1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9159be39479682d63a3c586dea1150d9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mCf5D0iFlwq6VJPMWWTem3ePWbEN9hgU0O1rFAU0kYkmqc28OdWoAL-yW%7Eso2Hx7xPMTmv60u0s%7ENxb-Sd3gYlv3niJcgyoLSDRE%7EVmn5TZU62T5fgQH1utZsEoIYaNyE99JuB3V-SUQPrp2IbrrTIN%7E8s8VxNVy4qA5KI8wUzKQ1F6wQWZxJVLff2a%7Ex2XV-rpkDNMSgY-c4Y31FTwakcyFhvem%7Ecbxkur7Cyx5qsA%7EYR30ULFU5cwNjsbYv4pnuZNHsV8lDMc5qT04H2xaj7xUPeBB20qBEZYM4AWsEU5ErZumgrmxDvGsjCWkBcp66iPP4%7EdcLKBHIzke7Uci6g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
33f68a3cc464da53609e3eb89ba90d12
PDF Text
Text
CT Log
ORIGIN OF THE LEGENDS
ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB.
CRITICALLY EXAMINED
BY
A. BERNSTEIN.
TRANSLATED
FROM
THE
GERMAN.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Price One Shilling.
��NOTICE BY THE EDITOR.
We publish, this very ingenious and somewhat extra
ordinary little work, for the sake of the many valuable
suggestions it contains.
We cannot, however, do so without at the same time
expressing our regret, that the author has not availed
himself of the assured results of modern criticism on
the language of Genesis.
He has thus allowed himself to drift into theories
respecting the harmonisation of the legends of the
patriarchs, which, we cannot regard as conclusive.
On the other hand, it is satisfactory to see that,
though arrived at through a very different process, the
author gives the time of Rehoboam and Jeroboam as
that of the principal actors in the legends ; thus agree
ing very nearly with the time ascribed to their composi
tion by the Bishop of Natal, namely, the early part of
the reign of David and Solomon.
�NOTICE BY THE TRANSLATOR.
The translator of this little work knows well that she
has to ask the forbearance of its readers for many
defects of style and inelegancies of expression.
In performing her task, however, she preferred a
literal translation to the chance of weakening, by
freedom, many of the subtle ideas of the author.
She hopes she will be sufficiently excused when she
signs herself
A German Lady.
�HE scientific examination of the Bible-text, and
particularly of the first Book of Moses, has long
ago put beyond doubt the fact, that that Book is not
an original work, the composition of one author, but
an adaptation and agglomeration of earlier writings
upon the like subject, which have been lost; we can,
however, in its present form, appreciably discern the
earlier writings. The most gifted and learned critics
of our time have endeavoured, with extraordinary zeal
and talent, to draw this distinction, even now a great
task, the conclusion of which is still far in the dis
tance.
The examination of ’the Text, however, has left
almost untouched one preliminary question, which, in
our opinion, is of essential influence upon the final
result. This preliminary question is, whether the lost
original writings, which are the foundation of the
present Text, were consistent with each other, or
whether they were not rather writings of a partisan
character, which originally conflicted, and were, only
later, at the termination of the contest, moulded into
consistent history. We are led to make this prelim
inary enquiry by reason of important historical facts.
The Hebrew people, the remains of whose literature
we have before us in the shape of the Old Testament, not
only was, like every people, split into parties, but up
to a thousand years before our Chronology, consisted
of ten or twelve Republican Cantons which often
T
�4
Preface.
warred with each other. These Cantons, however,
were united into a complete Monarchy, first under
Saul, then under David and his son Solomon : but
after the death of Solomon (about a hundred years
after the Union), the monarchy split into two king
doms which engaged in sanguinary wars with each
other. Now, the first Book of Moses is a work which
evidently was not written till after kings existed in
Israel. Without referring to innumerable scientific
proofs of this fact, verse 31, chapter xxxvi., is so con
vincing, that all attempts of orthodoxy to prove theBook
to be older, are and must remain mere subterfuges. The
verse runs thus, “ And these are the kings that reigned
in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over
the children of Israel.” The author of Genesis, there
fore, was well aware of the Monarchical period in Israel.
As that period, comprising two centuries and a half,
was, with few exceptions, replete with sanguinary wars
and violent conflicts, between the two kingdoms of
Judah and Israel, it is probable, that the lost original
writings, which are at the foundation of our present Text,
may have reflected these continuous feuds in their
polemics.
During the examination of this question, possibility
has grown with us to certainty. We believe we shall
be able to prove in the history now before us of the
Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that the tradi
tions upon which it is based, have been of a most
conflicting nature. And this proof is the subject of
the present work.
In publishing this, we are fully aware, that in
elucidating the truth, many hard struggles will be
necessary. Not, indeed, with Orthodoxy, which has
long become too self-satisfied to care for the results of
mere science. Now and then it puts its feelers out of
its snail’s shell of Belief, to see if science, as prophesied
by the luminaries of theology, has mended its ways, and
become a convert to Paith. But as that is not the case,
�Preface.
