Awe.—A fundamental sense of awe was felt in the presence of anything unusual or contrary to experience, and man's instinctive philosophy shaped his ideas from the suggestions of daily life, accounting for all cases of causation by assimilating them to the intentional acts of voluntary agents like himself. There was no doubt of the existence and influence of surrounding unseen powers; they must be cajoled, appeased, bribed and rewarded. Some were inevitably malevolent; with others man could enter into relations which were mutually beneficial. Even at the present day there is no clear distinction between what we should call the natural and the supernatural; a demon or a saint can appear in human or animal form; and the marvel or miracle is that which happens to lie outside the intellectual horizon of the individual. The modern phenomena can be traced back throughearly sources and appear now in grosser and now in more elevated forms; even the presence of any advanced material culture, or of more spiritual conceptions of the Godhead does not annihilate that lower supernaturalism which flourishes uncontrolled among more rudimentary races. It would be unreasonable to suppose that the religion of our period was more free from imprecision than that of more progressive peoples: the whole routine of life brought the individual into constant contact with unseen agencies, and the world of spirits involved a medley of beliefs, more embarrassing to the modern inquirer who seeks to systematise them, than to the Oriental mind which has always been able and willing to accept the incredible and the contradictory.
Man's relations with the spirits whom he shuns or seeks are illustrated in magical practices;e.g.incantation, symbolic magic (p.34).Charms,on the other hand, possess a magical virtue which is effective without interference on the part of the possessor. Many little objects of this character have been unearthed: pendants of red coral (still a prophylactic against the evil eye), beads (still supposed to possess curative properties), small articles cut out of bone(especially the heads of human femora, sawn off and perforated). Here may be included the occasional jewels (e.g.a silver pendant crescent)—amulets and ornaments were closely associated, and the latter continue to convey ideas which could be regarded as idolatrous (compare Gen. xxxv. 4). The representations of Egyptian gods and the 'Horus-eyes' should also be mentioned here. 'Eyes' are still on sale in the East, they are expected to be on the watch for evil influences. But the anxiety to avert evil and to procure favour need not involve an intelligent interest in the means employed, and some of the objects (when not originally possessed by Egyptian settlers) may have as much bearing upon the question of Egyptian influence upon the religion of Palestine as the use of foreign (Phoenician?) formulæ in Egyptian magical texts.
Oraclesare obtained at those places where supernatural beings have manifested themselves, or from their symbols or their human representatives. In the stone enclosures at Serabit Professor Petrie would recognise the sacred places visited by those who worked the mines and hoped for useful dreams. The value attached to visions of the night needs no telling, and when theEgyptian king Merneptah saw in his sleep the god Ptah offering him the sword of victory, or when the god Ashur directed the Lydian Gyges to 'lay hold of the feet' of Ashurbanipal (i.e.place himself under his protection), we perceive among relatively advanced societies important factors in the growth of all religions. Divine advice and help could be granted by the statues of the gods: a cuneiform tablet from Taanach refers to an omen given by the finger of the goddess Ashirat, and the writer asks for the sign and its interpretation. As in the 'nodding' of the gods in Egyptian records themodus operandimust not be too closely examined. Some of the old caverns of Palestine were certainly used for magical or religious purposes, and when we find them connected by small and curved passages, it is not improbable that they were the scenes of oracles, theophanies, and the like (p.15sq.). As Mr. Macalister has observed, apropos of such caverns in the lowlands of Judah and at Gezer, mysterious responses and wonders could be easily contrived, and would be as convincing to the ignorant as the Miracle of the Holy Fire is to the modern Russian pilgrim in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem. The association of caves and other hidden resorts with theworship of deities and oracles is well-known in other fields (e.g.Greece). Susa also had a god of oracles who dwelt in secret retreats, and other deities whose remote haunts were burned by Ashurbanipal when he carried them off.
The representatives of the supernatural powersinclude prophets, priests, and even kings; they are also the possessors of supernatural qualities, the one involved the other. Between the modern Palestinianmajnūn('possessed by the jinn') and fakir, and the prophet of old—contemptuously called 'madman'—the difference is one of degree. The frenzied utterer is capable of incalculable good or harm, and often enjoys a respect out of all keeping with his merits. His very sanctity places him in a class by himself, and he is allowed a licence which would not be tolerated in others. An early example of inspiration appears in the story of Wenamon of Egypt who visited Zakarbaal of Byblos, probably in the reign of Ramses XII. (about 1100 B.C.). Although the envoy had with him the statue of the great Egyptian god Amon, for nineteen days he received scant courtesy and was unable to obtain the desired interview. At length, as the king was sacrificing to his gods, one of his noble youthswas seized with ecstasy which lasted the whole night, and in this state he demanded that 'the messenger of Amon' be summoned (for the sequel see below, p.74sq.). Prophecy, as Dr. Frazer has shown, by means of numerous examples, is 'a phenomenon of almost world-wide occurrence,' and it is important to remember that the relations between man and the spirit-world are not to be estimated in the light of modern preconceptions. There were orthodox and unorthodox relations, legitimate and illegitimate communion, true and false representatives of the supernatural powers; distinctions were maintained although the evidence is often insufficient for us to appreciate older standpoints. Broadly speaking, it may be affirmed that the test lay in the communal aspect of religion (whether of clan, tribe, or people) which was opposed to practices which were private or independent of the official cult.
The dead,in their turn, depart into the mysterious unseen which looms so largely in the thoughts of the living, and burial and mourning rites are shaped by many different principles depending upon theories of the nature of spirits, affection for the dead, the safety of his soul, fear of malignant influences, etc. But theinterpretation of the religious rites which attended every crisis in life becomes unusually difficult when the community suffer a loss, and perhaps no other study stands so much in need of careful 'comparative' treatment. Unfortunately Palestine has furnished no funerary texts, and little direct evidence; the dead 'go to their fate,' the king of Mitanni fasts on the day he hears of the death of Amenhotep III., and Zakarbaal of Byblos offers to show Wenamon the tomb where the members of a former embassy sleep (lit.lie, or pass the night). A people accustomed to the annual death and revival of nature might easily formulate theories of the survival of the dead, and care is accordingly taken to provide for the needs of the deceased (p.35). But the same thoughts are not necessarily symbolised by the same rites. Thus, cremation, the earlier custom, may have been intended to sever the soul from the body, to destroy the haunting spirit, or to prevent contamination and contagion. However, the subsequent use of the Gezer crematorium by those who practised inhumation involved a continuity of thought, albeit with some adaptation and adjustment, since identical conceptions of death and the dead scarcely encircled the two distinct customs. This is instructive for the growth ofcomplex ideas, and the subsequent prohibition in Palestine of certain mourning rites may find a probable explanation in their association with cults which were regarded as illegitimate.
