'When thou risest in the eastern horizon of heaven,
Thou fillest every land with thy beauty.
*****
When thou settest in the western horizon of heaven,
The world is in darkness like the dead.
*****
Bright is the earth when thou risest in the horizon,
When thou shinest as Aton by day.
The darkness is banished, when thou sendest forth thy rays.
*****
How manifold are all thy works,
They are hidden from before us,
O thou sole god, whose powers no other possesseth,
Thou didst create the earth according to thy desire,
While thou wast alone.
*****
The world is in thy hand,
Even as thou hast made them.
When thou hast risen, they live.
When thou settest, they die.
For thou art duration, beyond thy mere limbs,
By thee man liveth,
And their eyes look upon thy beauty,
Until thou settest.'[2]
[3] See further the appreciative account of the reform by J. H. Breasted, History of Egypt, pp. 355-378.
The Influence of Babylonia.—The fact that Palestine used the script and language of Babylonia suggests that it shared other features of its culture. Among the Amarna Tablets were Babylonian mythological texts which had been carefully studied or used for reading-exercises in Egypt. One, the myth of Eresh-ki-gal and Nergal, narrating the descent of the latter into Hades, recalls the story of Persephone. Another, the myth of Adapa, tells how the hero who refused the food and water of life in heaven was denied the gift of immortality. It is inconceivable that Palestinian speculation did not turn to the mysteries of life and death, or that a people should acknowledge Nergal—or any other deity—without some formal beliefs. May we assume, therefore, that Palestinian thought was pre-eminently Babylonian? The question is as important for our period as for the Old Testament, and, in the absence of texts wherewith to institute a comparison, we conclude with a brief account of the bearing of the available evidence upon the problem.
The formulated beliefs, the theology, and the mythology which all races possess to some degree or other have grown up from that primitive philosophy of man which seeks to explain all that he saw about him. The old question: 'What mean ye by this service?' (Exod. xii. 26) is typical of the inquiry which ritual (and indeed all other) acts invariably demand; the danger lies in our assuming that the proffered explanations necessarily describe their origin, and in confusing the essential elements with those which are accidental and secondary. The excavations at Gezer suggest an illustration. What rites were practised in its caves or in the great tunnel which leads to the subterranean spring cannot be asserted, but there is a living tradition that the waters of the flood burst forth in the neighbourhood. Similar flood-stories can be localised elsewhere. In Hierapolis water was poured into a chasm below the sanctuary twice a year, and according to the Pseudo-Lucian it was here that the waters of Deucalion's flood were absorbed—hence the rite! But Melito reports that water was emptied into a well in the city in order to subdue a subterranean demon—evidently some earlier chthonic deity. Similar water-rites were known in Palestine and Syria as a 'descent' or Yerīd, and it may be presumed that an echo of the term survives in 'Ain Yerdeh at the foot of Gezer. We do not reach the root of the matter, but we can notice the diverse explanations of the same rite (which probably originated in a charm to procure rain), the ubiquity of certain traditions, their persistence, and the ease with which they adjust themselves. Further, it is instructive to observe how the rite has been shaped in the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles and has been dressed in accordance with specific religious beliefs (cp. Zech. xiv. 16 sq.).
Some archæological details may next be summarised. An altar at Taanach, with protuberances suggestive of horns, bore in bold relief winged animals with human faces, lions, a tree with a goat on either side, and a small human figure clutching a serpent. Though it may belong to the eighth or seventh century, similar scenes recur upon seals and other objects of all dates. Animals (especially of the deer or gazelle kind) are common, either alone or in conjunction with trees or men. Man-headed bulls with wings, sphinxes, and scenes of combat also appear. The ubiquitous myth of the dragon-slayer finds a parallel in the Egyptian scene of a foreign god (Sutekh) piercing the serpent with his spear, or in the later grandiose representations of the sturdy boy at Petra who grips the dragon.[3] One seal shows a seven-branched tree grasped by two men with the sun and moon on one side and two stags on the other. In a second, a human figure stands before a kind of pillar which is surmounted by an eight-rayed star. A third had been impressed upon a tablet from Gezer which bore nineteen distinct objects, including sun, moon, star, serpent, fish, crab, animals, etc. Some of the signs were at once recognised as zodiacal, and less elaborate specimens from Gezer and Megiddo furnish parallels. But inscribed Babylonian boundary-stones of our period bear analogous symbols; they are the emblems of the deities whose powers are thus invoked by the inscription should the land-mark be damaged or removed. The more gods, the more powerful the charm.
