Part 10 (1/2)
Now the religion of the clan, the ideas of which determine the character of later Semitic systems, may be briefly described as follows. Each clan has its own G.o.d, perhaps he was originally an animal, at any rate he is the father or ancestor of the clan, he is of the same blood with them, he belongs to them and to no other clan.
So far the a.s.sertion that the Semites are naturally monotheists is true; but the same is true of all totemistic or clannish communities.
A man is born into a community with such a divine head, and the wors.h.i.+p of that G.o.d is the only one possible to him. Should he be expelled from his clan he is driven away from his G.o.d, and he cannot obtain access into another clan except by a formal adoption as a stranger client. The link, on the other hand between the G.o.d and his clansmen is of the strongest. He joins in all their enterprises, after being consulted on the subject, and having a sacrifice offered to him, which renews the union of the clansmen to him and to each other. Their wars are his wars; when any of them is injured or slain he joins in their necessary acts of retaliation; it is a religious duty for each of them to be faithful to the others, and to keep up the tribal customs, of which the G.o.d approves.
Thus the Semites have as many G.o.ds as they have clans; and these G.o.ds do not greatly differ from each other. As long, moreover, as the clans are at constant feud, no single G.o.d can grow very great. It is only when one clan conquers others, that a king-G.o.d can arise to rule over all alike as a monarch rules over his n.o.bles and their provinces. But in this type of deity the genius of Semitic religion is already expressed. The G.o.d of the Semite is not a nature-power who bears the same aspect to all men, but a member of a particular clan, a person to whom the clansman occupies the same position of natural subordination as he does to his father or his chief. The G.o.d takes his name not from a part of nature but from a human relations.h.i.+p. He is ”Baal,” master or owner, he is ”Adon,” lord; in later circ.u.mstances he is ”Melech,” king. ”El,” mighty one, hero, is a more generic term; like our ”G.o.d,” it is applied to any divine being.
These deities, it will be noticed, are all masculine; but it is not to be supposed that the Semites had no G.o.ddesses. Not to speak of the G.o.ddesses of Babylonia, mere doubles of the G.o.ds whose names they bore (chapter vii.), the earliest Semites are believed by several great scholars to have had a G.o.ddess but no G.o.d. The matriarchal state of society, in which the mother alone ruled the family, came before the patriarchal, and so the reign of the G.o.ddess came before that of the G.o.d. Each community has its own Al-lat, ”The Lady,” as she is called in Arabia, a strict and exacting lady, not to be confounded with the licentious G.o.ddesses of later times; and in all Semitic lands traces of her early prevalence are found.[2] As the male G.o.d came to the front, the female became a less definite figure, till she was generally a mere counterpart of the male G.o.d, with little character of her own. With G.o.ds of this type there is little scope for mythology. The history of the G.o.d is that of the tribe; the G.o.ds are too little independent of their human clients to form a society by themselves, or to give rise to stories about their doings.
[Footnote 2: See Robertson Smith's _Kins.h.i.+p and Marriage in Early Arabia_.]
This is one side of the natural history of the Semitic G.o.ds; but that history has another side. The lands in which the Semites dwelt were full from the first of sacred spots; and we have to notice that the G.o.d of a clan is also the G.o.d of a certain piece of earth where he is supposed to dwell, which is regarded as his property, and the fertility of which is ascribed to his beneficence. In the Bible we read of sacred trees, of sacred wells, of sacred stones or mounds, and of stones or pillars which were connected with sacrifice. In various Semitic lands there are also sacred streams and sacred caves.
