open breach. The single attempt at a rising of which we hear, that of Jeroboam, he put down by force. Eager as the northern tribes may have been to renounce the house of David, they did not dare to wrest from Solomon the sceptre he wielded with so much power. This, which mainly concerns internal relations, shows that Solomon was not the weak, inactive king whom many have represented him to be. But abroad also Solomon showed himself equal to his task, at least in all questions of importance.
Difficulties were not wanting. The death of the great David was an event which many of Israel’s adversaries had doubtless long been looking for. When to this was added the disappearance from the scene of his bravest soldier, Joab, the opportunity for attacking Israel could not have been more favourable. A scion of that ancient royal house of Edom which David had overthrown, Hadad by name, had fled to Egypt. He had succeeded, like Solomon himself, in obtaining in marriage a princess of the house of Pharaoh, the sister of Queen Tahpenes. Immediately after David’s death he returned to his own country and seems to have wrenched at least a part of Edom from Solomon. But either his dominion was insignificant and not dangerous to Solomon, or the latter afterwards succeeded in regaining possession of Edom, for the approach to the Red Sea by Ezion-geber remained open to Solomon.
A second adversary is said to have risen against Solomon in the north. One of the captains of that Hadad-ezer of the Aramæan state of Zobah whom David had conquered, Rezon-ben-Eliadah, separated himself from his master. After a long life of adventure, he founded a dominion of his own, and made the ancient Damascus its capital. He drove out the governor whom David had placed there, and Solomon did not succeed in recovering the city. Here, then, if the tale be historical, Solomon suffered a real and, as it seems, a permanent loss. Still it would be hard to say whether, at the time, it was much felt; for probably neither David nor Solomon had ever been in possession of Damascus and Aram-Damascus. Here, too, as in Solomon’s home government, the most serious question would seem to be the outlook for the future. For in course of time the kingdom of Damascus was to become one of Israel’s most dangerous opponents.
[Sidenote: [ca. 950-940 B.C.]]
If, therefore, in this way Solomon had received in the south, and perhaps also in the north, certain, though probably not very important checks, still he appears to have done a considerable amount for the preservation and strengthening of Israel’s prestige. It is possible that he did not attach so much importance to those of David’s conquests which lay on the outskirts of the kingdom as to the preservation of Israel itself. It is a fact that he protected it by founding strong fortresses against hostile invasions--an undertaking whose high utility cannot possibly be called in question. Thus in the north he fortified Hazor and Megiddo; in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem Beth-horon and the royal Canaanitish city, Gezer; to the south, for the protection of the border as the caravan route from Hebron to Eloth, he fortified the city of Tadmor. The Egyptian Pharaoh, whose daughter Solomon married, had conquered Gezer for him. A town named Baalath whose site is uncertain but perhaps lay near Gezer, is also mentioned among Solomon’s fortified places. He also bestowed great attention on increasing the war material and cavalry which were distributed through a series of garrison towns and in keeping them ready for use. Though the figures concerning these are somewhat doubtful, the fact itself cannot be called in question. All this shows that we can scarcely speak of a decline in the power of Israel under Solomon, even if he abandoned certain outlying posts.
Yet, nevertheless, Solomon did not attain to his father’s greatness. He had grown up as a king’s son, without occasion and necessity to steel his will in the hard school of danger and privation, and he did not possess his father’s energy and initiative. He thought more of the rights and pleasures of kingship than of his high duties and tasks. The father’s despotic tendencies, in him only showing at intervals and immediately restrained and overcome, are in the son the groundwork of his character. His favourite amusements are costly buildings, strange women, rich display.
But he also insisted on the regular execution of justice, and his chief strength lay in the orderly administration of his country. Side by side with this went the final removal and absorption of the Canaanites. Both probably served the same object. Solomon required a great deal of money and labour for his costly buildings. His subjects must supply them. He made no distinctions amongst the population, no one escaped the common burdens. To him all Israel formed one unit and was partitioned, without regard to the differences between the tribes or the distinction between Israelite and Canaanite, into twelve zones, each of which was administered by a governor. Some of their names have been lost. The amount to be paid in taxes was regulated on the basis of this division. The compulsory service which Solomon required for his mighty structures for war and peace, were doubtless arranged in a similar manner. In Lebanon alone he is said to have kept ten thousand men who rendered such service, constantly occupied under Adoniram. The distinction between Israelites and Canaanites was continued only to a certain extent, in that what had formerly been the Canaanitish zones were considerably smaller than the others. Thus, when it came to their turn to serve, the Canaanites were more affected; the forcible incorporation in Israel, indeed, made them liable to be called on.
[Sidenote: [ca. 940-930 B.C.]]
Such burdens were unknown to the simple courts of David and Saul, and they must now, therefore, have weighed all the more heavily. Freedom, as the possession of the subject, was little regarded. No wonder, then, that in course of time the discontent, probably long nourished in secret, broke out into fierce rebellion. It was no accident that it started in the house of Joseph, that is, from Ephraim, still less that it proceeded from one of Solomon’s overseers. From two sources, the ancient dislike of the northern tribes to the house of Jesse, and the discontent with the present harsh government, the waters flowed into the same channel.
An Ephraimite of Zereda, Jeroboam-ben-Nebat, placed himself at its head. He seems to have been a young man of low rank, the son of a poor widow. The king came to know and value him amongst his workmen when, towards the end of his reign, he was building mills and thus “repaired the breaches of the city of David.” Soon the oversight “of the charge of the house of Joseph” was laid on him: the best opportunity to make himself acquainted with the people’s grievances and to utilise them for his own benefit. At some time or other Jeroboam made up his mind to raise the standard of rebellion. But without success: either the conspiracy was prematurely discovered or Jeroboam’s rising was put down. He himself escaped, and found a welcome with Pharaoh Shishak (Shashanq) the founder of the XXIInd Dynasty (Manethan). It is worthy of note that a prophet of Shiloh, Ahijah by name, supported the action of Jeroboam. The discontent with Solomon’s rule had already taken hold of all classes of the population.
Tradition represents Solomon as a king rich in wisdom and justice and in gold and treasures. That he was so, is shown by his measures for securing his frontier, and for regulating the administration, as well as by the famous and certainly historical judgment of Solomon, respecting which posterity may indeed ask itself, for which did the great king deserve the palm: wisdom or justice? It is certain that many sayings of practical worldly wisdom have also come down from him. It is also probably credible that, at the very beginning of his reign, a vision indicated to him the path he was to follow and Jehovah’s will as well. That rich treasures should have passed through his hands cannot seem strange, when we consider the heavy taxes he exacted and how many profitable enterprises he conducted besides.
