The History of Antiquity, Vol. 2 (of 6)

The foremost place among the consecrated priests was occupied by the high priest. He alone had the right to enter the inner space of the sanctuary, the cell in which stood the ark of the covenant – the other priests could enter the outer space only; he alone could offer sacrifice in the name of the whole people, he alone could announce the will and oracle of Jehovah, and consecrate the priests. The ritual for the high priest was most strict. In the belief of the Hebrews the most accurate knowledge and the most careful circumspection was needed in order to offer an effective sacrifice and avoid arousing the anger of Jehovah by some omission in the rite, and if the law required of all priests that they should devote themselves to especial purity and holiness, this demand was made with peculiar severity upon the high priest. He might marry only with a pure virgin of the stock of his kindred; he must keep himself so far from all defilement that he might not touch the corpse even of his father and his mother; he might not, on any occasion, rend his garments in sorrow. The distinguishing garb of the high priest was a robe of blue linen, which on the edge was adorned with pomegranates and bells; the bells were intended, as the law says, to announce the coming of the priest to the God who dwelt in the shrine of the temple, that the priest might not die.[378 - Exod. xxviii. 31-35; xxxix. 22-27.] Over this robe the high priest wore a short wrapper, the so-called ephod or shoulder-garment, and on his breast in front the tablet with the holy Urim and Thummim, by means of which he inquired of Jehovah, if the king or any one from the people asked for an oracle. The other priests also, at least in more ancient times, wore the ephod with the Urim and Thummim; but the ephod of the high priest was fastened on the shoulders by two precious stones, and the front side of his breastplate was made of twelve precious stones set in gold, on which were engraved the names of the twelve tribes. The head-band of the high priest was distinguished from that of the other priests by a plate of gold bearing the inscription, "Holy is Jehovah;" he might not even uncover his head.[379 - Exod. xxviii. 4-30, 36-43.]

The mode of worship was regulated by the law in a systematic manner. Beside the Sabbath, on keeping which the law laid special stress, and regarded it as a symbol of the relation of Israel to Jehovah, the Israelites celebrated feasts at the new moon and the full moon,[380 - 1 Sam. xx. 5, 24, 27, and many passages in the prophets; Numbers xxviii. 11; xxix. 6; Ewald, "Alterthümer," s. 360.] and held three great national festivals in the year. These festivals marked in the first instance certain divisions of the natural year. Yet the first, the festival of spring, had from ancient times a peculiar religious significance. It has been remarked above that at the spring festival not only were the firstlings of the harvest, the first ears of corn, offered to the tribal God, but that also, as at the beginning of a new season of fertility, a sin offering, the vicarious sacrifice of a lamb, was made for the first-born which were not offered. The spring festival was also the festival of the sparing of the first-born, the Passah or passover of Jehovah (I. 414). The priestly ordinance, which sought to give a definite historical cause for the customs of the festival, and to mark the favours which Jehovah had granted to his people, connects the old usages of this festival with the exodus from Egypt, and we have already seen how from this point of view old ceremonies of this festival were transformed, and new ones were added (I. 445). As the spring festival was kept in the first month of the Hebrew year, Nisan (March-April) (it began on the evening of the day after the new moon, at the rise of the full moon, when the sun is in the Ram), the exodus from Egypt was supposed to have taken place on the morning which followed this night. The Passah continued for seven days, in which, from the morning of the second day to the evening of the seventh, only unleavened bread could be eaten, i. e. the firstlings of the corn in their original form, and no business could be carried on. On each of the seven days of the feast, according to the law, two young bulls, a ram and seven yearling lambs were offered as a burnt offering for Israel in the temple, and besides these a goat, as a sin offering. The neglect of the festival, the eating of leavened bread on any of the days, was threatened by the law with extirpation from the community.[381 - Exod. xii. 15-19; Numbers ix. 13; xxviii. 16-24.] As the greater number of the tribes attained to a settled life and agriculture, the feast of the ripe fruits or harvest naturally rose to importance beside this festival of the earliest fruits. Seven full weeks after the commencement of the Passah, or six weeks after the end of it, the feast of new bread was celebrated. The sheaves were brought, the corn trodden out, the first new meal prepared. According to the law, each house in Israel, i. e., no doubt, each which possessed land and flocks, had to bring two leavened firstling loaves of new wheaten meal and two yearling lambs as a thank offering. Before these were offered no one could eat bread made from the new corn.[382 - Levit. xxii. 9-21.] The festival of autumn, which took place in the seventh month of the Hebrew year (September – October), from the fourteenth to the twenty-first day of the month, was merrier and of longer duration. It was the festival of the completion of the in-gathering, and of the vintage, and consequently can hardly go back beyond the time of the settlement in Canaan.[383 - At the division of the kingdom Jeroboam is said to have changed this festival to the fifteenth day of the eighth month; 1 Kings xii. 33.] It was customary to erect arbours of palm leaves, willows, and oak branches, as was indeed necessary at a time when men were occupied in remote orchards and vineyards, and in these the feast was kept, unless it was preferred to keep it at some important place of sacrifice, in order to offer the thank offering there,[384 - E. g. 1 Sam. i. 3; 1 Kings xii. 27-32.] and in this case those who came to the feast also passed the day in tents or arbours. Like the feast of spring, the feast of tabernacles continued for seven days. According to the law, Israel was to offer 70 bulls, 14 rams, and seven times 14 lambs at this festival as a burnt offering. To this feast also a historical meaning was given; the tabernacles were erected to remind Israel of the fact that he had once dwelt in tents in the wilderness.

At these three festivals, "thrice in the year, all the males of Israel must appear before Jehovah."[385 - Exod. xxiii. 13; xxxiv. 23.] Such was the law of the priests. It was the intention of the priests that the three great festivals should be celebrated at the dwelling of Jehovah, i. e. at the tabernacle, and afterwards at the temple; hence at the great festivals the Israelites were to go to Jerusalem. But the strict carrying out of such a common celebration was opposed to the character of the festivals themselves. We saw that even when the sacred ark still stood at Shiloh, pilgrimages were made thither once a year at the festival of Jehovah. After the erection of the tabernacle and the temple this, no doubt, took place more frequently, and the numbers were greater. Yet the object of the priests could not be completely realised. The paschal festival was the redemption of the separate house, of each individual family. This meaning and object was very definitely stamped on the ritual. In a similar manner, the feast of the beginning of harvest and of the first fruits required celebration at home, on the plot of land, and this was still more the case with the festival of thanksgiving for the completed harvest.

Before the people rejoiced in the blessing of the completed harvest at the feast of tabernacles, all misdeeds which might have defiled the year to that time must be cancelled and removed by a special sacrifice. For this object the law on this occasion made a requirement never demanded at any other time. From the evening of the ninth to the evening of the tenth day there was not only a cessation of business, but a strict fast was kept. Every man among the people must subject himself to this regulation, and he who transgressed it was threatened with the loss of his life.[386 - Levit. xxiii. 29.] The high priest had first to cleanse himself and the other priests, and then the dwelling of Jehovah; for even the sanctuary might be defiled by the inadvertence of the priests. When the high priest had bathed he must clothe himself in a coat and trousers of white linen, with a girdle and head-band of the same material, and offer a young bull as a sin offering. Bearing a vessel filled with the blood of this victim, and with the censer from the altar of incense in the interior of the sanctuary, which contained burning coals and frankincense, the high priest went alone into the holy of holies, behind the curtain before the ark of the covenant. Immediately on his entrance the clouds arising from the censer must fill the chamber, that the priest might not see the face of Jehovah over the cherubs and die. Then the high priest sprinkled the blood from the vessel seven times towards the ark, and when thus cleansed he turned back to the court of the sanctuary, in which two goats stood ready for sacrifice. He cast lots which of the two should be sacrificed to Jehovah and which to Azazel, the evil spirit of the desert. When the lot was cast, the high priest laid his hand on the head of the goat assigned to Azazel, confessed all the sins and transgressions of Israel on this goat, and laid them on his head, in order that he might carry them into the desert-land into which the goat was driven from the sanctuary. Then the high priest slew the other goat assigned to Jehovah, and, returning into the holy of holies, sprinkled with his blood the ark of the covenant for the second time, in order to purify the people. When the altar of incense, in the outer part of the sanctuary, had been sprinkled in a similar manner, the high priest declared that Jehovah was appeased. After a second bath he put on his usual robes, and offered three rams as burnt offerings for himself, the priesthood, and the nation.[387 - Levit. xvi., xxiii. 26-32.]