The attitude of the living towards the dead raises the problem of ancestor-worship and the relation between deified ancestors and gods. In the absence of contemporary evidence from Ancient Palestine, we may notice the inscription of King Panammu of North Syria (eighth century), where he acknowledges his indebtedness to his gods, especially Hadad, to whose honour he erects a colossal statue of the deity. The text invokes the god's blessing upon the successor to the throne, provided that the latter when he sacrifices makes mention of Panammu's soul with Hadad or prays that Panammu's soul may eat and drink with the god. Should these duties be neglected, Hadad is besought not to accept the sacrifices, to refuse his requests; and sleeplessness and other troubles are called down upon the unfilial descendant. It appears from this, therefore, that while the dead relies upon the attentions of the living, and it was necessary that his name should be kept fresh; the dead could only exert an indirect influence, and the soul or vital principle, apart from the body, could beregarded as potent only through its companionship with the deity. This may be supplemented from Egypt in the account of the relations between Ramses II. and his dead father, Sety I. The latter is reminded of the benefits which his son had conferred upon him, his statue, and hiskaor vital force. These he may still continue to enjoy, and, since he now has the companionship of the gods, Ramses beseeches him to influence them to grant him a long reign. The deceased king acknowledges the bread and water which had been regularly offered to him; and relates that he has become a god more beautiful than before; he now mingles with the great gods, and he declares that he has successfully interceded on his son's behalf.
The dead relied upon his descendants and upon the benevolence of future generations, and Egyptian kings (at least) hoped to partake of the food offered to the recognised deities. Religious and other works were undertaken that the 'name' might 'live.' Promises and threats were freely made to ensure due attention, and were usually respected by the living; but the frequent acts of desecration would indicate that fear of the dead was not necessarily a predominating or lasting feeling, at all events outside a man'sown family. The above-mentioned Panammu and Ramses are somewhat exceptional cases since individuals, distinguished by rank, sanctity, or even more ordinary qualifications, readily acquire distinguished positions in after-life. Moreover, Ramses, at all events, was already a god, in his life-time, in accordance with Egyptian belief, and all those who had had the advantage of being representatives of the supernatural powers scarcely lost this relative superiority. The protection afforded by famous tombs and the virtues of the dust taken from such sacred spots are recognised to the present day. The venerated shrines regularly found their justification in the traditions which encircled the illustrious occupant: to violate them was not merely an insult, it struck a blow at one of the centres of cult and prosperity. Unfortunately for the problem, by the side of the tendency to elevate an illustrious ancestor must be placed the very human and inveterate weakness of tracing for oneself a noble ancestry. Like the claim of the modern Palestinian peasant to be descended from the alleged occupant of the local shrine which he venerates, every apparent case of ancestor-worship stands in need of a critical examination. As in most problems of religion, ambiguity of terminology (viz. 'worship')is responsible for much confusion. It must be admitted that there would be a natural inclination for every individual to regard his dead ancestor in the spirit-world as more powerful and influential than himself. If this were so even when there were recognised gods, it is obvious that allowance must be made for the crucial stages, before the deities gained that recognition, and after they had lost it.
Space prevents any adequate reference to the part whichanimismhas held in the history of Palestinian religion; without a recognition of this fundamental factor in all religions much of our evidence would be unintelligible.[1] When we take the ideas which are associated with thename, we find that it has magical powers, its use enlists or confers protection or possession; it is the nature or essence of the thing which bears it—indeed, almost identical with it (comp. Is. xxx. 27). Hence the meaning of names is always instructive. The supposition that the child who bears an animal-name will acquire something of the quality of the animal in question (whatever be the originalmotive) preserves more than metaphor, and indicates a stage when man saw little difference between animals and himself. Even at the present day it is still believed that the soul of an ancestor can reappear in an animal (comp. p.50). In like manner, the personal names of our period which denote kinship with a deity point to a belief in a physical relationship as natural as the conviction of the modern native when he refers to Allah in terms which imply that man is in every detail the literal image of the Almighty. A difference between human and superhuman is scarcely recognised at the present day. The women of the land continue to visit the holy sites to obtain offspring, and it is freely acknowledged that welis and spirits of the dead can be physical fathers. This absence of any clear dividing-line between natural and supernatural is inveterate. The Egyptian Pharaoh of old was both a god and the son of a god, and a record is preserved of the visit of the god Amon to queen Ahmose in the form of her husband. The halo of divinity was perhaps not so distinct as in earlier times, but in their king the people still saw the earthly likeness of the deity.
[1] It must suffice to refer to works dealing with primitive religion, see E. Clodd,Animism, the Seed of Religion(London, 1905), A. C. Haddon,Magic and Fetishism(1906), in this series.
The Divinity of kingswas a fundamental beliefwhich reveals itself in a variety of forms through Western Asia and Egypt. The inscriptions of Gudea, the code of Khammurabi, the Assyrian records and the praises of the Pharaohs reflect conceptions which are materialised now in the insignia of the kings, and now in their costume and toilet. In a Babylonian myth the royal ornaments lay before the supreme god awaiting the monarch; in Egypt the king is the god'ska, his first-born; chosen, created and crowned by the divine father. The kings stood in the closest relationship to the gods; they were not only the heads of the state, they were also (in early Assyria) priest-kings, and in Egypt theoretically all offerings for the living and the dead were made by the Pharaoh. All this was neither mere empty formality nor an isolated eccentricity. It is quite in accordance with the powers commonly ascribed to divine representatives, that the control of the rain and storm is held to depend upon the influence of Ramses II. with the weather-god. It is equally intelligible (from anthropological evidence) when the same king caused the gods to take up their abode in the images which had been prepared for them!
Khammurabi could declare that he carried in his bosom the people of Sumer and Akkad, andthe Pharaoh could call himself the husband of Egypt, while Egypt was 'the only daughter of Re (the sun-god) whose son sits upon the throne.' Not only was he the incarnation and the son of the deity (or of all the recognised deities), but he was the cause of the land's fruitfulness, prosperity, and protection. The Pharaoh, 'the god of all people' (as he is once called), received the adoration of his subjects, and one could sometimes believe that he was more essentially a deity than the gods themselves, were it not that the subordinate gods always maintained their hold upon the people locally. With all allowance for the difference between conventional and practical religion, the fundamental relations between land, people, ruler and the deity persisted in many related though varying forms, which are extremely interesting in any consideration of the social changes at the rise of a monarchy and after its downfall.
This digression is necessary, because, although the practical working of such beliefs as these may perplex us, the fact remains that they were shared in Palestine. The petty rulers in the Amarna letters thoroughly recognise the divine nature of the king who was a god and had the god for his father (see p.78sq.). Later, when Palestine had itsown king, the 'Lord's anointed' was almost as the deity himself (Ex. xxii. 28, cp. 2 Sam. xiv. 17); king and cult were one (Hos. iii. 4), and the king's death could be regarded as the extinction of the nation's lamp (2 Sam. xxi. 17). Not to mention other details, the Messianic ideals of the divinely-begotten son and of the ruler whose origin was of aforetime preserve the inveterate belief in the divine ancestry of rulers, an honour which in other lands continued to be conferred upon rather than claimed by them.