5
and, as Orthodoxy knows very well, never will be, it
withdraws its feelers piously, and retreats self-contented
into its well-furnished little shell. The struggle which
this work will have to maintain, is with traditional
views, which obstinately sway even severely-searching
science, and which are conquered with the greatest
difficulty, when they are already fitted into a successful
system of research.
One of these views, is the division into Elohistic and Jehovistic portions, the happy results
of which we fully acknowledge. In the following
work, we have, upon principle, avoided this division,
not that we think it unnecessary, but that we wish to
point out a separation of older date. The Legends are
older than the Writings. The severing and separating
of the Legends must practically precede the severing
and separating of the Writings. Should we succeed in
establishing a firm position for this preliminary work,
the further task of separating the Writings may, we
hope, the way being cleared, be continued with better
success.
A. Bernstein.
Berlin, January 1871.
��ORIGIN OF THE LEGENDS OF ABRAHAM,
ISAAC, AND JACOB.
I.
LEGEND AND HISTORY.
OPULAR Legend is not the history of the nation,
hut in its wonderful accounts it reflects the wishes
and hopes of a people, which form the basis of their
history. The tales about the origin of a people em
body the poetical conceptions of the race concerning
their past—conceptions framed in accordance with the
notions and prevailing tendencies of the time, in which
they originated. The description of the lives and deeds
of our forefathers, in the dim past, have their true
value, only as revelations of the tendencies whence
those descriptions sprang. They do not enlighten the
darkness of the primitive period they trace, but they
cast an interesting light upon the times in which they
were thought out and written down.
This applies, in common with other peoples, also to
the Hebrews, and to their cycle of legends about the
supposed ancestors of their nation. The family history
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though not historical in
itself, affords us a historic insight into that period,
during which those legends first originated, and were
ultimately collected and written down. Although a
critical review of these family stories, of their origin
and development, destroys the current assumption, that
P
�8
Origin of the Legends of
we can know anything about the times thirty-five
hundred years ago, it still yields rich results, as it
throws light upon the social and intellectual condition
of the people out of which these legends arose about
twenty-five hundred years ago. To clear up the sub
ject from this latter point of view is the purpose of the
following examination.
II.
The Names
of the
Patriarchs.
It may be suitable to devote a few words to a con
sideration of the names of the three Patriarchs.
The names of “Abram” or “Abraham,” “Isaac,”
properly “ Itzchak,” or “Ischak,” and “Jacob” occur
but once in the Bible. Although the Bible comprises
a period of thousands of years in history, and presents
thousands of names of historical persons, yet the hypo
thetical names of the Patriarchs are exclusively appro
priated to these hypothetical personages, and are given
to no one else. This isolation of names, recurs, how
ever, with other persons, as, for instance, with the sons
of Jacob, and with Moses and Aaron, and is, therefore,
not so much a matter of surprise with the Patriarchs.
Still, with some exceptions, this occurs only in the case
of persons who do not belong to history, but to legend.
Such names, therefore, must not be regarded as acci
dental but as premeditated, and so to say, provisory,
indicating the fate of the persons to whom they belong.
Care is also taken in the legendary reports of them, to
supply motives for the names, and thus to indicate that
persons are mentioned, whose names have had to be
invented along with their deeds. This remark refers
to the names of the three Patriarchs alike; though
there are essential differences in the meaning and origin
of them. The name of “ Abram” has a very suitable sig
nificance. It means “high Father,” and, for a Patri
arch, is certainly very appropriate. Possibly it may
�Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
9
have the signification of “ Father of Aram,” or 11 Father
from Aram,” in Mesopotamia, whence the Patriarch is
said to have migrated to Palestine. This signification
fully agrees with the character of the person as legend
has created it. The legend tells us too, that at a cer
tain time of his life he received a new name from
Jehovah, the name of 11 Abraham" as a sign that he
was destined to be the “Father of many nations,” a
signification which, with some ingenuity, may be given
to the name. It is self-evident, however, that one would
not designate a new-born infant, as “ High Father,” or
“Father of many people.” Nor has the human mind the
power to foresee in the lifetime of a man, whether his
descendants will constitute a great people. Entirely im
possible was this, in the lifetime of Abraham, as one
hundred and fifteen years after his death, according to
Biblical chronology, his supposed grandson, Jacob, un
dertook the migration to Egypt, accompanied by only
seventy persons, who were all the family he had. The
name of Abram or Abraham being uncommon, we must
conclude, that the Patriarch, even if he had existed, as
the first Book of Moses describes him, never could have
borne this name in his lifetime.