The Semites in fact had their share of the inheritance the whole world has derived from the earliest times, of prehistoric religious sites and objects. A spirit spoke in the rustling of the branches of the tree, counsel could be procured at the spring; wherever there appeared to be something mysterious in nature, a spirit was believed to dwell; and especially in woods and fertile spots, where wild beasts originally had their lair, a spirit was thought to reside, which was approached with fear. Many of these superst.i.tions the various branches of the Semites long continued to hold;[3] but the race superseded in the main this world of spirits by a set of G.o.ds, and the magic addressed to spirits by religious observances addressed to G.o.ds. The genius or jinn haunting the thicket, who had no regular wors.h.i.+ppers, but was an object of fear to all, and had to be propitiated or controlled by mysterious arts, gave way to the G.o.d of a clan, who took up his residence there, and received the regular wors.h.i.+p of his clansmen; the stone became the symbol of a deity who had been asked and had consented to become identified with it for the purpose of the stated rites of the clan. In this way the clan G.o.ds became localised as the clans tended to acquire fixed settlements, and each sacred spot was occupied by the deity of the clan who dwelt around it. The view was held that each G.o.d was to be found at the spot where, on some marked occasion, he had given evidence of his power, and he who wished to enquire of that G.o.d had to go there. It might happen that the G.o.d manifested his power at another spot to one of his dependents on a journey, as Jehovah did to Jacob at Bethel (Genesis xxviii.). Then that spot also was recognised as a holy one where communication could be had with the deity, and the apparatus of wors.h.i.+p was erected there so that the intercourse might be suitably carried on, as Jacob is reported to have done. In time also it came to be thought that each G.o.d had his land which belonged to him, on which alone his wors.h.i.+p was possible, and so the earth was parcelled out among a number of deities; and Naaman, who wishes to wors.h.i.+p Jehovah in his Syrian home, carries off two mules' burden of Jehovah's soil, to make in the midst of Syria a little piece of the land of the G.o.d of Israel (2 Kings v.).
[Footnote 3: The late Professor Ives Curtius in a paper read to the Basel Congress (1905, _Verhandlungen_, p. 154), on ”Traces of Early Semitic Religion in Syria,” gives details of local sanctuaries still resorted to in that country.]
One circ.u.mstance remains to be mentioned which const.i.tutes a marked difference between the Semitic and the Aryan religions. Aryan religion has its centre in the household; the hearth is its altar, and the G.o.ds of the domestic cult are the departed ancestors of the family. Semitic religion is without this cult; the hearth is not an altar; the religious community is not the family but the clan. The wors.h.i.+p of ancestors, if, as there is reason to believe, it had once been practised by the Semites (the Arabs tied a camel to the grave of the dead chief), lost at a very early period all practical importance. While the early Semites believed in the continued existence of the departed, they thought of them as beings quite dest.i.tute of energy, as ”shades laid in the ground,” and did not wors.h.i.+p them. The other world occupied, therefore, a very small s.p.a.ce in Semitic thought. Religion confined itself to this life; after death, it was held, even religion came to an end. A man must enjoy the society of his G.o.d in this life; after death he could take part in no sacrifice, and could render to his G.o.d no thanks nor service.
From what has been said the character of sacrifice among the Semites is readily understood. Sacrifice is not domestic but takes place at the spot where the G.o.d is thought to reside, or where the symbol stands which represents him. Usually this was an upright monolith, such as is found in every part of the world, and the central act of the sacrifice consisted in applying the blood of the new-slain victim to this stone. The blood was thus brought near to the G.o.d, the clansmen also may have touched the blood at the same time; and the act meant that the G.o.d and the tribesmen, all coming into contact with the blood, which originally perhaps was that of the animal totem of the clan, declared that they were of the same blood, and renewed the bond which connected them with each other. A further feature of early Semitic sacrifice is also that the slaughter and the blood ceremony are succeeded by a banquet, at which the G.o.d is thought to sit at table with his clients, his share being exposed for him on the stone or altar. When he came to be believed to dwell aloft, his share was burned with fire so that the smell or finer essence of it might ascend to him. Many examples may be collected in the early historical books of the Old Testament of sacrifices which are at the same time social and festive occasions; in fact, in early Israel every act of slaughter was a sacrifice, and every sacrifice a banquet. The people dance and make merry before their G.o.d, of whose favour they have just become a.s.sured once more by the act of communion they have observed.
The undertaking they have on hand is hallowed by his approval, so that they can boldly advance to it; the corporate spirit of the tribe is quickened by renewed contact with its head; all thoughts of care are far away; the religious act makes the wors.h.i.+ppers simply and unaffectedly happy, if it does not even fill them with an orgiastic ecstasy.
This careless happiness, in connection with religious acts, is found also in Babylonian sacrifice. It is not, however, peculiar to the Semites, but is characteristic of the religion of the early world in general. Nor is it peculiar to this race that religion does not address the individual as such, but only as a member of his tribe, and that it provides small comfort for private sorrows or longings.