Recognised gods.—It is very important to find that the representatives or possessors of divine powers are the worshippers of their deity in life and his inferiors in death. The recognised gods have their definite circles of clients, and if their human representatives are subsequently worshipped or even deified, this is a not unnatural development, especially as the official deities are apt to be at the mercy of political and religious changes. The older gods can be degraded and sink to the rank of demons (from newer stand-points), but the petty deities and the lower supernatural beings are as little influenced by external vicissitudes as the lower ranks of humanity with whom they always stand in closer relationship.Their persistence in popular belief is as typical as the descent of the more august beings, although even the latter are understood to retain an influence which those of more recent introduction have not yet acquired or are unable to exert. While the general fundamental conceptions remain virtually unchanged, they are shaped by the social and political institutions, for religious and political life formed part of the same social organism.
Their vicissitudes.—The deities were not originally personifications of any one power of nature; like the secular heads of small local groups they were the supreme patrons of their little circle. They were usually nameless, but were known by an epithet, or were styled 'god' (el) or 'lord, owner' (baal), with the corresponding feminine form. Each might be distinguished by the name of its locality. The 'god' of Sidon was otherwise the 'Baal' of Sidon, the 'goddess' of Byblos was known as the 'Baalath' of the city; the Baal of Tyre was called Melkart,i.e.simply 'king of the city'; the proper-name of the Baal of Harran was Sin (the moon-god); the Baal of Heaven, according to Philo of Byblos, was the Sun. When Baal and El were used as generic terms, their application was perfectly intelligible locally; and when they occur in forty or more place-names, and numerous old personal namesin Palestine, it is unnecessary to suppose that they represent two distinct and definite deities. From the old Palestinian names we learn that the deity is high, great and good; he opens, builds, heals, sows, gathers; he remembers, hastens, helps, protects, blesses, etc.[1] Such conceptions would be generally true of all; the power of each was not unlimited, but it extended to all that man usually desired.
[1] Apart from names whose meaning is uncertain (e.g.Jacob-el, God supplants?), the list could be easily enlarged; a number of names of western (as opposed to the usual Babylonian) type can be gleaned from the records of the First Babylonian Dynasty.
From the general resemblance subsisting between the distinct local gods it was possible to regard them as so many forms of a single god; and when groups combined and individual gods were fused, multiplicity of types ensued. The status of a local tutelary was affected when commercial intercourse widened the horizon of both the traveller and the native; and in the growth of political power and the rise of a kingship the conceptions entertained of the deity's attributes and powers were elevated. Through the extension of authority the way lay open to groups of gods who could not be fused, and equally to the superiority of one national patron deity over the rest.Political or other changes led to the promotion of this or the other god, and prominent or specialised deities in superseding others acquired fresh attributes, though local divergencies were again necessarily retained. This does not complete the vicissitudes of the gods or the intricacies caused by assimilation or identification. A popular epithet or appellative could appear by the side of the proper deity as a new creation, or the deity was sub-divided on cosmical and astral theories. The female deity (whose name may be without the usual distinguishing mark of gender) could even change her sex; the specific name could also become employed as a common term for any deity, and the plural 'gods' could be applied to a single being as a collective representation of the characteristics it embodied.
Amid the intricate careers of the great names, the local deities obstinately survived in popular religious life. They have found their parallel in the welis or patrons, saints and holy sheikhs of the modern shrines (seepp.21sqq.). The modern analogy is instructive in many points of detail, particularly when we observe the vicissitudes which the occupants of the shrines have experienced. It is natural to ask for the ancient counterparts of the Allah, the supreme god in theofficial religion, who, as we have said, is vague and remote in the practical religious life of the peasant of to-day. A series of well-defined historical events made him pre-eminent over all other gods and goddesses and established Mohammedanism; internal and external causes shaped the varying conceptions of his nature, and gave birth to numerous sects. All the Oriental religions have this twofold aspect: the historical circumstances which affected the vicissitudes of the deities, and the more subtle factors which have influenced forms of belief. But we have no direct information upon the rise of the general conditions in Palestine during our period, and such problems as the origin of the term El 'God' (common to all the Semitic peoples) belong to the pre-historic ages.
Their representative character.—When the gods reign like feudal princes over their principalities their sphere is limited and other districts or kingdoms belong to other gods. Residence in an alien land brought one under the influence of alien gods, whose reality was not denied, though their power could be variously estimated. At Serabit, for example, the Egyptians had combined the worship of their god Sopdu with that of thelocal 'lady of turquoise,' whom they identified with their Hathor, and the caves and temples of both stood side by side. The Egyptian inscriptions there refer to 'the gods and goddesses of this land,' and an officer, probably of the Twelfth Dynasty, encourages a cult which was largely utilitarian: 'Offer ye to the mistress of heaven, appease ye Hathor; if ye do it, it will be profitable to you; if ye increase to her, it shall be well among you.' Some centuries later, we read that Ramses III., desirous of the precious treasures, sent clothes and rich presents to his 'mother' Hathor, 'lady of the turquoise.'
The relationship between countries and their respective national gods (cp. Judges xi. 24) is frequently illustrated. When Tushratta, king of Mitanni, writes to Amenhotep III., he ascribes a victory to the weather-god Teshub (if that was the native name), and trusts that his lord Teshub will never permit him to be angry with his 'brother' the king of Egypt. Similarly, he prays that the sun-god (Shamash) and the goddess Ishtar may go before his daughter and make her in accord with the king's heart.[2] Onthe other hand, it is 'the gods,' or Teshub and Amon (of Egypt),[3] who will make the present alliance a lasting one, and his gods and those of his 'brother,' or Ishtar, 'lady of ladies,' and Amon who will guard the damsel on the journey and give her favour with the king.
[2] In the names in chapters vi. and vii., the more familiar Astarte is employed for Ashtart (Old Testament, Ashtoreth). Where cuneiform evidence is used the Babylonian form (e.g.Shamash, Ishtar) is usually retained.
[3] Amon, the predominant god of Egypt, owed his rise from an obscure local deity of Thebes to the political growth of the city. He was then assimilated to Re (the solar-orb) of Heliopolis.
Towards the close of the reign of Amenhotep III. Tushratta despatched to Egypt, Ishtar of Nineveh 'lady of lands, lady of heaven,' in pursuance to her oracle 'to the land that I love I will go.' She was doubtless sent to exercise her powers in Egypt, and Tushratta expresses the hope that the king may revere her tenfold more than on the occasion of a previous visit. He also invokes a hundred thousand years and great joy for his 'brother' and himself. There is a parallel to this in the late popular story where Ramses II. sent one of the images of Khonsu (moon-god and god of healing) to cure a Hittite princess, the sister of his queen, of an evil spirit. The god accompanied by a priest was received with all reverence, the demon was expelled and allowed to depart in peace to the place he desired, and a great feast was celebrated. Indeed, theHittite chief kept the useful god with him for nearly four years, when, frightened by a vision of the god flying upwards towards Egypt, he restored it to its rightful soil. The very human limitations of the deities render it necessary that some representation or emblem should be employed when their help is required.