The name of Isaac, properly Itzchak or Ischak,
although uncommon, has a signification, which renders
its bestowal less improbable. Its meaning is very
unpretending, and as it is more probable that a
remarkable man should bear an insignificant name,
than that the greatness of a man should coincide
with the pregnant import of his name, we cannot
very well raise a doubt as to the name of Itzchak,
or Ischak, provided, of course, the existence of the
Patriarch can be established. The more striking
is the fact, that in the first Book of Moses, uncom
mon pains are taken to throw, directly and indirectly, a
light upon the signification of this name. Literally, the
namemeans “he laughs,” “he jokes,” “he kisses,” “he
rejoices,” or, as a proper name, “the laughing one,” “the
joking one,” “ the joyful one,” &c. To give such a name
�io
Origin of the Legends of
to a child requires no explanation. Still the author in
troduces a variety of incidents, with no other purpose
than to justify this harmless name. First of all, God
(Elohim) (Gen. xvii. 17, &c.) announces to Abraham
the birth of a son, whereupon Abraham falls upon his face
and “ laughs,” in consequence of which Elohim com
mands him to call the son “Itzchak” (Isaac). Soon after,
(Gen. xviii. 10) one of the guests predicts to Abraham
the event, already sufficiently guaranteed by a higher
authority. Sarah, the wife of Abraham, standing in
side the door of the tent, hears the prophecy, and “she
laughs. ” Jehovah calls Abraham to account about
this incredulous laughter, and Scripture tells us that he
reproaches his wife, but she denies the fact absolutely,
and Abraham, evidently indignant, exclaims, “Nay, but
thou didst laugh.” In due course, we are further told
(Gen. xxi. 1-10), that the Son is born, and called Isaac,
Itzchak. Again Sarah says, “ God hath made me to
laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me.” These
direct allusions and interpretations are followed by
many a story, alluding to laughter and sport in connec
tion with Isaac. Thus Sarah sees with jealousy, that
Ishmael, the son of Abraham and the bond-woman
Hagar, laughs a.nd sports, a gaiety which she considers
the exclusive privilege of her son. Later on, (Gen.
xxvi. 8) King Abimelech of Gerar, perceives that Isaac
laughs or sports with Eebekah, his wife. Now, when
we consider how few are the events in the Patriarch’s
life transmitted to us, subtracting what belongs to
the history of Abraham and Jacob, how little remains,
we are inclined to say, that there is nothing peculiar to
Isaac, but his name and its conspicuously frequent
interpretation. We are thus constrained to think
that there is a more serious reason for this name than
appears on the surface.
The strangest name is that of “Jacob.” If “Abra
ham ” is suspicious, because it agrees too well with
a Patriarch’s position in history, the name of Jacob,
on the other hand, startles us by its dishonour
�Abraham, Isaac, and "Jacob.
11
able signification. Jacob means, “impostor,” somebody
who catches hold of his neighbour’s heel to trip him
up. The latter meaning is illustrated by the political
narrator himself. (Gen. xxv. 26). In the metaphori
cal signification, the narrator represents Esau as ex
plaining the name by the apparently well-founded
exclamation “ is he not rightly named Jacob, for he
hath supplanted me these two times” ? A name of
such dishonourable meaning may have been accident
ally given to a child, who afterwards grew up to im
portance, supposing that name to be so common, as to
have lost all implication of insult. When however, as
in this instance, the name is quite uncommon, one has
reason to suspect other motives for its origin. Now,
had Jacob’s life been free from any moral blame, one
might still believe he had come by his name acci
dentally. But there are recorded in the history of
his life, so many incidents which prove him worthy of
his name, that one cannot help supposing that it was
designedly given. Inquiry into the origin of the ap
pellation is therefore justified. Besides, there is the
circumstance, that another name “ Israel,” which evi
dently has a glorifying signification, is also given to
Jacob. Whether Israel may mean “ Conqueror of a
God” or “Champion for God,” or “ El rules,” it unmistakeably points to the intention to substitute a sub
lime name for an ignoble one. Two distinct versions
are given of the bestowal of the name of Israel,
(Gen. xxxii. 28, xxxv. 10), it being particularly en
joined on either occasion “ thy name shall be called no
more Jacob.” The name of Israel is also phonetically
so widely different from that of Jacob, that one cannot
at all place this change of name in analogy with the
change from Abram into Abraham. The more sur
prising therefore is it, that the narrator in the first
book of Moses entirely drops the name of Abram after
its change, and only speaks of “Abraham,” whilst he
scarcely heeds the change of Jacob’s name, although it
�12
Origin of the Legends of
is so much more important, and so evidently designed
to glorify the patriarch. Notwithstanding the two-fold
injunction against the use of the old name “Jacob,”
it is, except in some trifling matters, employed through
out. Yes, the same Elohe, who had twice prohibited
the name of “Jacob” and imposed “Israel” in its
stead, is represented by the narrator (Gen. xlvi. 2) as
calling Israel with particular stress “Jacob, Jacob.”
Thus, the names of the Patriarchs offer many a puzzle,
for the solution of which we are compelled to look more
closely into the accounts given of their lives.
III.
THE TERRITORIAL HOME.
The enquiry leads us next to another point which is
of essential influence upon the origin of the legends;
we mean, the question of territory, where the legends
sought their theatre, and where they also as a rule
originated.