[3] The former is given by F. L. Griffith, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, xvi. p. 87, the latter by A. Jeremias, Alte Test., etc., p. 456 sqq., fig. 151.
Such objects with all their Babylonian associations may in certain cases have been imported or copied from foreign originals; the scenes could have been absolutely meaningless or even subject to a new interpretation. But it is as difficult to treat every apparently foreign object as contrary to Palestinian ideas, as it is to determine how sacrificial and other scenes would otherwise have been depicted. Religion found its expression in art; art was the ally of idolatry, and the later uncompromising attitude of Judaism towards display of artistic meaning implies that the current symbolism, etc., reflected intelligible religious conceptions. But it does not follow that these conceptions were everywhere identical.
Again, when a scimitar from a tomb at Gezer resembles that which a priest holds in a sacrificial scene upon a Gezer seal, we may suppose that the seal represents a familiar Palestinian ceremony. But the same type of weapon is found in Assyria and Egypt in the age of the Nineteenth Dynasty, and it is therefore impossible to treat it or the scene as distinctively Palestinian. The ubiquity of the dragon-conflict, too, warns us that the same underlying motive will present itself in a great variety of external shapes, and it is interesting to find that the idea of the slayer as a child actually points away from Babylonia. Features which find their only parallel in the accumulation of Babylonian evidence are not inevitably of Babylonian origin. Our land was exposed to diverse influences, an illustration of which is afforded by certain seals with cuneiform characters. The owner of one is styled a servant of Nergal (see p. 93); it bears Egyptian symbols (those of life and beauty), and a scene of adoration, partly Egyptian and partly Babylonian in treatment. It has been ascribed to the First Dynasty of Babylon. Later come the seals of the Sidonian Addumu 'beloved of the gods (?)' and his son; on one is an Egyptianised representation of Set, Horus, and Resheph. Yet another combines two conventional scenes, the priest leading a worshipper before a deity (Babylonian), a king slaying a kneeling enemy (Egyptian).[4] In the presence of such fusion the problem becomes more complex. If, in the Greek age, it is found that Adonis and Osiris or Astarte of Byblos and Isis resembled each other so closely that it was sometimes difficult to determine which deity was being celebrated, the relation between the Baalath of Byblos and Hathor, or between Shamash and Amon-Re could have been equally embarrassing in our period. In fact, as Palestine continues to be brought into line with other lands the task of determining specific external influences becomes more intricate.
[4] See (a), Sellin, Tell Ta'annek, fig. 22, pp. 27 sq., 105 (Vincent, Canaan, fig. 117, p. 170 sq.); (b) Winckler, Altorient. Forschungen, iii. p. 177 sq.; and (c) E. J. Pilcher, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., xxiii. p. 362.