In political Treaties and Covenantsthe representative gods of the respective countries are invoked as witnesses, and their curses are expected to fall upon the defaulter. It was generally felt that curses as well as blessings had a very real potency, and the thrilling denunciations at the end of Khammurabi's Code of Laws and contemporary examples from Egypt threaten desolation, hunger, thirst, flaming fire, and the avenging pursuit of the gods. Political treaties are instructive for the light they throw upon the ruling powers. In Esarhaddon's treaty with Baal, king of Tyre (677-6 B.C.), the gods of the latter are Baal-shamen (Baal of heaven), two other specified Baals, Melkart of Tyre, Eshmun and the goddess Astarte. Later, in Hannibal's covenant with Philip of Macedon, the Carthaginian gods are enumerated in two triads, then follow the gods who took part in war, and finally, sun, moon, earth,rivers, harbours (?) and streams. But the most illuminating example is the Egyptian version of the treaty (about 1290), between Ramses II. and the Kheta (Hittites), the two great rival influences over the intervening lands. Here the representative heads of Egypt and the Kheta are respectively the sun-god Re and Sutekh (i.e.Set, the Egyptian equivalent of a weather- or storm-god whose native name can only be conjectured). Formerly, we learn, '[the] god prevented hostilities' between the two lands by treaty, and this new pact is made for 're-establishing the relations which Re made and Sutekh made for the land of Egypt with the land of Kheta' to prevent future warfare. The thousand gods male and female both of the Kheta and of Egypt are called to witness. Those of the former are particularly interesting, they comprise the sun-god lord of heaven, the sun-god of the city of Ernen (also called 'lord of every land'), Sutekh lord of heaven, Sutekh of Kheta, Sutekh of the city of Ernen, and the Sutekh of various specified cities, Antheret (probably Astarte) of the land of Kheta, nine gods and goddesses of certain named cities. Next come 'the queen of heaven; gods, lords of swearing; the mistress of the soil, the mistress of swearing, Teshker, the mistress of themountains, and the rivers of the land of Kheta,' and, finally, the gods of a North Syrian ally of Kheta. On the Egyptian side are Amon, the sun-god, Sutekh (here an Egyptian deity, see p.83), the male and female gods of the mountains and the rivers of Egypt, of the heavens, the soil, the great sea, the wind and the storms. The treaty also bore a representation of the king of the Kheta and his queen embraced respectively by Sutekh the ruler of the heavens, and a goddess whose name is lost. To the gods of Palestine there is no reference; Palestine did not enjoy political independence.
The Influence of Egypt.—Our latest source is the Egyptian account of the visit of Wenamon to Byblos to procure cedar-wood from Lebanon for the sacred-barge of Amon-Re, King of Gods (about 1100). The human messenger took with him the divine messenger in the shape of a statue of 'Amon-of-the-Way,' reputed to confer life and health; a sacred image upon which no common eye might gaze. When at length Zakarbaal granted an interview (see p.54), he was inclined to ignore the political supremacy of Egypt, although he appears to allow that Amon had civilised Egypt and thence all lands, and thatartisanship and teaching had come from Egypt to his place of abode. Wenamon, for his part, showed that former kings not only sold cedars to Egypt, but spent their lives sacrificing to Amon. Even the evidence of 'the journal of his fathers' did not remove the king's reluctance. But the envoy urged the claim of Amon to be lord and possessor of the sea and of Lebanon, and solemnly warned Zakarbaal: 'wish not for thyself a thing belonging to Amon-Re, yea the lion loves his own.' Ultimately the king sent the wood, and he commemorated his obedience to Amon-Re by an inscription which was likely to be profoundly beneficial. For, as the envoy observed, should Byblos be visited by Egyptians who were able to read the stele with his name (the all-essential adjunct), he would 'receive water in the West (the world of the dead where the sun-god descended nightly) like the gods who are here' (presumably at Byblos).
Although the narrative is written from an Egyptian standpoint, the conviction which is ascribed to Zakarbaal finds a parallel in the familiar story of the journey of Osiris, the founder of Egyptian civilisation, from the Delta to Byblos. Even before the Hyksos period Egyptian women named themselves after the Baalath of Bybloswhom they identified with Hathor and evidently regarded as an appropriate patroness.[4] The connection between Egypt and the port of Lebanon may have been exceptionally close, but there were Egyptian settlements at Gezer, Megiddo, and the north at an equally early age. Under the conquerors of the Eighteenth Dynasty, the daughters of the small tributaries were taken into the royal harem, and the sons were removed as hostages and safely guarded in Egypt. Some of the latter settled down, others were appointed in due course to the thrones of their fathers, after having received the necessary anointing-oil from the great king. One of the latter recalls in the Amarna letters how he had served the king in Egypt and had stood at the royal gate, and from the grave-stone of a Palestinian soldier at El-Amarna we may see how settlement upon Egyptian soil had led to the acceptance of Egyptian ideas of the other world.
[4] A. Erman,Zeitschrift fur Aegyptische Sprache, xlii. p. 109.
Meanwhile Palestine and Syria were under the direction of Egyptian authorities, to whose presence the Amarna letters frequently allude, and one of the writers quaintly likens the solicitude of a certain official on his behalf to that of amother or a father. Where there were Egyptians or where princes had been in Egypt, some trace of the national religion may be expected, and it is probable that every military garrison possessed some kind of sanctuary. Moreover, Thutmose III. had dedicated three cities in the Lebanon district to Amon; later, Egyptian gods 'dwelt' in the north at Tunip. A stele, a few miles south of Tell 'Ashtarah (cp. the name Ishtar) in Bashan represents Sety I. offering a libation to Amon, and the pure Egyptian workmanship points to a strong foreign influence in the locality. Ramses II. set up a statue of his majesty in Tunip, and a city in South Lebanon was called after his name. Still descending, we read that cities were set apart for Amon-Re in the reign of Ramses III., and this king built in Canaan 'a mysterious house like the horizon of heavens which is in the sky' (i.e.the abode of the sun-god), with a great statue of 'Amon-of-Ramses-ruler-of-Heliopolis,' to which the natives brought tribute, 'for it was divine.'
