. 620).
4 Finally, in regard to sacred springs, we must first of all infer from the analogy of Semitism elsewhere, that in primitive times the most im- portant, if not all, springs were regarded as the abode of a local nwmen. Express testimony to the sacredness of particular springs—whether on their own account or owing to a sanctuary erected near them—is forthcoming, indeed, in only a few instances. Thus, according to Gn 14’, Kadesh (%.@. ‘sanctuary’) in the desert was known also as ‘En-mishpat, ‘spring of judgment.’ This name might indeed have been bestowed upon it in allusion to the judicial decisions given by Moses at Kadesh during the wilderness wanderings, but it may also point, above all, to the presence of an oracle in the sanctuary by the sacred spring. In Gn 16" the (assuredly long established) sacredness of the spring Lahai-roi in the desert is traced back to an appearance of Jahweh to Hagar; and in 21°": that of the spring at Beersheba to a com- pact by oath between Abraham and Abimelech. Adonijah, according to 1 K 1%, holds a sacrificial meal at ‘the serpent’s stone’ (see above) beside ‘the fuller’s spring’ (the modern Job’s Well) ; and v.*8 tells how Solomon was anointed king at Gihon (the modern Virgin’s Spring). The latter circum- stance would be inexplicable unless a high degree of sanctity attached to Gihon.
The above described preliminar step towards a religion, which consisted in the belief in numerous ‘elim, and probably also in the presenting of offer- ings to them, has been designated Polydemonism, as distinguished from Polytheism. No exception need be taken to the name, provided it be under- stood that in this instance ‘demon’ stands for a Divine being of an inferior order and not simply for an evil spirit.
4, It is another question when we ask whether traces are to be discovered in Israel of a once prevailing Polytheism alongside of the traces of
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
Polydemonism. This question is generally answered in the negative by the adherents of the Ancestor Worship hypothesis. They tell us that Jahwism, with its toleration of the worship of one God only, had the effect of suddenly interrupting the natural transition from the Ancestor Worship of the family to Hero Worship as the cult of the pro- genitors of the tribe, and finally to Polytheism as the cult of tribal heroes exalted to Divine rank or of what were once merely local nwmina. Others, however, discover traces of actual gods, and thus of a once prevailing Polytheism in Israel.*
In dealing with this question we leave entirel out of account the numerous attempts to trace all the Scripture characters in primeval and patri- archal times to astral myths, or at all events to explain the majority of them (notably Abraham and Sarah, but also Isaac and Jacob, and, from the primeval period, at least the wives and the sons of Lamech [Gn 4], as well as Samson in the period of the Judges) as depotentiated forms of what once were gods. We fail to see in any of these attempts anything more than unprovable fancies. As little can we consent to regard the use of the plural form ’Lldhim for ‘God’ as a relic of former Polytheism ; it is much more likely that it is a so-called pluralis majestatis. At the very most it might be asked whether, perhaps, in certain tribal and personal names we have not a shortened form of originally theophorous names. Thus it has been proposed to find in Gad (Gn 30", Is 65") a god of Fortune, and in Asher (Gn 30") the male counterpart to the goddess Asherah. But, even supposing that Gad were shortened for ‘Obed Gad, ‘worshipper of Gad,’ or some similar form, the name of this mixed tribe (sprung from a concubine of Jacob) would prove nothing as to a specifically Israelitish god of Fortune. Moreover, if such an idea had been conveyed by the name, it is hardly likely that it would have been borne by a prophet of Jahweh living in the time of David (1S 225 et al.). And as to Asher there is no trace elsewhere of a god of this name, while the explana- tion of the name as ‘the happy one’ is perfectly satisfactory. On the other hand, ‘Andth in Jg 3” 5° should decidedly be regarded as abbreviated from ‘Obad ‘Anath, ‘worshipper of (the Canaanite goddess) ‘Anath.’ But no one can prove that Shamgar the son of ‘Anath is rightly spoken of in the redactory gloss of Jg 3°! as an Israelite. The name is there evidently borrowed from 5°, where, according to Moore (Journal of American Oriental Society, XIX. ii. p. 159f.), he is meant to be taken as the father of Sisera. In the opinion of the present writer, no weight at all can,be attached to the somewhat numerous names from the periods of the Judges and the monarchy, compounded with Ba‘al, ‘lord,’ or Melekh, ‘king.’ For in the most of these it is simply Jahweh Himself that is meant by Ba‘al or Melekh. So it is, for instance, with Jerubba‘al (t.e. ‘he who contends for Ba‘al,’ notwithstanding the opposite interpretation of the name in Jg 6%); ’Hshba‘al, ‘man of Baal,’ the son of Saul (1 Ch 8°? 9%); Meribaal, ‘man of Baal,’ the son of Jonathan (8 9); Béeliada, ‘Ba‘al knoweth,’ the son of David (14’). The pre- servation of the original form of the last three names only in Chronicles, -b@a/ having its place taken in Samuel by -ddsheth, ‘shame’ (2 8 2% 7° e¢ al., 4% et al.; except that 2S 5% substitutes ‘Eliada‘, ‘El knoweth,’ for Beeliada ), proves simply the eagerness of later generations to elimi- nate as far as possible the hated name of Baal, as is already enjoined in Hos 2". But, granting that in certain names from that period it is actually