* At most we should have to except only the serpent of Am 93 (see above) and Rahab of Is 307 (as a designation of Egypt). But not only is the authenticity of the last passage disputed, but the correctness of its text is very doubtful, and, finally,
rahab may here be quite well an appellative ‘ raging ’ ‘ bluster ing’). Of. vol. iv. p. 1954,
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
sea, but nowhere any allusion to a conflict with the ocean as a mythological monster.
But, even if all the passages cited by Gunkel were coloured by such allusions, they would be still quite without relevancy as affecting our esti- mate of the religion of Israel for the period we are considering. For, apart from the fact that, in the few passages that are certainly entitled to be considered, Jahweh expressly takes the place of Marduk (z.¢. there has been a complete trans- planting of the myth to the soil of Jahwism), we must, further, note with emphasis that in every instance we have to do with the utilizing of those mythological reminiscences in poetry. Now, the freedom of which the Hebrew poets availed them- selves in this matter is as far from supplying a standard whereby to judge of their religious beliefs as the mention of Scylla and Charybdis by a modern writer would be a fair test of his beliefs.
(y) Finally, the attempts that have been made to give a mythological sense to the vessels of Solomon’s temple appear to us to have failed com- pletely: e.g. the supposition that the so-called brazen sea (1 K 7%) represents the thom or prim- eval ocean, or that the oxen are symbols of Marduk.* On this question the present writer must express his full accord with Stade, who (ZATW, 1903, p. 179) sees in these vessels no evidence that at that time the myths possibly attached to them had been adopted by the Israelites, or that they were even known tothem. ‘It was nota religious need, but the needs of kingly pomp, that led to the intro- duction of a foreign institution into the temple. The Pheenician artist, who was called in to execute the work, wrought according to the fashions of style with which he was familiar, and turned out a product which could be transferred from a Phe- nician temple to the temple of Jahweh.’
From all sides, then, it may be considered as established that the extent of Babylonian influence upon the religion of Israel—at least for the pre- exilic period—has been considerably overestimated. Examples of dependence and of allusions are not to be denied. But upon the soil of revelation the foreign material undergoes such transformation, and appears in such a new light, when viewed from an immeasurably higher moral and religious stand- point, that the question has not unreasonably been asked whether, in many passages, we should speak, not of dependence and imitation, but rather of a polemical intention towards the alleged source.
The further question, whether to this period religious expectations as to the future (connected with the theologumenon of the ‘ Day of the LoRD’) should be attributed, will have to be discussed in the following section.
IV. THE PERIOD OF THE WRITING PROPHETS, DOWN TO THE EXILE.
i. THE SourceES.—As sources for this period, which embraces some 180 years, we have to take account not only of the Prophetical writings, but also of portions of the Pentateuch and of the His- torical literature. Thus in the Pentateuch there are the later and latest strata of J and E, and the Book of Deuteronomy ; in the Historical books we have the prophetically influenced sections of Judges and Samuel (such as 1§ 1. 242-6 3. 8. Toye 15), but, above all, the first Deuteronomic redaction of the Books of Kings (c. 600 B.c.). For our present pur- poses we can practically leave out of account the
* So Kittel in his Com. on Kings (in Nowack’s Hdkom., Got- tingen, 1900, p. 64), following Kosters (Theol. Tijdschr. 1879, p. 445ff.). According to Gunkel (.c. p. 153, cf, also 164 f.), the 12 oxen must rather have stood in some relation to the 12 signs of the zodiac.
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
671
——————— ee ee
circumstance that the exact chronological position of the particular passages referred to is still the sub- ject of much controversy. or there is practically complete agreement that they are dependent upon the preaching of the pre-exilic writing prophets, and that is the only point that concerns us. Besides, the whole of the historical literature of this period exhibits such a uniformity of ideas that the ques- tions of analysis of sources and precise dating possess only a subordinate importance. For this reason we may leave open the complicated ques- tions connected with the origin of Deuteronomy, namely, whether the law-book introduced by Josiah in 621 is to be regarded as the original Deutero- nomy or was compiled from older codifications. So far as the description of the process of develop- ment of the OT religion is concerned, the present Book of Deuteronomy may quite properly be treated as a unity.
On the other hand, no little difficulty attaches to the questions of literary criticism affecting the main sources, namely, the Prophetical writings themselves. Here even the most cautious and conservative of critics have been compelled by the latest investigations to make such concessions as would have been considered impossible twenty years ago. Of course this is not the place to describe exhaustively either the process of literary criticism which has led to this, or the results of this criticism. But it may be as well to indicate clearly the general viewpoints which have forced themselves upon investigators in ever - growing measure, and without which a just judgment and a correct employment of the Prophetical writings are impossible.