The following is a Hsumi of the leadin" features of the narrative as now presented : — Becoming impatient under the continued absence of their leader, the people prevail on Aaron to make a g.id (C'.-i^it) which should go before them. With the material famished by the golden earrings of the women and children ' a molten calf ' is fashioned (the details of the process are obscure), before which an altar is built, and to which, as a symhol of J" — see esp. v.* 'to-morrow is a feast to J"' — aivine honours are paid. The rest of the chapter tells of J'"s anger, of Moses' energetic intervention, of Aaron's truly Oriental apology, and, finally, of the destruction of the calf (here again the process is difficult to explain), and of 3000 of its wor- shippers. The uncertainty which prevails with regard to the reading and rendering of v.* (see the Comm. in loc.) renders it impossible to speak positively as to tlie construction of the image. A comparison of v.* mth v.*, and of both with other pas-sages where similar images and their manufacture are described, such as Dt 7^, Is 30-" 40'* 44""'- etc., seems to point to a wooden core overlaid with gold (cf. what is said below of the bulls of Jerol]oam). If this supposition is correct, the image was no doubt life-size or over, as is sug- gested both by the amount of gold provided and by the fact tliat Aaron built an altar before it (v.'). Much in{;enuity has been expended in the endeavour to ejtjjiam the methods of aestruction enumerated in v.". The most probable explanation seems to be that after the core had been charred and burned, the casing of gold (Dt 7"°, Is 30") was reduced to minute fragments ('dust' Dt 9") by a process of crushing similar to that employed at the present day by tlie poorer classes in the Ea.«t in the preparation of cement from broken pottery * (cf. Dn 2'*- "*). As a supreme mark of contempt, the ' dust ' thus obtained was cast ' upon the brook that descended out of the mount (ace. to an interesting detail supplied bv Dt 9"), and the children of Israel made to drink of it (cf. the analogous procedure, Nu 5" *•).
Deferring to a later stage the question as to the origin, Egyptian or other, of this so-called ' calf- worship,' we must, before passing from the incident of Ex 32, refer to the i)roblem, raised by recent critici.sm, of the original connexion and historical purport of the narrative. Tlie key to the simplest solution of the problem is that furnished by the account in Dt l&- ' of the separation of the tribe of Levi for the exclusive exercise of the priestly office. The introductory phrase ' at that time,' v.', refers, we can hardly doubt, to the incidents recorded in ch. 9. Now, if we keep in mind the fact that the great prophetic history-book, as it lav before the author of Dt, contained much which the final redactor excised to make way for the divergent and ampler details of P, the sugges-
• The pottery is reduced to fine dust by rollinf;: a larpe stone bftckwarda and fnrwardi over the fmKmenta, M may tw 8e«n any ■ninraer tn the Birket es-fiuttan at JeruRalcm.
tion seems most reasonable, that Ex 32 in its original connexion fornied the introduction to JE's account of the consecration of the tribe of Levi to the priesthood. The priestly prerogative, in short, was represented in J E as tue reward bestowed by J" on the sons of Levi for their fidelity to his cause at an all-important cri.sis in the history of the wanderings. The use of the standing exjiression for the priestly consecration ("S t kVo) in Ex 32™ leaves no doubt as to the nature of the ' blessing ' (v.*) that was about to be bestowed upon the tribe (cf. also Dt 33'- • where we have probably another reference to the incidents of Ex 32).
While regarding the explanation just given of the main purport of the narrative in its original connexion as the most probable, we would not seek to deny that other motives may also have influ- enced the early narrators. No Ephraimite writer of the 8th cent. B.C., imbued with the spirit of the prophetic teaching, could have coimnitted to writ- ing the incident of the golden calf without penning, at the same time, an inijilicit condemnation of the recognised worship of Northern Israel. That the narratives of Ex 32 and 1 K 12-'""- are not inde- pendent of each other is plain from the almost identical words with which the images are intro- duced (Ex .S2», 1 K 12»^ cf. Neh 9"*). Indeed it is more than probable that the author of Ex 32" de- liberately chose the unusual plural construction (=i''J'CI . . . •i^x) in order to make his covered polemic more pointed.*
iii. The Bulls of Jeroboam i. — The cardinal passage, 1 K 12=«'o (cf. 2 Ch 11"-"), is by every token to be assigned to the Deuteronomic compiUr of the book of Kings, who flourished c. B.C. 6U0 (see Driver, LOT' 183; Kittel, op. cit., Eng. tr. ii. 211-212). Whether the compiler is here huilding on an older written foundation or not, the passage undoubtedly bears the stamp of genwine history. The situation is perfectly natural and intelligible. Jeroboam found that, despite the success of his revolution politically, the temple of Solomon, with its numerous priesthood and no doubt imposing ritual, still exercised an irresistible attraction for the worshippers from the Northern Kingdom. Justifiably dreading a reaction in favour of the Davidic dynasty if such religious pilgrimages were to continue, Jeroboam felt himself compelled to take measures to provide a counter-attraction — a sanc- tuary or sanctuaries that might retain the more devout of his subjects within his kingdom. While thus maintaining (against Stade, Geschichte, i. 3.i2) the essential accuracy of the compiler's estimate of Jeroboam's principal motive, we would by no means exclude, as an important factor in the case, the desire — on which Stade lays excluiiive stress — to pose as the protector of the ancient sanctuaries and the patron of their priests, to whom Jeroboam may have looked for political 8ui>port. Indeed it is not improbable that many of the Northern priestkood had already begun to realise that the temple of Solomon must inevitably make for the centralisation of the cultus, and, like the i)riest- hood of Babylonia in the case of Cyrus, they niny have been among the first to welcome the new sovereign.