Part 7 (1/2)
Dr. Alexander speaks here of ”beings”; but there is no reason to suppose that the wise woman of Endor referred to anything but a solitary spectre; and it is quite clear that Saul understood her in this sense, for he asks, ”What form is HE of?”
This fact, that the name of Elohim is applied to a ghost, or disembodied soul, conceived as the image of the body in which it once dwelt, is of no little importance. For it is well known that the same term was employed to denote the G.o.ds of the heathen, who were thought to have definite quasi-corporeal forms and to be as much real ent.i.ties as any other Elohim.[30] The difference which was supposed to exist {142} between the different Elohim was one of degree, not one of kind. Elohim was, in logical terminology, the genus of which ghosts, Chemosh, Dagon, Baal, and Jahveh were species. The Israelite believed Jahveh to be immeasurably superior to all other kinds of Elohim. The inscription on the Moabite stone shows that King Mesa held Chemosh to be, as unquestionably, the superior of Jahveh.
But if Jahveh was thus supposed to differ only in degree from the undoubtedly zoomorphic or anthropomorphic ”G.o.ds of the nations,” why is it to be a.s.sumed that he also was not thought of as having a human shape? It is possible for those who forget that the time of the great prophetic writers is at least as remote from that of Saul as our day is from that of Queen Elizabeth, to insist upon interpreting the gross notions current in the earlier age and among the ma.s.s of the people by the refined conceptions promulgated by a few select spirits centuries later. But if we take the language constantly used concerning the Deity in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, or Kings, in its natural sense (and I am aware of no valid reason which can be given for taking it in any other sense), there cannot, to my mind, be a doubt that Jahveh was conceived by those from whom the substance of these books is mainly derived, to possess the appearance and the intellectual and moral attributes of a man; and, indeed, of a man of just that type with which the Israelites were familiar in their stronger and intellectually abler rulers and leaders. In a well-known pa.s.sage of Genesis (i. 27) Elohim is said to {143} have ”created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him.” It is ”man”
who is here said to be the image of Elohim--not man's soul alone, still less his ”reason,” but the whole man. It is obvious that for those who called a manlike ghost Elohim, there could be no difficulty in conceiving any other Elohim under the same aspect. And if there could be any doubt on this subject, surely it cannot stand in the face of what we find in the fifth chapter, where, immediately after a repet.i.tion of the statement that ”Elohim created man, in the likeness of Elohim made he him,” it is said that Adam begat Seth ”in his own likeness, after his image.” Does this mean that Seth resembled Adam only in a spiritual and figurative sense? And if that interpretation of the third verse of the fifth chapter of Genesis is absurd, why does it become reasonable in the first verse of the same chapter?
But let us go further. Is not the Jahveh who ”walks in the garden in the cool of the day”; from whom one may hope to ”hide oneself among the trees”; of whom it is expressly said that ”Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel,” saw the Elohim of Israel (Exod. xxiv.
9-11); and that, although the seeing Jahveh was understood to be a high crime and misdemeanour, worthy of death, under ordinary circ.u.mstances, yet, for this once, he ”laid not his hand on the n.o.bles of Israel”; ”that they beheld Elohim and did eat and drink”; and that afterwards Moses saw his back (Exod. x.x.xiii. 23)--is not this Deity conceived as manlike in form?
{144} Again, is not the Jahveh who eats with Abraham under the oaks at Mamre, who is pleased with the ”sweet savour” of Noah's sacrifice, to whom sacrifices are said to be ”food”[31]--is not this Deity depicted as possessed of human appet.i.tes? If this were not the current Israelitish idea of Jahveh even in the eighth century B.C., where is the point of Isaiah's scathing admonitions to his countrymen: ”To what purpose is the mult.i.tude of your sacrifices unto me? saith Jahveh: I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats” (Isa. i. 11). Or of Micah's inquiry, ”Will Jahveh be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousands of rivers of oil?” (vi. 7). And in the innumerable pa.s.sages in which Jahveh is said to be jealous of other G.o.ds, to be angry, to be appeased, and to repent; in which he is represented as casting off Saul because the king does not quite literally execute a command of the most ruthless severity; or as smiting Uzzah to death because the unfortunate man thoughtlessly, but naturally enough, put out his hand to stay the ark from falling--can any one deny that the old Israelites conceived Jahveh not only in the image of a man, but in that of a changeable, irritable, and, occasionally, violent man? There appears to me, then, to be no reason to doubt that the notion of likeness to man, which was indubitably held of the {145} ghost Elohim, was carried out consistently throughout the whole series of Elohim, and that Jahveh-Elohim was thought of as a being of the same substantially human nature as the rest, only immeasurably more powerful for good and for evil.