Finally, whatever was the true effect of the early Babylonian supremacy, both Palestine and Syria, when not controlled by Egypt, were influenced by the northern power of Mitanni and by the Hittites who preserve distinctive features of their own. According to Professor Sayce most of the seals we have been noticing are Syrian modifications of the Babylonian type, and 'the more strictly archæological evidence of Babylonian influence upon Canaan is extraordinarily scanty.'[5] It is obvious that one must allow for the direct influence exerted upon the religious conditions from a quarter of which very little is known as yet. The fact that Babylonian was used in Palestine and among the Hittite peoples clearly does not allow sweeping inferences. Indeed, so far from the script or language having been imposed from without, the people of Mitanni apparently borrowed the cuneiform script and adapted it to their own language; while, in the Amarna Tablets, the native tongue of Palestine and Syria has left a distinct impress upon the Babylonian.[6] This individuality repeats itself in Palestinian pottery, which has neither originality of concept nor fertility of resource. But it has vigour and vitality, and has not developed into the superior art with which it came into contact. In general the archæological evidence shows very clearly that Palestine was not absorbed by Babylonian culture, still less by that of Egypt.[7]
[5] A. H. Sayce, Archæology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions (London, 1907), pp. 151 sq.
[6] For Mitanni, see Sayce, op. cit., p. 167; and for the dialect of the Amarna letters, Zimmern, Keilinschr. u. d. Alte Test., p. 651.
[7] Cp. Vincent, op. cit., p. 341 (also p. 439 and note 1).
Conclusion.—Recent research gives us a glimpse of the Religion of Ancient Palestine which becomes more distinct as it is found to be in general harmony with Oriental religions. The picture, as we see it, is neither Egyptian nor Babylonian, and if the latter colours it, this was inevitable, partly through the still obscure relations under the First Babylonian Dynasty, partly (though indirectly) through the influence of the northern peoples, and again partly because both (as opposed to Egypt) are Semitic. The picture, nevertheless, has distinctive traits of its own. By the side of sacred places of cult and rites often cruel and gross appear those indications of loftier elements which prove that we have no mere inchoate nature-worship. This co-existence need cause no surprise. The institutions which combine to make civilisation do not necessarily move at the same rate or in parallel lines, either with each other or with the progress of religious thought. A variety of stages of development—such as can be observed in a single province of modern India—could have been easily found amid conflicting political groups, or in the presence of foreign mercenaries or settlers. One may also assume that then, as now, there were the usual contrasts between the exposed sea-ports and the small inland townships, between the aristocracy and the peasantry, between the settled agriculturists and the roaming sons of the desert.
The fundamental religious conceptions have from time to time been elevated and ennobled by enlightened minds; but what European culture was unable to change in the age of Greek and Roman supremacy, influences of Oriental origin could not expel. Official cults, iconoclastic reforms, new positive religions have left the background substantially unaltered, and the old canvas still shows through the coatings it has received.
Our evidence has taken us down through the age of Egyptian supremacy, which can be traced to the time of Ramses III., if not to the days of Wenamon and Zakarbaal (1100 B.C.). With the decay of Egypt we reach the close of a period which corresponds broadly to that wherein Israelite history has placed the Patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, and the Judges. The picture which the external sources furnish was not effaced at a stroke. But the transformation from Egypt's suzerainty to an independent Israelite monarchy, from the polytheism of the Amarna age to the recognition of a single God does not belong to these pages. The rise of Yahweh as the national God, and the development of conceptions regarding his nature must be sought in the native Israelite records themselves, and in such external evidence as the future may produce. Our task is finished when we point out that the external (archæological) evidence does not reveal that hiatus which would have ensued had there been a dislocation of earlier conditions by invading Israelite tribes; earlier forms are simply developed, the evolution is a progressive one.[8]
[8] Cp. R. A. S. Macalister, 'Excavation of Gezer,' Quarterly Statements, 1904, p. 123; 1907, p. 203; Sellin, op. cit., p. 102; id., Der Ertrag der Ausgrabungen in Orient für die Erkenntnis der Entwicklung der Religion Israels (Leipzig, 1905), pp. 33, 36 sq., 39 sq., see, in general, Vincent, op. cit., pp. 19 sq., 147 sqq., 199-204, 225, 345, 352 sq., 463 sq., and S. A. Cook, English Historical Review, 1908, pp. 325 sq.
