Now, the word instinct explains nothing, needs to be itself explained. In a scientific discussion it is no reason, only an apology for one. And here the psychology was not simply bad, but useless, was used to explain a thing that did not exist. Scholars affirmed and proved polytheistic tendencies in all the branches of the race; so strong, indeed, in the very branch which gave monotheism to the world as to involve it in ceaseless conflicts. Yet there was this much truth in the picture-Monotheism was the creation of the Semitic genius, the finest blossom of its spirit. Nothing was more alien to the Indo-European mind. The unities it groped after and reached were not personal, but abstract conceptions, metaphysical like the Brahma of India, or ethical like the rò ȧyalóv of Greece. Greek genius intensified would have produced more splendid tragedies than those of Æschylos or Sophokles, a sublimer philosophy than Plato's, not proclaimed a religion with "there is no God but God" as its Gospel.* The Hebrew genius enlarged, clarified, had only excelled on its own province, not invaded the Hellenic. The races are, indeed, contrasts, move in different orbits, yet each as complementary to the other, like lights made to rule the two sections of human thought. If the Greek has made our literary, the Hebrew has made Steinthal, "Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychol. und Sprachwissenschaft," vol. i. p. 343. our religious classics, and the creators of works so different could hardly be similarly endowed. II. The discussion must now become historical, an inquiry into the fundamental differences in the religious ideas of the two races. The cardinal and fontal difference is thisthe mode of conceiving and denoting deity. The distinctively Semitic names of God express, as is now well known, moral or metaphysical qualities and relations; the IndoEuropean denote natural objects, phenomena, and powers.* Language is here a faithful mirror of mind; the word speaks as the thought had conceived. 1. The term for God common to all the Semitic family is El, the strong, the mighty. It often occurs in the Bible, and is applied both to Jahveh† and heathen deities. It denoted the chief deity of Byblus,§ is found in the Babylonian || and Himyaritic inscriptions, in Syria, Phoenicia, * M. Müller, "Chips," vol. i. 359 ff. "Introduction to the Science of Religion," pp. 176 ff. Kuenen, "De Godsdienst van Israël," vol. i. pp. 224, 225. + Josh. xxii. 22; Ps. 1. 1; Gen. xxxi. 13; Dan. xi. 36. Exod. xv. 11; Isa. xliv. 10, 15; xlv. 20. g "Philo. Byb.," as explained by Bunsen, "Egypt,” iv. 187 ff. || Schrader, "Keilinschriften und das Alte Test.," pp. 41, 42. Canaan, and North Arabia.* It is known in a simple or compound form to all the Semitic dialects, and is equally significant as an indication of their original unity and the conception the united family had of God. Alongside it may be placed the Hebrew Eloah, mostly used in the plural Elohim, the Arabic Ilah, with the article Allah, which are not, indeed, etymologically connected with El, but derivatives from a root expressive of agitation, fear, and so denote the being who is feared.† Another very old Hebrew,+ and possibly Phoenician,§ name was Shaddai, the powerful, which perhaps stood in some way connected with the Egyptian Set or Seb. In Elyon, the Most High, we have a name known alike to the Canaanites,|| Phoenicians,¶ and Hebrews.** But one much more common is the Phoenician, Carthaginian, Canaanitish, Israelitish,†† Baal, the Assyrian Bel, Lord, Master, Husband. Another name, Adon, ++ ++ * Tiele, " Vergelijk. Geschied. van den Egypt. en Mesopot. Godsdiensten," pp. 460 ff. Gesenius, "Monum. Phonic.,” p. 406. + Prof. Fleischer in Delitzsch, "Genesis," pp. 47 f., 4th ed. Kuenen, "Godsdienst van Israël," i. 45. Exod. vi. 3; Gen. xvii. 1; xxviii. 