All sacrifices were to be offered at the tabernacle, "before the dwelling of Jehovah;" and afterwards in like manner in the temple. The law of the priests threatened any one with death who sacrificed elsewhere.[388 - Levit. xvii. 3-5.] The most essential regulations for the offering of sacrifice are perhaps the following: – Any one who intended to bring an offering must purify himself for several days. Wild animals could not be offered. In the Hebrew conception the sacrifice is the surrender of a part of a man's possessions and enjoyments. Hence only domestic offerings could be offered, because only these are really property. Cattle, sheep, and goats were the animals appointed for sacrifice. The poorer people were also allowed to offer doves. Each victim must be without blemish and healthy, and it must not be weakened and desecrated by labour. Before the animal was killed the sacrificer laid his hand on its head for a time; then he who offered the sacrifice, whether priest or layman, slew the victim, but only the priest could receive the warm blood in the sacrificial vessel. With this vessel in his hand the priest went round the altar and sprinkled the feet, the corners, and the sides of it with the blood of the victim. In the Hebrew conception the life of the victim was in its blood, and thus the sprinklings which were to be made with it form the most important part of the holy ceremony. From ancient times the burnt offering was the most solemn kind of sacrifice. Only male animals, and, as a rule, bulls and rams, could be offered as burnt offerings. When they had been slain and skinned these offerings were entirely burnt in the fire on the altar, without any part being enjoyed by the sacrificer or the priest, as was the case in other kinds of offerings; only the skin fell to the share of the priests. As the burnt offering was intended to gain the favour of Jehovah, so were the sin offerings intended to appease his anger and blot out transgressions. For sin offerings female animals were used as a rule, as male animals for the burnt offerings,[389 - Levit. i-vi.] but young bulls and he-goats were also offered as expiatory offerings for the whole people, and for oversights or transgressions of the priests in the ritual, and for sin offerings for princes. In sin offerings only certain parts of the entrails were burnt, the kidneys, the liver, and other parts; and in this sacrifice the priests sprinkled the blood on the horns of the altar; the flesh which was not burned belonged to the priests. In thank offerings and offerings of slaughter (so called because in these the slaying and eating of the victim was the principal matter) only the fat was burnt, the priests kept the breast and the right thigh,[390 - Levit. vii. 23-34, and in other passages.] the rest was eaten by the sacrificer at a banquet with the guests whom he had invited; but this banquet must be held at the place of sacrifice, on the same or at any rate on the following day. Drink offerings consisted of libations of wine, which were poured on and round the altar (libations of water are also mentioned, though not in the law, p. 115); the food offerings in fruits, corn, and white meal, which the priests threw into the fire of the altar; in bread and cookery, which, drenched with oil and sprinkled with salt and incense, was partly burned, and partly fell to the lot of the priests. Lastly, the incense offerings consisted in the burning of incense, which did not take place, like the other sacrifices, on the larger altar in the court of the sanctuary, but on the small altar, which stood in the space before the holy of holies of the tabernacle, and afterwards of the temple.[391 - Supr. p. 183. Exod. xxx. 1-9.]

According to the law, a service was to be continually going on in the dwelling of Jehovah. The sacred fire on the altar in the interior of the tabernacle was never to be quenched; before the holy of holies on the sacred table twelve unleavened loaves always lay sprinkled with salt and incense, as a symbolical and continual offering of the twelve tribes. Each Sabbath this bread was renewed, and the loaves when removed fell to the priests. Before the curtain of the holy of holies the candlestick with seven lamps was always burning, and every morning and evening the priests of the temple were to offer a male sheep as a burnt offering at the dwelling of Jehovah, and two sheep on the morning and evening of the Sabbath. The high priest had also to make an offering of corn every morning and evening.[392 - Levit. vi. 12, 13; ix. 17.]

Beside the sacrifice, the law of the priests required the observance of a whole series of regulations for purity. It is not merely bodily cleanliness which these laws required of the Israelites, nor is it merely a natural abhorrence of certain disgusting objects which lies at the base of these prescriptions; it is not merely that to the simple mind physical and moral purity appear identical, that moral evil is conceived as a defilement of the body; nor are these regulations merely intended to place a certain restriction on natural states and impulses. These factors had their weight, but beside them all a certain side of nature and of the natural life was set apart as impure and unholy. The laws of purity among the Israelites are far less strict and comprehensive than those of the Egyptians and the Indians; but if we unite them with the ritual by which transgressions of these rules were done away and made good, they form a system entering somewhat deeply into the life of the nation.

For the laity also the law required and prescribed cleanliness of clothing. Stuffs of two kinds might not be worn; pomegranates must be fixed on the corners of the robe. The field and vineyard might not be sown with two kinds of seed; nor could ox and ass be yoked together before the plough.[393 - Numbers xv. 38; Levit. xix. 19.] Certain animals were unclean, and these might not be eaten. The clean and permitted food was obtained from oxen, sheep, goats, and in wild animals from deer, wild-goats, and gazelles, and in fact from all animals which ruminate and have cloven feet. Unclean are all flesh-eating animals with paws, and more especially the camel, the swine, the hare, and the coney. Of fish, those only might be eaten which have fins and scales; all fish resembling snakes, like eels, might not be eaten. Most water-fowl are unclean; pigeons and quails, on the other hand, were permitted food. All creeping things, winged or not, with the exception of locusts, are forbidden.[394 - Levit. xi. 1-44.] Moreover, if the permitted animals were not slain in the proper manner their flesh was unclean; if it had "died of itself," or was strangled, or torn by wild beasts,[395 - Levit. xvii. 15.] the use of the blood of the animal was most strictly forbidden, "for the life of all flesh is the blood;" even of the animals which might be eaten the blood must be poured on the earth and covered with earth.[396 - Levit. xvii. 14.] As the eating of forbidden food made a man unclean, so also did all sexual functions of man or woman, and all diseases connected with these functions, including lying in child-bed. Every one was also unclean on whose body was "a rising scab or bright spot," but above all the white leprosy rendered the sufferer unclean.[397 - Levit. xiii., xiv.] Finally, any contact with the corpse of man or beast, whether intentional or accidental, rendered a man unclean. The house in which a man died, with all the utensils, was unclean; any one who touched a grave or a human bone was tainted.[398 - The spoils taken in war are also to be purified; Numbers xxxi. 20-24.]

The priestly regulations set forth in great detail the ceremonies, the washings and sacrifices, by which defilements were to be removed. The unclean person must avoid the sanctuary, and even society and contact with others, till the time of his purification, which in serious defilements can only begin after the lapse of a certain time. In the more grievous cases ordinary water did not suffice for the cleansing, but from the ashes of a red cow without blemish, which was slain as a sin offering and entirely burnt, the priest prepared a special water of purification with cedar wood and bunches of hyssop. The reception of healed lepers required the most careful preparations and most scrupulous manipulations.

Among the regulations of purity is reckoned the custom of circumcision, which was practised among the Israelites, and retained by the law. Yet the reason for this peculiar custom, which according to the regulations of the priests was performed on the eighth day after birth, the first day of the second week of life,[399 - Levit. xii. 3. The Arabian tribes in the north of the peninsula, who were nearly related to the Hebrews, observed this custom, and the Phenicians also, while the Philistines did not observe it; Herod. 2, 104. In Genesis (xxi. 4; xvii. 12-14, 25) it is expressly mentioned that Ishmael was not circumcised till his thirteenth year, but Isaac was circumcised at the proper time, on the eighth day. This shows that circumcision was a very ancient custom among the Israelites, and at the same time indicates that among the Arabs the boys were not circumcised till later years, which may have been the case in the older times among the Hebrews also. Cf. Joshua v. 1-9; Joseph. "Antiq." 1, 12, 3.] seems to lie in other motives rather than in the desire to remove a certain part of the male body which was regarded as unclean. We saw above that according to the old conception of the Israelites the firstborn must be ransomed from Jehovah, that the life of all boys, if it was to be secured, must be purchased from Jehovah (I. 414, 448). Hence, if we may follow the hint of an obscure narrative, it is not improbable that circumcision of the reproductive member was a vicarious blood-sacrifice for the life of the boy. When Moses returned from the land of Midian to Egypt – so we learn from the Ephraimitic text – "Jehovah met him in the inn, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and he departed from him."[400 - Exod. iv. 24; cf. De Wette-Schrader, "Einleitung," s. 282.] To the Israelites circumcision was a symbol of their connection with the nation, of their covenant with Jehovah and selection by him.

The most important part of the purity of the people of Jehovah was their maintenance of his worship, the strict severance of Israel from the religion of their neighbours and community with them. It was now seen what influence living and mingling with the Canaanites had exercised in the national worship, and it was perceived what an attraction the Syrian rites had presented for centuries to the nation, and what a power they still had upon them. Hence even Moses was said to have given the command to destroy the altars and images of the Canaanites, to drive out all the Canaanites, and make neither covenant nor marriage with them.[401 - Numbers xxxiii. 50-56; Exod. xxiii. 29 ff; xxxiv. 12-16; Vol. i. 500.] The law forbade sacrifices to Moloch under penalty of death; any one who did so was to be stoned. Those who made offerings to other gods than Jehovah were to be "accursed" (I. 499). Wizards were also to be stoned.[402 - Levit. xviii. 21; xx. 2, 27; Exod. xxii. 18.] "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any mark upon you. Do not prostitute thy daughter to cause her to play the harlot."[403 - Levit. xix. 27-29.] All these are commands directed against the manners, funeral customs, and religious worship of the Canaanites. Strangers were not to be received into the community and people of Israel; nor could Israelites contract marriage with women who were not Israelites; it is only the later law which allows women captured in war to be taken into the marriage bed.[404 - Deut. xxi. 11-14; cf. Numbers xii. 1.] These are the "misanthropical" laws of the Jews of which Tacitus speaks with such deep aversion.