Elsewhere, Ramses III. asserts that he built strongholds in Asia in honour of Amon, taxing them year by year to bring their offerings to thekaof the 'lord of gods.' Accordingly, down to the first half of the twelfth century the cult of Amon followed the extension of Egyptiansupremacy, and although the subsequent political history is obscure, the story of Wenamon would indicate that some sixty or seventy years later the prestige of the god's name was not entirely lost. Wenamon's claim corresponds to the explicit recognition (in the Amarna letters) that the land belonged to Egypt's gods; it was the natural corollary of political extension. Like Zakarbaal and his ancestors, all the tributary princes were expected to acknowledge the suzerainty of Egypt's king and his deity. To refrain from sacrificing to the conqueror's gods was one of the signs of open revolt, as we know from Assyria and Babylonia. The king identified himself with the sun, like the contemporary Hittite king Subbiluliuina and other monarchs, from Khammurabi 'the Sun of Babylonia' who 'caused light to go forth over the lands of Sumer and Akkad' to the Assyrian Shalmaneser II. Although the result is confusing, the subordinate chiefs of Palestine and Syria were accustomed to the thought. They address the king as their gods, their Sun, the son of the Sun whom the Sun loves, the Sun in heaven, the Sun of the lands, or the everlasting Sun. This deified Sun or Shamash (to retain the Babylonian form) answers to the Egyptian Re or Amon. So Abimilki (Abimelech) of Tyre writes,'My lord is the Sun which goes up over the lands daily according to the decision of the Sun (Shamash) his gracious father.' And again, 'I have said to the Sun, the father of the king, my lord, "when shall I see the face of the king, my lord?"' Another writer ascribes his victory to the king's gods and Sun which went before his face. The chief of Megiddo, in a letter interesting for its glosses in the native language, announces his intentions should the king's gods assist him, and other writers invoke the god or gods of the king and acknowledge the might of Shamash. Nevertheless, the identification of the Egyptian and the Asiatic sun-god would not, and probably did not, prevent them from being regarded as two deities, and a private tablet at Taanach not only recognises the god Amon and the weather-god Addu, but even appears to add Shamash. It is natural to suppose from the identification of the king, the sun, and the national sun-god Amon (or Shamash) that many apparently ordinary rites had a deeper significance, whether it was the anointing of a vassal or the fasting for a dead monarch (p.56). The custom of offering sacrifices on behalf of kings is well attested, and it is possible that the position of divine kings throws light upon the fact thatthe king of Cyprus has to explain his failure to send a representative to Egypt when Amenhotep was celebrating a sacrificial feast.
The Treatment of Alien Godsdepends largely upon political relations (cp.pp.69sqq.). New settlers might add the established deities of the soil to their own. A conqueror might recognise the deities of the district to which he laid claim. The gods of a defeated land were not invariably deposed, although the Assyrian kings would sometimes destroy them or present them to their own deities. Mesha king of Moab (about 850 B.C.) records that he brought before his god certain captured objects of cult, and it is possible that the pillar at Gezer which is not of local origin had a history of this kind (p.14). The Philistines were dismayed at the 'mighty gods' which the Hebrews, in accordance with a familiar custom, took with them into battle, and, on another occasion, their own gods, left behind in their flight, were carried away by David (1 Sam. iv. 8, 2 Sam. v. 21). The mere capture of the gods was sometimes enough to lead to overtures for peace. But an Assyrian king would even repair the dilapidated captive deities, and having inscribed upon them the 'might' of his god andthe 'writing of his name' would restore them to a trusted vassal. In Palestine the petty rulers enjoyed considerable freedom provided they paid their tribute, and supported their suzerain. We do not learn that Egypt sought to amalgamate subdued peoples and make of them 'one folk' (lit.mouth), as was claimed by Tiglath-Pileser I. and other Assyrian kings. Nor do we find that the Egyptian king sent skilled emissaries to teach (as Sargon II. says) 'the fear of God and the king,' although, if the reference be merely to the promulgation of the official cult, this was probably the chief results also of Egypt's supremacy.
On the other hand, a Syrian prince who had recaptured his Sun-god from the Hittites besought Amenhotep III. (whom he addresses as 'Son of Shamash') to put his name upon it as his fathers had done in the past. The text is somewhat obscure, but the recognition of the Asiatic Shamash is clear, and intelligible on the identification of Shamash and Amon-Re. So, also, when the king of Byblos asserts that 'the gods, Shamash, and the Baalath' of the city had brought about the king's accession, we have to remember that the goddess had long before been identified with the Egyptian Hathor. At a later date, a stele found north of Tell 'Ashtarah depicts Ramses II.paying homage to a deity whose crown, horn, and Semitic title prove him (or her) to be a native deity whom the king evidently respected.[5] Respect for alien gods ceases when they are found to be powerless; but Egypt was constantly troubled by her warlike Asiatics, and so far from their gods being ignored or rejected, they entered Egypt and found an extremely hospitable reception (see Chapter vii). Asiatic conquerors in Egypt appear to have been less tolerant. The Hyksos ruled 'in ignorance of Re,' and their god (Sutekh) was planted in the land; and, later, during the brief period of anarchy when a Palestinian or Syrian chief held Egypt until his overthrow by Setnakht, the upstarts 'made the gods like men and no offerings were presented in the temples.' We may assume then that the religion of our land remained practically unchanged during Egyptian supremacy except in so far as this involved the official recognition of the Egyptian national god and his representative upon the throne.
[5]Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, xiv. p. 142, xv. p. 205. The stele, known as the 'stone of Job,' has entered into the worship of a Moslem place of prayer, and is appropriately connected with a story of the patriarch, many traditions of whom are current in this part of Hauran.
Until the necessary evidence comes to light it is scarcely possible to do more than collect a few notes upon some of the gods and goddesses of our period. The most important sources are from Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt; but some additional information can be gleaned from Palestinian names, allowance being made for the fact that a personal name compounded with that of a deity is not enough to prove that the bearer was its worshipper.
Asiatic Deities in Egyptdate from before the age of the Hyksos invasion, as can be gathered from the history of the mixed cult at Serabit and from the introduction of Baalath of Byblos (p.75). Apophis, a Hyksos king, has left an altar dedicated to his 'father Sutekh,' who had set all lands under his feet, and after the expulsion of the Hyksos, this foreign deity,Egyptianised as Set (or Sutekh), became firmly established. Both SUTEKH and BAAL were regarded as essentially gods of battle, and the latter often occurs in descriptions of the prowess of the Pharaohs of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties. Thus, the king is like Baal in the lands, mighty in strength, far-reaching in courage, strong-horned; he is like Sutekh great in might. He is the equal of Baal, 'his real son for ever,' and he is as Baal in his hour (i.e.of manifestation). When he appears upon the battlefield like Baal, his flame consumes the foe, and Amon-Re announces to Ramses III., 'I overthrow for thee every land, when they see thy majesty in strength, like my son, Baal in his wrath.' Baal is in his limbs; his roaring is like Baal in heaven, and his enemies fall down in fear of him like Baal. Baal was virtually identical with Sutekh who is represented as a foreign god and is sometimes horned (e.g.at Serabit). A curious scarab shows a winged Sutekh with horned cap and long streamer standing upon a lion.
