ISRAEL
necessary
to
propitiate
the
god
of
the
land.
As
this
was
the
case
as
late
as
the
8th
cent.
(2
K
17"-3«),
it
would
be
all
the
more
true
at
the
beginning
ol
the
12th.
At
first,
therefore,
they
must
have
mingled
the
worship
of
the
Baals
with
the
worship
of
Jahweh.
As
we
have
seen,
the
conquest
did
not
occur
all
at
once;
there
must
have
been
many
conflicts,
which
kept
the
tribes
in
constant
dependence
upon
Jahweh
(ct.
Jg
5^).
These
conflicts
continued
to
the
time
of
Saul
and
David,
and
constituted
a
life
and
death
struggle.
When,
under
David,
Israel
emerged
victorious,
Jahweh
was
more
than
ever
the
god
of
armies.
These
vicissitudes
tended
to
eliminate
the
worship
of
the
tribal
deities.
Little
by
little
Jahweh
came
to
be
regarded
as
the
god
of
the
land,
—
as
a
Baal,
—
and
as
such
took
possession
in
their
thought
of
the
principal
Canaanitish
shrines.
(2)
Gradually
the
Canaanitish
conceptions
connected
with
these
shrines
were
transferred
to
Jahweh.
This
fusion
was
easily
possible
because
of
the
kinship
of
Jahweh
and
the
Baals.
Both
had
sprung
from
the
same
primitive
conceptions.
Both
were
regarded
as
gods
of
animal
fertility.
To
both
the
same
symbols
of
fertility
were
sacred.
The
main
difference
was
that
the
Baals
were
the
gods
of
clans
which
had
longer
resided
in
a
fertile
land
(of.
Sem.
Or.
297
fl.).
By
this
fusion
the
somewhat
meagre
and
simple
ritual
of
Jahweh
was
enriched.
By
the
time
of
Gideon
the
term
Baal
('
lord
')
was
applied
to
Jahweh,
as
Jerub-baal,
Gideon'sreal
name,
proves.
Ish-baal
and
Meri-baal,
sons
of
Saul,
and
Beeliada,
a
son
of
David,
bear
names
which
prove
the
same
thing.
(3)
During
this
period
it
was
not
thought
wrong
to
make
images
of
Jahweh.
Gideon
made
an
ephod-idol
at
Ophrah
(Jg
8^').
Micah
made
an
image
to
Jahweh
(Jg
17'''-),
and
it
is
probable
that
similar
images
existed
elsewhere.
Sometimes
these
were
in
the
form
of
bullocks
as
were
those
which
Jeroboam
set
up
at
Bethel
and
Dan.
These
latter
symbolized
Jahweh
as
the
generator
of
life,
and
the
god
of
pastoral
wealth.
Household
numiirta
called
teraphim
were
also
worshipped.
Images
of
these
were
also
made,
sometimes
large
enough
to
be
passed
off
for
a
man
(1
S
IQ'ss).
(4)
In
the
whole
of
this
period
it
was
thought
that
Jahweh
existed
in
the
form
of
a
man.
He
might
appear
and
talk
with
a
person,
indistinguishable
from
a
human
being,
until
the
moment
of
His
departure
(of.
Gn
IS'"-,
Jg
6"*-
13'«-).
Sometimes,
as
in
the
last
two
passages
cited,
it
was
the
angel
of
Jahweh
that
appeared,
but
at
the
period
when
these
narratives
were
written,
the
con-ception
of
the
difference
between
Jahweh
and
His
angel
was
not
fully
developed.
So
the
'face'
(presence)
of
Jahweh
(Ex
33)
is
a
reference
to
the
'
person
'
of
Jahweh.
It
indicates
that
He
was
conceived
as
having
a
bodily
form
When
the
J
document
was
written,
the
Prophetic
period
was
already
dawning.
As
we
are
indebted
to
that
docu-ment
for
most
of
these
anthropomorphic
representations
of
Jahweh,
we
may
be
sure
that
this
conception
prevailed
throughout
the
pre-Prophetic
period.
(5)
The
only
literature
which
has
come
to
us
from
this
pre-Prophetic
time
consists
of
a
few
poems
—
the
Song
of
Deborah
(Jg
5),
David's
Lament
over
Saul
and
Jonathan
(2
S
1),
and
a
tew
fragments
elsewhere
(e.g.
Nu
21
and
Jos
10'2).
No
one
now
thinks
of
attributing
the
Psalms
in
the
form
in
which
we
have
them
to
David,
or
the
books
of
Proverbs
and
Ecclesiastes
to
Solomon.
The
literature
of
this
period,
then,
is,
so
far
as
we
know
it,
secular
in
character.
The
people
were
religious,
but
the
rehgion
existed
as
a
help
to
secular
life.
It
consisted
largely
of
inherited
customs,
of
half-superstitious
beliefs,
while
the
main
interest
of
all
was
centred
in
physical
pros-perity.
Certain
practices
were
regarded
as
wrong,
—
as
offences
against
Jahweh
(.e.g.
the
crime
of
Jg
19
and
David's
sin
[2
S
11]),
but
the
ethical
content
of
the
rehgion
was
of
a
very
rudimentary
character.
Stealing
(cf.
Jg
18),
deceit
(Gn
27),
and
treachery
(Jg
Si™-
5^-
2')
were
not
only
condoned
but
at
times
even
glorified.