The sad face is out of place in the presence of the G.o.d. Religion is essentially a happy thing; sin is not yet thought of, and if things go wrong, the tribe never entertains any doubt but that with proper sacrifices and promises the G.o.d will show them his favour again and renew their prosperity. All this is not specially Semitic, but simply early religion. What is specially Semitic is, to repeat that with which we set out, that G.o.ds are wors.h.i.+pped whose relations to their wors.h.i.+ppers are borrowed from existing forms of society. The G.o.d is the father or the master or the champion, of the circle of wors.h.i.+ppers; he is of their kindred, he is their greatest and strongest clansman, he belongs to them and to none but them. This, whether it is derived--as Professor Robertson Smith thinks--from the ideas of totemism or not, leads to a religion which is exclusive and intense, and cannot be trifled with. The G.o.d who is a man's master, and the head of his clan, stands in a more imperative position towards him than the G.o.d of the sky, or than a departed ancestor. He does not change with the seasons or the weather, nor is there any doubt as to his intentions and demands. Semitic religion, even at this stage, is a very real thing, and may easily, in favouring circ.u.mstances, become a force of overmastering energy.
BOOKS RECOMMENDED
Hommel, _Die Semitischen Volker und Sprachen_.
”Semites,” by McCurdy, in Hastings' _Bible Dictionary_, vol. v.
c.u.mont, _Les Religions orientales dans la Paganisme Romain_, 1907.
CHAPTER XI CANAANITES AND PHENICIANS
When the Children of Israel crossed the Jordan and settled in Palestine, they found that country inhabited by a race of men who spoke the same language as themselves, and who were much further advanced than they in civilisation. The letters of El-Amarna which belong to this period show Syria to have been full of small theocratic states, all pervaded, though now under the power of Egypt, by Babylonian culture, each with a G.o.d and a settled wors.h.i.+p of its own. The Israelites of a later time regarded the Canaanites with such disdain that they reckoned them (Genesis x. 6, 15) as belonging to an inferior race; but the two peoples belonged to the same race, and had many common ideas and practices. In religion they resembled each other, or Israel could never have been tempted so strongly, and for so long a period, to adopt the rites of the people they conquered.
The Israelites were not the only people who invaded the land of the Canaanites and stayed in it. Three such invasions took place: those of the Phenicians, of the Philistines, and of the Hebrews--the first and third being Semitic peoples, and perhaps the second also. The Philistines, settling on the south-eastern corner of the Mediterranean, had a Semitic religion, of which the fish-G.o.d Dagon, the Fly-Baal of Ekron, and the Ashtoreth, probably of Ascalon, are known figures. The Philistines, however, lost ultimately their separate character, and ceased to exist as an independent people. It will not be necessary for us to mention them again. The Phenicians, settling on the northern sea-board of Syria, where great trade routes to East and West converged, and where good harbours could be made, became a nation of merchants, and kept up active communication with the great kingdoms of the East, with Egypt, and with the islands and the distant sh.o.r.es of Western Europe. The carriers of the ancient world, they transmitted to Europe not only the spices and the fabrics but also the ideas and the practices of Asia, and rendered to the world the inestimable service of awaking the slumbering energies of the Aryan peoples to new life.
A short chapter may be devoted to the religion of the Canaanites and to that of the Phenicians, not because these were important in themselves, for in neither was there anything original or anything destined to survive, but because of the light they throw on other religions which were to have a great career. It was in conflict with the Canaanite religion that the faith of Israel first realised its true nature and was led to organise itself in a manner befitting its character. And from Phenicia both Israel and Greece accepted many a suggestion, both in external matters connected with wors.h.i.+p and in matters of a deeper nature.