The law assigned a far-reaching religious influence to the priests. They alone could turn the favour of Jehovah towards his people by correct and effective sacrifices, and appease his wrath; they announced the will of Jehovah by his oracle; in regard to diseases and leprosy, they exercised police functions over the whole nation by means of the regulations for cleanliness and food; they could exclude any one at their discretion from the sacrifices and, consequently, from the community; and, in fine, they were in possession of the skill and knowledge with which the people were unacquainted. The priesthood arranged the chronology and the festivals, they supervised weights and measures,[405 - Levit. xix. 35, 36.] they knew the history of the people in past ages, and their ancient covenant with the God of the ancestors. From their knowledge of the ordinances of Jehovah followed the claim which the priests made to watch over the application of these ordinances in life, the administration of law and justice. But at first this claim was put forward modestly. The old regulations about the right of blood in the time-honoured observances of justice were added to the law of ritual when this was written down (I. 385, 484); they were modified here and there by the views of the priesthood, and in some points essentially extended; and now, like the ordinances for the places of sacrifice, mode of worship, and purification, they stood opposed in many regulations to real life as ideal but hardly practicable standards.

According to the view of the priests Jehovah was the true possessor of the land of Israel. He had given it to his people for tenure and use. From this conception the law derived very peculiar conclusions, which might be of essential advantage for retaining the property of the families in their hands, for keeping up the family and their possessions, on which the Hebrews laid weight, and for proprietors when in debt. To aid the debtor against the creditor, the poor against the rich, the labourer against him who gave the work, the slave against his master, is in other ways also the obvious object of the law.

As all work must cease on the seventh day, the day of Jehovah, so must there be a similar cessation in the seventh year, which is therefore called the Sabbath year. In every seventh year the Israelites were to allow the land which Jehovah had let to them to lie fallow, in honour of the real owner. In this year the land was not sowed, nor the vine-trees cut, nor the wild beast driven from the field, every one must seek on the fallow what had grown there without culture. If this Sabbath of the seventh year was kept Jehovah would send such increase on the preceding sixth year that there should be no want.[406 - Exod. xxiii. 10, 11; Levit. xxv. 20.] When this period of seven fallow years had occurred seven times the circle appeared to be complete, and from this point of view the law ordained that at such a time everything should return to the original position. Hence, when the seventh Sabbath year was seven times repeated (in the year of Jubilee) not only was agriculture stopped, but all alienated property, with the buildings and belongings, went back to the original owner or his heirs.[407 - Levit. xxv. 24-31.] The consequence was that properties were never really sold, but the use of them was assigned to others, and hence, even before the year of Jubilee, the owner could redeem his land by paying the value of the produce which would be yielded before the year of Jubilee.

But the priests were far from being able to carry out these extended requirements which proceeded from the sanctity of the Sabbath, and from the conception that the land of Israel belonged to Jehovah, and every family held their property from Jehovah himself, and which were intended to make plain the true nature of the property of the Israelites. It was an ideal picture which they set up, and hardly so much as an attempt was made to carry it out. They could reckon with more certainty on obedience to a law which ordained that no interest was to be taken from the poor, and no poor man's mantle was to be taken in pledge.[408 - Exod. xxii. 25-27; Levit. xxv. 35-38.] Nevertheless, the law of debt was severe. If the debtor could not pay his debt before a fixed time the creditor was allowed to pay himself with the moveable and fixed property of the debtor; he could sell his wife and children, and even the debtor himself, as slaves, or use him as a slave in his own service.

For the legal process we find in the law no more than the regulation "that one witness shall not bear evidence against a man for his death," i. e. that one witness was not sufficient to establish a serious charge, that "injustice shall not be done in judgment, that the person of the small shall not be disregarded, nor the person of the great honoured;" "according to law thou shalt judge thy neighbour."[409 - Numbers xxxv. 30; Levit. xix. 15.] For every injury done to the person or property of another, the guilty shall make reparation. We know already the old ordinances which require life for life, eye for eye, and tooth for tooth (I. 485). Injury to property and possession was to be fully compensated; even the injury done by his beast was to be compensated by the master. Theft was merely punished by restoring four or five times the value of the stolen goods. If the thief could not pay this compensation he was handed over to the injured man as a slave. But any one who steals a man in order to keep him as a slave, or to sell him, was to be punished with death.[410 - Exod. xxi. 16.] If a murder was committed, the avenger of blood, i. e. the nearest relative and heir of the murdered man, was to pursue the murderer and slay him, wherever he met him, as soon as it was established by two persons that he was really guilty. The law even forbade the avenger of blood to accept a ransom instead of taking the life of the guilty, because the land was desecrated by the blood of the murdered man, "and the land is not cleansed from the blood spilt, save by the blood of the murderer." An exception was allowed only when one man slew another by accident, and without any fault of his own, and not out of hostility or hatred. In this case the slayer was to fly into one of the six cities which were marked out as cities of refuge.[411 - Exod. xxi. 12-14; Numbers xxxv. 31; Joshua xx. 7-9.] From the elders of the city the pursuing avenger of blood was to demand the delivery of the slayer, and they were to decide whether the act was done from hatred and hostility, or was merely an accident. If the elders decided in favour of the first alternative, they were to give up the guilty into the hands of the avenger of blood, that he might die. In the other case, the slayer must remain in the city of refuge till the death of the high priest, and the avenger was free from the guilt of bloodshed if before that time he met him beyond the confines of the city of refuge and slew him.[412 - Numbers xxxv. 25-28.] The regulations of the priests even went so far as to lay down a rule that if a savage bull slew a man the bull was not only to be stoned, and not eaten as an unclean animal, but his master also must die, or at any rate pay a ransom, if he knew that the animal was savage, and yet did not control him.[413 - Exod. xxi. 28-36.]

Among the people of the East the wealthier men did not content themselves with one wife. This custom prevailed in Israel also. The law of the priests did not oppose a custom which had an example and justification in the narratives of the patriarchs. The Israelites also followed the general custom of the East, in purchasing the wife from her father, and recompensing the father for the loss of a useful piece of property – for the two working hands which he lost when he gave away his daughter from his house. Thus Jacob obtained the daughters of Laban by a service of 14 years. The price of a wife purchased for marriage from the father seems to have been from 15 to 50 shekels of silver (36s. to 125s.).[414 - Exod. xxi. 32; Hosea iii. 2; cf. Deuteron. xxii. 19, 29.] The conclusion of the marriage was marked by a special festivity, after which the bride was carried by her parents into the nuptial chamber. The prostitution of maidens in honour of the goddess of birth, so common among the neighbouring nations, was strictly forbidden by the book of the law. The daughter of a priest who began to prostitute herself was to be burnt with fire, because she thus "defiled not herself only, but also her father."[415 - Levit. xix. 29; xxi. 9.] The man who seduced a virgin was compelled to purchase her for his wife, and even if her father would not give her to wife he was to pay him the usual purchase-money. Adultery was punished by the law with even greater severity than violations of chastity before marriage. The adulteress, together with the man who had seduced her into a violation of the marriage bond, were to be put to death.[416 - Levit. xviii. 20; xx. 10.] If a man suspected his wife of unfaithfulness without being able to prove it against her a divine judgment was to decide the matter. The priest was to lead man and wife before Jehovah. Then he was to draw holy water in an earthen pitcher, and throw dust swept from the floor of the dwelling of Jehovah into this, and say to the woman, "If thou hast not offended in secret against thy husband, remain unpunished by this water of sorrow, that bringeth the curse; but if thou hast sinned, may this water go into thy body and cause thy thighs to rot, and may Jehovah make thee a curse and an oath among thy people." The woman answered, "So be it;" and when the priest had dipped in the water a sheet written with the words of this curse, she was compelled to drink it.[417 - Numbers v. 5-31.] Thus the woman was brought to confession, or was freed from the suspicion of her husband.

Marriages were forbidden not only with strange women, but also within certain degrees of relationship; in which were included not only those close degrees, to which there is a natural abhorrence, but also such as did not exclude marriage in other nations. In this matter the law of the priests proceeded from the sound view that marriage did not belong to a natural connection already in existence, but was intended to found a new relationship. Not only was marriage forbidden with a mother, with any wife or concubine of the father, with a sister, a daughter, or granddaughter, a widowed daughter-in-law; but also with an aunt on the father's or mother's side, with a stepsister, or sister by marriage, with a sister-in-law, or wife's sister so long as the wife lived.[418 - Levit. xviii.]

The husband purchased his wife as a chattel; hence in marriage she continued to live in entire dependence beside her husband. The husband could not commit adultery as against his wife; it was the right of another husband which was injured by the seduction of the wife. It rested with the husband to take as many wives as he chose beside his first wife, and as many concubines from his handmaids and female slaves as seemed good to him. The husband could put away his wife if she "found no favour in his eyes," while the wife, on her part, could not dissolve the marriage, or demand a separation; she possessed no legal will. Like the wife, the children stood to the father in a relation of the most complete dependence. Nor only did he sell his daughters for marriage, he could give them as pledges, or even sell them as slaves, but not out of the land;[419 - Exod. xxi. 7, 8.] and though the father was not allowed to sell the son as a slave, he could turn him out of his house. Obedience and reverence towards parents were impressed strongly on children, even in the earliest regulations derived from the time of Moses. The son who curses his father or mother, or strikes them, must be put to death.[420 - Exod. xxi. 17; Levit. xx. 9.] The first-born son is the heir of the house; after the death of the father he is the head of the family, and succeeds to his rights over the younger sons and the females. It is not clear whether the law allows any claims to the moveable inheritance to any of the sons besides the eldest, to whom the immoveable property passed absolutely; the sons of concubines and slaves had no right of inheritance if there were sons in existence by legitimate marriage. Daughters could only inherit if there were no sons. The heiress could not marry beyond the tribe, in order that the inheritance might at least fall to the lot of a tribesman. If there were neither sons nor daughters, the brother of the father was the heir, and then the uncles of the father.[421 - Numbers xxxvi. 1-11; Tobit vii. 10; Numbers xxvii. 9.]

