It is hard to say what form we ought to attri- bute to the cherubim with which we are dealing. In Ex 25” they have only one face each, whereas in Ezk 4118* each has a man’s and also a lion’s face. Still more complicated is the description of them in the first vision of Ezekiel (15%). Here each of the four cherubim has four faces (a man’s, a lion’s, an ox’s, and an eagle’s) and four wings, besides human hands. Besides this, they are, according to 10”, quite covered with eyes, symbols of the Divine omniscience. That they are creatures endowed with reason might be inferred at least from 10’, if the cherub there belongs to the original text; but not from 3%, where for 773 we should read ov12 (‘ when the glor of Jahweh lifted itself up’). A comparison of all the above data leads to the conclusion that the cherub was indeed thought of all along as a hybrid being, but originally as probably composed of only two different bodies.* At the same time it can paca be doubted that the Biblical cherubim are of Babylono-Assyrian origin, although they need not have been first borrowed in the age of Solomon. But it is impossible to decide whether the ordinary cherub form corresponded to the Assyrian winged bulls or lions with a human head or the human forms with a bird’s head. All that appears to be certain is that the complicated cherub forms in Ezk 1 and 10 (with all their additions) owed their initiation to the imagination of this prophet, only that he has perhaps united in one what the popular belief attributed to a number of hybrid beings. The most important point to notice is that Ezekiel, in his description, is the first to unite the conception of a griffin form with the other in which we found a pale form of the storm-cloud as the bearer of Jahweh. For the cherubim of Ezekiel, as is plain from 12% 26# 93 (where the whole appearance is included in the singular ‘ cherub’) 10% 18, are the bearers of the erystal plane on which the throne of Jahweh rests; by means of the wheels, which are inséparable from them, they move the chariot-throne of Jahweh. Of quite a different kind is the cherub of Ezk 28#-, who, all covered with precious stones, walks upon the sacred mount of the gods amongst stones of fire. Here a direct borrowing from a mytholo- gumenon of the East, as well as a partial affinity with Gn 3%, is unmistakable. It should be re- marked, however, that this cherub serves only the purpose of comparison (with the king of Tyre), while the cherubim of chapters 1 and 10 belong simply to a vision, and those of the temple and the tabernacle are merely symbolical ornaments. Hence they can in no case be reckoned amongst the necessary elements of Jahwism.
ili. SYNCRETISM BETWEEN JAHWEH AND THE CANAANITE BAAL. DEFEAT OF BAAL THROUGH JAHWEHS BEING FINALLY LOCALIZED IN
* This conclusion is favoured also by the circumstance that they are compared by Philo and Josephus with the sphinxes,
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
CANAAN AND COMING TO BE CONCEIVED OF AS GoD oF HEAVEN.—1. Israel on entering Canaan found itself in presence of a pretty highly civilized people, which had long ago adopted the settled form of life, was skilled in agriculture, gardening, and vine-culture, and in consequence enjoyed great material prosperity. Nothing was more natural than that Israel should seek to compete with the Canaanites in the above-named industries. True, the transition from the purely nomadic to the agricultural state was accomplished but slowly. The patriarchal narratives, which may be regarded as a faithful picture of the conditions that prevailed during the earlier part of the period of the Judges, still exhibit a mingling of the settled with the nomadic life; and even in the so- called Book of the Covenant (Ex 21-23) the pastur- ing of flocks evidently still plays an important réle along with the cultivating of the atl The necessity of learning the finer arts of field- and vine-culture from the Canaanites—and that in constant association with them—vwould of itself suttice to explain numerous Canaanite influences upon the conduct and the habits of thought of the Israelites. But there are other two very.powerful factors that come into view in this connexion.
(a) In the first place, the land into which Israel penetrated had belonged from times remote to another god who, in various forms, was wor- shipped at the different sanctuaries of the country, and whose rights as owner no one at first dreamt of contesting. To Israel, as to every other people of those days, it was self-evident that every nation and country had its own god. The latter may in- deed be temporarily overcome by the more power- ful god (or gods) of a foreign nation, but his ex- istence is not therewith ended. The thought, however, of a defeat of Baal (or the baals) of Canaan could not take its rise among the Israel- ites so long as they were able only with diffi- culty (as is shown by Jg 1° 18!* etc.) to main- tain their position in the land side by side with the Canaanites. In view of all this, it was per se self-evident that Baal, the god of the land, was to be regarded as the bestower of the fruits of the land, and was entitled to thanks accordingly. (b) But, in the second place, according to the con- ceptions of antiquity, agriculture itself was viewed as a branch of the cult of the god of the land, or at least as part of the religious customs and usages which are traced back to him, and on that account are observed and handed down with superstitious care. This view finds an instructive exposition in TsiQsere,