The religion of the Canaanites is well known to us from the Old Testament. It is such a system as we found that of the Semites to be, with certain peculiar developments, of which we have already seen something in our chapter on Babylonia. A local community recognises an invisible head, with whom it meets at the sacred spot, whom it regards as overlord or master, of whose favour it is in no doubt, and whom it serves with sacrifices and with lively manifestations of joy at certain fixed periods. The G.o.d is called Baal. This, however, is not a proper name but a t.i.tle; it means lord, master, and the Baal may have a name of his own in addition: we hear of Baal Peor, the lord of Peor, and of many another. Baals are spoken of in the plural; we read in Judges ii. 11 and in other pa.s.sages that the Israelites followed the Baals, that is the G.o.ds of the Canaanites. Each place has its own Baal, who is wors.h.i.+pped at the local sanctuary. The sanctuary is at an elevated spot outside the town or village, either on a natural eminence or on a mound artificially made for the purpose; these are the ”high places” of the Old Testament; originally Canaanite places of wors.h.i.+p, they drew to themselves also the wors.h.i.+p of Israel. The apparatus of wors.h.i.+p at these shrines is of a very simple nature. An upright stone represents the G.o.d; it is not a statue of him, being unhewn and having no resemblance to the human figure. He was supposed to come to the stone when meeting with his wors.h.i.+ppers; and in the earliest times of Semitic religion this stone served the purpose of an altar: the gifts, which were not originally burned, were laid upon it, or the blood of the victim was applied to it. But besides the altar and the upright stone or _ma.s.sebah_ the Canaanite shrine had another piece of furniture. A ma.s.sive tree-trunk, fixed in the ground and with some of its branches perhaps still remaining, represented the female deity who is the invariable companion of the Baal. This is the Ashera of Canaan, a word which in the Authorised Version is translated ”grove,” after an error of the Vulgate, but which in the Revised Version is rightly left untranslated. (Judges iii. 7, vi. 25; 2 Kings xxiii. 6, there is one in the Temple at Jerusalem; etc.) The word Ashera is in such pa.s.sages the designation of the tree which stood to represent the G.o.ddess; whether it is ever the proper name of the G.o.ddess herself is doubtful. At any rate Ashera, like Baal, is not the name of one historic deity, but a name applied to the G.o.ddess of each place all over the country.
The character of Canaanite religion is clearly revealed in its apparatus of wors.h.i.+p. We saw that the Babylonians added to many of the G.o.ds of their country a female counterpart, turning the name of the G.o.d into a feminine form (chapter vii., also chapter x.). In Canaan we find that Semitic wors.h.i.+p is addressed to pairs of deities; there is a G.o.d and a G.o.ddess at each shrine. While it would be wrong to regard this as the general type of Semitic religion,--our chapter on that subject points to a different conclusion, and the great G.o.ds of Phenicia, of Moab, and of Israel are solitary beings,--we must recognise that the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d and G.o.ddess was widespread in Semitic peoples. In Canaan it is not difficult to understand it. We have here the wors.h.i.+p of an agricultural community; and as the Baal is the lord of the soil and the author of its fertility, who is ent.i.tled to receive the first-fruits, so the Ashera is the fertile matron who represents the principle of increase. The Old Testament leaves us in no doubt as to the kind of wors.h.i.+p which was carried on at these shrines. The festivals were those of the farmer's calendar; the Baal is presented with the first-fruits of corn and wine and oil, in the midst of general feasting and boisterous merry-making. His consort, on the other hand, is served with rites applying in the most direct manner the principle she represents. The shrine has a staff of female attendants for this part of the service of religion. The rustic wors.h.i.+p of Palestine thus shows us a side of the religion of Western Asia which we know from other sources to have been widely diffused. A female deity like the Babylonian Ishtar (chapter vii.), is served with impure rites in great cities as well as in country districts, and her wors.h.i.+p spread westwards with other Eastern products. She is found as Baalit, as Mylitta,[1] as Astarte; the Greeks call her Aphrodite, and her horrid wors.h.i.+p found entrance in various Greek cities.
[Footnote 1: Herod. i. 199.]
To the Israelites the wors.h.i.+p of Canaan proved a great temptation (Numbers xxv.), but they gradually rose above it. The Phenicians also came to have G.o.ds of a much higher character, and of these also we must speak. The Phenicians were not original in their religion any more than in their art; their religion began with the ordinary Semitic notions as these had been applied by the older population in Syria, and they improved it by borrowing from various parts of the world with which they trafficked. So various were their borrowings that it is impossible to draw up a consistent system of their G.o.ds.