Another foreigner is RESHEPH, lord of heaven, lord of eternity, or governor of the gods; he is the warrior, the god of fire and lightning (subsequently identified with Apollo). Valiant Egyptian officers are likened to him. He appears onthe Egyptian monuments with Semitic profile, and conical hat (or otherwise a fillet) from which projects the head of a gazelle; he holds a lance and shield in the left hand, and in his right a club. According to a magical text his consort was '-t-m, a deity who seems to be combined with Shamash in an old North Palestinian place-name, and may recur in the familiar Obed (servant of) -Edom. In Egypt Resheph also formed a triad with Min (the old harvest-deity and god of reproduction) and the goddess KADESH ('holy'). The last, whose name suggests the sacred licentious rites of Asiatic cults (p.33sq.), is called lady of heaven, mistress of the gods, the eye of Re, etc. She was assimilated to Hathor, and stands nude upon a lion with lotus flowers in her right hand and a serpent in her left; her head framed with heavy tresses of hair is sometimes surmounted by the sun-disk between two horns. Among foreign war-goddesses Egypt had ANATH, well known from Palestinian place-names. Her priesthood at Thebes is mentioned under Thutmose III., and the favourite daughter of Ramses II. was named 'daughter of Anath.' The deity is represented sitting clothed upon a throne with lance and shield in the right hand and battle-axe in the left; or holding instead the papyrus sceptre andthe emblem of life she stands erect clad in a panther-skin; her feathered crown sometimes has a pair of horns at the base. She is called lady of heaven, or of the world, daughter of the sun, mother, etc., and is often paired with Astarte.
ASTARTE found a place in several Egyptian temples. We also hear of her prophets, and a fragmentary myth apparently describes how, as daughter of Ptah, she entered the pantheon of Memphis. Here, as we learn from another text, Egyptian and foreign deities met together, and among the latter is a Baalath Saphun (B. of the North?), whose male counterpart appears in Baal-Zephon near the Red Sea (Ex. xiv. 2) and the equivalent Baal-Sapun, one of the gods of king Baal (see p.72). The Egyptians depict Astarte with the head of a lioness, driving her quadriga over the foe; and as goddess of war she is 'mistress of horses and lady of chariots.' But that both Anath and Astarte were also dissolute goddesses is recognised in a text which ascribes their creation to Set. The prevalence of the cult of the goddess of love and war in Palestine is well known from the references in the Old Testament to Ashtoreth (an intentional perversion to suggestbōsheth'shame'), from the place-names, and from the plaques whichindicate numerous minor local types (p.29). In the Amarna tablets Astarte (or rather the Babylonian Ishtar) coalesces with ASHIRTA who is sometimes written in the plural (Ashrati). Like the place-names Anathoth (the Anaths) and Ashtaroth (the Astartes), the different conceptions of the goddess in all her local forms seem to be combined in one term. Ashirta appears to have been essentially the goddess of the west. In a text of the First Babylonian Dynasty she is paired with Ramman as 'bride of the king of heaven, lady of exuberance (or vigour) and splendour'; later, she is called the consort of the 'lord of the mountain,' an appellative corresponding to the Baal of Lebanon. In old Arabia she was the wife of the moon-god, and the masculine form Ashir, on cuneiform Cappadocian tablets of our period, seems to be no other than the great god Ashur himself. Her name cannot be severed from theAshērah, but it is not clear whether it was transferred to or derived from the object of cult (see p.26). The intricacy of the history of the divine-names will be understood when the Assyrian equivalent of Beth (house of) -El becomes the name of a deity, or when the plural of Ishtar is used of goddesses in general, or when Resheph (above) in Hebrew denotes a spark,flame, or fire-bolt. But the career of the goddess of love and war is even more complicated. The phonetic equivalent of Ishtar in old Arabia was a god (so perhaps also in Moab, ninth century), and Ishtar herself appears in Assyria with a beard and is likened to the god Ashur, thus finding a later parallel in the bearded Aphrodite (Astarte, Venus) of Cyprus.
The sex of the sun-deity SHAMASH is equally confusing, for, although he was lord of heaven (p.73), and kings of Egypt and the Hittites identified themselves with him, the deity was female in old Arabia, among earlier Hittite groups, and probably once, also, in Palestine and Syria.[1] Place-names compounded with Shemesh attest the prevalence of the deity, and around the district of Gezer lie Beth-Shemesh and the stories of Samson (sun) wherein solar elements have been recognised. Among pastoral and agricultural peoples, however, the moon is more important. To the prominence of new-moon festivals and the probable connection between the lunar body and the name Jericho we must add the moon-god SIN, in Sinai and the desert of Sinin the south of Palestine, and in the north at Harran, where his worship survived to the Christian era. At Hamath, in N. Syria, about 800 B.C., Shamash and the moon-god find a place by the side of the supreme 'Baal of heaven.' Later, at Nerab near Aleppo the moon-god is associated with his wifeN-k-l(Nin-gal 'the great lady'), Shamash, and Nusku (fire-god, messenger of Bel). Specific Assyrian influence might be expected at this date, but the consort's name appears in an Egyptian magical text, not later than the Twentieth Dynasty, as the wife of 'the high god' (here, the Sun?).[2]
[1] H. Winckler,Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft(Berlin, 1907), No. 35, p. 53;id., Amarna Tablets, No. 208, 1. 22 (Knudtzon, No. 323).
[2] A. H. Gardiner,Zeit. f. Aeg. Spr., xliii. p. 97.
Quite as prominent as the sun was the weather-god, god of storm, lightning and thunder. Known as Teshub (p.70), Hadad, Ramman (comp. the Biblical Rimmon), Adad, Dad, Bir, etc., the form ADDU, which was recognised as the god's 'Amorite' designation, is adopted here in preference to the more familiar Aramæan HADAD. This is supported by the spelling of the name of Rib-Addi, king of Byblos. The interchange of Baal and Addu in certain names in the Amarna letters shows that Addu could naturally be called Baal, and to the Egyptians he was apparentlytheBaal. The importance ofthe weather-god in the religion of agricultural and pastoral peoples may be illustrated from one of Khammurabi's curses: 'May Adad, lord of abundance, regent of heaven and earth, my helper, deprive him (i.e.the disobedient) of the rain from heaven and the water-floods from the springs; may he bring his land to destruction through want and hunger; may he break loose furiously over his city and turn his land into the heap left by a storm.' The gifts of Addu preserved men from dearth and starvation; a too plenteous supply brought flood and ruin. Thus the god had a twofold aspect, and his thunder in the heavens, his fiery darts, in fact the destructive side of his character made him an appropriate war-god. This aspect of the nature-deity was especially cultivated by warlike peoples.
Babylonian and Hittite sculptures depict the god brandishing a hammer with his right hand, while the left holds up a triad of lightning-flashes or thunder-bolts. On an inscription from North Syria (eighth century) Hadad has horns, and with this agrees the association of the bull with the god. Like all predominant gods he includes a variety of attributes, and we may conjecture that the small heads of bulls unearthed by the excavations are connected with his worship (p.32).The inscription in question (see also p.57) places Hadad at the head of a small pantheon with El, Resheph, R-k-b—el (steed, chariot, or charioteer of El) and Shamash. In the Amarna letters one writer calls the king of Egypt his Addu, and Abimelech of Tyre, who likens him to both Shamash and Addu, addresses him as 'he who gives his thunder in the heavens like Addu.'