Although the scene of the lives and deeds of the
Patriarchs seems, in general, to be one and the same,
it is in particular, thoroughly different. Abraham,
migrating from Mesopotamia, and at Jehovah’s bidding,
“ walking through the land in the length of it and in
the breadth of it,” (Gen. xiii. 17), settled down finally
about Hebron, the oldest town in what wyas later the
kingdom of Judah. He is said though, to have so
journed many days in the land of the Philistines (Gen.
xxi. 34), but this assertion, which we shall consider
further on, does not alter the fact, that Hebron was his
chief abode. There he obtained, after his return from
Egypt and his particularly defined separation from Lot,
the promise of property for his progeny, and there he
built an altar to Jehovah. There he received the news
of the defeat of the kings of the land and of the im
prisonment of Lot, and thence proceeded with his men
to beat the enemy, but far beyond the most northern
�Abraham, Isaac, and 'Jacob.
13
frontier of the land (Gen. xiv. 13). There also
the promise of issue was vouchsafed to him. The
narrator, however, (Gen. xx. 1) lets him set out
on a journey towards the south, and sojourn there
in the land of the Philistines in Gerar. There
apparently Isaac was born; there also Abraham con
cluded an agreement with Abimelech, in whose country
he sojourned for a long time, but did not settle, as is
evidently purposely indicated by the word ‘ij’’) (Gen.
xxi. 34), in antithesis to
(Gen. xx. i.; xxii. 19).
One abode of Abraham was also in the vicinity of
Gerar, in Beersheba, which belonged to the kingdom of
Judah. Thence he began his journey to Moriah, where
Isaac was to be immolated. Abraham also returned
there, to dwell. Still, even the abode in Beersheba was
not the real one of the patriarch. We find it men
tioned that his wife Sarah died in Hebron, and that
Abraham called himself a “ stranger and a sojourner in
the place,”
“ill a stranger, though a resident,
(Gen. xxiii. 4.) Then the purchase of a hereditary
burying-place was concluded with great formality, and
particular stress is laid upon its possession being
honestly acquired by purchase. There also, in all proba
bility, Abraham died, and there, as is specially men
tioned, was buried. Prom all these facts we are justi
fied in concluding that Hebron was the chief abode of
Abraham, and that only peculiar circumstances made
his timely appearance in other countries necessary.
The scene in which Isaac appeared and always
remained, was the utmost south of the kingdom, where
the land of the Philistines, the land of Edom, the
desert, and the frontier town Beersheba, border upon each
other. There he was born. After his wanderings with
Abraham, who intended to sacrifice him on a mountain
in the land of Moriah, he returned with him (Gen.
xxii. 19) to Beersheba. Not far off, in the desert near
the well Lachai-roi, was his abode, where his wife was
introduced to him. (Gen. xxiv. 62.) There also his
�14
Origin of the Legends of
sons Esau and Jacob were bom to him. A famine,
which caused him to migrate, did not carry him further
than Gerar hi the land of the Philistines (xxvi. 1),
whence he returned home to Beersheba and there he
lived in his old age, stricken blind (xxvii. 1.) If
Isaac had ever left this locality, it can, according to the
narrator, have been only temporarily, and for the pur
pose of burying Abraham. (Gen. xxv. 9.) The more
remarkable is it that the narrator further on (Gen.
xxxv. 27), still shows Isaac living in Hebron, even with
this addition, contrary to all former statements, “ where
Abraham and Isaac sojourned.” Excepting this pas
sage, we see in Isaac a patriarch whose whole life was
passed in a small district, with Beersheba, which is
situated on the very frontier of Palestine, as a centre.
The narrative about the patriarch Jacob leads us into
very different territory. He started from Beersheba,
the alleged abode of his father, and went to Haran in
Mesopotamia, where he remained for about twenty
years. But already, on his journey there, his elabor
ately related dream (Gen. xxviii. 10, &c.) caused him
to consecrate a place, and even to endow it with the
name of “ Bethel,” a place which was destined to be
the centre of worship in Israel. On his return—the
history of his life says—-a meeting with Laban caused
him to give the name of Gilead to the frontier moun
tains of Israel. The town of Mizpah also received its
name from Jacob, and so did Mahanaim. Crossing the
Jabbok an event occurred which caused him to call the
place Peniel. Not far from thence he built booths for
his cattle, and called the place Succoth. He afterwards
reached Shecem (Gen. xxxiii. 18), where he bought
part of a field for current money. There he erected an
altar, calling it “ El, God of Israel.” Later on we find
a double scene related with many essential differences,
in which, however (xxxv. 1-15), it is agreed that Jacob
again went to Bethel and gave that place its historical
name. In the one narrative (Gen. xxxv. 1) God com
�Abraham, Isaac, and ’ acob.
J
15
manded Jacob to dwell in Bethel. Notwithstanding,
*
we soon hear that he wandered from Bethel to a place
called “ Eplirath ” (xxxv. 16), where Rachel, Jacob’s
wife, is said to have died and to have been buried after
the birth of his son Benjamin. Another place where
Jacob pitched his tent is called Migdal-Eder. (xxxv. 21.)
At last, we hear (Gen. xxxv. 27) that Jacob came to
Hebron, and there (Gen. xxxvii. 14), where Joseph
separated from him, Jacob seems to have dwelt until,
in accordance with Joseph’s wish, he migrated to Egypt.