For the Excavations: R. A. S. Macalister, 'Reports on the Excavation of Gezer,' in the Quarterly Statements of the Palestine Exploration Fund (October 1902-October 1905; July 1907-July 1908); id., Bible Side-lights from the Mound of Gezer (London, 1906, numerous illustrations); Ernst Sellin, 'Tell Ta'annek,' in the Denkschriften of the Vienna Academy (1904-5); W. M. Flinders Petrie, Researches in Sinai (London, 1906); Hugues Vincent, Canaan d'après l'Exploration Recente (Paris, 1907; a valuable account, from the archæological standpoint, of the results of excavation contained in the above works and elsewhere); G. Schumacher, Tell el-Mutesellim (Leipzig, 1908), vol. i., text and plates.
Evidence from Babylonian or Assyrian Texts: H. Winckler, The Tell-el-Amarna Tablets (London, 1896); new edition by J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln (Leipzig, 1907-8; Parts i.-x.); H. Zimmern, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament (Berlin, 1903; pp. 345-643); A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients (Leipzig, 1906); M. Jastrow, Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens (Giessen, 1905—).
Egyptian Sources: W. M. Müller, Asien und Europa nach Alt-ägyptischen Denkmälern (Leipzig, 1893); J. H. Breasted, History of Egypt (London, 1906); id., Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents (1906-7); Zeitschrift fur Aegyptische Sprache, etc. etc.
Of general works, W. R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites: the Fundamental Institutions (London, 1894), is naturally indispensable. Important, also, are G. A. Barton, A Sketch of Semitic Origins, Social and Religious (New York, 1902); Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Études sur les Religions Sémitiques (Paris, 1905); J. G. Frazer, Adonis, Attis, and Osiris: Studies in the History of Oriental Religion (London, 1907). For Modern Semitic Religion there is a large mass of scattered evidence; the most illuminating works are those of C. M. Doughty, Arabia Deserta (Cambridge, 1888); S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion To-day (London, 1902); A. Jaussen, Coutumes des Arabes au Pays de Moab (Paris, 1908). For the history of the period may be consulted the works of G. Maspero (Histoire Ancienne; Paris, 1904, etc.), or the popular account, with typical illustrations, by G. Cormack, History of Palestine in Early Times (forthcoming).
For those unacquainted with modern comparative study in the field of religion, one of the most serviceable introductory books is J. A. Macculloch's Comparative Theology (Churchman's Library, London, 1902).
The following dates are based upon the latest researches, but are to be regarded as provisional. Some Biblical dates are added for comparison, those marked with an asterisk follow the margin of the Authorised Version.
ADDU, weather-god, 79, 89 sq., 95.
Agriculture, 7, 9 sq., 11, 33 sq., 88, 90.
Amarna tablets, 6 8, 10, 33, 63, 76, 78, 92, 96, 98 sqq., 106, 112, etc.
Amenhotep II., 44.
Amenhotep III., 5 sq., 56, 70 sq., 81, 118.
Amenhotep IV. See Ikhnaton.
Amon, the god, 54 sq., 61, 71, 74 sqq., 77 sq., 81, 95, 111. See Re.
Amulets, 17, 32, 35, 38, 51 sq.
Anath, goddess, 85.
Ancestor-worship, 57 sqq.
Animals, 22, 30 sq., 39sq., 43 sqq., 47 sqq., 50, 61, 85, 108 sq.
Animism, 60.
Anointing, 14, 27, 42, 64, 76, 79.
Anubis, 96.
Ashirat, Ashirta, goddess, 53, 87.
Ashur, the god, 53, 87 sq., 92.
Assyria, 5, 7, 39, 62, 78, 87 sqq., 92, 102.
Astarte, 29 sq., 45, 49, 70, 73, 86 sq.
Atargatis, 31.
Aton, 103 sqq.
BAAL (title 'lord'), 66 sq. See Heaven.
Baal (proper name), 33, 84, 89.