The law attempts to fix and ameliorate the position of day-labourers and slaves. "The hire of the labourer shall not remain with thee till the morrow."[422 - Levit. xix. 13.] The number of slaves appears to have been considerable. They were partly captives taken in war, and partly strangers purchased in the way of trade; partly Hebrews who, when detected in thieving, could not pay the compensation, or who could not pay their debts, or Hebrew daughters sold by their parents. The marriages of slaves increased their number. The law required that slaves should rest on the Sabbath day;[423 - Exod. xx. 10.] and even the oldest regulations restrict the right of the master over the life of his slave by laying down the rule that the slave shall be free if his master has inflicted a severe wound upon him, and that the master must be punished if he has slain his slave.[424 - Exod. xxi. 20, 21, 26; Vol. i. 483.] The slave who was a born Israelite might be ransomed by his kindred, if they could pay the sum required.[425 - Levit. xxv. 47 ff.] The Hebrew slave was treated by his master as a hired labourer, and hind.[426 - Levit. xxv. 39-41.] When the Hebrew slave had served six years his master was compelled to set him free without ransom in the seventh year. A Hebrew could only remain in slavery for ever when, after six years of service, he voluntarily declared that he wished to remain with his master; then, as a sign that he permanently belonged to the house of his master, his ear was pierced on the door-post with an awl.

CHAPTER X

JUDAH AND ISRAEL

The monarchy in Israel was established by the people to check the destruction and ruin with which the land and population were threatened by the incursions of the neighbours on the east, by the dangerous arms of the Philistines. The first attempt to set up a monarchy in connection with the cities of the land was soon wrecked and swept away, without leaving a trace behind. In spite of his support in the wishes of the great majority of the Israelites, the monarchy of Saul had not succeeded in establishing itself securely by its simple and popular conduct. It was not till the monarchy had fortified the royal city and palace, established a body-guard and standing troops, magistrates and tax-gatherers, and had entered into close relation with the priests, that it obtained security and permanence. It had indeed fulfilled its mission and saved Israel; it had won power, glory, and respect for the nation, and imparted to it lofty impulses of the most important kind. It had at the same time gone far beyond the intention of its foundation. It was now a Sultanate, which, by filling the land with Syrian trade and customs, and allowing the growth of Syrian modes of worship, threatened in one direction the nationality with the same dangers which it had removed in another.

The transformation which the manner of life in Israel underwent during the reigns of David and Solomon was so thorough that even under David a reaction set in. If in the time before David and Solomon the Israelites had led an unrestrained life, they were now ruled by a severe monarchy. In the place of the patriarchal authority of the elders and heads of tribes, whose decisions they had formerly sought, came the rule of royal officers, who could exercise their power capriciously enough. If hitherto they had lived unmolested, every man on his own plot, beneath his vine and fig tree, they were now compelled to pay taxes and do task-work. After the burdens Solomon had laid upon the people, this reaction must have been stronger than at the time when Absalom's rebellion shattered the throne of his father. Moreover, Solomon's reign, though it lasted full 40 years, did not give the same impression of vigorous power as David's strong arm had done before him, and the monarchy was not so old, nor so firmly established as an institution, that the Israelites could not remember the times which preceded it.

No doubt the tribe of Judah could bear the new burdens, because it enjoyed the advantages of the new polity. The king belonged to this tribe; the temple and metropolis were in its territory. But the interests of the other tribes were the more deeply injured. Above all, the tribe of Ephraim must have felt itself degraded. In this tribe the memory of Joshua still lived, the remembrance of the conquest of the land; once it had held the foremost place, and on its soil the ark of Jehovah had stood. Now the pre-eminence was with Judah, the tribe which had long been subject to the Philistines; the sacred ark stood at Jerusalem, and the ancient places of sacrifice were neglected. Of the feeling of the tribe of Ephraim we have indubitable evidence in an attempt at rebellion at the beginning of the last decade of the reign of Solomon; an attempt, it is true, which was quickly suppressed.[427 - 1 Kings xi. 26 ff place the rebellion of Jeroboam in the time when Solomon built Millo (p. 186), and give him asylum with Shishak, king of Egypt. Solomon built Millo, the walls of Jerusalem, and the fortifications (p. 186) when the building of the palace was finished (1 Kings ix. 10, 15, 24). The building of the palace was completed in 970 B.C. (p. 186); hence the building of Millo must have begun about this time. It can hardly have lasted more than 10 years. Jeroboam's rebellion, therefore, and Shishak's accession are not to be placed after, but a little before, 960 B.C. Lepsius puts Shishak's accession at 961 B.C.]

When Solomon died, in the year 953 B.C., it was not the contests between his sons or the intrigues of the harem which now threatened the succession. Rehoboam, Solomon's eldest son, who was born to him by Naamah the Ammonite, was now in his forty-second year, and thus in the vigour of age. This vigour he needed. At the news of Solomon's death the people gathered to their old place of assembly at Shechem. This self-collected assembly showed that the majority of Israel were mindful of their right to elect the king. The greatest circumspection and tact were needed to avert the approaching storm. Rehoboam saw that he must not look idly on. He must either attempt to disperse the assembled multitude by force and maintain the crown by arms, or he must treat with it. Hence he set forth to Shechem, accompanied by the counsellors of his father. A deputation of the people met him, and said, "Thy father made our yoke grievous; now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee." Rehoboam promised to make an answer on the third day. He assembled his counsellors. The old men among them – so all the older text of the Books of Kings tells us – advised compliance, and recommended him to speak kindly to the people; the younger, who had grown up with the new king, and were accustomed to flatter him, and desired unrestricted power over the people, urged him to reject strongly such claims and such rebellion. Rehoboam was foolish enough to follow advice which could not but be ruinous. Although he can hardly have said to the people the words which the Books of Kings put in his mouth – "My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions," – he rejected the demand of the Israelites. Then a cry arose in the assembly of the people, "We have no part in David, nor any inheritance in the son of Jesse; to your tents, O Israel!" When it was too late Rehoboam attempted to soothe the enraged multitude. He sent his task-master, Adoniram, to them, but the people slew the ill-chosen messenger by stoning him to death. Nothing remained for Rehoboam but to mount his chariot in haste and fly to Jerusalem.

The grievous distress which 100 years before had caused the nation at Gilgal to proclaim Saul king with one consent, and which after the death of Ishbosheth had united the tribes round David at Hebron, had long passed away. The danger which division had once brought upon Israel had faded into the distance, and was forgotten in the security which had prevailed in the last generations against the neighbours on every side. Nothing was thought of but the immediate evil and the coming oppression, if the monarchy went further on the lines on which it was treading. At the time of Solomon an Ephraimite named Jeroboam, the son of Nabath (Nebat) of Zereda, who is spoken of as "a brave man," was a second overseer among the task-labourers. As he was skilful in the discharge of his duties, Solomon raised him to be the overseer of the task-work of his tribe. This office, which made him known to all his tribe, Jeroboam must have discharged in such a way as to gain the favour rather than the aversion of the tribesmen. We are told in a few words that "Jeroboam raised his hand against Solomon," and that "Solomon sought to slay him." Jeroboam escaped to Egypt, and found refuge with the Pharaoh Shishak (about 960 B.C.). Immediately after Solomon's death Jeroboam received a message from his tribesmen to return. Rehoboam's refusal to carry on a milder form of government decided the choice of Jeroboam as king. That choice declared sufficiently the degree of aversion which the multitude bore to the house of David and the monarchy at Jerusalem.

The chief city, the tribe of Judah, the tribe of Simeon, so long united in close connection with Judah, and a part of the tribe of Benjamin, whose land lay immediately at the gates of Jerusalem, remained true to the son of Solomon. From the tribe of Judah the rise and dominion of David had its commencement; to them that dominion was now returned, and was again confined within its early limits. The question was whether Rehoboam could achieve what his grandfather David had succeeded in doing – could regain the dominion over the whole land from Judah. Rehoboam thought, no doubt, that he could reduce by the power of his arms the tribes which had withdrawn themselves from his dominion. He armed and assembled the warriors of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. If he soon abandoned this intention, the reason hardly lies in the warning of the prophet Semaiah, as the prophetic revision maintains in a passage interpolated into the annals, – we are told at the same time that there had been "a contention between Rehoboam and Jeroboam from the first,"[428 - 1 Kings xii. 22; xiv. 30.]– but in the fact that a mightier enemy came upon Rehoboam.