Again, he halted at Beer-sheba, and travelled to Egypt,
where he ended his life. Considering all these wan
derings, we observe that with Jacob’s history there is
connected a series of new places, which are said to have
gained importance only through him. Most prominent
amongst them is Bethel, which no less than three
times was invested by him with that solemn name, so
that one sees at once that in this place, geographically,
the point of his life lay. Remarkably enough, all the
places which date their names from Jacob’s visit, are,
like Bethel, situated in the territory of what was, later
on, the Israelitic kingdom.
Characterising the three patriarchs, externally, after
the chief geographical places which are given as scenes
of their existence, we must say that Abraham was the
patriarch of Hebron, consequently of the Judaic terri
tory ; Jacob, as decidedly the patriarch of Bethel, con
sequently of the ZsraeZzA'c territory; whilst, on the
other hand, Isaac held a most limited geographical
territory, in the south of the country, in Beer-sheba.
It is true, however, that the narrative brings Abra
ham in his migration unto the place of Shecem. (Gen.
xii. 6.) Bethel and Ai are also mentioned, as the two
places between which Abraham pitched his tent, and
where he erected altars and invoked the name of “ Jeho
vah,” but it can certainly not be without intention that
* DE2
aRd dwell there.
�16
Origin of the Legends of
the narrator does not let Abraham visit these places, and
only lets him take his principal abode in Hebron.
(Gen. xiii. 18.) Equally characteristic is it in the
history of Jacob, that he gives names and importance to
the places only whilst he is travelling in Israelitic
territory, but that this influence instantly ceases when
he is on Judaic ground.
After all, taking the places Hebron, Beer-sheba, and
Bethel to be the three ancestral seats of the three patri
archs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we have reason to
suppose that upon a closer view of these ancestral homes
many an enigma about the narrative of the patriarchs
may be solved.
IV.
INFERENCES ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE LEGENDS.
In order to find a solution of the problem, we must,
first of all, oppose the idea, that the narratives of the
lives of the Patriarchs were founded on traditions of
the times in which they are assumed to have existed.
On the contrary, an unbiassed critic can have no doubt,
that all so-called h istorical representations of ancestors,
Patriarchs of a people, belong to legend. This legend
is not, by any means, as old as the people, but only
develops itself, when a people has long existed as such,
and has a particular interest, political or religious, to
date their origin, in the most simple manner possible,
from one family, and from one highly-praised ancestor.
In truth, a people never can issue from one ancestral
couple immigrating into a country. It needs a thousand
years of completely undisturbed multiplication of the
descendants of one couple, to form a population. A
tranquillity like that, has never been, nor will ever be
enjoyed by a people. The changes of destiny, on the
contrary, push multitudes through multitudes, anni
hilate old families, and bring new ones forward, which
commingle and never can trace their origin upwards to
�Abraham, Isaac, and 'Jacob.
17
the first genealogical point. Even in modern times,
when America shows an example of immigration enter
ing at once into civilization, and where historical docu
ments are able to prove the course of development,
there is not a single instance when a family, even in
a small way, has developed into a separate people. In
times of old, however, where only tradition records
family history, and especially in countries where there
was immigration into densely peopled territories, and
where wars of centuries have not yet extinguished the
original inhabitants, there, any tradition of ancestors,
whose descendants form one people, is nothing but a
fancy, which was fostered and nursed by the people
and ornamented according to want and local conditions,
to be then accepted and believed as history.
This view, founded on unprejudiced hypotheses, leads
us to think, that the histories of the three patriarchs,
alleged to have dwelt in three different parts of
Palestine, had not originally their present coherence.
Every circle of legends about the life of a patriarch
seems to us rather to have originated separately, and in
the very place which pretends to have been the chief
abode of the patriarchs. Consequently each of these
legends has developed itself separately, and borrowed
its colouring from its locality, and from the tendencies
circulating there. The particular legends are of very
different dates, and have only by degrees amplified and
formed into cycles. In order to understand the pre-sent setting of the legends which have been worked
into one family history, we must, first of all, divide
them into their original forms, and doing so, we arrive
at the following results, for which we will furnish
proofs, as far as they can be gained from the existing
material.
The results of our enquiries are the following :—
1. Each of the patriarchal legends stands in politi
cally religious connexion with the place where its
hero is said to have lived.
B
�18
Origin of the Legends of
2. Between the three legends there exists no such
harmony as would appear from their present form;
on the contrary, each of the three patriarchs
formed, originally, a strongly marked politically
religious contrast to the otheT.
3. By the side of a worship and a patriarch, origi
nating in the republican time of the Hebrew people,
and particularly of local duration in Beersheba,
there developed itself a worship, and a legend
adorning such worship, in each of the two king
doms under which the Hebrew people lived for a
long time.
4. As long as there were conflicts between the king
dom of Judah, and the kingdom of Israel, a violent
conflict was also kept alive in the mouth of the
people, at the two chief places of worship, con
cerning the true patriarch, whilst the spurious one
was designated an impostor.