ISRAEL
(6)
Before
the
time
of
Solomon
a
traveller
In
Palestine
would
have
fqund
no
elaborate
temple
or
structure
devoted
to
rehgion.
Instead,
in
every
village
he
would
have
found
an
open-air
'high
place,'
marked
by
'
pillars
'
and
asKerahs,
—
high
places
such
as
have
recently
been
excavated
at
Gezer
and
Megiddo
and
found
at
Petra.
In
connexion
with
these
there
were
often
sacred
caves
and
other
accessories
of
primitive
worship.
In
some,
as
at
Gezer
and
Jerusalem,
serpent-worship
was
practised,
and
brazen
serpents
as
well
as
the
Uvlng
animal
were
kept
(ct.
PBFSt,
1903,
p.
222;
2
K
:8<).
Probably
at
most
of
them,
as
at
Gezer,
some
form
of
Ashtart,
the
mother-goddess,
was
also
worshipped
(cf.
PEPSt,
1903,
p.
228).
As
time
went
on,
an
occasional
shrine
had
a
building.
The
first
of
these
which
we
can
trace
was
at
Shiloh
(1
S
1-3);
it
had
at
least
two
rooms
and
doors.
Solomon
then
erected
the
splendid
Temple
at
Jerusalem
on
Phoenician
models,
departing,
as
has
been
pointed
out
(I.
§
14)
,
from
older
Hebrew
practice
in
many
ways.
Perhaps
Jeroboam
erected
temples
at
Bethel
and
at
Dan
(ct.
1
K
12»i,
Am
7"),
but
for
the
most
part
these
shrines
were
of
the
simplest
nature
and
without
buildings.
A
wealthy
citizen
might
in
this
period
have
a
private
temple
in
connexion
with
his
residence
(Jg
17).
(7)
The
priesthood
in
this
period
was
not
confined
to
any
tribe.
There
seems
to
have
been
a
feeling
that
it
was
better
to
have
a
leiri
for
priest
(whatever
that
may
have
meant;
cf
.
Jg
17'°),
but
Micah,
an
Ephraimite,
made
his
son
a
priest
(Jg
17');
Samuel,
a
member
of
one
of
the
Joseph
tribes,
acted
as
priest
(1
S
9'^-);
and
David
made
his
sons
priests
(2
S
S'*
RVm).
According
to
J
(cf.
Jg
18™),
Jonathan,
a
grandson
of
Moses,
started
lite
as
an
impecunious
resident
of
Bethlehem
in
Judah;
in
seeking
his
fortune
he
became
a
priest
in
the
private
shrine
ot
Micah,
the
Ephraimite;
then
at
the
instigation
of
the
Danites
he
robbed
that
shrine
and
fled
with
them
to
the
north,
becoming
the
founder
of
a
line
ot
priests
in
the
temple
ot
Dan.
Even
if
his
descent
from
Moses
should
not
be
credited,
the
story
gives
evidence
ot
the
kind
of
irregularity
in
the
priesthood
which
was
still
conceivable
when
the
J
document
was
composed.
So
far
as
Jerusalem
was
concerned,
David
improved
this
chaotic
condition
by
regulating
the
priesthood.
(8)
The
festivals
at
this
period
were
of
a
simple,
joyous
character.
They
were
held
in
the
interest
ot
the
worshipper.
A
picture
ot
one
has
been
preserved
in
1
S
1.
2.
The
priests
killed
the
sacrifice,
pouring
out
the
blood
no
doubt
to
Jahweh,
and
then
the
flesh
was
cooked.
While
it
was
cooking,
the
priest
obtained
his
portion
by
a
kind
ot
chance
(ct.
1
S
2^"^-),
after
which
the
victim
was
consumed
by
the
worshippers
in
a
joyous
festival.
This
festival
was
the
appropriate
time
to
pray
for
children,
and
it
is
probable
that
considerable
Ucence
accompanied
it
(ct.
Sem.
Or.
287
ff.).
The
feast
described
occurred
annually,
but
there
were
lesser
feasts
at
the
time
of
the
new
moons
and
on
other
occasions,
which
were
probably
observed
in
the
same
simple
way
(cf.
1
S
205^-).
In
addition
to
the
sacrifices
at
such
feasts
(cf.
1
S
9«»-),
it
is
clear
that
on
extraordinary
occasions
huraansacriflce
was
in
this
period
still
practised.
The
story
of
Jephthah's
daughter,
whether
historical
in
all
its
features
or
not,
proves
that
such
sacrifices
were
regarded
as
jpoSable.
It
Is
probable
that
1
K
16»«
is
proof
that
children
were
still
sacrificed
when
important
structures
were
set
up.
The
language
of
this
passage
has
been
greatly
illuminated
by
the
discoveries
at
Gezer
(ct.
above,
§
1
(6)).
(9)
A
ghmpse
into
the
household
worship
of
the
time
we
obtain
from
the
teraphim.
These
seem
to
have
been
household
deities,
similar
to
those
found
in
Babylonia
(Ezk
21»)
and
among
the
Aramaans
(Gn
31").
Of
their
use
we
know
Uttle.
They
seem
to
have
been
employed
for
divination
(Zee
lO^),
and
they
were
sometimes
made
in
human
form
(1
S
19").
Throughout
this
period
they
were
a
recognized
element
in
the
worship
(cf.
Jg
18»
Hos
30.
Whether
these
gods
formed
the
centre
of
the