It is beyond all doubt that Solomon was the first who imported the horse into Israel, at least to any great extent and especially for purposes of war. More remarkable is it that all accounts concerning this, agree with later notices respecting Solomon’s splendour and magnificence. Nor can this prevent them from being regarded--at least so far as concerns the fact as worthy of credit. If Egypt was, as it appears, the country from which Syria obtained its horses, and Solomon the son-in-law of the ruling Pharaoh, we can find little objection to the statement that Solomon managed to derive considerable profit from the import of Egyptian horses. The visit to Solomon of the queen of the ancient kingdom of Sheba, may probably have been connected in the first instance with commercial relations. This, too, I am not inclined to relegate at once into the domain of fable. For even if later stories have considerably exaggerated Solomon’s splendour, they would not have arisen without some foundation in fact. The voyages of Solomon’s ships to the Arabian gold country of Ophir are, it seems to us, particularly well authenticated. The account speaks of a single ship, which Hiram of Tyre managed with his skilled seamen and which is said to have brought the products and articles of merchandise of the favoured Arabia direct to Israel and Tyre.
That, in spite of all this, Solomon’s coffers were often empty, finally to such a serious extent that he was obliged to pledge twenty towns in Galilee to Hiram, cannot be denied in face of the last-named fact: the marriage with a daughter of Pharaoh made his household costly, and the castles and fortifications must have swallowed enormous sums.
In Solomon’s government there was one weak point which might easily produce a rupture. There was no need for it to come now; but if a fit and determined man were forthcoming the crisis was ready. For opinion in Israel was sufficiently prepared.
The transition from an elective monarchy to a rigidly despotic government, had been too rapidly completed. The tribes of Israel, of their own free choice, had set the crown on David’s head as formerly on that of Saul. Israel had been a purely elective kingdom. But David’s sons played each in turn the rôle of heir-apparent. Neither Absalom, Adonijah, nor Solomon had thought of first obtaining election by the tribes. As David’s sons, the succession to their father belonged to them. Israel had become an hereditary monarchy. This development lay indeed in the nature of the case. It would have been already completed in the house of Saul had Jonathan lived or Eshbaal been abler or more fortunate; nevertheless, it was now in all the greater danger, for the exclusion of the house of Saul had a second time brought home to the consciousness of the tribes, the independence of the people’s will.
The change, however, could only have worked beneficially if in the meantime the binding of the tribes of Israel to the house of David could really have been effected. Even David had not entirely accomplished this task, so difficult under existing conditions. The northern tribes and Benjamin always eyed his rule with distrust. Still less was Solomon equal to the task. It was impossible that his despotic inclinations, and especially the severe pressure of the taxes, could serve to make the tribes forget that only a short time ago, not birth, but the people’s will, had raised the king to his throne.
How far the ferment had gone in the northern tribes, even in Solomon’s own day, we see clearly enough from the circumstance that the rebellion broke out during his life-time. It was only by force that it was suppressed, and the secession of the northern tribes from Solomon was averted. It was Jeroboam, one of the overseers of the king’s workmen, who had prepared it. He was compelled to flee to Egypt, and was there, as it seems, received with open arms. But Solomon’s rule was strong enough to make it impossible for him and his to think of a repetition of the rising, so long as Solomon possessed the throne. It may excite surprise that an Israelite rebel should have received protection in Egypt whose Pharaoh was the father of one of Solomon’s wives. The explanation is to be found in the fact that Shishak, the Egyptian Shashanq I, was the founder of a new dynasty and consequently knew not Solomon.
[Sidenote: [ca. 930 B.C.]]
After Solomon’s death, which we may place about the year 930 B.C., the succession of his son Rehoboam at first appeared to be a matter of course. What it was which secured to him the precedence over Solomon’s other sons we do not know. As a fact he seems to have mounted the throne and occupied it for a time. But the seething discontent with Solomon’s government which the northern tribes had so long restrained, broke out, if not immediately on his accession, at any rate soon after. There may have been many negotiations and attempts to smooth things over, until finally Rehoboam determined himself to make terms with the discontented in Shechem. Meanwhile Jeroboam had also had time to return from Egypt, and take the guidance of the movement into his own hand.[b]
VII. DECAY AND CAPTIVITY
Rehoboam could easily have made himself popular by a few insignificant concessions. He had come to Shechem in Ephraim to be acknowledged by the assembled tribes. Jeroboam spoke in the name of the people, praying the king to lighten the burdens that Solomon had put upon them. Rehoboam demanded three days in which to reflect and consult his courtiers. The old men advised him to submit, the young men counselled him to resist public opinion. He followed this latter advice and gave an insolent and rough answer: “My father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.” Then the people answered: “What portion have we in David? To your tents, Israel.”
THE SCHISM OF THE TEN TRIBES
[Sidenote: [ca. 930-875 B.C.]]
Upon signs of open rebellion Rehoboam hastily returned to Jerusalem. The weak bond which had united the tribes of the north to those of the south was severed forever. The Judeans alone remained faithful to David’s race, including Jerusalem, which had an interest in keeping its place as a royal city. A part of the land of Benjamin, forming the outskirts of Jerusalem, and the towns of Simeon enclosed in the land of Judah remained united to the little Judean kingdom, which also retained Idumæa under its sovereignty. All the rest of the land on both sides of Jordan kept the name of the kingdom of Israel, with an uncertain suzerainty over the territory of Moab and Ammon. Syria had already made itself independent of the Jewish empire. Thus the empire which had had a moment of brilliancy under the reigns of David and Solomon, was replaced by two kingdoms, nearly always at war with one another. The schism is placed about the year 975 B.C.[2]
Jeroboam, who was at the head of the separatist movement, had no trouble in having himself proclaimed king by the dissenting tribes. But he feared the attraction which the temple of Jerusalem already had for the Israelites. Wishing to prevent pilgrimages dangerous to his authority, and to consecrate the political secession by a religious one, he established the worship of the golden calf.
The history of the kingdom of Israel is only a succession of violent usurpations nearly always provoked by the prophets, who intervened in everything in the name of Jehovah, and made all manner of government impossible by their perpetual opposition. In Judea, on the contrary, the undying remembrance of David assured the regular succession of royal power in his family.
The only important event in the reign of Rehoboam, is the expedition of Shashanq I, king of Egypt, called Shishak in the Bible, who took Jerusalem and pillaged the treasures of the temple and of the palace, amongst others the golden shield Solomon had had made. The end of Rehoboam’s reign and that of his son, Abijam, and his grandson, Asa, were filled by wars of no importance against the kingdom of Israel.
Jeroboam did not succeed in founding a dynasty in Israel. He died after a reign of twenty-two years, and his son Nadab was massacred with all his family, by his lieutenant, Baasha. The same event was reproduced after an equal interval. Baasha reigned twenty-two years, and his son Elah and all his family were assassinated by Zimri. But the army which was then in the land of the Philistines, proclaimed Omri general, and marched against the usurper, who burnt himself in his palace after a reign of seven days.