5. The contest about the real patriarch subsided
when the violent wars, and the jealousies of the
kingdoms terminated, and when the populations
were more and more animated by a consciousness
of their connexion with each other. When the
kingdom of Israel had perished entirely, the legends
began to blend, and finally formed a family history
of harmonious coherence. Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, who had originally been contrasts to each
other, grew by degrees to be Father, Son and
Grandson. Thus sprang through narrative and in
genious journeys from place to place, the coherence,
which now presents itself as “ history/’
We intend to introduce, in order, the detailed proofs
of these views.
�Abraham., Isaac.) and ’ acob.
J
19
V.
WORSHIP AND PATRIARCH IN BEER-SHEBA.
It is a long acknowledged truth, that the places of
worship are also the native places of the legends of a
people. At the same time, it is in the interest of the
guardians of the worship, to give to those places the
holiness and sanctity of great age, and to throw the
legends into the greatest possible depths of antiquity,
when an ancestor of the present people had ascertained
or even founded the holiness of the place.
“ Hebron,” “ Beer-sheba,” and “ Beth-el,” are such
places of worship ; they did not even harmonise, but dis
puted about precedence. If in each place a separate
legend of a patriarch was developed, intended to make
the place sacred, it is natural, that the patriarchs also
should have presented contrasts.
Beersheba appears to be the oldest of the three places
of worship, although Hebron claims a greater age.
(Numb. xiii. 22). Birst of all, the situation of Beer
sheba was very suitable for such a place. At the most
southern point of Palestine, near to the desert which
bordered upon the land of the Philistines, the territory
of Edom, and the abode of the Bedouin races, such a
place was one of necessity to all travellers, where they
could find protection and counsel in misfortune, com
fort and hope before impending dangers, and opportu
nity for thanksgivings and sacrifices, after past dangers.
The name of the place is also explained in such a way,
that Abraham and Abimelech, the king of the Philis
tines, vowed to each other, with an oath, “ that child
and child’s child should not make war upon each other.”
It was a sort of city of covenant, consecrated by the
holy number of seven, as it is said in one passage
(Gen. xxi. 28) that Abraham made Abimelech a present
of seven ewe lambs, and in another, that Isaac digged,
or digged up again, sevenwells in this part. (Gen.xxvi. 33).
A circumstance which indicates the great age of Beer-
�20
Origin of the Legends of
sheba as a place of worship, is, that its specific patriarch
Isaac, when, he makes his appearance, is scarcely recog
nisable. Not one of his actions is his incontestable
property. Of the occurrences in his life, there is not
one especially traceable to him. Subtracting from
the scenes before us, what belongs to Abraham’s and to
Jacob’s history, nothing remains for Isaac but an empty
name, for which the narrator continually gives new
motives.
Such a pallid representation of a patriarch is most
likely to show a. higher antiquity than that of the others.
But there are further circumstances added, which make
this age more probable.
What kind of worship was reigning there can no
more be ascertained. The old prophet Amos from
*
Tekoa, a town only a few miles distant from Beersheba,
declaims against the pilgrimage to Beersheba. (Amos
v. 5.) He exhorts them to avoid this place of idolatry,
and not to consult its oracle : “ But seek not Beth-el,
nor enter into Gilgal, and pass not to Beer-sheba.”
Further on : (Amos viii. 13, 14.) “In that day,” when
the judgment of God will arrive, “ shall the fair virgins
and young men faint for thirst, they that swear by the
sin of Samaria, and say : Thy God, oh Dan, liveth, and
the manner of Beer-sheba liveth—even they shall fall
and never rise up again.” This prophet, the oldest,
whose words have come down to us, is the only one who
knows anything of the worship reigning in Beer-sheba,
but he is also the only one who mentions the name of
Isaac. (pW Ischak). He prophesies that the high
places of Isaac shall be desolate.” (Amos vii. 9) He
is indignant, because the priest of Bethel tries to induce
the king to forbid him inveighing against the- “ house
of Isaac.” Not without importance for our subject is
the fact, that the priest of Bethel says to Amos : “ 0
thou seer, go flee thee away into the land of Judah, and
there eat bread, and prophesy there.” (Amos vii. 12).
The advice of the priest indicates to the prophet the
�Abraham, Isaac, and 'Jacob.
21
land of Judah, where such speeches against the heights
of worship, against the house of Isaac, and the sanc
tuary of Jacob in Beth-el, would be listened to with
favour, and would earn the prophet a living.
From all this we may conclude that, at the time of
Amos, the worship in Beer-sheba was still practised
and gave support to the legends of an ancestor Isaac.
But the flowery period of this worship must have soon
passed away, because the other prophets who lived and
worked scarcely half a century after Amos, speak only
of Beth-el and do not mention Beer-sheha, and because
they do not refer to a knowledge of the patriarch Isaac.
This fact is not astonishing with Isaiah, because this
most sublime prophet avoids throughout, all traditional
allusions, and mentions neither Abraham nor Jacob as
patriarchs, nor Moses and his guidance. But his con
temporary, the prophet Micah, who is full of traditional
reminiscences of legends, who speaks of Moses, Aaron,
and Miriam as the heralds of God, who reminds us of
the peculiar events between Balak and Balaam, finishes
with bright hopes for a better future, when Jehovah
will take compassion and “ perform the truth to Jacob
and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn
unto our fathers from the days of old.” (Micah vii. 20).