Together with this combination it is to be noticed that while Khammurabi 'the Sun of Babylonia' calls himself the mighty bull who gores the enemy, old Egyptian scenes actually represent 'the strong bull' breaking down fortresses with its horns or expelling the inhabitants. The Pharaoh was symbolised by the bull, and even the Egyptian sun-god is styled 'the bull of the gods.' The animal is doubtless typical of generative force and of strength, while the union of the attributes of Shamash and Addu are intelligible since to the sun and weather man owed the necessaries of life. It is noteworthy that the two deities are prominent in the Hittite treaty, where each is called 'lord of heaven' (p.73), and, as early as the nineteenth century, the Assyrian compound-name Shamshi-Adad indicates that they could be easily combined. The name is borne by two kings; one a 'priest-king'of the god Ashur, the other a son of Ishme-Dagan ('D. hears').
Dagan (DAGON) has left his traces in place-names and in the ruler, 'Dagan is strong' (Amarna letters). The deity seems to have been of Assyrian or Mesopotamian rather than of Babylonian origin. It is possible that he was a corn-god. The Babylonian NEBO, the 'teacher,' can only be recovered from place-names in Judah and Moab. NINIB (native form is uncertain), both sun- and war-god, appears in the Amarna letters in two place-names (one in the vicinity of Jerusalem), and in the personal-name 'Servant of Ninib.' The swine was sacred to Ninib, as also to Tammuz and the Phoenician Adonis; but neither of the latter can be traced in our period.
SHALEM, in Jeru-salem (Uru-salim in the Amarna letters), has been identified (on the analogy of Jeru-el) with a god who is known later in Phoenicia, Assyria, and North Arabia, and who is perhaps combined with Resheph on an Egyptian stele of our period. He was perhaps identified with Ninib. The antiquity of GAD, the deity of fortune, can be assumed from place-names. In a disguised form the goddess, 'Fortune' was the guardian-deity of the cities in the Greek age, and allusion is made in the Talmud to the couchreserved for the 'luck of the house.' A deified 'Righteousness' (sedek) has been inferred from a name in the Amarna age; it would find a parallel in 'Right' and 'Integrity' the sons of the Assyrian god Sham ash, and both 'Integrity' and 'Righteousness' find a place in the Phoenician cosmogony which, in spite of its late dress, preserves many old features which recur in Hebrew myths.
The Babylonian NERGAL, god of war, burning heat and pestilence, and ruler of Hades, the deity with whom was identified Saturn (and also Mars), should find a place in the pantheon. A seal from Taanach describes its owner as 'servant of Nergal' (p.110), and the king of Cyprus reports to Egypt the desolation caused by the god's hand. Even as late as the third century B.C. we hear of a Phoenician who was his high-priest. As a solar fire-god he had in the west the name Sharrab or Sharraph with which the familiar Seraph may be identified. The god El of later Phoenician myth (the Greek Kronos; Saturn) was depicted with six-wings like the Seraphim. He was the god to whom children were sacrificed, whence the story that he had set the example by killing his own. If infants had been slain to Sharrab in Palestine, this would be in harmony with Nergal's character, and it maybe noticed that Nusku, who is sometimes associated with Nergal, was symbolised by a lamp (cp. above, p.41). In the Old Testament the grim rites belong to Molech (properly Melek), but there are independent reasons for the view that the latter was the proper-name of the Phoenician El.[3] However this may be, the name MELEK, although really an appellative ('king'), passes over into a true proper-name; but it is not clear whether this is the case in our period where we meet with the personal names 'servant of Melek' (or, the king), 'El is Melek,' etc.
[1] M.-J. Lagrange,Études sur les Rel. Sémitiques, p. 107sq.
It is uncertain whether there is external evidence for the name YAHWEH (Jehovah), the national God of the Israelites. Unambiguous examples outside Palestine appear in North Syria in the eighth century in the form Yau (Yahu), which in one name interchanges with El. Cuneiform evidence for the name in the First Babylonian Dynasty has been adduced, and in the abbreviated Ya it possibly occurs in 'house of Ya,' a Palestinian town taken by Thutmose III. Further, in Akhi-yami (or, yawi), the author of a cuneiform tablet from Taanach, an identification with Akhiyah (the Biblical Ahijah) is not improbable, although other explanations are possible. Whileother writers salute Ishtar (or Astarte)-Washur, the governor of Taanach, with: May Addu, or may the gods preserve thy life, Ahijah (?) invokes 'the lord of the gods.' In the course of his letter he asks whether there is still lamentation for the lost cities or have they been recovered, and continues: 'there is over my head some one (who is) over the cities; see, now, whether he will do good with thee; further, if he shows anger, they will be confounded, and the victory will be mighty.' It is not clear whether these words refer to the divine Pharaoh or to a deity, the supreme god whom he invokes. If the latter view be correct, it is difficult to decide whether the reference be to the Sun-god, patronised by the ruling powers (whether Egyptian or Hittite), or the great Addu who would be quite in keeping with the allusions to war and victory. Some, however, would recognise a Providence, or, from their interpretation of the writer's name, Yahweh himself. But a single tablet has little evidential value and we can merely mention the possibilities.
The preceding paragraphs touch only the fringe of an important subject—the Palestinian pantheon in and after the Amarna age. Egyptian supremacy involved the recognition of Amon-Re, but it is difficult to determine to what extent this deitydiffered from the Palestinian Shamash. Excavations illustrate the result of intercourse, especially in the southern part of the land, but the numerous characteristic scarabs, and the representations of Osiris, Isis, Ptah, Sebek, Anubis, and the ever-popular Bes (with moulds), need have no significance for the gods of Palestine. They may not always be specifically Egyptian; Bes, for example, appears to be of non-Egyptian ancestry. Further, a number of the names in the Amarna letters are neither Egyptian nor Semitic, but of northern origin, and the name of the king of Jerusalem, 'servant of Khiba,' introduces a goddess of the earlier 'Hittite' peoples whose influence upon Palestine is to be inferred upon other grounds.[4]
[4] H. Winckler (Mittheil., No. 35), p. 48.
In Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria numerous deities of varying rank were venerated by the people. Bes, himself, in spite of his subordinate position in the pantheon was a favourite among all Egyptians outside the more elevated classes. The popular beings, like the popular religious ideas, are not to be found in royal inscriptions or temple-hymns. The state and the priesthood often refused to recognise them, but they are to be found not rarely among thepersonal names of ordinary individuals. This probably holds true also of Palestine, and consequently we must not suppose that the influence of foreigners upon thepopularcults of the land is to be ignored or that the more honourable names which we have been noticing were the sole claimants to the worship of the peasantry.[5]
[5] Comp. M. Jastrow,Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, i. p. 164sq.; H. P. Smith, 'Theophorous Proper Names in the Old Testament,' inO. T. and Semitic Studies in memory of William Rainey Harper, i.pp.35-64 (Chicago, 1908).