The absence of any real distinction between the Elohim of different ranks is further clearly ill.u.s.trated by the corresponding absence of any sharp delimitation between the various kinds of people who serve as the media of communication between them and men. The agents through whom the lower Elohim are consulted are called necromancers, wizards, and diviners, and are looked down upon by the prophets and priests of the higher Elohim; but the ”seer” connects the two, and they are all alike in their essential characters of media. The wise woman of Endor was believed by others, and, I have little doubt, believed herself, to be able to ”bring up” whom she would from Sheol, and to be inspired, whether in virtue of actual possession by the evoked Elohim, or otherwise, with a knowledge of hidden things. I am unable to see that Saul's servant took any really different view of Samuel's powers, though he may have believed that he obtained them by the grace of the higher Elohim. For when Saul fails to find his father's a.s.ses, his servant says to him--
Behold, there is in this city a man of Elohim, and he is a man that is held in honour; all that he saith cometh surely to pa.s.s: now let us go thither; peradventure he can tell us concerning our journey whereon we go. Then said Saul to his servant, But behold if we go, what shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels and there is not a present to {146} bring to the man of Elohim. What have we? And the servant answered Saul again and said, Behold I have in my hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I give to the man of Elohim to tell us our way. (Beforetime in Israel when a man went to inquire of Elohim, then he said, Come and let us go to the Seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer[32]) (1 Sam.
ix. 6-10).
In fact, when, shortly afterwards, Saul accidentally meets Samuel, he says, ”Tell me, I pray thee, where the Seer's house is.” Samuel answers, ”I am the Seer.” Immediately afterwards Samuel informs Saul that the a.s.ses are found, though how he obtained his knowledge of the fact is not stated. It will be observed that Samuel is not spoken of here as, in any special sense, a seer or prophet of Jahveh, but as a ”man of Elohim”--that is to say, a seer having access to the ”spiritual powers,” just as the wise woman of Endor might have been said to be a ”woman of Elohim”--and the narrator's or editor's explanatory note seems to indicate that ”Prophet” is merely a name, introduced later than the time of Samuel, for a superior kind of ”Seer,” or ”man of Elohim.”[33]
Another very instructive pa.s.sage shows that Samuel was not only considered to be diviner, seer, and prophet in one, but that he was also, to all intents and purposes, priest of Jahveh--though, {147} according to his biographer, he was not a member of the tribe of Levi. At the outset of their acquaintance, Samuel says to Saul, ”Go up before me into the high place,” where, as the young maidens of the city had just before told Saul, the Seer was going, ”for the people will not eat till he come, because he doth bless the sacrifice” (1 Sam. x. 12). The use of the word ”bless”
here--as if Samuel were not going to sacrifice, but only to offer a blessing or thanksgiving--is curious. But that Samuel really acted as priest seems plain from what follows. For he not only asks Saul to share in the customary sacrificial feast, but he disposes in Saul's favour of that portion of the victim which the Levitical legislation, doubtless embodying old customs, recognises as the priest's special property.[34]
Although particular persons adopted the profession of media between men and Elohim, there was no limitation of the power, in the view of ancient Israel, to any special cla.s.s of the population. Saul inquires of Jahveh and builds him altars on his own account; and in the very remarkable story told in the {148} fourteenth chapter of the first book of Samuel (v. 37-46), Saul appears to conduct the whole process of divination, although he has a priest at his elbow. David seems to do the same.
Moreover, Elohim constantly appear in dreams--which in old Israel did not mean that, as we should say, the subject of the appearance ”dreamed he saw the spirit”; but that he veritably saw the Elohim which, as a soul, visited his soul while his body was asleep. And, in the course of the history of Israel, Jahveh himself thus appears to all sorts of persons, non-Israelites as well as Israelites. Again, the Elohim possess, or inspire, people against their will, as in the case of Saul and Saul's messengers, and then these people prophesy--that is to say, ”rave”--and exhibit the ungoverned gestures attributed by a later age to possession by malignant spirits.
Apart from other evidence to be adduced by and by, the history of ancient demonology and of modern revivalism does not permit me to doubt that the accounts of these phenomena given in the history of Saul may be perfectly historical.
In the ritual practices, of which evidence is to be found in the books of Judges and Samuel, the chief part is played by sacrifices, usually burnt offerings. Whenever the aid of the Elohim of Israel is sought, or thanks are considered due to him, an altar is built, and oxen, sheep, and goats are slaughtered and offered up. Sometimes the entire victim is burnt as a holocaust; more frequently only certain parts, notably the fat about the kidneys, are burnt on the {149} altar. The rest is properly cooked; and, after the reservation of a part for the priest, is made the foundation of a joyous banquet, in which the sacrificer, his family, and such guests as he thinks fit to invite, partic.i.p.ate.[35] Elohim was supposed to share in the feast, and it has been already shown that that which was set apart on the altar, or consumed by fire, was spoken of as the food of Elohim, who was thought to be influenced by the costliness, or by the pleasant smell, of the sacrifice in favour of the sacrificer.