That no reference is made here to Isaac is certainly not
accidental.
Thus we are only limited to speculation about the
worship in Beer-sheba. Perhaps the God who was
worshipped there bore the name of “ Pachad” Tns
“fear,” “terror.” Anyhow, it is remarkable that in
one and the same scene between Jacob and Laban, the
God of Isaac is twice designated by the word “ Pachad.”
(Gen. xxxi. 42 and 53). As Itzchak or Ischak ex
presses the contrary of terror, viz., “joy,” “laughter,”
it is possible that the worship in Beer-sheba was founded
on the very contrast of these sensations. The fear, the
terror of the Desert, and the rejoicing, the laughter, on
returning thence to the inhabited places of Beersheba, may
�22
Origin of the Legends of
very appropriately have been symbolised by a God and
a protecting patriarch.
The part which legend assigns to Isaac is also quite
appropriate to the position of Beer-sheba. The terrors
of the adjacent desert consisted in want of water, and
in warlike and rapacious attacks by neighbouring
people, such as the Philistines, the Edomites, and the
Ishmaelites, who roved through the desert in hordes.
The legend equips Isaac well for a protector against all
those evils. It ascribes to him the merit of having
dug seven wells. Beer-sheba is said to have been the
seventh of these wells, and therefore to have received
the name of “ Seven wells.” (Gen. xxvi. 33.) Isaac is
also said to have been the brother of Ishmael and the
father of Esau (Edom), and to have loved the latter
particularly well. He is said to have concluded treaties
of intimate friendship with the Philistines, and, upon
a wish of the king Abimelech, to have sworn mutual
peace. The traveller, therefore, who had shewn rever
ence to the “Pachad” of Isaac, and legitimated him
self as belonging to the house of Isaac, was justified in
the belief that he would be protected in the desert from
the faintness of thirst, and shielded against attacks.
We are well justified in a further hypothesis about
the age and the disappearance of the worship in Beer
sheba, when we consider the fate of Beer-sheba itself.
According to the dates in the book of Joshua, it
follows that in the old republican times the town of
Beer-sheba belonged to the canton of Simeon. This
canton, or tribe of Simeon, which is stated to have
undertaken the war of conquest against the original
inhabitants, jointly with the canton of Judah, disappears,
however, very soon from history. One does not know
what became of the tribe of Simeon, whether they were
banished in a war, annihilated, or whether they
migrated of their own accord as chronicles indicate.
(1 Chron. iv. 42.) Anyhow, the canton of Judah
succeeded as heir to Simeon, and in all historical dates
�Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
23
Beer-sheba is from that time considered as an uncon
tested possession of the canton of Judah.
Such a change of political fate brings at all times,
and in all cases, a change of traditions and worship.
When in legends, gods lead and direct the fate of a war,
the gods of the conquerors invariably hurl down the
gods of the conquered from their height. Even to
Jehovah are ascribed such conquests over the gods of
other nations. (Exod. xii. 12.) The change of power
always goes hand in hand with a change of ideas as to
the rights of the ruler, and, if not directly, yet by
degrees, the new idea absorbs the old and impotent
one, or modifies it, and new views imperceptibly
permeate.
Thus we may suppose that the god “ Pachad ” and
the patriarch “ Isaae ” in Beer-sheba descended from
old Simeonic times, when the Edomites, the Philis
tines, and the Ishmaelites, no less than the Simeonites,
worshipped the sanctuaries of Beer-sheba. When
Beer-sheba fell into the possession of Judah, the
authority of the worship necessarily suffered, and
Pachad, as well as Isaac, were half forgotten. But as
local worship and as local patriarch they continued to
exist, and only a prophet, like Amos, who was born
near Beer-sheba in Tekoa, and who as “herdsman”
may have visited the heaths of Beer-sheba, knew some
thing of this worship, and inveighed against it as
against Bethel, although it was in importance much
inferior to the latter.
If we have in this way justified the view that the
legend of Isaac is the oldest of the three, we hope to
tread on more certain ground in considering the patri
arch of Hebron, who, as the Judaic and reigning one,
was, under the name of Abraham, so grandly equipped
by legend that he must necessarily put Isaac in the
shade.
�24
Origin of the Legends of
VI.
HEBRON AND ITS PATRIARCH.
When the hero of a younger legend is destined to
surpass the hero of an older one, it is generally effected
by appropriating to the former everything laudable
which was related of his predecessor. This plan has
been so fully carried out with reference to the legend
of Abraham against Isaac, that even the harmonist,
who attempted to reconcile them and keep Isaac at the
side of Abraham, found it impossible to preserve one
special trait for Isaac.
The younger legend forthwith ascribes the benefit of
the wells round Beer- sheba to Abraham, so that it only
leaves to Isaac the praise of having re-opened these
Abrahamic wells when they were choked up. (Gen.
xxvi. 18.)
