The efficacy of the anointing of kings is not, however, exhausted by the notions of consecra- tion and the imparting of a sacrosanct character. The spirit of Jahweh is also communicated. This is plain already from the story of the anointing of Saul. Directly after it had been performed, Samuel announced to Saul (18 10°) that, when he should meet with the nébi’ém at Gibeah, the spirit of Jahweh would come upon him, and he would be changed into another man. And, when this comes to pass, it is not merely that Saul is infected by the example of the né6i’tin; for the spirit of Jahweh has been in him ever since his anointing,* and only waits for an external occasion to reveal itself. In 11° the occasion is different, but the effect is the same. The melancholy of Saul is attributed in 16% to the spirit of Jahweh (which had been imparted to him at his anoint- ing) having departed from him, and an ‘evil spirit —likewise proceeding from Jahweh—having come in its place to trouble him.
In favour of the great antiquity of anointing, and its having been taken over by Israel from the Canaanites, is its mention in the Tel el- Amarna letters.;| But it is a question whether on the soil of Jahwism it did not assume another, deeper religious significance. It is true that even here the efficacy of the oil is still thought of as not merely symbolical, but direct and physical— nay, as establishing a sacramental fellowship be- tween the Deity to whom the holy oil is con- secrated and the man who is anointed with it. This view of the matter may have been borrowed from the Canaanites, but a specifically Israclitish origin may be confidently claimed for the connect- ing of the anointing with the bestowal of the spirit of Jahweh. This answers best to the idea of the spirit of Jahweh as the principle which shows its creative activity on all sides, and which gives birth to special powers—an idea whose many- sided development and application we owe un- doubtedly to Jahwism alone.
* The author of the midrdsh in 161f understands this rightly
when in v.18 he makes the spirit of Jahweh come upon David ‘from that day forward.’
t Cf. H. Winckler, Die Thontafeln von Tell-el-Amarna, Berlin, 1896, p. 99 (Letter 37 of Ramman-nirari to the Pharaoh), line 4: ‘Behold, when Manabbi(r)ia, king of Egypt . . . installed my grandfather in Nuhaégsi as king, and poured oil upon his head,’ etc.
t Weinel, /.c. p. 54: ‘ When the priest at the holy place pours consecrated oil on the king’s head, he conveys the material and character of holiness to him, and makes him a participator in Jahweh’s superior life.’
3. It isclear that such a conception and religious estimate of the anointing of the king could not have taken root unless—at least at the outset— the monarchy had been considered a blessing, a gracious gift of Jahweh.* And this is, in point of fact, the standpoint of the early sources. Even if the ‘shout of a king’ in Nu 23% should be referred rather to Jahweh than to the earthly king, there is still left the weighty testimony of 15 9%". According to this passage, Jahweh Himself com- manded Samuel to anoint Saul: ‘he shall deliver my people from the power of the Philistines, for I have looked upon the oppression of my people, since their cry for help has reached me.’ A long course of unhappy experiences of the monarchy must have intervened before this conception could be expelled by the wholly different one which meets us in the later source (18 8. 10" 12). Here the earthly kingship is regarded as imply- ing a denial of Jahweh, the true King—a falling away from the principle once laid down, accord- ing to Jg 8, by Gideon. It was said to have been with the utmost reluctance that Samuel at, last yielded to the people’s improper demand for a king. He did so at Jahweh’s command, but not without warning the people that one day they would cry out in vain because of the king whom they had themselves chosen. The early concep- tion knew of no such scruples. It was Jahweh Himself, according to it, that designed the mon- archy ; true, it was He also that brought about the unhappy disruption of the kingdom. For it was in His name that the prophet Ahijah of Shiloh foretold to Jeroboam I. the breaking off of the ten Northern tribes from Judah. Ahijah, as an Ephraimite, naturally represents here the stand-
oint which afterwards prevailed in the Northern <ingdom: the real heir of the kingdom of David and Solomon is the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, which accordingly even retained the collective name ‘Israel.’ It is Judah that has broken off from zt; hence the prayer in the Ephraimitic Bless- ing of Moses (Dt 337): ‘Hear, O Jahweh, the cry of Judah, and bring him back to his people.’ On the other hand, the Judahite view of the dis- ruption of the kingdom is presented to us in Is 77: it was a misfortune, a time of sorest dis- tress for Judah, ‘when Ephraim departed from Judah.’
At the close of this survey of the organs of genuine Jahwism we have still to refer to a cir-