influence could have entered indirectly; and until one can determine how much is specifically Babylonian the analogies and parallels cannot be made the ground for sweeping assertions. The influence of a superior power upon the culture of a people cannot of course be denied; but history proves that it depends upon the resemblance between the two peoples and their respective levels of thought, and that it is not necessarily either deep or lasting. A better case might be made for Egypt; yet notwithstanding the presence of its colonies, the cult of its gods, the erection of temples or shrines, and the numerous traces of intercourse exposed by excavation, Palestine was Asiatic rather than Egyptian. Indeed Asiatic influence made itself felt in Egypt before the Hyksos age, and later, and more strongly, during the XVIIIth and following Dynasties, and deities of Syro-Palestinian fame (Resheph, Baal, Anath, the Baalath of Byblos, Kadesh, Astarte) found a hospitable welcome. On the whole, there was everywhere a common foundation of culture and thought, with local, tribal and national developments; and it is useful to observe the striking similarity of religious phraseology throughout the Semitic sources, and its similarity with the ideas in the Egyptian texts. And this becomes more instructive when comparison is made between cuneiform or Egyptian sources extending over many centuries and particular groups of evidence (Amarna letters, Canaanite and Aramaean inscriptions, the Old Testament and later Jewish literature to the Talmud), and pursued to the customs and beliefs of the same area to-day. The result is to emphasize (a) the inveterate and indissoluble connexion between religious, social and political life, (b) the differences between the ordinary current religious conceptions and specific positive developments of them, and (c) the vicissitudes of these particular growths in their relation to history.[1]
There is reason to believe that the religion of Palestine in the Amarna age was no inchoate or inarticulate belief; like the material culture it had passed through the elementary stages and was a fully established though not, perhaps, a very advanced organism. There were doubtless then, as later, numerous local deities, closely connected with local Religion. districts, differing perhaps in name, but the centre of similar ideas as regards their relations to their worshippers. Commercial and political intercourse had also brought a knowledge of other deities, who were worth venerating, or who were the survivors of a former supremacy, or whose recognition was enforced. It is particularly interesting to find in the Amarna letters that the supremacy of Egypt meant also that of the national god, and the loyal Palestinian kings acknowledge that their land belonged to Egypt’s king and god. In accordance with what is now known to be a very widespread belief, the kingship was a semi-divine function, and the Pharaoh was the incarnation of Amon-Re. This would bring a greater coherence of worship among the chaos of local cults. The petty kings naturally recognize the identity of the Pharaoh, and they hail him as their god and identify him with the heads of their own pantheon. Thus he is called—in the cuneiform letters—their Shamash or their Addu. The former, the sun-deity, god of justice, &c., was already well known, to judge from Palestinian place-names (Beth-Shemesh, &c.). The latter, storm or weather god, or, in another aspect, god of rain and therefore of fertility, is specifically West Asiatic, and may be equated with Hadad and Ramman (see below). He is presumably the Baal who is associated with thunder and lightning, and with the bull, and who was familiar to the Egyptians of the XlXth and XXth Dynasties in the adulations of their divine king. He is probably also “the lord of the gods” (the head of a pantheon) invoked in a private cuneiform tablet unearthed at Taanach.[2] Besides these gods, and others whose fame may be inferred (Dagon, Nebo, Nergal, &c.), there were the closely-related goddesses Ashira and Ishtar-Astarte (the Old Testament Asherah and Ashtoreth). Possibly the name Yahweh (see Jehovah) had already entered Palestine, but it is not prominent, and if, as in the case of certain other deities, the extension of the name and cult went hand-in-hand with political circumstances, these must be sought in the problems of the Hebrew monarchy.[3]
At an age when there were no great external empires to control
Palestine the Hebrew monarchy arose and claimed a premier
place amid its neighbours (c. 1000). How the small
rival districts with their petty kings were united
into a kingdom under a single head is a disputed
question; the stages from the half-Hittite, half-Egyptian land
Rise of the Hebrew Monarchy.
to the independent Hebrew state with its national god are an
unsolved problem. Biblical tradition quite plausibly represents
a mighty invasion of tribes who had come from Southern Palestine
and Northern Arabia (Elath, Ezion-geber)—but primarily from
Egypt—and, after a series of national “judges,” established the
kingship. But no place can be found for this conquest, as it is
described, either before the “Amarna” age (the date, following
1 Kings vi. 1) or about the time of Rameses II. and Mineptah
(see Exod. i. 11); and if the latter king (c. 1244) records the
subjugation of the people (? or land) “Israel,” the complicated
history of names does not guarantee the absolute identity
of this “Israel” either with the pure Israelite tribes which
invaded the land or with the intermixed people after this event
(see Jews: §§ 6–8). Whatever may have been the extent of this
invasion and the sequel, the rise and persistence of an
independent Palestinian kingdom was an event which concerned the
neighbouring states. Its stability and the necessary furtherance
of commerce, usual among Oriental kings, depended upon the
attitude of the maritime coast (Philistia and Phoenicia), Edom,
Moab, Ammon, Gilead and the Syrian states; and the biblical
and external records for the next four centuries (to 586)
frequently illustrate situations growing out of this interrelation.
The evidence of the course of these crucial years is unequal and
often sadly fragmentary, and is more conveniently noticed in
connexion with the biblical history (see Jews: §§ 9–17). A
conspicuous feature is the difficulty of maintaining this single
monarchy, which, however it originated, speedily became two
rival states (Judah and Israel). These are separated by a very
ambiguous frontier, and have their geographical and political
links to the south and north respectively. The balance of
power moves now to Israel and now to Judah, and tendencies
to internal disintegration are illustrated by the dynastic changes
in Israel and by the revolts and intrigues in both states. As
the power of the surrounding empires revived, these entered
again into Palestinian history. As regards Egypt, apart from
a few references in biblical history (e.g. to its interference in
Philistia and friendliness to Judah, see Philistine), the chief
event was the great invasion by Sheshonk (Shishak) in the
latter part of the 10th century; but although it appears to be
an isolated campaign, contact with Egypt, to judge from the
archaeological results of the excavations, was never intermittent.
The next definite stage is the dynasty of the Israelite Omri (q.v.),
to whom is ascribed the founding of the city of Samaria. The
dynasty lasted nearly half a century, and is contemporary
with the expansion of Phoenicia, and presumably therefore
with some prominence of the south maritime coast. The royal
houses of Phoenicia, Israel and Judah were united by
intermarriage, and the last two by joint undertakings in trade
and war (note also 1 Kings ix. 26 seq.). Meanwhile Assyria
was gradually establishing itself westwards, and a remarkable
Approach
of Assyria.
confederation of the heirs of the old Hittite kingdom,
“kings of the land of Ḥatti” (the Assyrian term
for the Hittites) was formed to oppose it. Southern
Asia Minor, Phoenicia, Ammon, the Syrian Desert and Israel
(under Omri’s son “Ahab the Israelite”) sent their troops to
support Damascus which, in spite of the repeated efforts of
- ↑ Much confusion can be and has been caused by disregarding (b) and by supposing that the appearance of similar elements of thought or custom implied the presence of similar more complete organisms (e.g. totemism, astral religion, jurisprudence). Cf. p. 182, n. 4.
- ↑ See, most recently, Ungnad’s translation in H. Gressmann, Ausgrabungen in Pal. u. d. A. T. (Tübingen, 1908), p. 19 seq. The title “lord of heaven”—whether the Sun or Addu, there was a tendency to identify them—was perhaps known in Palestine, as it certainly was in Egypt and among the Hittites.
- ↑ See S. A. Cook, Expositor, Aug. 1910, pp. 111–127.