Baalath (title 'lady'), 66, 86. See Byblos.
Baal-Zephon, 86.
Babylonia, 4 sq., 10, 30, 62, 70, 87, 90 sqq., 94, 102, 106 sqq., 110 sqq., 118.
Bes, 96.
Blood-revenge, 42.
Bludan (near Damascus), 46.
Broken offerings, 45 sq.
Burial, 15, 17 sq., 36 sq., 40. See Dead.
Byblos, 66, 74 sq., 83, 100. See Zakarbaal.
Cannibalism, 38.
Carthage, 3, 27, 31, 34 sq., 39, 41, 43, 72.
Caves, 15 sq., 19 sq., 24, 34, 38, 41, 46, 53, 107.
Charms, 32, 38, 51 sq., 107, 109.
Cup-marks, 14, 16, 20, 26, 35 sq.
DAGON, 92.
Dead, disposal of, 22, 34 sqq.; in religion, 55 sqq., 58 sqq., 75.
Derceto, 31.
EGYPT, historical sketch, 4 sqq.; influence of national cult, 74 sqq., 95 sqq.; received Asiatic gods, 83 sqq., etc.
Foundation sacrifice, 39 sq., 43.
GAD (the god), 92.
Gaza, 33.
Gezer, 6, 8 sq., 13 sqq., 17, 19, 28, 30, 34, 37 sqq., 44 sqq., 76, 80, 88, 107, 109 sq.
Gods. See chaps. vi. and vii.; gods and animals, 47 sqq.; demons and spirits, 50, 64; kinship with men, 61 sqq.; their human representatives, 54 sq., 57, 59, 62 sqq.; their vicissitudes, 66 sqq.; subordinate gods, 68, 69 sq., 96 sq.; national gods, 64 sq., 67 sqq.; lord or king of gods, 74, 77, 84, 95. See Saints.
Gudea, 62.
Hathor, 26, 30, 70, 76, 81, 85, 111.
Heaven, king or lord of (title), 66, 72 sqq., 84, 87 sqq., 91; lady or mistress of, 70 sq., 73, 85 sq.
Hittites, 5 sq., 71, 73 sq., 78, 81, 88, 90 sq., 96, 101 sq., 111 sq.
Holy, sacred, 34, 46 sqq., 85.
Horus, 111.
Horus-eyes, 52.
Human sacrifices, 38 sqq., 42 sq.
Hyksos invasion, 4 sq., 82 sq., 118.
IDOLS, 17, 26, 28 sq., 31 sq., 49, 53 sq., 71 sq., 77.
Ikhhaton, 5, 42, 103 sqq., 118.
Infant burial or sacrifice, 15 sqq., 36 sqq., 93 sq.
Israel, Israelite religion, 1 sqq., 6, 8, 10 sq., 17, 33 sq., 36, 39 sqq., 42 sq., 47 sq., 64, 80, 86, 88, 94, 102, 104, 106, 108 sq., 114 sq.
JEHOVAH. See Yahweh.
Jerusalem, 5, 14, 20, 53, 92, 96, 101 sq.
Khammurabi, 62, 72, 78, 90 sq., 118.
Khiba, 96.
Khonsu, 71.
Kings, divinity of, 59, 61 sqq., 78 sq., 98; their breath or spirit, 101.
Kinship with supernatural beings, 60 sq., 62 sq., 83 sq.
Loyalty (s-d-k), 102 sq.
Megiddo, 8, 17, 28, 31, 40, 49, 76, 79, 109.
Melek (king), 94.
Messianic ideals, 64.
Mohammedanism, 21 sq., 40, 68 sq. See Palestine.
Molech, 94.
Monotheistic tendencies, 5, 23, 67 sqq., 72 sq., 81, 95 sq., 103 sq.
Moon god, 88 sq.
Murder, 42.
Myths, 49, 62, 86, 106 sqq., 110 sq.