Miscellaneous Ideas.—Although the native literature of our period consists almost entirely of the begging-letters and reports in the Amarna Tablets, yet even from the language addressed to the human representative of the Sun-God, we may gain some idea of the intellectual environment, some hints, it may be, suggestive of the religious thought of the age.[1] The Egyptian monarch is addressed not only as king of lands, king of battle but as a god (pp.63,78). His commands are as powerful as the Sun (Shamash) in Heaven; he is like the Sun which rises over the lands every day, and, as for the rising of the Sun in Heaven, so the writers await the words which come from his mouth. They keep the king's command day and night and acknowledge that the king will cursethe man who does not serve him. He who hearkens not to the word of the king, his lord, his city and house go to ruin, and his name will not be in the land for ever; but (says the writer, the king of Tyre) the servant who hearkens to his lord, his city and house flourish, and his name is unto eternity, 'for thou art the Sun which rises over me and the wall of bronze which is lifted up for me.'
[1] It need hardly be remarked that the paragraphs classifying the more interesting ideas in the letters from Palestine and Syria have been made as literal as possible.
The vassals do obeisance seven and seven times; they prostrate themselves upon breast and back. (Both attitudes are illustrated in the rather later tomb of Harmheb.) They call themselves the throne on which the king sits, his footstool, the dust of his feet and of the soles of his sandals. They are the ground upon which he treads, the dirt over which he walks; his yoke is upon their neck and they bear it. 'Whether we mount up to heaven or descend to earth, our head is still in your hand,' writes one, and he makes the following striking acknowledgement: 'I look here and I look there and there is no light, but I look to my lord the king and there is light; and though a brick move away from under its coping, I will not move away from under the feet of my lord.' These phrases, which were evidently popular, are used by twoother writers. A vassal thus declares his fidelity: 'I have not sinned in aught against the king my lord, I have not sinned; may the lord my king know his evil-doers.' Another seeks the way to his lord, and from his lord deserts not. A confident vassal prays the king not to take anything to heart; let not thy heart be pained, he writes. One writer asks if he is a dog that he should not obey the royal commands, and a second emphasises his remarks by a repetition of the oath 'as the king, my lord, liveth.'
The king of Byblos, who calls his city the king's faithful handmaid, complains of a deed against his city which had not been done since eternity; the dogs (i.e.his adversaries) act after their hearts and cause the king's cities to go up in smoke. The fields are like a wife without a husband through lack of sustenance. He himself is caught like a bird in a cage. Again, he is old and stricken with disease; the gods of Byblos are enraged, and the illness is very severe, but, he continues, 'I have opened (confessed) my sins to the gods.' He declares that since the day he received favour from the king his heart had not changed, his face is (fixed) to serve him; if the king's heart is for his city (or, elsewhere, if it is on his heart) let him send help.
The vassals write that they stretch out their hand to the king's feet, or pray that the king may extend his hand unto them. The citizens of Tunip assert: 'thy city weeps and its tears flow; there is no seizing of the hand (help) for us.' The ruler of Beirut trusts that the royal troops may shatter the heads of the king's enemies, while his servant's eyes gaze (i.e.with pleasure) upon the king's life. The elders of a city entreat: 'May the king our lord hearken to the words of his true servants, and give a present to his servants, while our enemies look on and eat the dust; let not the king's breath depart from us.' The king is the breath of his vassals' lives; they rejoice when it reaches them, for without it they cannot live. The thought was a common one, and in an Egyptian text the defeated Hittites are represented as saying to Ramses II. 'in praising the Good God (i.e.the king) "Give to us the breath that thou givest, lo, we are under thy sandals."' Equally interesting are the words of the prince of Sidon on the receipt of tidings from the king, 'my heart rejoiced, my head was uplifted and my eyes shone.'
Finally, the king of Jerusalem in his letters to his god, his Sun, protests that one has slandered him (lit.eaten the pieces). While other writersdisclaim guilt or sin (khitu),i.e.rebellion, he asserts that he has been loyal (saduk) in his dealings. He acknowledges that neither his father nor his mother appointed him in his place, the king's strong arm has set him up in his father's house, he has 'put his name upon Jerusalem for ever,' therefore he cannot abandon its territory. Indeed, his recognition of Pharaoh's supremacy is unique, and in one of his communications to the king his Sun, after the usual obeisance ('at the feet of my lord, seven times and seven times I fall'), he declares that his lord 'has put his name upon the East and upon the West.'
The Underlying Identity of Thoughtthroughout the old Oriental world shows itself alike in Egyptian texts and in Hittite tablets from Boghaz-keui. The literature of Babylonia, Assyria, and often, too, of Egypt so frequently has analogies and parallels in the Old Testament, that we may assume that similar points of contact would be found, had we some of the religious writings of the Palestine of our period. Though we do not know how the Palestinian addressed his gods, the evidence whether direct or indirect partially enables us to fill the gap. Even the simplicity and poverty of Oriental pastoral life have neverbeen accompanied by a corresponding inferiority of expression or dearth of religious reflection. An unbiased examination of the external religious literature shows the position which the deities held in the thoughts of their groups of worshippers. Religion was quite part of life, and the same fundamental conceptions underlay the manifold social-religious systems whether tribal or monarchical. To their head each group looked for all the gifts of nature and also for protection and succour; him they were loyally prepared to sustain, and they expected a corresponding loyalty on his part.
A topical example of the identity of thought is furnished by a hymn of the monotheist Ikhnaton in honour of Aton. The deities are largely what circumstances make them; the extension of Egypt's empire extended the supremacy of the national-god, the situation encouraged the conception of a world-god. Now, this domesticated and somewhat weak monarch, holding himself aloof from politics, endeavoured to found a cult of the sun-disc which was characteristically devoid of the usual association of the sun with the destructive aspect of the storm- or weather-god. Like other individual faiths, it was stamped with a profound spirit of humanity. Ikhnaton's deitywas the sole god, beside whom there was no other; the beginning of life, the creator of 'the countries of Syria, Nubia, the land of Egypt'; the maker of all mankind diverse in speech, and of all that is upon the earth and on high. It was a despotic and ill-timed monotheism. It introduced a cult which was too far from ordinary worship, one which threatened to overthrow the old-established deities. What was probably more important was the fact that the deity had not the forceful and dominating attributes of the old sun-god. He was not a god of war, and, from the current standpoint, would be of no avail in the political storms which were beating upon the Egyptian empire in Asia. But this remarkable attempt at a reform claims attention especially because the cult was as little upon traditional and specifically Egyptian lines as was the idea of the beneficent life-giving sun whose rays were not confined to Egypt alone. As Professor Breasted has observed, the hymn is especially interesting for its similarity in thought and sequence with the late Psalm civ. There is no evidence, however, that any effort was made to spread Ikhnaton's cult over the Egyptian dominions in Western Asia, and the possibility of Asiatic influence upon the shaping of the cult cannot be altogether excluded. We quote afew lines from Professor Breasted's translation to illustrate Ikhnaton's conceptions of the sun-god, whose worship was one of the most popular in Babylonia and Assyria, who, indeed, was regarded there not merely as an illuminator but as a supreme and righteous judge, the god of truth and justice.