The kingdom of the north had not the advantage of possessing a strong and well-situated capital like that of the south, and on a height in the territory of Ephraim, Omri built the city of Samaria, which by its strong position could become a centre of resistance for Israel, as Jerusalem was for Judah. In Assyrian inscriptions, Samaria and even the kingdom of Israel are always called the house of Omri. Besides this important foundation to which his name was to remain attached, Omri showed proof of his ability by securing himself an ally against the ever-increasing danger of a struggle with Syria. He asked and obtained the hand of Jezebel, daughter of Ithobaal (Ethbaal), king of Tyre, for his son Ahab.
[Sidenote: [ca. 875-860 B.C.]]
Ahab is generally represented as a type of impiety; to assert this is entirely to misunderstand the character of this epoch. No one was impious; each people had its god and thought him stronger than the others. Ahab heard his wife boasting of the power of Baal; he thought it clever to make sure of two divine protectors instead of one, and leaving Jehovah his sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel, he built a temple to Baal at Samaria. There was no intention of abolishing the worship of Jehovah. The worship of Baal had existed in Israel at the time of Gideon, and even in the time of Saul; it had been abolished since the reign of David. When Ahab wished to re-establish it, he stumbled against the unyielding patriotism of the prophets, who would acknowledge no other god but the national one.
They made a desperate fight against Baal. The people, persuaded like the king, that two religions are better than one, looked on at these quarrels without taking part in them. Elijah, the prophet, reproaches them with being lame in both feet. The legend of Elijah and the priests of Baal (2 Kings xviii.) in its theatrical setting sums up the struggle between the national worship of Jehovah and the Phœnician worship of Baal, a struggle which was prolonged for half a century.
Elijah, the Tishbite, is probably an historical personage, but it is difficult to discern his real personality in the midst of the fables accumulated about him. The massacre of the priests of Baal really took place under Jehu, after the extermination of the princes of the house of Omri. Elijah’s mysterious life, his sojourn in the desert where he was fed by ravens, his visions and miracles, the power attributed to him of making rain fall at his word, have made him the model and patron of ascetics of the succeeding ages. The last passage of the legend has not a Hebrew character; he is taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire. The resemblance of the name Elijah with the Greek name of sun, “Helios,” might lead one to believe in some mythological infiltration.
The legends of Elijah and Elisha show us the extent of the admiration of the people for the prophets, and by that we can judge of the influence they must have had on the politics of their time. This influence was not limited to the kingdom of Israel, and was not always beneficial. Thus Jehovah orders Elijah to anoint Elisha as prophet, Jehu as king of Israel, and Hazael as king of Syria, and the Bible adds: “that him that escapeth the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay; and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. Yet I have left seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal and every mouth which has not kissed him.” Foreign war was added to religious dissensions. Ben-Hadad, king of Damascus, “having thirty-two kings as his auxiliaries,” assembled his army and laid siege to Samaria. The Children of Israel slew of the Syrians an hundred thousand footmen in one day. But the rest fled to Aphek, into the city and there a wall fell upon seven and twenty thousand of the men that were left. And Ben-Hadad fled and came into the city into an inner chamber. Ahab spared Ben-Hadad upon his promise to restore the cities of Israel that were in possession of the Syrians. This clemency, which reminds one of that shown by Saul to the king of the Amalekites, could not please the prophets. One of them said to Ahab: “Thus saith the Lord, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore shall thy life go for his life, and thy people for his people.”
Ahab had played a fine part; unfortunately he soon furnished a legitimate grievance to his enemies: he wanted a vineyard adjoining his house, and the proprietor refused to sell it. On the advice of Jezebel, he had the owner accused of treason, and when the judges condemned him he confiscated his goods. No doubt it was a crime, but no greater than that of David, who had caused the death of one of his officers so as to obtain the latter’s wife; and that had not prevented David from being a king after the Lord’s heart: whilst the death of Naboth served as a pretext to justify the plots of those jealous of Ahab’s family.
It is remarkable that there should have been proofs of friendships between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah only under the kings of the house of Omri; and singularly enough, this alliance was concluded with one of the kings of Judah, who found grace in the sight of the writers of the Bible, because of their fervour for the worship of Jehovah.
Asa, grandson of Rehoboam, died after a reign of forty-two years. His son Jehoshaphat surpassed him in piety; the only reproach made against him in the Book of Kings, is with regard to his having tolerated sacrifices “in the high places,” and this reproach is without import, as this custom was not considered heretic until the reign of Hezekiah. Jehoshaphat made his son Jehoram (or Joram) marry a daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, called Athaliah. The king of Israel, wishing to retake Ramoth in Gilead, which had not been included among the towns restituted by Ben-Hadad, demanded the assistance of the king of Judah as his ally: Jehoshaphat consented to follow him; but not until he had consulted Jehovah on the issue of the battle. Ahab gathered together four hundred prophets: all announced the success of the expedition. Micaiah, however, when urged to speak the truth, prophesied the defeat and death of Ahab.
[Sidenote: [ca. 860-850 B.C.]]
Thereupon Ahab ordered him to be seized and kept until his return. “If thou certainly return in peace,” says the prophet, “then hath not the Lord spoken by me.” Ahab left and Jehoshaphat accompanied him according to his promise. The Syrians had received the order to direct their attack against the king of Israel. He disguised himself so as to mingle with the soldiers. Jehoshaphat, who had retained his royal robes, ran great danger, and only escaped death by making himself known through his war-cry. But a chance arrow smote Ahab between the joints of his armour. He had himself supported in his chariot, with his face turned toward the Syrians, and died in the evening. His courage did not prevent the loss of the battle; at sunset the cry went forth: “Every man to his city and to his own country.”
The dead king was brought back to Samaria and buried there. He had reigned twenty-two years, during which he had checked the invading power of the Syrian kings, and contracted useful alliances with Tyre and the kingdom of Judah. He had built several towns and protected the arts and industry. Although he raised a temple to Baal, it is difficult to admit that he proscribed the worship of Jehovah, as he consulted the prophets in all circumstances, and before his last campaign found four hundred prophets to reply to his appeal.
At the news of Ahab’s death, the Moabites, who for forty years had paid a tribute to Israel, hastened to shake off their yoke. This event has been unexpectedly enlightened in recent times, by the discovery of a stele erected at Dibon by Mesha, king of Moab. This stele, covered with characters similar to those of the most ancient Phœnician inscriptions, was with great difficulty taken away by M. Clermont-Ganneau, vice-consul of France, who offered it to the museum of the Louvre.