From the time when the Hebrews won their abode in Canaan, they had not been molested in any way from Egypt, where the rulers since the reign of Ramses III. rested quietly by the Nile. Solomon, as we saw (p. 180), entered into friendly relations with Egypt, and even into affinity. But in the later years of his reign a new dynasty ascended the throne of Egypt in the person of Shishak, which took up a different attitude. With him Jeroboam had found refuge from the pursuit of Solomon. It was to Jeroboam's interest, no less than Shishak's, that this connection should continue after Jeroboam became king of Israel. It is not improbable that Shishak made war upon Rehoboam in order to secure Jeroboam in his new dominion. Whether Jeroboam sought the help of Egypt or not, why should not Egypt have availed herself of the breach in the Israelitish kingdom which had reached such a height in Syria under David and Solomon, and forced her way even to the borders of Egypt? Why should she not establish the division and the weakness of Israel? At the same time, in all probability, a cheap reputation for military valour might be obtained, and the treasures of Solomon seized. In the year 949 B.C., the fifth year of Rehoboam's reign, the Pharaoh invaded Judah. He is said to "have come with 1200 chariots, and 60,000 horsemen; and the people who accompanied him from Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia were beyond number." Rehoboam could not withstand the power of Shishak; one city after another, including Jerusalem, opened her gates to the Pharaoh. The glory of Solomon was past and gone. Shishak took away the treasures of the temple and the royal palace, and the gold shields which Solomon had caused to be made for the body-guard. There was no thought of a lasting conquest and the subjugation of Syria; the object was merely to weaken, plunder, and reduce Judah. When this object was obtained the Pharaoh turned back to Egypt. On the outer walls of the temple of Karnak we may see the gigantic form of Shishak, who brandishes the weapon of victory over a crowd of conquered enemies; 133 bearded figures are to be seen, with their hands tied behind them, whom Ammon and Mut are leading before Shishak. The lower part of these figures is covered by the name-shields. They represent the places in the kingdom of Judah, which in equal number were taken or were taxed by the Pharaoh. Of these 133 name-shields about 100 are still legible, but few names are found among these which correspond to known places in Judæa. We may perhaps recognise Jehud, Ajalon, Beth-Horon, Gibeon, Beeroth, Rimmon in the north of Judah or in Benjamin; Engedi and Adullam in the east; Lachish, Adoraim, Mareshah, Kegilah (Keilah), and some other places in the centre of Judah. As there is scarcely one among these names which can with certainty be apportioned to the kingdom of Israel, the conclusion may naturally be drawn that the campaign was made with a favourable regard to Jeroboam, and was confined to Judah.[429 - O. Blau in "Zeitschr. D. M. G." 10, 233 ff, and below. The shield which Champollion read Judaha Malek is read Jehud by Blau, who refers it to Jehud, a place of the Southern Danites. Even the occurrence of names of towns belonging to the kingdom of Ephraim would not exclude the possibility that Shishak's campaign was undertaken in favour of Jeroboam. Jeroboam acknowledged the supremacy of Egypt in the meaning of the Pharaoh when he called on Egypt for help, and therefore, after the manner of Egyptian monuments of victory and inscriptions, his cities could be denoted as subject to Egypt. Hence Makethu, as Brugsch reads (Gesch. Ægyptens, s. 661), may be Megiddo or Makedu in the north of Judah; in the first case the explanation given holds good. Jerusalem is not found among the names which can be read and interpreted.]

It was a heavy blow which had befallen the little kingdom, and, what was still worse, Jeroboam could avail himself of it, and the Pharaoh could repeat his raid. Rehoboam saw that the only way to increase the power of resistance in his kingdom and prevent its overthrow was to strengthen the fortifications of the metropolis, and change all the larger towns in the land into fortresses. He carried this plan out, we are told, so far as he could, and provided them with garrisons, arms, supplies, and governors. Fifteen of these are mentioned in the Chronicles. The dominion over the Edomites, whom Saul fought with and David overcame, and who attempted in vain to break loose under Solomon, was maintained by Rehoboam.

After the brief reign of Abiam, the son of Rehoboam (932-929 B.C.), Asa, the brother of Abiam, ascended the throne of Judah. In his time, according to the Chronicles, Serah, the Cushite, invaded Judah with a great army, and forced his way as far as Maresa; but in the fifteenth year of his reign Asa defeated the Cushites, and sacrificed 700 oxen and 7000 sheep out of the booty to Jehovah at Jerusalem. The Books of the Kings know nothing but the fact that Asa was engaged in constant warfare with Baasha, the second successor of Jeroboam, king of Israel (925-901 B.C.).[430 - Supra, p. 112, note. I have remarked that assumptions there noticed are necessary to bring the Hebrew chronology into harmony with the Assyrian monuments and the stone of Mesha. That Ahaziah of Judah and Joram of Israel must have been slain, at the latest, in the year 843 B.C. is a necessary consequence of the fact that Jehu paid tribute to the Assyrians as early as the year 842 B.C. In the same way the Assyrian monuments prove that Ahab of Israel cannot have died before the year 853 B.C. As the Hebrew Scriptures, in the chronology of Israel, put Ahaziah with two years, and Joram with twelve years, between Ahab's death and Jehu's accession, four years must be struck out and deducted from the reign of Joram. To maintain the parallelism, the same operation must be performed with the contemporary kings of Judah, and the reign of Jehoram of Judah (for which, even if we retain the data of the Books of Kings, six years remain at the most) must be reduced from eight years to four. These four years in each kingdom will be best added to the first reigns after the division, to Jeroboam (22 + 4 = 26) and Rehoboam (17 + 4 = 21). Twelve years must be added to the reign of Omri (p. 114, n.). The same augmentation must be made in the corresponding reign of Asa of Judah, or, rather, as the chronology of Judah from Rehoboam to Athaliah gives three years less than that from Jeroboam to Jehu, 15 years must be added to Asa instead of 12, so that his reign reaches 41 + 15 = 56, and Omri's reign 12 + 12 = 24 years. Hence Rehoboam was succeeded by Abiam not in the eighteenth, but in the twenty-second year of Jeroboam; Ahab ascended the throne not in the thirty-sixth, but in the fifty-fourth year of Asa. From these assumptions are deduced the numbers given in the text. I consider it hopeless to attempt to reconcile the divergencies in the comparisons of the two series of kings in the Books of Kings; e. g. that Omri should ascend the throne in the thirty-first year of Asa, and reign 12 years, while Ahab nevertheless ascends the throne in the thirty-eighth year of Asa.] Baasha forced his way as far as Ramah, i. e. within two leagues of Jerusalem. This place he took and fortified, and was now enabled to press heavily on the metropolis of Judah, by checking their trade and cutting off their supplies. Asa's military power does not seem to have been sufficient to relieve him from this intolerable position. He "took all the silver and gold that remained in the treasures of the house of Jehovah, and in the treasures of the king's house," and sent it to Benhadad, who was now king of Damascus in the room of Rezon the opponent of Solomon, and urged him to break his covenant with Baasha, and make war upon him that he might leave Judah at peace. Benhadad agreed to his request. He invaded Israel. As Jeroboam had summoned Egypt against Judah, Judah was now joined by Damascus against Israel. Baasha abandoned his war against Israel, and Asa caused the wood and the stones of the fortifications to be hastily carried away from Ramah, and with this material he entrenched Gebah and Mizpeh against Israel.[431 - 1 Kings xv. 16-24; 2 Chron. xvi. 1-10.]

An addition in the first Book of Kings remarks that Asa removed the harlots and the idols out of the land, that he threw down the image of Astarte, which his mother had set up, and burnt it in the valley of the Kidron.[432 - 1 Kings xv. 11-14; 2 Chron. xiv. 2-5.] This was a healthy reaction against the foreign rites which had crept in in the last years of Solomon's reign. Asa's son Jehoshaphat (873-848 B.C.) went further in this direction. The remainder of the harlots were removed from the land; he entered into peaceful relations with Israel. The supremacy over the Edomites was maintained, and they were governed by viceroys of the king of Judah.[433 - 1 Kings xxii. 48; 2, viii. 20.] We find that the Edomites sent contingents to him; and his sway extended as far as the north-east point of the Red Sea. Here, at Elath, as in Solomon's time, great ships were built for the voyage to Ophir.[434 - 1 Kings xxii. 49.]

The ten tribes who had set Jeroboam at their head were the mass of the people both in numbers and extent of territory. They might hope to carry on the kingdom, they preserved the name of Israel; while in the south there was little more than one powerful tribe separated from the rest. Shechem, the ancient metropolis of the tribe of Ephraim, the place at which the crown was transferred to Jeroboam, was the residence of the new king. When Jerusalem was no longer the chief metropolis of the kingdom, the temple there could not any longer be the place of worship for all the tribes. It would be nothing less then recognising the supremacy of Rehoboam if the tribes continued to go up to Jerusalem to the great sacrifices and festivals. The places of worship for the new kingdom must be within its own borders. Jeroboam consecrated afresh the old place of sacrifice, Bethel, on the southern border of the territory of Ephraim, the place where Abraham had offered sacrifice, and Jacob had rested (I. 390, 408); and on the northern boundaries of his kingdom he consecrated the place of sacrifice at Dan, which the Danites had once founded on taking Laish from the Sidonians (p. 94). At both places he set up a golden calf to Jehovah, and instituted priests; and, as we are told, the Israelites came like one man to the feasts of Dan, and sacrificed at Bethel, where the sanctuary also contained a treasury. Of other actions of Jeroboam, we only know that he built, i. e. fortified, Peniel in the land beyond Jordan; no doubt in order to be able to maintain his supremacy over the Ammonites. The severe blow which had fallen on the kingdom of Judah by the incursion of Shishak secured him from any serious attack on the part of Rehoboam. The petty warfare on the borders of Judah and Israel naturally did not cease during his reign (p. 231).