All this bears out the view that, in the mind of the old Israelite, there was no difference, save one of degree, between one Elohim and another. It is true that there is but little direct evidence to show that the old Israelites shared the widespread belief of their own, and indeed of all times, that the spirits of the dead not only continue to exist, but are capable of a ghostly kind of feeding and are grateful for such aliment as can be a.s.similated by their attenuated substance, and even for clothes, ornaments, and weapons.[36] That they were familiar with this doctrine in the time of the captivity is suggested by the well-known reference of Ezekiel (x.x.xii. 27) to the ”mighty that are fallen of the uncirc.u.mcised, which {150} are gone down to [Sheol] h.e.l.l with their weapons of war, and have laid their swords under their heads.” Perhaps there is a still earlier allusion in the ”giving of food for the dead” spoken of in Deuteronomy (xxvi. 14).[37]
It must be remembered that the literature of the old Israelites, as it lies before us, has been subjected to the revisal of strictly monotheistic editors, violently opposed to all kinds of idolatry, who are not likely to have selected from the materials at their disposal any obvious evidence, either of the practice under discussion, or of that ancestor-wors.h.i.+p which is so closely related to it, for preservation in the permanent records of their people.
The mysterious objects known as _Teraphim_, which are occasionally mentioned in Judges, Samuel, and elsewhere, however, can hardly be interpreted otherwise than as indications of the existence both of ancestor-wors.h.i.+p and of image-wors.h.i.+p in old Israel. {151} The teraphim were certainly images of family G.o.ds, and, as such, in all probability represented deceased ancestors. Laban indignantly demands of his son-in-law, ”Wherefore hast thou stolen my Elohim?” which Rachel, who must be a.s.sumed to have wors.h.i.+pped Jacob's G.o.d, Jahveh, had carried off, obviously because she, like her father, believed in their divinity. It is not suggested that Jacob was in any way scandalised by the idolatrous practices of his favourite wife, whatever he may have thought of her honesty when the truth came to light; for the teraphim seem to have remained in his camp, at least until he ”hid” his strange G.o.ds ”under the oak that was by Shechem” (Gen. x.x.xv. 4). And indeed it is open to question if he got rid of them then, for the subsequent history of Israel renders it more than doubtful whether the teraphim were regarded as ”strange G.o.ds”
even as late as the eighth century B.C.
The writer of the books of Samuel takes it quite as a matter of course that Michal, daughter of one royal Jahveh wors.h.i.+pper and wife of the servant of Jahveh _par excellence_, the pious David, should have her teraphim handy, in her and David's chamber, when she dresses them up in their bed into a simulation of her husband, for the purpose of deceiving her father's messengers. Even one of the early prophets, Hosea, when he threatens that the children of Israel shall abide many days without ”ephod or teraphim”
(iii. 4), appears to regard both as equally proper appurtenances of the suspended wors.h.i.+p of Jahveh, and equally certain to be restored when that is resumed. {152} When we further take into consideration that only in the reign of Hezekiah was the brazen serpent, preserved in the temple and believed to be the work of Moses, destroyed, and the practice of offering incense to it, that is, wors.h.i.+pping it, abolished--that Jeroboam could set up ”calves of gold” for Israel to wors.h.i.+p, with apparently none but a political object, and certainly with no notion of creating a schism among the wors.h.i.+ppers of Jahveh, or of repelling the men of Judah from his standard--it seems obvious, either that the Israelites of the tenth and eleventh centuries B.C. knew not the second commandment, or that they construed it merely as part of the prohibition to wors.h.i.+p any supreme G.o.d other than Jahveh, which precedes it.