THE MOABITE STONE
The Arabs, perceiving the importance which Europeans attached to this monument, had blown it up; but nearly all the pieces were put together again, and those missing supplemented by the help of an impression, which fortunately had been taken when the inscription was whole. Here is a translation of the principal passages: “I am Mesha, son of Nadab (Chemosh-melesh), king of Moab. My father reigned over Moab thirty years, and I reigned after my father. I have erected this stone to Chemosh, the stone of deliverance, for he has delivered me from my enemies, he has avenged those that hate me. Omri was king of Israel and oppressed Moab for a long time because Chemosh was angered against his people. The son of Omri succeeded him and said: ‘I will also oppress Moab.’ But in my day Chemosh said: ‘I will cast my eyes on him and over his house and Israel shall perish forever.’”
He then enumerates the towns which he has taken from the king of Israel: “I attacked the town of Ataroth and I took it and killed all the people in honour of Chemosh god of Moab. And I carried away the arel of Dodah[3] and I dragged it along the ground before the face of Chemosh at Kerioth. And Chemosh said unto me: Go and take Nebo from Israel. And I went at night and fought against the town from daybreak until noon, and I took it, and killed all, seven thousand men, for they had been interdicted in honour of Ashtar-Chemosh. And I carried away the arels of Jehovah, and I dragged them along the ground before Chemosh.” Mesha then speaks of the town of Korkhar which he had built, and where wells and canals were dug by the captives of Israel.
This inscription, which is the most ancient monument of Semitic epigraphy, clearly shows us the purely national character of the religions of Palestine. In it, Chemosh plays the part attributed to Jehovah in the books of the Hebrews. If Moab was oppressed by Israel, it was because Chemosh was angered against his people, in the same way as Israel explains its servitude by the anger of Jehovah. If Mesha undertook a war, it was in obedience with the orders of Chemosh: he placed an interdict over the towns and massacred the inhabitants in honour of Chemosh, as Joshua or David did in honour of Jehovah. These are the same ideas and the same expressions. The stele of Mesha concerns political history as well as the religious. The war between Israel and Moab is described in the Bible, and the two versions can be compared. The Moabite version is an official bulletin, that of the Book of Kings bears a legendary character, and the prophet Elisha plays in it the most important part.
[Sidenote: [ca. 850-840 B.C.]]
Under the reign of Jehoshaphat’s son, called Jehoram or Joram, like the king of Israel, the Edomites made themselves independent of the kingdom of Judah. The Chronicles also mention an invasion of the Philistines and the Arabs, in which all the children of Jehoram perished, excepting Ahaziah who succeeded him. The intrigues of the prophets were then preparing bloody revolutions in Syria and the kingdom of Israel.
Joram, king of Israel, and Ahaziah, king of Judah, son of Jehoram’s sister Athaliah, renewed the attack of Ahab and Jehoshaphat against Ramoth of Gilead, and had no better success. Joram, wounded by the Syrians, returned to Jezreel to establish himself, and his nephew Ahaziah came to see him.
[Sidenote: [ca. 840-815 B.C.]]
A new revolt was now raised by Jehu, who, having been anointed by the prophets, slew the kings of Israel and Judah, Jehoram and Ahaziah, Jezebel and “all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great men, and his kinsfolk and his priests, until he left him none remaining.”
The priests of Baal, assembled by treachery, were all killed, the temple was overthrown and made into a draught house. These butcheries had an unexpected counterblow in Jerusalem. Of all Ahab’s family there remained only Athaliah, Joram’s widow, and Ahaziah’s mother. She occupied the throne after her son’s death, and as a singular result of Jehu’s crime, the worship of Baal, proscribed in the kingdom of Israel, found a refuge in the kingdom of Judah.
Thus is this event described in the Book of Kings: “And when Athaliah, the mother of Ahaziah, saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the seed royal. Jehosheba, the daughter of king Joram, sister of Ahaziah, took Joash, the son of Ahaziah, and stole him from among the king’s sons which were slain; and they hid him, even him and his nurse, in the bed chamber, from Athaliah, so that he was not slain. And he was with her hid in the house of the Lord six years. And Athaliah did reign over the land.”
This story, which furnishes the subject of one of Racine’s masterworks, is more dramatic than probable. The Bible does not tell us of whom this royal family, exterminated by Athaliah, was composed. The brothers and nephews of Ahaziah had been assassinated by Jehu on the road to Samaria; there is no reason why Athaliah should have completed the massacre by killing her grandchildren. If some of the king’s sons remained at Jerusalem safe from the rage of Jehu, no one had more interest in keeping them than the queen mother, as she was their guardian and could legalise her power by reigning in their name. All we know is that six years later the high priest Jehoiada presented a child to the soldiers, telling them that he was Ahaziah’s son, and the last branch of David’s race.
This child was proclaimed king under the name of Jehoash; Athaliah heard acclamations and rushed out of the palace and was slain by order of the high priest. The temple of Baal was invaded, and the high priest Mattan slain before the altar. Jehoiada appointed himself guardian of the new king, who was only seven years old: it was a government ruled by the priests.
The kingdom of Israel was divided for the first time in Jehu’s reign, for it is easier to deal with disarmed people than to cope with strange invasions. Hazael, the usurper, raised, like Jehu, by the prophet Elisha, conquered all the region to the east of the Jordan: “the land of Gilead, the territories of Gath, Reuben and Manasseh, from Aroer on the torrent Arnon to Gilead and Bashan.” The time was not far distant when the kingdoms of Israel and Damascus were to be absorbed by the powerful Assyrian Empire. Hazael, twice beaten by Shalmaneser II, acknowledges his supremacy, Jehu sent him a tribute of gold and silver bars.
These facts, which the Bible does not mention, are contained in two Assyrian inscriptions, one of which is found on the obelisk of Nimrud, and the other on a tablet in the British Museum. In these inscriptions Jehu is called the son of Omri, which proves that the Syrians knew little about the genealogy of the kings of Israel. A bas-relief on the Nimrud obelisk represents persons of Jewish or Aramæan types, wearing turbans with pointed tops, bringing presents, and one of them is prostrating himself before Shalmaneser. It is supposed that this bas-relief, twice repeated, represents the submission of Hazael and Jehu. If Jehu, in declaring himself vassal to the king of Assyria, hoped for protection against Hazael, he was mistaken. Shalmaneser did not intervene in the quarrels of his vassals and Jehu left his son Jehoahaz a weakened and mutilated kingdom in 815 B.C.
[Sidenote: [ca. 815-780 B.C.]]