Nadab, the son of Jeroboam (927-925 B.C.), marched against the Philistines in order to recover from them Gibbethon in the land of the southern Danites. Here in the camp at Gibbethon he was slain by Baasha, one of the captains of his army, and the whole race of Jeroboam was destroyed. Baasha ascended the throne, which Nadab had held for two years only. He took up his abode at Tirzah, a pleasantly-situated place north of Shechem.[435 - Song of Solomon vi. 4.] The division of the kingdom of Israel and its consequent debility could not but appear a desirable event to the kingdom of Damascus, which, though overthrown by David, was restored by Rezon in Solomon's time (p. 179.) Attacks of Judah on Israel could not be supported by Damascus, because they might lead to a reunion, and for the same reason Israel could not be allowed to subjugate Judah. This seems to have been the reason which induced Benhadad of Damascus to accede to the request of Asa, king of Judah, when Baasha had entrenched Ramah against Jerusalem. Benhadad's invasion of the north of Israel, the desolation of the district on the Upper Jordan and the lake of Genesareth,[436 - 1 Kings xv. 20.] gave relief to the oppressed kingdom of Judah (p. 235). Baasha's son Elah was slain at a banquet at Tirzah, after a short reign (901-899 B.C.), by Zimri, one of the captains of his army, who seized the crown. But the army of Israel, which was again encamped at Gibbethon, on hearing of what had taken place at Tirzah, elected Omri, their leader, king. Omri broke up the siege of Gibbethon, marched to Tirzah, and took the city. Zimri despaired of maintaining himself in the royal castle, and burnt himself in it. Yet Omri was not master of Israel. Half of the people joined Tibni, the son of Ginath. Omri gradually gained the upper hand, till Tibni's death decided the matter in his favour.

With the elevation of Omri (899-875 B.C.) a third dynasty ascended the throne of Israel, while in Judah the crown continued peacefully in the family of David. Like Baasha, Omri founded a new residence; he removed his seat from Tirzah to Mount Shomron, and here built the new city of that name (Samaria). Nothing is said of the wars of Omri against Judah. To Benhadad of Damascus he seems to have lost some towns in the land of Gilead.[437 - 1 Kings xx. 34.] That he ruled with address, vigour, and a strong hand is clear from the inscription on a monument which Mesha, king of Moab, caused to be erected in his city of Dibon (east of the Dead Sea). This tells us that Omri and his son after him held Moab in subjection for 40 years; that not only was the city of Nebo garrisoned by the Israelites, but Omri even took Medabah, i. e. the region south of Nebo towards Dibon, and occupied it, and "oppressed Moab for a long time," because "Camos, the god of the Moabites, was angry at his land."[438 - Nöldeke, "Inschrift des Mesa."] As Mesha regained his independence after the death of Ahab, the son of Omri, the more severe subjection of the Moabites by Omri must have begun in the year 893 B.C. Omri seems to have entered into friendly relations with Ethbaal, king of Tyre (917-885 B.C.), or his successor Balezor (885-877 B.C.).[439 - Infra, chap. xi.] Omri's authority and reputation must have been considerable, since even after the overthrow of his house, in the second half of the ninth century B.C., the kings of Assyria speak of the king of Israel as "the son of Omri," and the kingdom of Israel as the "house of Omri."

Ahab, Omri's son (875-853 B.C.), maintained the power which his father had won. The Books of Kings tell us that Mesha, king of Moab, sent him yearly the wool of 100,000 sheep and lambs,[440 - 2 Kings iii. 4.] and Mesha himself tells us that Omri was followed by his son, who also said, "I will oppress Moab;" and Israel "dwelt at Medabah for 40 years in the days of Omri and Ahab." That the Ammonites also were subject to Ahab seems a just conclusion from the inscriptions of Shalmanesar, king of Assyria.[441 - The inscription of Kurkh enumerates in the army of the Syrians at Karkar men from Ammon under Bahsa, the son of Ruchub (Rehob); Schrader, "Keilinschriften und A. T." s. 95.] With Tyre Ahab was in close connection. His wife Jezebel was the daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre, the aunt of Mutton, the contemporary king of Tyre (p. 268). He was on friendly terms with Judah, which began to rise again (as we saw) under the rule of Jehoshaphat. Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, was married to Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel.[442 - 2 Kings viii. 18.] On the vine-clad hills of Jezreel Ahab built himself a palace adorned with ivory, after the pattern of the Phenician princes.[443 - 1 Kings xxi. 1; xxii. 39; 2, ix. 15 ff.]

The rites of the neighbouring tribes, the worship of Astarte, Camos, and Milcom, which found their way into the Hebrew tribes, and even to Jerusalem in the last years of Solomon's reign, were again removed in Judah, as we have seen (p. 235), under the reigns of Asa and Jehoshaphat. For Israel the dedication of the places of worship at Bethel and Dan to Jehovah, which Jeroboam instituted, in spite of the erection of the image of Jehovah, marked a reaction against the rites of the Canaanites. But the connection into which Ahab entered with Tyre brought it about that the gods of the Phenicians were again looked on with reverence in Israel. Induced by Jezebel, his Tyrian wife, so we are told, Ahab caused a temple to be erected in Samaria, which his father had built, to Baal of Tyre, at which 450 priests maintained the worship; and a temple was also dedicated to Astarte, which gave occupation to 400 priests.[444 - 1 Kings xvi. 31-33; xviii. 19; 2, iii. 2.]

It was an ancient custom among the Hebrews, as we have already found more than once, to inquire of Jehovah what should be done. In Israel the custom of thus making inquiry was more widely spread than in other nations. Before any undertaking inquiry was made of his will. Jehovah's voice decided the sentence in the judgment court. It was usual in all cases and times to appeal to the decision of Jehovah. Question and answer were made, as has been remarked, by the priests casting lots before the sacred ark, the altars, and the images of Jehovah. If a criminal had to be discovered, the tribes and races came forward, and he was marked out by the lot cast before Jehovah. We saw that Saul inquired of Jehovah on his campaign (p. 124). David undertook nothing without inquiring of the image of Jehovah which he carried about with him (p. 139). If any one wished to mark out the wisdom of any advice, it was said, "It is as if Jehovah had answered." But beside the priests who cast the lots, there were men who saw into what was hidden, and knew the future. To these soothsayers men went as well as to the lot before Jehovah; they desired to know whether there would be rain or drought, where a lost beast was to be found; they inquired for remedies for disease. The soothsayers even pronounced sentences at law, and their sentence was then as the sentence of Jehovah. It was Jehovah who illuminated such men, and imparted to them a keener vision, a higher knowledge. They believed, as the people believed of them – and the belief was stronger as the religious feeling was more intense – that they stood in a nearer and closer relation to Jehovah. If they also foretold events for reward, yet they lived in the belief that they knew the will and the counsels of Jehovah, and in this conviction they gave advice and judgment; they were not only soothsayers, but seers. In such a conviction mere prediction passed into prophecy, i. e. into the revelation of the will of Jehovah by the mental certainty of the seer. In this position we found Samuel, who, from being a priest, had attained to a knowledge of the will of Jehovah; he was at once priest, soothsayer for hire, and prophet; i. e. he not only announced external matters still in the future, but also announced the just decision, the resolve pleasing to God. He gathered disciples round him, who praised Jehovah with harp and lute, and waited to see his face, and became changed into other men (p. 117). Gad and Nathan, with whom David and Solomon took counsel, were men of this style and tone. With the loftier impulses which the religious life received both on the ritual and legal side, as well as on the side of religious feeling under David and Solomon, with the survey of the fortunes which Jehovah had prepared for his people, with the expression of intense devotion in that poetry to which David opened the way, the elevation of mind in the prophets must have been increased and extended; their views must have become deeper. In the kingdom of Israel, so far as our knowledge goes, the seers and prophets had made no protest against the worship of Jehovah under an image. But they came forward with decisive opposition to the worship of Baal and Astarte, the strange gods which Ahab and Jezebel had introduced into Samaria and Israel. Ahab decreed persecution against them, which strengthened instead of breaking the intensity of their faith, their adhesion and devotion to the God of the ancestors. They were driven to live in solitudes, deserts, ravines, and caves. On their privations, fasts, and lonely contemplations in the silence of the desert followed dreams and ecstatic visions. By these the close and favoured relation of the persecuted to the God of Israel became an established certainty. The power of prediction passed into the background as compared with this awakening by Jehovah, and the duty to strive, contend, and suffer for the worship of the God of the nation against strange gods. If a prophet who had lifted up his voice against the sacrifice to Baal was compelled to fly before the king into the desert, he was followed thither by eager associates, who had at heart the worship and service of Jehovah. These listened to his words and promptings; these were his disciples. The numbers of the awakened and illuminated increased; amid danger and in privation their religious life became more earnest; their zeal for Jehovah and their hatred of the strange gods and their worshippers became deeper as the persecution fell heavier upon them. They became men of word and action.

Strengthened in this conflict for zealous struggles in behalf of the ancient Lord, oppressed and persecuted for their faithfulness to the God of Israel, their relation to him took the shape of an inward conviction of great force and intensity. Filled with their belief and the revelations which Jehovah had imparted to them, they came forward in the boldest manner to oppose the apostate kings; their zeal for Jehovah rose to the wildest fanaticism, which shrunk from no means of destroying the servants of the strange gods. To bring into light the force of their opposition to the wicked kings, and the power which Jehovah gives to his faithful servants, tradition has adorned with many miracles the lives of Elijah and Elisha, the men who in Ahab's time transformed the prognostications of the seers into a prophetic censure. Elijah is said to have ascended to heaven in a chariot of fire, and even the corpse of Elisha worked miracles.