In seeking for information about the teraphim, I lighted upon the following pa.s.sage in the valuable article on that subject by Archdeacon Farrar, in Kitto's _Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature_, which is so much to the purpose of my argument, that I venture to quote it in full:--
The main and certain results of this review are that the teraphim were rude human images; that the use of them was an antique Aramaic custom; that there is reason to suppose them to have been images of deceased ancestors; that they were consulted oracularly; that they were not confined to Jews; that their use continued down to the latest period of Jewish history; and lastly, that although the enlightened prophets and strictest later kings regarded them as idolatrous, the priests were much less averse to such images, and their cult was not considered in any way repugnant to the pious wors.h.i.+p of Elohim, nay, even to the wors.h.i.+p of him ”under the awful t.i.tle of Jehovah.” In fact, they involved _a monotheistic idolatry very different indeed from {153} polytheism_; and the tolerance of them by priests, as compared with the denunciation of them by the prophets, offers a close a.n.a.logy to the views of the Roman Catholics respecting pictures and images as compared with the views of Protestants. It was against this use of idolatrous symbols and emblems in a monotheistic wors.h.i.+p that the _second_ commandment was directed, whereas the first is aimed against the graver sin of direct polytheism. But the whole history of Israel shows how utterly and how early the law must have fallen into desuetude. The wors.h.i.+p of the golden calf and of the calves at Dan and Bethel, against which, so far as we know, neither Elijah nor Elisha said a single word; the tolerance of high places, teraphim and betylia; the offering of incense for centuries to the brazen serpent destroyed by Hezekiah; the occasional glimpses of the most startling irregularities sanctioned apparently even in the temple wors.h.i.+p itself, prove most decisively that a pure monotheism and an independence of symbols was the result of a slow and painful course of G.o.d's disciplinal dealings among the n.o.blest thinkers of a single nation, and not, as is so constantly and erroneously urged, the instinct of the whole Semitic race; in other words, one single branch of the Semites was under G.o.d's providence _educated_ into pure monotheism only by centuries of misfortune and series of inspired men (vol. iii. p. 986).
It appears to me that the researches of the anthropologist lead him to conclusions identical in substance, if not in terms, with those here enunciated as the result of a careful study of the same subject from a totally different point of view.
There is abundant evidence in the books of Samuel and elsewhere that an article of dress termed an _ephod_ was supposed to have a peculiar efficacy in enabling the wearer to exercise divination by means of Jahveh-Elohim.
Great and long continued have been the disputes as to the exact nature of the ephod--whether it always means something to wear, or {154} whether it sometimes means an image. But the probabilities are that it usually signifies a kind of waistcoat or broad zone, with shoulder-straps, which the person who ”inquired of Jahveh” put on. In 1 Samuel xxiii. 2 David appears to have inquired without an ephod, for Abiathar the priest is said to have ”come down with an ephod in his hand” only subsequently. And then David asks for it before inquiring of Jahveh whether the men of Keilah would betray him or not. David's action is obviously divination pure and simple; and it is curious that he seems to have worn the ephod himself and not to have employed Abiathar as a medium. How the answer was given is not clear, though the probability is that it was obtained by casting lots. The _Urim_ and _Thummim_ seem to have been two such lots of a peculiarly sacred character, which were carried in the pocket of the high priest's ”breastplate.” This last was worn along with the ephod.
With the exception of one pa.s.sage (1 Sam. xiv. 18) the ark is ignored in the history of Saul. But in this place the Septuagint reads ”ephod” for ark, while in 1 Chronicles xiii. 3 David says that ”we sought not unto it [the ark] in the days of Saul.” Nor does Samuel seem to have paid any regard to the ark after its return from Philistia; though, in his childhood, he is said to have slept in ”the temple of Jahveh, where the ark of Elohim was” (1 Sam. iii. 3), at s.h.i.+loh, and there to have been the seer of the earliest apparitions vouchsafed to him by Jahveh. The s.p.a.ce between the cherubim or winged images on the {155} canopy or cover (_Kapporeth_) of this holy chest was held to be the special seat of Jahveh--the place selected for a temporary residence of the Supreme Elohim who had, after Aaron and Phineas, Eli and his sons for priests and seers. And, when the ark was carried to the camp at Eben-ezer, there can be no doubt that the Israelites, no less than the Philistines, held that ”Elohim is come into the camp” (iv. 7), and that the one, as much as the other, conceived that the Israelites had summoned to their aid a powerful ally in ”these (or this) mighty Elohim”--elsewhere called Jahve-Sabaoth, the Jahveh of Hosts.
If the ”temple” at s.h.i.+loh was the pentateuchal tabernacle, as is suggested by the name of ”tent of meeting” given to it in 1 Samuel ii. 22, it was essentially a large tent, though const.i.tuted of very expensive and ornate materials; if, on the other hand, it was a different edifice, there can be little doubt that this ”house of Jahveh” was built on the model of an ordinary house of the time. But there is not the slightest evidence that, during the reign of Saul, any greater importance attached to this seat of the cult of Jahveh than to others. Sanctuaries, and ”high places” for sacrifice, were scattered all over the country from Dan to Beersheba. And, as Samuel is said to have gone up to one of these high places to bless the sacrifice, it may be taken for tolerably certain that he knew nothing of the Levitical laws which severely condemn the high places and those who sacrifice away from the sanctuary hallowed by the presence of the ark.