Hazael, and his son, Ben-Hadad III, who succeeded him, reduced the Israelite army to ten thousand footmen, fifty horsemen, and ten chariots. Israel did not begin to recover itself until the reign of the son of Jehoahaz, named Joash like the king of Judah; the two kingdoms of the north and south were once more governed by kings of the same name. At Jerusalem the priests, who had governed without control since Athaliah’s death, appropriated to themselves the revenues destined for the maintenance of the temple. At the end of twenty-three years, as these repairs were not made, Jehoash, who was then thirty, wished to put an end to this scandal and withdrew from them the free disposal of money. The discontent of the priests only broke out after Jehoiada’s death, perhaps because thenceforth Jehoash took less caution. According to the Book of Chronicles, he had the son of his benefactor, who was remonstrating with him, stoned by the people, and it is to avenge this death that he was assassinated on his return from a war with the Syrians, in which he was wounded. The Book of Kings does not mention this war, and on the contrary says that Jehoash diverted Hazael by giving him the treasures of the temple. The Book of Kings does not mention the murder of Jehoiada’s son, neither does it explain the reason of Jehoash’s assassination. His son, Amaziah, succeeded him and punished his murderers, “but the children of the murderers he slew not,” which indicated an improvement in the ideas and morals of the country (797 B.C.).
The kingdom of Israel, so weakened in the reigns of Jehu and Jehoahaz, was raised by three victories of Jehoash over Ben-Hadad, son of Hazael. It is said that they were predicted by Elisha on his death-bed.
Joash regained the towns taken from his father, Jehoahaz. At the same time Amaziah, king of Judah, beat the Edomites in the valley of Salt, and took from them the town of Sela, afterwards called Petra. Proud of this success he provoked the king of Israel. An encounter took place at Beth-shemesh; Amaziah was beaten and taken prisoner. Joash entered Jerusalem, destroyed the walls for four hundred cubits, pillaged the temple and the royal treasure, and took hostages back to Samaria. According to Josephus, Joash had given life and liberty to Amaziah on condition that he should open the gates of the city to him. Joash, who survived his victory only a short time, had as successor his son Jeroboam II. The kingdom of Judah remained under the dependence of the kingdom of Israel until the end of the reign of Amaziah, who died like his father, by an assassin’s hand, the result of conspiracy. The Book of Chronicles says he had turned away from the Lord, which might lead one to believe that this conspiracy was headed by the priests.
[Sidenote: [ca. 780-740 B.C.]]
The second Book of Chronicles entirely omits the name of Jeroboam, son of Joash, whose name is mentioned only once in the first book in connection with an enumeration. This is a curious omission, for in this reign the kingdom of Israel seems to have attained a certain amount of power and brilliancy. According to the Book of Kings: “He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai the prophet, which was of Gath-hepher.”
Jonah’s prophecy has not descended to us. The legend which says he was swallowed by a whale, was written at a much later date. A German theologist thought he could attribute to him the oracle against Moab, cited in the Book of Isaiah as belonging to a more ancient prophet, and concluded that Jeroboam had subjugated the Moabites, but Munk rejects this opinion. The conquest of Syria has also been attributed to Jeroboam by explaining, in an arbitrary manner, the very obscure sentence in the Book of Kings: “He recovered Damascus and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, to Israel.” To complete this scanty information concerning the long reign of Jeroboam, which lasted more than forty years, we are reduced to gathering details from prophetic writings.
Thus, through Joel and Amos, we know that at about this time there was an earthquake and a plague of locusts. Historical allusions are rarely made by the prophets, and their predictions bear a general character which does not allow of fixing dates. This incertitude does not exist for Amos, who himself relates that he was denounced by the high priest of Bethel for having predicted the approaching fall of Jeroboam. As he was of Judah, he was requested to go and prophesy in his own country. Since Jehu’s accession, it became known that the declamations of the prophets were not without danger to the dynasties.
Prophecy was developed later in Judah than in Israel, perhaps because the priests were more powerful there. A passage in Jeremiah (xxix. 26) tells us that the high priest Jehoiada had established officers in the house of the Lord, who were to put “every man that is mad and maketh himself a prophet,” in prison with chains around their necks. But these restrictive measures could not entirely prevent the development of prophecy, which answered to a public necessity as the press does to-day. Without the opposition maintained among the people by the prophets, the Hebrews would have been a race of slaves, bowing the knee to their masters like other eastern nations. The attachment of the Judeans to the house of David, explains why the part of the prophet was different in the two kingdoms. Instead of stirring up plots like those of Israel, the prophets of Judah attacked the morals of their fellow-citizens. They announced to them that in punishment of their vices, and above all of their impiety, Jehovah would deliver them into the hands of strange conquerors.
Their preachings were written, and were addressed to the educated portion of the population. The collections of prophecies in the Bible form one of the most important parts of Hebrew literature, and contain pieces of great beauty. There is a difference of temperament and style among them, but that which is common to all, is an ardent patriotism blending itself with religion. As patriotism is an exclusive sentiment, religion had to bear the same character. It was not sufficient to say that the national god was the most powerful of all gods; it was believed that he was the only God. The prophets did not doubt that after having chastised His people, He would place them at the head of all nations under a new David. The brilliant future they dreamt of corrected the bitterness of their complaints of the present. But the hopes of the Messiah, ever adjourned, were not realised. They were given a mystical meaning, and this change of sense prepared the way for a new religion.
DESTRUCTION OF THE TWO KINGDOMS
[Sidenote: [ca. 780-722 B.C.]]
Judah had become vassal to Israel; probably for a time the kingdom of the south had been annexed to that of the north, for the Book of Kings places an interval of twelve years between the assassination of Amaziah and the accession of his son Azariah, also called Uzziah. If there was no interregnum, then the text is faulty. The death of Jeroboam II was followed by an epoch full of troubles, in which Judah seized the opportunity to raise itself.
Azariah took and rebuilt the port of Elath on the Red Sea. According to the Book of Chronicles he conquered Gath and even Ashdod from the Philistines, he exacted tributes from the Ammonites, fortified all the towns of Judah, and made agriculture prosperous. Elated at his success, he ventured to offer incense in the temple, thus usurping the privileges of the priests, and was instantly struck with leprosy. The Book of Kings, a little less impregnated with sacerdotal ideas than the Chronicles, limits itself to saying, that the Lord afflicted him with a disease, and that he remained in a house for lepers until his death, whilst his son Jotham reigned in his stead.
During this time Israel had fallen a prey to anarchy. Jeroboam II had died after a reign of forty-one to fifty years, unless here also there was an interregnum, for the figures of the Bible do not agree. His son Zechariah was assassinated by Shallum at the end of six months. At the end of a month the murderer of Zechariah was assassinated by Menahem, who, according to Josephus, commanded the army. This was a repetition of the events which had taken place at the fall of the house of Baasha. Menahem reigned ten years, and left the throne to his son Pekahiah, who two years later was assassinated at Samaria by one of his captains named Pekah, the son of Remaliah.
