‘giant substructures, was associated with the most
glorious recollections of the Golden Age of united Israel; and the Northern kingdom could only re- flect with envy that it had no share left in this pride of the whole nation.
But was not this advantage of Judah, after all, only an outward, not to say a purely imaginary and unreal, one? And did not the prophets find it necessary, even in Judah, to complain bitterly of crass image worship, crude faith in opera operata in the cultus, disregard of justice, and carnal trust in outward polities? Such questions are justified, but equally justified is the assertion that in Judah things were different from what they were in Israel. In the first place, the continuity of the Davidic dynasty, the legitimate heir of the monarchy in- stituted by Jahweh Himself, was a powerful bul- wark against political disorder. Once (2 K 14%), indeed, we hear of a conspiracy against king Amaziah, which issued in his murder, without, however, the continuance of the dynasty being thereby affected. The extirpation of the family of David by ‘Athaliah (2 K 11) is the work of a foreigner, but the latter is overthrown with all possible speed by the chief priest Jehoiada, in favour of a prince of David’s line. Similarly, in 2 K 2125 the murder of Amon is quickly expiated by the putting to death of his assassins and the placing of Josiah on the throne. If, owing to the prestige of the dynasty, even worthless kings like Ahaz were tolerated, how much more must a distinct blessing have emanated from able and religiously well-disposed rulers like Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, and Hezekiah.
Again, the priesthood at the temple of Jeru- salem must have ranked considerably higher than that at Bethel and Dan. Its hereditary character from early times, as well as the not infrequent marriages which there are various indications that it contracted with the royal family, gave it high standing and political influence ; while the care of literary and, above all, of spiritual interests was, without doubt, almost exclusively in its hands.
4. In this way, by means of kings and priests, at least during certain considerable periods, all the conditions were present in Judah for implanting more deeply the ideas of the prophets concerning God and His true worship. And, what is the main point, despite the presence of many false prophets there were never wanting powerful nents
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
sentatives of true Jahweh prophecy. It is true that outside the ranks of the writing prophets only a few isolated names have come down to us, but at least we have evidence in Is 8! of the existence of a band of disciples gathered about Isaiah ; and to these, as guardians and champions of the thoughts of the master, we must ascribe a far-reaching influence on future times. This passage conveys the distinct impression that Isaiah at that time, despairing of any improvement in religious conditions under an Ahaz, resolved to retire completely into the inner circle of his dis- ciples and give himself to esoteric teaching. It is accordingly not without reason that Robertson Smith * writes: ‘The formation of this little com- munity was a new thing in the history of religion. ... It was the birth of a new era in the Old Testament religion, for it was the birth of the conception of the Church, the first step in the emancipation of spiritual religion from the forms of political life.’ Still, even for Isaiah there was left in the times of Hezekiah occasion enough to make his influence felt in favour of a truly theo- cratic scheme of polities.
It is another question how far Isaiah succeeded in carrying through the Prophetic demands even in the matter of the cultus, and, above all, of the outward form in which the Jahweh religion ex- pressed itself. According to the Deuteronomic narrative of 2 K 184, Hezekiah had already entirely abolished the worship on the high places, shattered the mazzebéth, and cut down the ’dshérah (i.e. here the sacred pole beside the altar); and it is usual to trace this ‘cultus reform of Hezekiah’ in a general way to the influence of Isaiah. But the following period knows nothing of such reforms by Hezekiah.t This is explained, indeed, by a late gloss in 2 K 21°". as due to the circumstance that Hezekiah’s son, Manasseh, rebuilt the de- stroyed high places and set up a new “dshérah. But the whole description contained in 2 K 22 and 23 permits of no doubt that the state of things which was finally put an end to by Josiah’s cultus reform had been for centuries regarded as quite unobjectionable, and had accordingly maintained itself without any opposition. Nay, as we see from 2 K 23%, this held good even of the ‘high places,’ i.e. places of sacrifice, which Solomon once erected on the Mount of Olives for the convenience of his heathen wives.
But if in this respect the influence of Isaiah upon Hezekiah cannot be maintained, especially as nowhere in Isaiah do we hear a word against the high places or the mazzébéth, such influence is very probable in another direction. We have seen that Isaiah, owing to his conception of God, felt himself called to a fiery polemic against the images of Jahweh. And so it was he, doubtless, that in- spired Hezekiah’s destruction of the brazen serpent made by Moses (2 K 18%),+ and brought about—at least in circles favourably disposed to the teaching of the prophets—a general abandonment of images of Jahweh. This supposition is favoured especi- ally by the circumstance that in after-times Jere- miah found occasion, indeed, to inveigh vigorously against heathen idols, but not, to all appearance, against images of Jahweh.