selves; and its form is due to the conviction that the intelligent public may now be taken more fully into the field of biblical and sociological study.

It has perhaps already become clear that the book is an examination of Hebrew history in relation to the idea of God. The older view of the Bible and its religion did not suppose that the history of the Hebrew people had anything to do with shaping, or "causing," the religious ideas peculiar to Israel; and the thought of such a connection is even yet a novelty to most readers of the Bible. But it should be observed at once that the old view of the nature and origin of Hebrew religion is bound up with a view of Hebrew history which has been discredited in all the foremost institutions of learning. According to the old view, the nation called "Israel" consisted of the descendants of a single race, or family. It was organized at a single stroke, in the wilderness of Arabia. Taking the form of a mighty army, under the generalship of a single commander, the militant nation attacked the land of Canaan, drove out the "Amorites," and then divided the entire land by lot among the different clans or tribes which constituted the invading army. This view is based on the first six books of the Old Testament known as the Hexateuch, which comprise the titles from Genesis through Joshua. The traditional view stated in a "sociological" way, then, is that the group-organization of the Hebrews was determined and fixed by law at the very beginning of the national history, and was not the result of development

But modern historical investigation has demonstrated that the Hexateuch in its present form is a very late product of Hebrew life; that it was unknown to the Hebrews throughout the larger part of their time of residence in Palestine; and that the conception of the national history which has just been cited is impossible. We can state only the facts in this place leaving the study of details and evidence to the formal part of our treatise. The books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings are

older than the Hexateuch; and the story which they tell about the origin of the Hebrew nation departs conspicuously from that of the narratives embodied in the first six books of the Old Testament. According to these older documents, the land of Canaan was invaded, not by a "nation" organized as a grand army under one general, but by a number of independent clans which had no common organization. These clans, coming in from the desert, merely succeeded in planting themselves here and there in the highlands of Judah, Ephraim, and Gilead. They did not drive out nor annihilate the Amorites; but the previous inhabitants remained in possession of a long list of walled cities, most of which were in the lowlands. The Hebrew nation, as known to history, arose at the point of coalescence between the incoming Israelite clans and the Amorite citystates already established in Canaan. The Amorite cities remained for a time independent (throughout the period of the Judges and the reign of King Saul); but under the House of David, the earlier inhabitants became assimilated with the Israelite monarchy, and lost their racial identity. During the long period between the original invasion and the great Babylonian captivity, the Hebrew people and their kings did not observe the law of the national constitution recorded in the Hexateuch; and this law was finally brought forward in its completed form, and adopted after the Captivity, by the "Jews," a remnant of the old Hebrew people.

This general view is novel to the layman; but it is a commonplace to the scholar who is in possession of the results of scientific investigation of the Bible. The origin of the Hebrew nation at the point of coalescence between Israelites and Amorites has been often pointed out by critical historians; but while the fact is known to all scientific students of the Bible, its vital and intimate connection with the problem of Hebrew religion has not been worked out. This is due, not to the lack of "evidence," but to the fact that biblical scholarship, as a

whole, has not yet made the standpoint of modern sociology its own. The technique of the study undertaken in this book may be stated here in a brief, introductory form.

A great struggle arose between the standpoints of the two races that united in the development of the Hebrew nation. In the long run, the two sides of the struggle came to be symbolized by the terms "Yahweh" and "Baal," which indicate the gods of the races that combined in the national group. By one and the same process, the national deity Yahweh became identified with warfare against "other gods and warfare against "injustice." Although the process was a very gradual one, reaching its issue only by slow stages, the logic of the final result was present in the situation from the time the Israelites and Amorites combined in the same group. Like a spirit of invisible fate, this logic tormented and pursued the prophets, until at last the local Baal-worship, derived from the Amorites, became the means whereby the Hebrew religion was detached from polytheism and injustice. This peculiar development of religion took place within the terms of the Hebrew group-evolution, which, as we shall presently see, was unlike that of any other ancient people.

