The general attitude to foreigners was one of hostility, where some special agreement or safe- guard was not present. Driven out from Ins old settlement, Cain protests, ' Whosoever findeth me shall slay me' (Gn 4'^). The Song of Deborah (Jg 5), the story of Samuel and Agag (1 S IS'^'-), the cruelties of DaWd to his prisoners (2S 8- 12"), illustrate the prevailing temper towards a foreign foe. Conduct passes uncensurcd when non-Israel- ites are concerned, which would have been con- sidered improper towards a fellow - countryman (Gn 12 Abraham and Pharaoh, Gn 26 Isaac and Abinielech, Gn 30-^*- Jacob and Laban, Ex 3- the ' spoiling ' of the Egyptians).
Tlie position of the foreigner being so precarious, people were slow to leave their own country, esp. as this implied also abandoning the service and losing the protection of their ancestral gods (1 S 26'°). Amongst the most frequent causes that leil to such self - expatriation were famine (Gn 12'" Abraham, 26' Isaac, 47'' Jacob and his sons, Ku 1'*- Elimelech and his family, 2 K 8"- the Shunam- mite), blood-feud (Gn 4'«' Cain, Ex 2" Moses, 2 S IS** Absalom) or political reasons (1 S 27' David, 1 K 11* Jeroboam, 11" Hadad).
There were, however, three circumstances that helped to mitigate the lot of tlie stranger in a strange land — (1) The hospitality to strangers, which is one of tlie noblest virtues of ancient
E copies : ' the stranger did not lodge in the street, ut 1 opened my doors to the traveller' (Job 3 P'' ; cf. Gn 18. 19. 24. 43, Jg 13. 19, 2 S 12*, 1 K 17). Public inns in the modern .sense (the Eastern khnn
is something quite different) were unknown and unneedeil. In Lk lu-" we first hear of an inn (iravSoxf^ov) where the host (vavSoxd-^) takes pay- ment for accommodating travellers. While spiea naturally received no consideration (Gn 42', Joa 2"'-), the narratives of Gn 19 and Jg 19 show how scrupulously the old Israelites guarded their guests. In an age when the altar was univer- sally an a.sylum (see Altaii, p. 70''), the helpless stranger was frequently considered to be iinder the special protection of the god of the land, hence the ' fear of God ' (Gn 20" 42") was an extra safe- guard to him. (2) The alliances with other nations of which we read must have exercised a consider- able influence upon Israel's attitude towards foreigners (1 K IS'*"'- Asa with Benhadad, 2 K 10* Is 7' Pekah with Rezin, 2 K \& Ahaz with Tiglath- nileser, 2 K 17* Hosea with So, 2 K 20'="- Is 39 Hezekiah ■^^■ith Merodaehbaladan, Ezk 17" Zede- kiah with Egj-pt). Those who had fought shoulder to shoulder against a common foe would not bo strangers in each other's country. One of the most familiar results of this Intercourse is seen in the syncretism in religious matters, against which the prophets protest (Is 17'°, Ezk 8'"'- etc.). (3) Israel's own trading enterprises, which carried her citizens beyond the confines of Palestine (Ez'<c 27" to Tyre, 1 K 9=8 lO" 22« to Ophir, 20^* to Damascus), taught the Israelites to sympathize with the feelin^js of a stranger who came to sojourn in their land (Ex 23").
In Israel, as in most Oriental nations, the king encouraged the presence of foreigners at his court, and depended upon their fidelity more than upon that of his o^vn subjects (IS 21' 22' Doeg the Edomite, 2 S IS'* 20' 1 K l^*- " Cherethites and Pelethites, 2 S 15"* Ittai the Gittite, 2 K 11*- '" Car- ites). By foreign marriages the Isr. king also sought to strengthen his position. Amongst David's wives were Abigail a Kalibbite, Rlaacah a Gesluir- ite (1 S 25'=, 2 S 3'), while his sister was married to Ithra an Ishmaelite (\ Ch2", not Israelite 2 S 17-=). Solomon's harem included, besides Pliai'.aoh's daughter, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidon- ians, and Hittites (1 K 11'). The wife of Aliab w.as Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians(l K 16"). Intermarriages with the Can. are forbidden in Ex 34'"- (JE), and there were doubtless many in Israel who disliked mixed mar- riages (Gn 29'i' 24-'-", Nu 12', J" 14') ; yet these must have been quite common. Unfortunately, the story of Dinah and Shechem (Gn 34), which is of composite origin ( Well h. Com/). 47 f.,312f. ; Kuenen, Abhnndl. 2.55 If. ; see also artt. Sheciikm, SlMEO>f), has been so often worked over that it is impossible to draw inferences from it ^\^tl^ certainty, but Jg 3'"- doubtless gives a true picture of the condition of things (cf. Gn 3S=, Jg 8", 1 K 7'''). It was really more through amalgamation than by war tliat the Can. were subdued. The tribe of Judah con- fessedly contained a large admixture of Can. elements (see Caleb), and Ed. Meyer goes the length of maintaining [ZAW, 1886, pp. Iff.) that Joseph was originally a Can. tribe. It is this pro- cess of amalg.amation that helps to account for the rapid increase in the number of Israel's warriors between tlie time of the judges and the early days of the monarcliy (cf. Jg 5" with 2 S 24°).
Besides foreign traders and resident gcrim, there must always have been in Israel a number of foreign slaves, either taken captive in war, or bouglit from Phcen. or other traders (Gn 17'-', Lv 25"'-, Nu 3r-<"f-). See Slaves.