and with a desire to preserve Israel's religious individuality.' There is no mention of the Baals in the narratives of the highland kingdom; and the Amorite gods evidently stood outside the calculations of the Israelites at this time.

By the latter part of the Judges period, the highlanders had already begun to bring offerings of bread and wine up to the Shiloh sanctuary (I Sam. 1:24). For Yahweh had now become a god of the hill-country. The clouds were believed to drop water at the presence of Yahweh, in the "Song of Deborah," the oldest extant piece of Hebrew literature (Judg., chap. 5). He sends dew on Gideon's fleece of wool, as it lies on the highland threshing floor in the heart of Canaan (Judg. 6:36 f.). It was he, not the Baals, who sent the rains that fertilized the crops and made the grass to spring forth in the uplands of Ephraim, Gilead, and Judah. The bread of the "presence" that stood before the altar of Yahweh at Nob was the fruit of the ground (I Sam. 21:6). Bread and wine, both coming from the soil, were offered at the holy place in Bethel (I Sam. 10:3); and it cannot be claimed that the sacrifices at the high place in Ramah were limited to flesh food (I Sam. 9:11 f.). Yahweh had conquered the highlands, and wrested them from the power of the Amorite Baals. "As Semitic tribes migrated and settled in new environments, their deities naturally took on many new functions or attributes from the new surroundings."

* Kuenen, Religion of Israel (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 312.

2 Barton, "Yahweh before Moses," a paper in the Toy Anniversary Volume. Budde's view is unnatural, that Yahweh got his function as a rainmaker at secondhand from the Amorite Baals. If Yahweh got his attributes in this way, how did the Baals get their powers?-from still other gods, ad infinitum? There was little or no contact between the Yahweh and Baal cults during the Judges period and the time of Saul's kingdom. The entanglement of the two cults came later, and even then was limited to certain parts of the country and certain classes of the people. In some Hebrew minds, the distinction between Yahweh and the Baals remained a vital, outstanding fact straight along through the history. For instance, Hosea declares on behalf of Yahweh, "I gave her the grain, and the new wine, and the oil" (Hos. 2:8); and this view at length prevailed. Cf. Gen. 7:4; 27:27, 28; Exod. 9:33; Deut. 7:13; 33:13-16, 28; I Kings 17:1; 18:44; Amos 4:7; Jer. 14:22.

The god of Israel was recognized in many personal names during this period. The name of the crown prince, Jonathan, signifies "Yahweh has given" (I Sam. 14:39). The name of the priest Ahijah means "Yahweh is protector" (I Sam. 14:3). That of Joab, the warrior, means "Yahweh is father" (I Sam. 26:6).1

There is no reason to suppose that Yahweh shared with the Baals the religious devotion of Israel during the time of the highland kingdom. The idea that Amorite Baal-worship was necessarily involved whenever an Israelite sowed seed in the uplands in the reign of Saul is an assumption for which there is absolutely no warrant in the

sources.

The name Ishbaal, which was given to one of the sons of Saul (II Sam. 2:8) signifies "man of Baal." This name in II Samuel has been changed by the zeal of some later copyist into Ish-bosheth, or "man of shame” (cf. I Chron. 8:33). If the Baal in question be Yahweh, the fact indicates merely that this generic term was applied to him, but not that he had suddenly forfeited his “identity” through confusion with the many Baals of the Amorites. The term baal, as we have seen, denoted the father of a family in Israel (chap. vi, supra); and so its application to Yahweh may have been suggested as much by Israelite analogy as by Amorite usage. In any case, the Baal-names weigh no more heavily in the scales of evidence than do the Yahweh-names; and the highland kingdom, like the Judges period, yields more of the latter than of the former. Professor Addis writes, on the matter of names, "Nothing can be made of the fact that Hebrew proper names are sometimes compounded with Baal" (Hebrew Religion (London, 1906], pp. 106 f.).