At the urgent request of Jezebel, so we are told, Ahab gave orders that the prophets of Jehovah, who roused the people against him, should be driven out of the land or put to death.[445 - 1 Kings xviii. 4-13, 17; xix. 10-14.] Elijah retired from Thisbe in Gilead, first to the region of Jordan, and then to Zarephath (Sarepta) in the land of the Sidonians;[446 - 1 Kings xvii. 9, 10.] and finally he found a place of refuge in the ravines of Carmel, on the sea-shore. A girdle of skins surrounded his loins, and a mantle of hair covered his shoulders; ravens were said to have brought bread and flesh to the hungry prophet in the desert.[447 - 2 Kings i. 8; 1, xvii. 4-6.] It came to pass that there was a long drought in Israel. In this time of distress Elijah came forth from his hiding-place to point out the anger of Jehovah on the king and the people for their worship of Baal, and to proclaim relief if they returned to the God of Israel. He requested Ahab to gather the people and all the priests of Baal and Astarte to Carmel, and there Jehovah would send rain. To this request Ahab agreed. "How long will ye halt on both knees, and go after Jehovah as well as Baal," cried Elijah to the assembled multitude. "I alone am left of the prophets of Jehovah, and the prophets of Baal are 450 men. Give us then two bulls: one to me, and one to the priests of Baal. We will cut them in pieces and lay them on the wood, and the God who answers with fire shall be our God." The priests of Baal slew their bull, laid him on the wood, and called on Baal from morning to mid-day, and said, O Baal, hear us! But in vain. Meanwhile Elijah, so the narrative continues, built an altar of 12 stones, for the 12 tribes, and made a trench round it; cut the bull in pieces, and laid him on the wood of the altar, and thrice poured water over all. When he called on Jehovah – to make it known on that day that he was God in Israel, and Elijah was his servant – fire fell from heaven and consumed the burnt offering, and the wood, and the stones, and the altar. All the people fell on their faces, and Elijah said, Seize the prophets of Baal; let none of them escape. The people fell upon them; they were brought down from the mountain, and Elijah slew them at the brook Kishon. Then a little cloud was seen from Carmel rising out of the sea, of the size of a man's hand, and Elijah said to the king, "Harness thy chariot and haste away, that the rain overtake thee not." The sky was quickly covered with black clouds, and heavy rain followed upon storms of wind. But Elijah ran before Ahab to his palace in Jezreel.[448 - 1 Kings xviii. 17-46.] Of this narrative, which belongs to the prophetic revision of the annals, we may perhaps retain with certainty the facts that Elijah declared a severe famine and drought in the land to be the punishment of Jehovah for the worship of Baal; that the excited people slew the priests of Baal; that Ahab accorded to the prophets of Jehovah permission to return to their homes and liberty; and that the worship of Jehovah in Israel, which had been seriously threatened by those rites, regained the upper hand and decided victory, though it could not entirely drive out the worship of Baal.

The increase in the strength of Israel under Omri and Ahab, the connection into which Ahab entered with Jehoshaphat of Judah, the alliance between the two houses, must have appeared to Benhadad II., the king of Damascus, a serious matter for his own position. For this or for other reasons he broke with Ahab, and renewed the struggle which had gone on in Omri's time between Israel and Damascus. He invaded Israel with all his power: 32 kings were with him – such is the no doubt greatly exaggerated account. Ahab fell upon the Aramaeans while Benhadad was at a banquet, and though his army was only 7000 strong, he obtained a great victory. Then, as we are told in the prophetic revision of the Books of Kings, Benhadad's servants advised him to contend with the Israelites on the plain; their gods were gods of the hills, and therefore they had gained the victory. Benhadad came in the next year with an army of Aramaeans, which filled the land. Nevertheless Ahab again defeated them at Aphek (eastward of Lake Merom), and so utterly overthrew them that Benhadad sent his servants with sackcloth about their loins, and halters round their heads, to Ahab to pray for mercy. This Ahab granted, and Benhadad in turn undertook to restore the cities which his father had taken from the father of Ahab, i. e. from Omri.

The princes of Syria had every reason to forget their hatred and make up their quarrels. Assurbanipal and Shalmanesar II., kings of Assyria, had attacked and subjugated the districts on the Euphrates, and established fortresses there. The former forced his way as far as the Orontes and the Amanus; the latter had already subjugated Cilicia. In the year 854 B.C. Shalmanesar II. left Nineveh in the spring, crossed the Euphrates, demanded tribute there, and then turned towards Damascus. He came upon Benhadad (Bin-hidri) of Damascus, to whom Ahab (Achabbu), king of Israel, as well as the king of Hamath, and the king of Aradus, together with some other Syrian kings, had brought up their forces. To the army of the Syrians Shalmanesar allowed more than 60,000 men – he enumerates 12 princes who combined to oppose him. Damascus furnished the strongest contingent, viz., 20,000 men and 1200 chariots; then came Israel, with 10,000 men and 200 chariots; and Hamath, with 10,000 men and 700 chariots. The armies met at Karkar. The king of Assyria claims the victory; he professes to have captured the chariots and horsemen of the Syrians, and to have cut down their leaders. According to one inscription 14,000 Syrians, according to two others 20,500, were left on the field. But Shalmanesar says nothing of the subjection of the princes who fought against him, or of the payment of tribute by those who are said to be vanquished, or of conquered cities. Hence the truth is that the combined forces of the Syrians succeeded in repulsing the attack of the Assyrians. This was their victory, though they may not have obtained the victory on the field.[449 - The objections which have been made against the assumption that the king of Damascus and Achabbu, against whom and their confederates Shalmanesar fought at Karkar, according to the monument of Kurkh (col. 2), were Benhadad II. of Damascus of the Books of Kings and Ahab of Israel are untenable. Shalmanesar II. marches four times against a king of Damascus; subsequently, four years after his last war with this king, he marches against a second king of Damascus, whose name in the inscriptions is indubitably Chazailu. In the Books of Kings Benhadad, Ahab's contemporary and opponent, is overthrown by Hazael, who becomes king of Damascus in Benhadad's place. Thus we obtain a certain basis for identifying the Benhadad overthrown by Hazael with the prince of Damascus against whom Shalmanesar fought four times. Hence on the reading of the name of this opponent of Shalmanesar in the inscriptions I cannot place special weight, especially as the Assyrian symbol for the deity in the name in question is well known to have more than one signification. If a further objection is made, that Ahab cannot have combined with Damascus against Assyria, but rather with Assyria against Damascus, in order to get rid of that opponent, the answer is that Ahab had reduced Damascus before Shalmanesar's first march against the city. Ahab had released Benhadad under a treaty (1 Kings xx. 34), and they "were at peace three years" (1 Kings xxii. 3). Hence at this moment Ahab was not in need of the assistance of Assyria. That free leagues are altogether inconceivable among the Syrian princes of that time is an assumption contradicted by numerous statements in the Egyptian monuments of Tuthmosis III., of Ramses II. and III., and yet more numerous statements in the Assyrian inscriptions. Not much weight can be allowed to the late and very general statements of Nicolaus in Josephus. If Nicolaus (Joseph. "Antiq." 7, 5, 2) calls the opponent of David Hadad, the Books of Kings do not mention the name of the king of Damascus against whom David contends. If he maintains that the grandson of Benhadad I., the third of the name, desolated Samaria, it is rather Benhadad I. of the Books of Kings, who was not the son and grandson of a Benhadad, but the son of Tabrimmon, and grandson of Hesjon, who first laid Samaria waste (1 Kings xv. 18-20). A second Benhadad contends with Ahab, who certainly may have been a grandson of the first, but certainly cannot have been the grandson of the opponent of David. If Nicolaus further tells us, that after Benhadad I. his descendants ruled for 10 generations, and each of them along with the throne received the name of Benhadad, this is contradicted by the Books of Kings, not merely in the genealogy of the first Benhadad of those books, but also in the fact that in them Benhadad II., the contemporary of Ahab and Jehoram, is overthrown by Hazael, who then in a long reign over Damascus inflicts severe injury on Israel and Judah. Hazael is followed in the Books of Kings by Benhadad III. That "Achabbu from the land of Sir'lai" is correctly read in the inscription of Kurkh is an ascertained fact.]

When the danger threatened by the attack of Assyria passed away, the contention between Damascus and Israel broke out again. The Hebrew Scriptures tell us that Benhadad did not keep his promise, and did not restore the city of Ramoth in Gilead to Ahab. Ahab may have thought that he had the greater ground for complaint against Damascus, as he took upon himself the severe battle against Assyria, though it was Damascus, and not Israel, which stood in the direct line of danger. He united with Judah against Damascus, and sent a request to Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, to march out with him. Jehoshaphat answered, "I will go forth as thou goest; my people as thy people; my horses as thy horses;" and he came with his warriors to Samaria. Both kings sat on their seats at the gate, in order to review the army as it passed out; and the prophets of Jehovah, 400 in number, prophesied good things to them, and said, "Go forth against Ramoth in Gilead; Jehovah will give it into your hands." One only of these prophets, Michaiah, the son of Imlah, prophesied evil; Ahab, we are told, caused him to be thrown into prison till he should return in prosperity.[450 - The prophetic revision explains the overthrow of Ahab by the fact that he had spared Benhadad in the previous war, when Jehovah had delivered him into his hand.] A battle took place in the neighbourhood of Ramoth in Gilead; Ahab was severely wounded by an arrow which passed between the joints of his mail; he caused the wound to be bound up, and returned to the fight, in order not to discourage his warriors, and continued to stand upright in his chariot, though his blood flowed to the bottom of it, till the evening, when he died. When the soldiers heard of the death of the king the army dispersed in every direction. Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, escaped (853 B.C.).