3, &c. § Bunsen explains the Agruēros of "Philo. Bybl." as a blundered rendering of Shaddai, "Egypt," iv. 221-1. ¶ "Philo. Bibl.," Bunsen, "Egypt," iv. 190, 231. ** Ps. xix. 2; xxi. 7, &c. Gen. xiv. 18-22. The question raised ++ Movers, "Relig. der Phönizier," vol. i. 169 ff. in Professor Dozy's "Israeliten zu Mecca," and so exhaustively discussed of late in Holland, as to the ancient worship of Israel being one, not of Jahveh, but of Baal, cannot, of course, be touched here. Nor is it in any way of vital moment to our present discussion. ‡‡ Schrader's " Keilinschriften,” 80, 81. very similar in meaning, was used by the Canaanites,* Phoenicians,† Hebrews, and in the form Adonai employed in the Old Testament, as Baal never was, to denote Jahveh. In the word Molech, possibly either an Ammonite or earlier form of the Hebrew Melech, king, we have a name for God that appears in several Semitic dialects, as the Phoenician Melkarth, king of the city, Baalmelech, and the Assyrian gods Malik, Adrommelech and Anammelech.** The national god of Assyria, Assur, was so named in all likelihood because his people conceived him as a good being, the deity giving his name to the land rather than the land to the deity.++ The specific and distinctive Hebrew name for God, Jahveh, means "he who is," and as it is etymologically explicable, ++ * Josh. x. 1; Judg. i. 5. + Gesenius, "Monum. Phonic.," p. 346. Josh. iii. 13. g Exod. iv. 10, 13; Isa. xl. 10, &c. In Hosea ii. 16 (18), Baali is used not as a proper name, but as the synonym of husband, only with a sterner, less affectionate sense. Ewald ("Propheten," i. 194) translates buhle. Kuenen ("Godsdienst van Israël," i. 401-403) distinguishes thus, Baali Mon mari, Ishi Mon époux. || Whose God Molech was said to be. 1 Kings xi. 27; Jer. xlix. 1—3. Movers' "Die Phönizier," i. 323. ¶ Movers, i. 419. Gesenius, "Monum. Phon.," p. 292. ** Schrader's "Keilinschriften," 65, 168. ++ Ib., 7, 8. I confess to have great difficulty in deciding as to the meaning of Jahveh, whether it means "he who is," "he who causes to be," or "he who will be it," will possess a given character, or manifest a given quality, or sustain a given relation to the person who uses the name. This latter meaning is developed and defended in a paper of great learning and acuteness by Prof. W. Robertson Smith in the "British and Foreign Evangelical Review," xcv. Of course this latter view gives a much higher ethical and so it remains religiously significant, only on Hebrew soil; can be traced as little to an Assyrian as to an Egyptian or Phoenician source. * These, then, common and distinctive Semitic names of deity show that though the tribal and national religions were distinguished by many and strongly marked differences, there was one point where they so met as to reveal their kinship-they conceived God similarly, attributed to what was divine the same qualities and powers.+ The distinctive Semitic conception of God determined the distinctive character of the Semitic religions. They are all Theocratic. The Being conceived as the Mighty Lord or King was regarded as the true Monarch of the State, its founder, lawgiver, guardian. The Assyrian kings reigned in the name of God, received from him “pre-eminence, exaltation, and warlike power." Their wars were "the wars of Assur," their enemies his religious value to the name, and makes it still more specific and distinctive of the faith of the people who used it. * The question as to the source of the name Jahveh has of late entered on a new, or rather returned upon an old, phase, and become of vital importance to the interpretation of the religion of Israel. Of course it is impossible to discuss it in a paper like the above. It must wait separate treatment. See, on the one side, Colenso, part v. pp. 269-284, app. iii.; Land, 'Theologisch. Tijdschrift," ii. pp. 156–170. On the other, Kuenen, "Godsdienst van Israël," i. 274, 294, 394–401. 66 + The discovery that much of the Semitic mythology had a Babylonian origin does not involve a similar origin for the distinctively Semitic religious ideas. These, indeed, passed into the Babylonian myths, and inspired them with a new meaning. The Semitic mind read its own ideas into the Ural-Altaic forms. |