We may say that the Israelite legislation shows strong traces of Babylonian influence, and yet not destroy the independence of its origin. We cannot suppose that the author of any code set to work to draw up a comprehensive scheme of law. Each built upon the already prevailing custom. His attention would be directed chiefly to what was not matter of uniform treatment. The most characteristically Babylonian things in the current custom of the day in Israel may be just those which are not legislated for. The new legislation did not require to touch what was so firmly estab- lished. Other things of Babylonian origin may have been abrogated by the new laws—it would not be necessary to say what they had been, but merely by stating the new law to say they should be no longer. That any Israelite code shows marked differences from the Code of Hammurabi is enough to show an independent origin. The absence of any difference would show complete dependence. The coexisting likenesses and dif- ferences argue for an independent recension of
612 RELIGION OF ISRAEL
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
ancient custom deeply influenced by Babylonian law. The actual Code of Hammurabi is a witness to what that influence might accomplish. It cannot be held to be a creative source. ‘The Code may only be itself a proof of the same influences. These may be called Semitic in preference to Babylonian. But that view calls for overwhelm- ing proof that there was any source of civiliza- tion powerful enough to have this influence on both Israel and Babylonia, The presumption that Babylonia had a prominent influence on Palestine long before Israelite codes were drawn up, is one that grows stronger as time goes on. C. H. W. JOHNS.
RELIGION OF ISRAEL.*—Jntroduction.—The origin of the religion of Israel is treated in greater or less detail by all the four sources— or, more correctly, strata of sources—of which the present Pentateuch is made up: the Jahwistic stratum (which originated between 900 and 700 B.C.), the Elohistic (between 750 and 650), the Deuteronomistic (650-550), and the Priestly (550- 400). Their respective statements exhibit numer- ous differences, and even discrepancies. But on one point they are in absolute agreement : namely, that the founding of the religion of Israel was the work of Moses, of the tribe of Levi; that it took place in connexion with the leading of the people out of Egypt ; and that it consisted pre-eminently in the proclamation of Jahweh as the national God of Israel. The strength and the uniformity of this tradition leave no doubt of its correctness, however much the details of the process may be the proper subject of criticism.
We are thus entitled to commence the history of the religion of Israel with Moses. It is another question whether we can also attain to any cer- tainty regarding the religion of Israel, or, per- haps more correctly, of the Israelitish tribes in pre-Mosaic times. This question could at once be answered in the affirmative, if it were possible to regard the whole contents of the Book of Genesis as history in the strict sense of the term. Accord- ing to this account, the self-revelation of the one true God began at the very outset, z.e. with the first human being created, and was then repro- duced from generation to generation—always, indeed, only through the instrumentality of the firstborn of each family — until, finally, in the families of the three patriarchs proper, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, it developed into a religion which is hardly distinguished in any way from the future religion of the nation of Israel as this is presented to us in the earlier traditions. Abel and Cain already bring offerings to Jahweh—the one, of the firstlings of the flock and of their fat ; the other, of the fruits of the field (Gn 45*:), Noah sacrifices to Jahweh upon an altar burnt-offerings of all clean beasts and all clean birds (8%). In like manner we hear not infrequently of the patri- archs building altars and offering sacrifices, as well as of their calling upon Jahweh, especially at those spots where He had appeared to them, or which were hallowed by previous appearances of God (127 1318 22° 2675 357). Further, the erection of monumental stones or pillars (mazzebéth, 2818#. 3320 [where for mizbéah ‘altar’ we should certainly read mazzebah ‘pillar’] 35: °°) corresponds to a custom which was practised even by Moses (Ex 244), and came only at the end of the pre-exilic period to be prohibited as heathenish. When, again, Rebekah goes to consult Jahweh, and actually obtains an oracle from Him (Gn 252), this manifestly implies not only the existence of a sanctuary of Jahweh, but also the presence of priests or other mediums of the oracle. In short, the cult of Jahweh as practised by the people of
* See ‘Table of Contents’ at end of article, p. 732 ff.
Israel after their conquest of Canaan is presented to us as simply the continuation of the worship al- ready rendered by the patriarchs to the same God, and, indeed, almost in every instance at the same sanctuaries. Israel, in other words, simply entered by the conquest of the land into the heritage of which they had been assured long ago by the pro- mises of Jahweh to the patriarchs, and, above all, by the solemnly ratified ‘covenant’ of God with Abraham (Gn 15).