They

The Amorites, who were already planted in the land, had no national government and no national religion. They consisted of independent city-states, each of which worshiped its own god, or "Baal." These Baals were identified with the social standpoint and economic ideas of settled civilization. were the divine "masters," or "owners," of the Amorite people; and the leading men of the upper social class were likewise called "baals," because they were the human owners of the Amorite people. The common man was looked upon with

1 In the case of many individual scholars, however, the study of the Bible is already moving on from the literary and historical stages into a sociological form. We do not seek to create the impression that present-day biblical science is any more backward in its tendencies than other existing scientific disciplines. The adoption of the modern view of Hebrew history by biblical scholars is the proof of this.

scant respect all through ancient civilization (but not among the nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples of the wilderness). As a rule, to which there were few exceptions, most of the inhabitants in the settled countries were in the grip of some kind of slavery; while a small, upper class used all the machinery of government and religion to make their grip firmer. The ruling force of ancient civilization was against the modern ideal of popular government. Society was defended from barbarism by a paid police; while the enslaved peasant was treated as a base of military supplies. This theory of life held sway among the Babylonians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Amorites, and other settled peoples.'

On the contrary, the ideas and usages of all unsettled races take a different form. The integrity of a wandering clan depends upon the good treatment of its individual members. Hence, the idea of "brotherhood" stands in the forefront of the social consciousness of migratory, unsettled races. While ancient civilization holds manhood at a discount, the nomadic barbarian takes manhood at its par value. Examples are the Germanic tribes in ancient Europe, the American Indians, the Australian tribes, the clans of Arabia, and other unsettled peoples. Now, the Israelites, prior to the invasion of Canaan, were a migratory people, broken up into small clans. Their economic and social standpoint was expressed in their customary usage, or law, known as mishpat. This word is translated in our English Bibles as "justice," "judgment," "that which is lawful," etc. But in one passage, the Hebrew term is represented in modern letters as the name of a fountain, or spring, in the southern wilderness: "En-mishpat (the same is Kadesh)." This was the "Well of Justice," where the legal

'As we shall see in the course of our study, this theory stood for the necessity of the situation. The great civilizations that have generated and built up the progress of history were constantly open to the attacks of barbarians; and the imperialistic form of society was a defensive measure. Nevertheless, it was hard on the masses of the people.

2 Gen. 14:7.

usages of the wilderness clans were declared in the name of Yahweh; and the word "Kadesh," meaning "holy," indicates that it was a sanctuary.

The rise of the Hebrew nation at the point of coalescence between Amorites and Israelites brought the social standpoints of ancient civilization and the primitive clan into sharp conflict. A great struggle was precipitated over the subject of mishpat. "What are good law and good morals ?" The conflict ultimately came to a center about the question whether Yahweh should be worshiped in the character of a "civilized" Baal, who countenanced the usages of civilization and who was distinguished from other gods only by his might and power, or whether he should be worshiped in his original character as a god of the clan mishpat. The more Israelite section of the people (the highlanders) contended for the humane view taken by the wilderness folk; and their standpoint was voiced by the great "insurgent" prophets, most of whom came from small places in the open country. But the more Amorite part of the nation contended for the "civilized" view, with its disregard of the common man; and their standpoint was voiced by the "regular" prophets, who were connected with the wealthy nobility. The mishpat struggle commenced in a very confused way, taking the form of revolt against the kings. But later it assumed a more distinctly religious form when one of the kings, who had imported the Baal-worship of the wealthy Phoenicians, took away the land of a humble peasant by force. The great prophet Elijah now came forward, from the highlands of Gilead, in defense of the old Israelite law and morals for which the worship of Yahweh had stood in the wilderness days. This great prophet opposed the worship of the foreign Baal, which was in time thrust out by a violent and bloody revolution. The social problem, however, was not settled by such means; and the later prophets learned that it was necessary to struggle not only against the Baal-worship imported from foreign parts,