CHAPTER XIII

COALESCENCE OF THE RACES

The Hebrew nation came into existence under the house of David, at the point of coalescence between Israelites and Amorites.-The Hebrew nation, as known to world history, did not arise until Israelites and Amorites were brought under the cover of one political roof. The extension of the framework of the monarchy was the task of David, one of the most astute statesmen that ever crossed the stage of history. With great boldness, David located his capital at one of the Amorite walled cities which had not been reduced by the Israelites at the time of the original invasion. This place, known as "Jebus" and also as "Jerusalem," had remained a foreign city up to the time of David. The new king took this place, and occupied its fort, Zion, calling it the "City of David.” Instead of exterminating the inhabitants, after the manner of Saul, David spared the Amorite population and contracted state-marriages with the leading families (II Sam. 5:6-13). In line with the same policy, and as a further token of good faith, David gave up to the Amorites of Gibeon a number of the grandsons of Saul for execution. This he did by way of atonement for Saul's perfidy in breaking the treaty with the Amorites (II Sam., chap. 21).1

It is to be noticed that David protected himself in this action by consulting the ephod oracle of Yahweh; but this particular item of evidence should be taken in connection with the whole situation. "Religion in antiquity, particularly official religion, usually gave its oracles in accordance with royal or priestly policy."-Goodspeed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians (New York, 1906), p. 288. To the same effect, see Breasted, History of Egypt (New York, 1905), pp. 522, 523. Also, on Greek oracles, Jebb, Essays (Cambridge, 1907), pp. 156 f. Professor Jebb writes, "There were occasions on which an oracle became, in a strict sense, the organ of a political party." He adds, rather profanely, that the god "Apollo, in short, kept up a series of most urgent leading articles." We have discussed the ephod oracle of Yahweh in Part II, chap. viii.

The general situation is clearly shown by a detached notice inserted in the Book of Joshua by a later hand, as follows: "As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day" (Josh. 15:63). An instance of the peaceful relations established between the races appears in the case of Araunah the Jebusite, from whom David bought some realestate. Araunah calls David, "My lord, the king" (II Sam. 24:16, 21). It is not surprising to find persons from the Canaanite cities in David's army (II Sam. 23:32, 37); nor is it strange that a general census in this reign accounted for Canaanites as well as for Israelites (II Sam. 24:1 ff.).

David was followed on the Hebrew throne by his son Solomon. This king was not born among the peasantry of the hills, like his father, but in the Amorite city of Jerusalem. Under Solomon the national process went to its logical issue. The new monarch set up the administration of the kingdom not only in his native city, Jerusalem, but in a number of Amorite cities, such as Beth-shemesh, Taanach, Megiddo, Shaalbim, Hazor, Gezer, Beth-shean, etc. (I Kings 4:1, 2, 9, 11, 12, and 4:15).1

It is clear that under Solomon the development of nationality came to a climax. In this reign the Hebrew kingdom took the form of an organization including all the social factors that enter into the composition of a mature state. It was not merely a loose confederacy of shepherds and farmers, as in the time of Saul. For the monarchy now embraced not only the more primitive and backward classes, but merchants, artisans, bookkeepers, teachers, and financiers; and it entered with some abruptness into the circle of oriental civilization (I Kings 4:1-5; 9:28; 10:14-28). The fact that Israel finally

'Compare the list of unconquered Amorite cities in Judg., chap. 1, as quoted above, p. 106.

came to disaster is no proof that the union of the races in a single state was a bad policy. It simply proves that nobody was able to cope with the resulting situation.

The race distinction of the Amorites was lost within the mass of the Hebrew nation.-The sociology of the Israelite invasion of Canaan was precisely opposite to that created by the Norman invasion of England. In the case of the Normans, the invaders found a social group already in existence. The English nation was organized under a king before the Normans crossed the channel; so that Norman life adjusted itself within the national mold, or matrix, furnished by English life. "As early as the days of Henry the Second," writes Green, "the descendants of Norman and Englishman had become indistinguishable. Both found a bond in a common English feeling and English patriotism.' In England, therefore, the invaders took the name of the older inhabitants.

But the Israelite invaders of Canaan did not find a national group in possession of the land. In this case, it was the invaders, and not the older inhabitants, who supplied the organization. The national movement started among the Israelites of the highlands, not among the Amorites of the lowlands; it was Israel that gave the first national rulers, and supplied the national religion. As a result, the older population at length lost its identity in the mass of the Hebrew nation, and became Israelite in name. In these contrasted historic situations, the Hebrew and the English, the objective circumstances were precisely opposite; and the key to the facts in each case is found in the group organization. The Amorites intermarried with the Israelites; and the new generations called themselves Israelites, or Hebrews, and ignored the Amorite side of their ancestry. The invasion of the land by the Israelites projected itself into bold relief against the 1 Green, History of the English People, Book III, chap. i.