GOVERN ME2sT
GOVERNMENT
251
duty of hospitality was laid upon him, but other- wise he lived liKe any other head of a family. Tliere is no mention of any revenue being assigned to him as an otlioial.
2. The second period extends from the entrance into Palestine to the institution of the mouarchy. and includes the history related in the Books of Joshua, Judges, and the first part of the Book of Samuel. It was a time of unrest, change, and adjustment. It is marked by the decay of the tribal feeling as s-.ich, and the transference of its traditions to local organizations and forms of government. This was due to the fact that a man's neighbours became of much more interest to him than his fellow - tribesmen in his new settled life. The most important i)erson at this time was the 'judge' (err). The Hebrew word denotes 'deliverer' or 'ruler' (on the dili'erent uses of the word nz'i .see Journal of Biblical Litem- tiire, viii. 130-136). The former meaning does not concern us here. With the latter compare the title s-iifetcs used in Carthage (Livy, x.xviii. 37, XXX. 7) and other cities of North Africa ( 6'/// viii. Nos. 7, 765, 10,525). The 'judges' were thus men who by their prowess became influential, and so ruled over their tribes (cf. Moore, Ju/li/es, pp. xi- xiii). An attempt to continue this ollice in the same family failed (Gideon and Abimelech). With this attempt we are introduced to a new word for ruler, -hz: ' king.' What the original sense of the word was (cf. ftlcCurdy, JIPM i. § 36) does not concern us, as it had probably lost its original force when it was adopted by the Hebrews. The chief dill'erence between a local or tribal king {~'^~) and a 'judge' (cri.") seems to have consisted in the idea of hereditary transmi.ssion of ollice involved in the former (Jg 8--). This idea of continuity of office may have been derived from an application of the title ' king ' to the god. This w.is a common practice among the Semitic peoples (cf. for Phoeni- cians and others, W. K. Smitli, liS, 1st ed. p. 07 tt'., 2nd ed. p. 06 H'. ; for the Hebrews, G. B. Gray, Studies iri Hebrew Proper Names, p. 11511'.). Among the changes due to the new settled life, it may be noticed that the ' elders ' (O'jpi), who in the older tribal organization were the heads of the families, now became an upper class, corre- sponding to the 'elders' (p'ii>.\) or ' princes' (d"V) of the Canaanitish communities ( Jg 8" 9, cf. Nowack, Ileb. ArcluEol. i. 304). It was also probably in imitation of a Canaanitish custom that a city and its 'towns' (literally 'daughters' Mj;, i.e. suburbs) were sometimes united for purposes of common protection and "ovemment (Nu 21^- ■", Jos 17", cf. 2 S 20'°). Another prominent figure in the almost formless government of this time was the 'seer' (nxi), whose intimate relation to the deity was supposed to bestow on him a kind of second sijjht (cf. Saul's first visit to Samuel in 1 S Q""-), and led men to appeal to him for decisions in matters of dispute. Samuel may be looked upon as both 'seer' and 'judge.'
3. The institution of the monarchy is generally regarded as marking a crisis in llelirew historj' ; and in the historical writings of OT it is looked at and judged from the standjioint of the later religious beliefs. But it did not mean a breaking from the earlier family and tribal customs — now transferred to local organization — which jjersiated to the end, and jirevented the monarchy from ever corresponding exactly to the familiar Western type. As W. K. Smith .says, ' With us the king or his government is armeil with the fullest authority to enforce law and justice, ami the limitations of his power lie in tlie independence of the legislature and the judicial court-s. The old Semitic king, on the contrary, wa.s supremo judge, and his decrees were laws ; but neither his
sentences nor his decrees could take ellect unlesf thej' were supported by forces over which he had very imperfect control. He simply threw his weight into the scale, — a weight which was partly due to the moral etlect of his sentence, and i)artly to the material re-sources which he comiiiandeu, not so much as king as in the character of a jreat noble, and the head of a powerful circle or kinsfolk and clients. An energetic sovereign, who had gained wealth and prestige by successful wars, or inherited the resources accumulated by a line of kingly ancestors, might wield almost despotic po«er : and in a stable dynasty the tendency was towards the gradual establishment of absolute monarchy, especially if the roj-al house was able to maintain a standing army devoted to its in- terests' (US, 1st ed. p. 03, 2nd ed. p. 62). The chief object in the introduction of the monarchy among the Hebrews was ' to have a strong reliable chieftain perpetually guaranteed' (McCurdy, HI'M i. p. 56).
{a) Mode of succession. — In the case of Saul the circumstances were extraordinary, therefore the form of his api)ointment was not regarded as creating a precedent for later times, 'riie grow- ing tendency towards unity had led to the desire among the peoi>le, and they turned naturally to the most inlluential man among them for advice. It was therefore on the nomination of Samuel, supported by the personal valour of his nominee, that Saul was chosen and confirmed in his office at some kind of popular gathering. In the ordinary cours» of events one of Saul's sons would have succeeded his father. But the fittest among them had peri.shed on the battle-field. Ishhosheth did in- deed succeed, thanks to the help of his friends, in securing for a short time the throne of the house of Joseph, but was soon eclipsed by the jiersonal prowess of the king of Judah. The religious infiuence of the prophets was against him, and treason came to the help of his rival. David became king over all Israel. In the accession of Solomon the principle of hereditary succession takes its natural course, for the king had the right as the father and head of his family to a]ipoint as his successor whichever son he pleased. The heads of the religious and military parties in the state assisted David in carrying his wishes into etlect. After this time the succession was regularly observed in Judah, for the Southern kingdom con- sisted practically of one tribe only, and so was free from intertribal jealousies and feuds. In the Northern kingdom it was very dili'erent. Dynasty succeeded dynasty, and in the last twenty years ot their existence no fewer than seven kings sat on the throne of Israel. In the rare times of internal quiet, however, the principle of hereditary succession seems to have been recognized as in Judah.