As a source of the first rank must be reckoned the ancient biography of Saul and David, which, now interwoven with many later—notably even Deuteronomistic—elements, is incorporated in the Books of Samuel. But what we have said is true in quite a special sense of the so-called ‘ Jerusalem source’ in 2S 9-20, which reveals so intimate an acquaintance with the course of events, and shows at the same time so delicate a psychological esti- mate of David, that in all probability it should be placed as early as the time of Solomon. So also the older components of the biography of Solomon in 1 K 1-11 contain a great variety of valuable material. And finally, from the earliest of the writing prophets, Amos and Hosea, important backward inferences may be drawn as to the con- ceptions that prevailed before their day.
ii. THE CONCEPTION OF GoD.—1. That even in this period we can speak at most of henotheism (see above, p. 625° f.) but not of absolute monotheism, would be sufficiently proved by the constant in- clination of the people to Baal worship (on which see below, § iii). This tendency assumes, of course, a belief in the existence of Baal (or the baals). If it should be contended that this belief ought to be treated as a delusion, not shared by the proper representatives of Jahwism, but at all times strenuously combated by them, this con- tention would be opposed to a number of clear statements. What was combated at all times was the worship of Baal and of other gods, but not the belief in their existence. When in Jg 11° Jephthah bids his messengers say to the king of the Ammonites, ‘ Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh* thy god giveth thee to possess?’ he only gives expression to a notion which was self- evident to his contemporaries and to the narrator. A similar notion underlies the language of 18 26”, where David regards banishment from the ancestral domain of Jahweh as necessitating the worship of other gods. The idea of a national god involves that the sphere of influence as well as the sphere of worship of the particular god extends only to the land of his people. Outside this other gods rule, and the man who has been driven within their sphere does well to accommodate himself to their service.
It is true that the worshi . n soil ig not absolutely excluded. According to 1 K 117 Solomon erected upon the Mount of Olives a place of sacrifice for Chemosh, the god of the
* Probably, by a confusion, for Mileom, for everywhere else Chemosh appears as the god of the Moabites.
of a god upon foreign
a a
RELIGION OF ISRAEL 635
Moabites.* The narrative in its present form sees in this (v.1") a lapse on the part of Solomon into idolatry, into which he was seduced by his heathen wives. But, in all probability, what is in view here is—what to the original narrator was quite an un- objectionable procedure—the erection by Solomon of a sanctuary for a Moabite wife, where even in the land of Judah she might render worship to her ancestral ay Such a desire on her part would appear to Solomon quite fair and reasonable, with- out its ever entering his mind to take part himself in this cult. Moreover, such an aberration on the part of the builder of a splendid temple for the God of the land would be absolutely inconceivable. In this connexion it may be remarked that there is scarcely room for doubt that even then a method had been discovered whereby the worship of a national god upon foreign soil was rendered pos- sible. Earth was brought from fis land to the foreign country, in order thus to be able to offer sacrifice to him on his own soil. Thus Naaman the Syrian (2 K 5’) asks from Elisha two mules’ burden of (Israelitish) earth, because he is resolved henceforward to offer neither burnt-offering nor sacrifice to any other god but to Jahweh alone. It is quite clear that Naaman’s idea was quite in harmony with the belief of the Israelitish narrator. But, on the other hand, the conviction that the power of a national god in his own land is irresist- ible when it has been properly invoked, has very drastic testimony borne to it in 2K 3% The ‘fierce anger’ which comes upon Israel after Mesha has sacrificed his firstborn son upon the wall (thus in the view of the besiegers) is the anger of the god of the land, Chemosh, who after such an offering cannot remain inactive, but drives the enemy out of his country. It is possible for ws to explain this result very naturally on the ground that the besiegers lost all courage through fear of the supposed anger of Chemosh ; but this is by no means the view of the narrator and his contem- poraries.
2. But if, in view of all this, the question for this whole period is not whether Jahweh, the God of Israel, is the only God, the question arises all the more, what special significance He had for His people. As we have already (p. 631° £.) pointed out, the full meaning of the fundamental propositions, ‘Jahweh is the God of Israel, and Israel is the neople of Jahweh,’ always comes out when we hae to deal with action on the part of a number of the tribes, if not the whole of them.