The death of such a brave warrior as Ahab was a heavy blow to the kingdom of Israel. We are not told by what sacrifices Ahaziah, the son of Ahab and Jezebel, had to purchase peace; we only know that the Moabites revolted from Israel on the news of the death of Ahab, and that Mesha no longer paid the tribute which he and his father had paid to Omri and Ahab. In any case it was a great relief for Israel when Shalmanesar, king of Assyria, in the years 851 and 850 B.C., turned his arms against Hamath and Damascus.[451 - Ninth and tenth year of Shalmanesar II.] In this way Ahaziah's younger brother, Joram, who succeeded him after a short reign (851-843 B.C.), was able to attempt to subjugate the Moabites anew. He called on Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, to go out with him, and Jehoshaphat said, "I am as thou art; my horses as thy horses," and raised not only the warriors of Judah, but those of Edom also. The attack was made from the land of the kingdom of Judah and Edom on the southern border of the Moabites. The Moabites were defeated, their cities destroyed, their fields laid waste, their wells filled up. Mesha threw himself into the fortress of Kir Harosheth, which is probably the later Kerak, to the south of the Arnon, not far from the east shore of the Dead Sea. The slingers of both kings surrounded the fortress, and cast stones against the walls. "And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too strong for him," and he had attempted in vain to break out, "he took his firstborn son, who would be king in his place, and sacrificed him as a burnt offering on the wall. And there was a great anger against Israel, and they returned from him, and went back into their own land" (849 B.C.).

Notwithstanding this fortunate beginning, the campaign against Moab, as is allowed even by the Books of Kings, was finally wrecked. This termination agrees with the statements of Mesha on the monument of Dibon. "Forty years," it says, "Israel dwelt in Medabah; Camos gave it back in my days. And the king of Israel built Ataroth, and I fought against the stronghold and took it, and took all the men captive, and brought them as a pleasing spectacle to Camos and Moab. And Camos said to me, Go and take Nebo from Israel; and I went in the night and fought against it from daybreak to mid-day; and I took it. It was devoted to destruction to Ashtor-Camos (I. 373); and I took from thence the furniture of Jehovah, and dragged them before Camos. And the king of Israel built Jahaz, and placed himself therein, in his contest against me, and Camos drove him out before me. I took from Moab 200 men, all the chiefs, and led them out to Jahaz, and took it, in order to unite it to Dibon. I built Karho,[452 - According to Nöldeke, "Inschrift des Mesa," the upper city of Dibon.] the gates, the towers, and the royal palace. I built Aroer, and made the road over the Arnon. I built Beth Bamoth, which was destroyed. I built Bazor, and Beth Diblathaim, and Beth Baal-Meon. And Camos said to me, Go down to fight against Horonaim." Here our fragments of the inscription break off. We see that Ahab's successors, Ahaziah and Joram, attempted to force Moab to submission by planting fortresses in the land; that they attempted to subjugate the Moabites from Ataroth, Nebo, and Jahaz. When this mode of warfare did not succeed, and the fortresses were destroyed, the great campaign was undertaken which in the end came to disaster, unless we were to place this campaign before the time when Joram built those fortresses.

It was impossible for Joram to entertain any further hopes of the subjugation of Moab when Benhadad, after escaping from the attack of Shalmanesar, turned upon him. The Israelites were unable to keep the field, and Joram was shut up in Samaria. The supplies failed, and the famine is said to have been so grievous in the city that an ass's head sold for 80 shekels, and the fourth part of a cab of dove's dung for five shekels, and mothers even laid their hands upon their own children. But Elisha, the favourite disciple of Elijah, is said to have urged them to hold out, and promised present help from Jehovah. Suddenly, in a single night, the army of the Aramaeans disappeared. They feared, so the prophetic revision of the annals relates, that the kings of the Hethites and the kings of Egypt had set out to the aid of Joram. As Shalmanesar of Assyria tells us that he marched in the year 846 B.C. with 120,000 men against Benhadad of Damascus and Irchulina of Hamath, we may assume that it was the approach of the Assyrians which induced Benhadad to raise the siege of Samaria, in order to meet the Assyrians with all his own forces and those of Hamath. Here again Shalmanesar announces a victory obtained over Benhadad and Irchulina of Hamath, and twelve princes, and again the victory is without results.

It was not to the power of Shalmanesar, but to Elisha, the prophet of Israel, that Benhadad of Damascus succumbed. For what reason we know not, Elisha left Israel and went to Damascus. Benhadad lay sick. He sent his chosen servant Hazael with costly presents to Elisha to inquire if he would recover. Elisha answered, Say to him, thou shalt recover; but Jehovah has shown me that he will die. Hazael announced the message, and on the next day smothered the king, and placed himself on the throne of Damascus (844 B.C.). The new king at once resumed the war with Israel, and, as it would appear, not without the instigation of Elisha.[453 - 1 Kings xix. 15; 2, viii. 7-15.]

Jehoshaphat of Judah had died a few years previously (848 B.C.). The crown passed to his son Jehoram, the brother-in-law of Joram. The Edomites, who had continued to follow Jehoshaphat into the field against Moab, revolted from him, and slew the Judæans who had settled in Edom, – these settlers may have been most numerous in the harbour city of Elath, – and placed themselves under a king.[454 - Joel iv. 19; Amos i. 11, 12.] Jehoram attempted to reduce them in vain; the fortune of war was against him; he was surrounded by the Edomites, and was compelled to force his way with his chariots of war by night through the army of the Edomites. The Philistines also pressed upon Jehoram, and carried away, even from Jerusalem, captives and precious things.[455 - 2 Chron. xxi. 16-18; Amos i. 6; cf. infra, p. 260. n. 2.] Jehoram's reign continued for four years. Yet the misfortunes of Judah do not seem to have been very heavy. Jehoram's son Ahaziah, the nephew of Joram of Israel, who came to the throne in the year 844 B.C., was soon after his accession in a position to aid his uncle against the men of Damascus. Both kings encamped at Ramoth Gilead, in order to maintain the city against Hazael.[456 - 2 Kings ix. 14.] In the conflict Joram was wounded; he returned to Jezreel to be healed, and soon after Ahaziah left the camp at Ramoth in order to visit his uncle in his sickness.

To Elisha this seemed the most favourable moment for overthrowing the king of Israel, and he urged Jehu, the foremost captain in the Israelite army, to revolt against the wounded king. He sent one of his disciples to Ramoth with instructions to pour oil upon Jehu, with the words, "Jehovah says, I anoint thee to be king over Israel." The chiefs were sitting together at Ramoth when the messenger of Elisha entered. "I have a message for Jehu," he said; and poured the oil upon him with the words, "Jehovah, the God of Israel, anoints thee to be king over his people, and says, thou shalt destroy the house of thy master. I will avenge the blood of my prophets on Jezebel. The house of Ahab shall be destroyed, and I will cut off from Ahab what pisseth against the wall, and dogs shall eat Jezebel in Jezreel, and none shall bury her." The youth had scarcely uttered these words when he returned in haste. The chiefs and the servants asked in wonder, "Wherefore came this madman?" But when Jehu declared to them what had taken place, they hastily took off their mantles, and spread them before Jehu's feet; they blew trumpets and cried, "Jehu is king."

Jehu at once set out with a host to Jezreel, that no tidings might precede him. The watchmen of the tower told the king that a troop was coming in great haste, and apparently led by Jehu. Thinking that Jehu was bringing news of the army, the wounded Joram went to meet him with his guest, Ahaziah, king of Judah. "Is it peace?" cried Joram to Jehu. "What peace," he replied, "while the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?" In terror Joram cried out, "There is treachery, O Ahaziah," and turned his horses to escape by flight. But Jehu smote him with an arrow in the back through the shoulders, so that the point reached the heart. Joram fell dead from the chariot. Ahaziah escaped. From the window of her palace at Jezreel Jezebel saw the death of the king, her second son. By this her own fate was decided. But her courage failed not. As Jehu approached she called to him from the window, "Had Zimri peace, who slew his master?" Jehu made no answer, but called out, "Who is on my side?" Two or three eunuchs answered, "We are." Then Jehu commanded, "Throw the queen down." They threw the widow of Ahab out of the window, so that her blood was sprinkled on the wall and on Jehu's horses, and the ruthless murderer drove over the corpse. She had survived Ahab ten years. Jehu went into the palace, ate and drank, and sent a message to the elders of the tribes and the captains of the fortresses: "If ye are on my side and obey my voice, slay the sons of Ahab who are with you, and send their heads to Jezreel." The elders feared the murderer to whom Joram and Jezebel had succumbed, and did as he bade them. Seventy sons and grandsons of Ahab were slaughtered; their heads were thrown in two heaps before the palace at Jezreel by Jehu's orders. Then he spoke in scorn to the people, "I have slain one; but who slew all these?" Still unsatisfied with blood, he caused all the kindred of the royal house, all the councillors, friends, and priests of Joram to be slain (843 B.C.).