The kingdom of Judah had continued to improve under the reign of Jotham, son of Azariah, who like his father imposed a tribute on the Ammonites. But Jotham died after a reign of sixteen years, and his son Ahaz, from the time of his accession, had to fight a coalition of Rezin, king of Damascus and Pekah, king of Israel. According to the prophet Isaiah, they wished to place a son of Tabeal on the throne of Judah; he was a man from among them. Ahaz was beaten by the king of Syria, who took the port of Elath from the Judeans, and by the king of Israel, who killed one hundred and twenty thousand of his men, and made two hundred thousand prisoners, according to the author of Chronicles. Ahaz, frightened at the coalition of the Syrians and Israelites, placed himself under the protection of the king of Assyria, Tiglathpileser III; he declared himself his vassal, and sent him all the treasures of the temple and of the royal house. Tiglathpileser marched against Syria, took Damascus and carried away its inhabitants to Kir, and slew Rezin. He also invaded the kingdom of Israel: “and took Ijon and Abel-beth-maacha and Janoah, and Kadesh and Hazor and Gilead and Galilee, all the land of Napthali, and carried them captive to Assyria.”
Pekah did not survive his defeat for long. Like most of his predecessors he was slain. His murderer, Hoshea, took possession of the throne and was the last king of Israel. His authority only extended over the territory of Ephraim, and he paid a tribute to the king of Assyria. Too weak to free himself from this subjection, he tried to obtain help from outside, and sent messages to a king of Egypt whom the Bible calls So, and who is probably Shabak, an Ethiopian king of the XXVth Dynasty.
[Sidenote: [722-700 B.C.]]
Hoshea did not pay the annual tribute regularly, which the king of Assyria had imposed upon him, either because his resources were insufficient or because he counted on the assistance he had asked of Egypt. Shalmaneser had him seized and put in prison, then attacked Samaria, which resisted bravely, in vain awaiting help. The king of Egypt did not wish to risk the chances of war for the support of a lost cause. The king of Judah, Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, was afraid of bringing wrath on his head and prudently stayed at home, occupying himself solely in preparing a religious reform. The siege of Samaria had already lasted ten years when Shalmaneser died. It was actively carried on by his successor, who took the town and carried away its inhabitants to Assyria and Media to the number of about twenty-seven thousand, according to the inscription of Khorsabad. They were gradually absorbed by the populations in the midst of which they had been placed. The Israelites of the northern tribes transported by Tiglathpileser, and those which Sargon had taken from Samaria, were replaced by colonies taken from diverse provinces of the Assyrian Empire, who likewise mingled with those who remained of the old Israelite and Canaanite inhabitants. There arose a mixed race for whom the Judeans always had a great aversion. These new Samaritans had nevertheless adopted the worship of Jehovah without abandoning the religion of the country they had left. Among the Israelites who had been left in the country, there were great numbers who migrated into the kingdom of Judah and even into Egypt. The prophets of Judah have not a word of pity for their brethren of Israel. The author of Chronicles does not mention the fall of Samaria. This event seems to him less worthy of the attention of posterity than the details of the ritual, the choirs of the Levites, the burnt offerings and purifications. (722 B.C.)
The piety of Hezekiah is represented in the Book of Chronicles as forming an absolute contrast to the impiety of his father Ahaz. The changes he introduces into the national worship were far more serious than those his father was accused of having made, only they conformed to the interest of the sacerdotal caste. Ahaz had limited himself to renewing parts of the accessories of the temple which dated from Solomon’s time, and did not seem of such good taste to him, as what he had seen in Damascus. Hezekiah destroyed all the high places in his kingdom, that is to say, local sanctuaries, chapels, private altars, groves, and all material symbols of religion, notably “the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the Children of Israel did burn incense unto it: and he called it Nehushtan.” The temple of Jerusalem thenceforth became the only sanctuary where sacrifices could be made to the national God. The priests who offered sacrifices and the Levites charged with the keeping of the temple, thus saw the increase of their importance and their revenues.
After Sargon’s death there had been a general revolt among the vassals of Assyria. Hezekiah did as the others; he refused to pay the tribute and sought the aid of Egypt, in spite of the advice of the prophet Isaiah, who would have liked all human aid disdained and divine protection alone reckoned on. Sennacherib, Sargon’s successor, after having punished the Babylonian revolt, invaded Palestine. “Hezekiah remained shut up in Jerusalem like a bird in a cage,” says the Assyrian inscription. The towns and strongholds were taken, two hundred thousand captives were sent to Assyria. Then Hezekiah sent to the king of Assyria at Lachish, to say: “I have offended, return from me, that which thou puttest on me I will bear. And the king appointed unto Hezekiah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold, and Hezekiah gave him all the treasure that was found in the temple and in the treasures of the king’s house. At that time did Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord and from the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria.”
[Sidenote: [700-680 B.C.]]
Sennacherib was not appeased; he had just heard that a new Egyptian army was being formed at Pelusium and he thought Hezekiah was trying to gain time. He remained before Lachish, which he was besieging, and sent part of his army towards Jerusalem. Having heard that Tirhaqa, king of Ethiopia, was advancing against him at the head of an army, Sennacherib made a fresh attempt to obtain the surrender of Jerusalem.
The prophet Isaiah then reassures Hezekiah on the issue of the war; he promises him that in a year’s time his subjects will be able to cultivate their fields and gather the fruits. “And it came to pass that the Angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred four score and five thousand: and when they arose in the morning, behold they were all dead corpses. So Sennacherib, king of Assyria, departed and returned and dwelt at Nineveh.”
There is an Egyptian legend concerning Sennacherib’s hasty departure. According to this legend, told to Herodotus by the priests, the god Ptah, so as to reward the piety of Sethos, king of Egypt, who favoured the sacerdotal caste, had sent a multitude of rats into the Assyrian camp. In one night they gnawed all the strings of the bows and of the shields; the enemy being unable to fight, were obliged to flee, and the greater number perished in the panic. Herodotus adds that in his time there was a statue in the temple of Ptah, representing the king holding a rat in hand, with the following inscription: “Whoever thou art, on seeing me, learn to respect the gods.”
According to a Dutch work, The Family Bible, which we have already mentioned, the Egyptian priests who related this legend to Herodotus did not know much about the symbols of their own religion. “Generally the rat is a symbol of destruction, particularly of the plague. The invasion of rats spoken of in our fable is no other than a false interpretation of the rat found in the hands of statues. This rat really represents the plague. As the Israelites attributed the cause of this illness to the angel of the Lord, the Egyptian story would agree with what the Bible says of the retreat of Sennacherib, were it not that Herodotus gives Pharaoh the name of Sethos, whilst the Bible calls him Tirhakah. At any rate, Sennacherib was obliged to interrupt his wars on account of infectious diseases. Of course his inscription does not state this: at the end of it he boasts of having brought back to Nineveh, not a greatly reduced army, but great treasures conquered partly in the land of Judah, and of having received from Hezekiah, not only the offer of a heavy ransom, but also that of submission. This point was only realised in the imagination of the vain monarch. Hezekiah maintained his independence.”
The Assyrians had left the land in a deplorable state. The fields had been ravaged, the towns burnt, the strongholds destroyed, and their inhabitants reduced to slavery. The people ascribed all these evils to the theocratical side which was all-powerful in the reign of Hezekiah. This side had always preached war to the death; it is true that the national independence had been saved, but it was at the cost of material interests, and prompt submission might have prevented terrible disasters. The destruction of local sanctuaries, to the benefit of the temple at Jerusalem, had also upset all religious customs, especially in the provinces.
Rabshakeh knew that this radical step was impiety in the eyes of conservatives, and it was not without reason that he wished to speak to the people in the Hebrew language. It is thus that one can account for the violent reaction which took place against the reforms of Hezekiah in the reign of his son Manasseh. The Bible attributes all to the king, but the invectives of the prophets against what they call “the hardening of the people,” suffice to prove that the government more or less unconsciously followed the course of public opinion.
[Sidenote: [680-610 B.C.]]
The reaction raised continual opposition on the vanquished side, as is always the case after bloody repressions; for the Book of Kings tells us that Manasseh (2 Kings xxi. 22) “shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to the other.” The tradition referred to in the Talmud, according to which Isaiah was sawn between two planks, is rejected generally; a detail of such importance would not have been omitted in the Bible. The account in Chronicles of another Assyrian invasion, of the captivity of Manasseh and his repentance, is likewise rejected; the prayer he is said to have made after his conversion makes part of what is called the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, and is comparatively of recent origin.
The Assyrian documents do not mention any invasion into Judea by the successors of Sennacherib. Jeremiah and the Book of Kings represent the ruin of the kingdom of Judah as the punishment for the idolatry of Manasseh without alluding to his repentance. M. Munk says: “Therefore we believe in giving no value to the deeds which the Chronicles assign to Manasseh. We will say as much of the Apocryphal history of Judith. The book of Judith must be considered as an edifying story, but fabulous, composed by an author little versed in history and geography. Thus we do not know of any important historical event of the long reign of Manasseh, excepting the reaction which took place among the priests and prophets. It is probable that Judah was troubled by no outside enemies during this reign.”
Manasseh died after a reign of fifty-five years (641 B.C.) and his son Amon, who had also shown himself hostile to the theocratic party, was assassinated two years later. It is not known whether there were religious or political motives for this murder: but the people were very wroth about it, and killed the conspirators and placed Josiah, son of Amon, aged eight years, on the throne (639 B.C.).
In the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign, whilst the carpenters, architects, and masons were doing some repairs in the temple, the high priest Hilkiah presented himself before the scribe and said that he had found the Book of the Law in the temple. The Book was brought to the king, who had it read to him. At the reading of the terrible threats it contained, he rent his garments: “Go ye, inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah concerning the words of the Book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this Book to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.”
It is believed that this Book found in the temple comprised the principal parts of Deuteronomy, especially the commandments contained in the iv. chapter, the curses pronounced in the xxviii. chapter against those who would turn away from the terms of the alliance; and in the intermediate chapters all that related to the proscribing of strange religions and the worshipping of images, the privileges of the tribe of Levi, and the establishment of one sanctuary alone in the town chosen by the Lord.
Judaism, that is to say, exclusive theocratic and iconoclastic monotheism, was under the patronage of Moses, the legendary hero who had brought Israel out of Egypt. To change the religious customs of the nation, they opposed to the conservative tradition another represented as being more ancient and which was connected to a venerated name. King Josiah, armed with a version which he did not think necessary to authenticate, set himself to the task of executing all its prescriptions. The sanctuaries of Judah were destroyed, the priests were maintained, but they had no function in the temple. The king then went to Bethel and destroyed the sanctuary raised by Jeroboam. He did likewise in all the towns of Samaria: “And he slew all the priests of the high places upon the altars and burned men’s bones.”
[Sidenote: [610-605 B.C.]]
After this invasion into the ancient kingdom of Israel, to which it would seem that the Assyrians, then in their decline, opposed no obstacle, the king of Judah entered Jerusalem, where he ordered a solemn celebration of the Passover: “According as it was written in the Book of this Covenant. Surely there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah: but in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, wherein this passover was holden to the Lord in Jerusalem.”
The enthusiasm of the theocratic party is shown by the unlimited praises of the Book of Kings: “And like unto Josiah was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses, neither after him arose there any like him.”
All the promises of the prophets could not fail to be realised under the reign of such a prince; he could consider himself certain of the protection of the Lord, whose worship reigned entirely throughout all the land of Judah and even of Israel. These hopes were cruelly crushed by the disastrous events which marked the end of the reign of Josiah. Neku, king of Egypt, wishing to take advantage of the fall of the Assyrian Empire, was directing an army towards the Euphrates to fight against Nabopolassar, king of Babylon. Judah was in no wise threatened, and the Book of Kings does not explain the motives which may have decided Josiah to take part in an uneven struggle. He came to meet the Egyptian army at Megiddo in the plains of Jezreel. According to the Book of Chronicles, Neku sent ambassadors to him, saying, “What have I to do with thee, thou King of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not.” Josiah paid no heed to this warning; he fought and was killed. “And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah; and all the singing men and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day.”
The Bible contains only a very dry account of the events which followed the death of Josiah, which has been a little further completed by the help of some passages taken from Jeremiah. The defeat of Megiddo seems to have dealt a fatal blow to the reforms of Josiah, for the Book of Kings accuses all his successors of having “done evil in the sight of the Lord.” The people had placed Jehoahaz, son of Josiah, called Shallum by Jeremiah, on the throne. Three months later Neku made him go to Riblah and sent him as prisoner to Egypt and replaced him by another son of Josiah’s named Eliakim, and changed his name into Jehoiakim, exacting from Judea a tribute of one hundred talents of silver and one talent of gold.
THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY
[Sidenote: [605-597 B.C.]]
At the end of three years Neku was beaten at Carchemish by Nebuchadrezzar, son of the king of Babylon. The little kingdom of Judah was situated between two great empires, Egypt and Chaldea, and pressed on all sides. Jehoiakim, although vassal to the king of Egypt, to whom he owed the throne, so as to keep it, submitted to the suzerainty of the king of Babylon. But as he always preferred Egypt, he revolted. Nebuchadrezzar sent some troops, and scattered bands of Moabites and Ammonites in Judea, who only wanted an opportunity to avenge their long oppression. The king shut himself up in Jerusalem, awaiting from Egypt help which never came. The prophets did not agree, and accused one another of imposture. Jeremiah discouraged resistance by his sinister predictions. The people were more and more irritated, and several times his life was threatened. But he had partisans, for at least his was a free voice protesting against public misery. If he was severe towards the people, he was far more so towards the king, whom he accused of foolish expenditures and tyranny. “He said, ‘thus saith the Lord concerning Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king of Judah: He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem.’” The king burnt his prophecies and had him pursued; but as Jeremiah belonged to the sacerdotal caste, being the son of Hilkiah, they helped to hide him. One of his disciples was not so fortunate; he had taken refuge in Egypt, and was brought back and put to death.
[Sidenote: [597-586 B.C.]]
According to the Book of Chronicles, Jehoiakim was sent to Babylon laden with chains. Josephus pretends that Nebuchadrezzar, having entered Jerusalem promising to do no harm to the king, made him die in spite of his promise, and deprived him of burial according to the prophecy of Jeremiah. The Book of Kings merely says that Jehoiakim “slept with his fathers.” His son Jehoiachin, called Jeconiah or Coniah by Jeremiah, reigned only three months.
Nebuchadrezzar established as king in Jerusalem the last of the sons of Josiah, who changed his name, Mattaniah, to Zedekiah. As to Jeconiah, he remained prisoner in Babylon for thirty years. Evil-Merodach, successor to Nebuchadrezzar, freed him. Had Zedekiah contented himself with being satrap to the king of Babylon, he could have governed the remainder of the Jews in peace; but he was drawn in different ways by the current of public opinion, then represented by the prophets as it is to-day by the newspapers. Those who announced an approaching deliverance were more eagerly listened to than those who, like Jeremiah, preached submission to the conqueror, for they could not believe that the Lord had abandoned his people. Zedekiah had received messages from Tyre and Sidon, Ammon and Moab; no doubt it was concerning a general rebellion. Jeremiah sent each of the ambassadors, and even the king, a wooden yoke, announcing that all people who resented the Babylonian yoke would be punished by the sword, famine, and plague. He himself appeared in the temple with a yoke on his shoulders. A prophet who was for war tore it off and broke it before the people, saying, “Thus saith the Lord: Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon from the neck of all nations within the space of two full years.”
The king was greatly embarrassed, for it was only by the fulfilment that a true prophecy could be distinguished from a false. He began negotiations with Egypt; the king of Egypt, Hophra (Apries, Uah-ab-Ra), having promised him help, he refused to pay the tribute he had been subjected to for eight years. Nebuchadrezzar decided to settle the Jews, and came to attack Jerusalem. Zedekiah assembled the people, and to obtain the Lord’s favour it was decided that those who had Jewish slaves should free them, conforming with a law attributed to Moses, but which had never been carried out. The oath was taken with the ancient custom of cutting an ox in two and passing between the portions of meat. But the news came that an Egyptian army was arriving in Judea; the Chaldeans went to meet it. They thought that all was won, that there was no necessity to mind, and each one took back his slaves. Jeremiah, indignant at this, announced that the town should be burned, and that the land should become a desert. Then, as he tried to leave Jerusalem, he was accused of wanting to pass over to the enemy. They had become very suspicious of him. “Let him be put to death,” said they, “for he unnerves the hands of the fighting men.” The king was obliged to have the prophet put in prison.
[Sidenote: [586 B.C.]]
According to Josephus, the Egyptian army was beaten in a great battle. Jeremiah alone says it returned to Egypt. The Chaldeans continued the siege of Jerusalem, which lasted for nearly ten years: “The famine prevailed in the city, and there was no bread for the people of the land. And the city was broken up, and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between two walls, which is by the king’s garden. Now, the Chaldeans were against the city round about: and the king went the way toward the plain. And the army of the Chaldeans pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho: and all his army were scattered from him. So they took the king and brought him up to the king of Babylon at Riblah.” The walls of Jerusalem were destroyed, the city was devastated by fire, and great numbers of prisoners were carried off to Babylon.
The king of Babylon confided the government of the land to a Jew called Gedaliah, a friend of Jeremiah, and probably, like him, a partisan of peace and submission. Gedaliah established his residence at Mizpah, and announced to the Jews that they had nought to fear in remaining faithful to Nebuchadrezzar. The officers and soldiers who had hidden themselves in the provinces at the time of the taking of Jerusalem, returned in large numbers. A great number of Jews emigrated to Egypt, in spite of the prophecies of Jeremiah, announcing to them that they would be pursued by the vengeance of the king of Babylon, and that Egypt would be conquered. The prophet Ezekiel, one of those transported in Jehoiachin’s time, also prophesied the conquest of Egypt by the Chaldeans. According to Josephus, these predictions were fulfilled. Nebuchadrezzar had beaten and killed Hophra (Apries, Uah-ab-Ra), and had taken away into Chaldea the Jews established in the Delta. But M. Maspero says, “Egyptian accounts do not allow of admitting the authenticity of this tradition; on the contrary, they prove that Nebuchadrezzar met with a serious reverse.”
An appendix to the Book of Jeremiah talks of 745 Jews carried away to Babylon five years after the fall of Jerusalem; but it is probable that they were taken from among those who had remained in Judea after the murder of Gedaliah. According to these passages, the total number of those transported thrice in the reign of Nebuchadrezzar would be forty-six hundred souls. This number is so weak that one might think the author had counted only the heads of the family. The Lamentations attributed to Jeremiah offer us a poetical picture of the misery of Jerusalem and Judea after the Chaldean conquest:
“How doth the city sit solitary, that was full of people; how is she become as a widow, she that was great among the nations, and princess among the provinces; how is she become tributary? She weepeth sore in the night, and her tears are on her cheeks: among all her lovers she hath none to comfort her: all her friends have dealt treacherously with her, they are become her enemies. Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens. We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers are as widows. But thou, O Lord, remainest for ever, thy throne from generation to generation. Wherefore dost thou forget us for ever, and forsake us for so long time.”
At the same time the exiled, in the remembrance of their country, gave vent to accents of a depth which even Dante has never surpassed, and in which the hope of vengeance was displayed with a fierce energy.
“By the waters of Babylon, we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth: if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.”
That which has given life to the Jewish people is the feeling of patriotism carried to the extreme, the hatred for the stranger. The native land is not alone the corner of the earth in which one is born, it is the moral link uniting the members of a society in common thought so as to form one family. This small nation, surrounded and then subjugated by more numerous and stronger neighbours, from which it differed neither in race nor language, was distinguished from them by religion. This religion is the ideal form of patriotism; it dominates and fills its history. If they regret Jerusalem, it is on account of the temple. The intolerant fanaticism of the prophets, the narrow formalism of the priests, raised around the people of the Lord an invisible rampart, more insurmountable than the great wall of China. At the same time, when national independence was giving way to strength, the resolute energy of the theocratical party was preparing its revival. This is one of the greatest marvels of history, and all the miracles with which this nation filled its legends are not worth those which they themselves performed by the sole power of their faith.[b]
FOOTNOTES
[2] [That is according to the Usher chronology. The probable real date is about 930 B.C.]
[3] [Professor Sayce says: “Dodah must have been a deity who received divine honours in the northern kingdom of Israel by the side of the national god.” Arel signifies a hero. So probably there were certain “heroes” who acted as champions of the deity to whom they were attached.]