The predilection of the legend of Isaac for an
ancestress, who from her beauty is in danger of being
taken into the harem of the king (Gen. xxvi. 6, &e.),
is surpassed by the legend of Abraham to such a
degree, that not only the insignificant king Abimelec
of Gerar (Gen. xx. 1-18), but also the great Pharaoh,
king of Egypt, actually take the ancestress Sarah into
their harems. (Gen. xii. 14, &c.) But while the wife
of Isaac is not touched by the danger, and needs no
providential intervention, Abraham’s wife is saved in
both cases by the direct interference of. Providence
when she was in imminent danger.
The treaty also which Isaac concluded with the king
of the Philistines, is repeated to a stronger degree in
Abraham’s case. Abimelec and his general, Picol, who
merely ask friendship from Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 28),
entreat their friend Abraham to confer this friendship
upon “ son, and sods son.” (Gen. xxi. 23).
The town of Beer-sheba, which is said to have derived
its name from Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 33), receives its name
in the legend of Abraham in a much more solemn way,
�Abraham, Isaac, and "Jacob.
25
on account of the vow of eternal friendship which
Abraham and Abimelec mutually swear. (Gen. xxi. 31).
Isaac, who is represented to be the brother oi
Ishmael, is outflanked by the younger legend through
the much more important fact that Abraham is the
father of Ishmael.
The only uncontested deed of Isaac’s is the erection
of an altar in Beer-sheba where he invoked the name
of Jehovah. The younger legend certainly does not
place so holy an altar in Beer-sheba; probably it be
grudges the town this honour, still an action of Abra
ham is related which derogates from the deed of Isaac.
Abraham planted a tamarisk in Beer-sheba—probably
*
a specimen, the sacredness of which was firmly esta
blished in the belief of the people—and he there invoked
the name of Jehovah, the eternal God.
mn1’
Only upon one point the legend of Abraham is unable
to surpass that of Isaac. Edom, the son of Isaac,
“whom he loveth,” stands in no special relation to
Abraham. But this advantage of Isaac, the Judaic
hero could not possibly touch; because at the time
when the legend of Abraham appeared, there was enmity
between Judah and Edom which could not be kept
under by legends of peace.
But the legend of Abraham did not spring up simply
in mere competition with that of Isaac. It was devised
with a deeper intention and a more comprehensive
political and national significance. The figure of the
local patriarch of Beer-sheba stands to the imposing form
of the patriarch of Hebron, as the local patriotism of
a small republican canton to the national patriotism
of a state which puts itself at the head of a kingdom.
In fact, the birth of the legend of Abraham is zzzJ
older but younger than the Judaic kingdom-. In the
guise of the private life of a wandering patriarch, we
have before us the picture of a governor of the whole
*
ntju nns,
are in a certain sense, nearly synonyms.
�26
Origin of the Legends of
country, with full powers. The point of the life of
this patriarch shows but too clearly the bold idea of
King David to form here an intervening kingdom of
great dimensions, which would be able to ward off from
both sides the threatening conflict of Mesopotamia and
Egypt.
The legend makes Abraham migrate from Mesopo
tamia, and keep throughout his life, with zealous logic,
the consciousness of his relationship to his Asiatic home.
The intention is, to prove that animosity against Meso
potamia could never take root in the kingdom of Judah,
as the ancestor was a blood relation. Scarcely had he
become acquainted with the land into which he had
wandered, when a famine drove him to Egypt, where
he had the adventure most flattering to Sarah’s beauty,
but rendered harmless by the intervention of Jehovah.
Thereupon he left Egypt, loaded with riches, and
returned to Canaan. Thus the patriarch had, at the
very beginning of his migration, measured the boun
daries of his power, which he became entitled to claim
for his descendants. “ Unto thy seed will I give the
land from the river of Egypt, unto the great river, the
river Euphrates,” (Gen. xv. 18) a proud word, which
could only have been spoken after the bold deeds of
David who verified them. Before him in the dissensions
of the republican cantons which often had fought
against, and ruined each other, even the boldest imagi
nation of legend could not assign such a task to the
Hebrews.
Another instance of entirely Davidic tendency, is the
relation to Ammon and Moab, which represents Abra
ham in his family relation to Lot, the ancestor of those
peoples. Abraham is represented as guardian to and
protector of Lot, whose father, a brother of Abraham,
had died early. Lot wanders with Abraham into
Canaan, goes with him to Egypt, returns enriched with
Abraham to Canaan, where the pasture is not sufficient
for their large flocks herding together. Abraham, with
�Abraham, Isaac, and ’ acob.
J
27
more than paternal benevolence, advises a separation
(Gen. xiii. 8), and gives Lot the choice of the direction.
Lot chooses the flourishing fields around Sodom, whilst
Abraham takes up his abode in the plains of Hebron.
After the separation Abraham continues to be Lot’s
benefactor and preserver. He delivers him from cap
tivity and saves his entire possessions from the hands
of foreign conquerors (Gen. xiv. 16). Abraham’s
compassion for Lot also extends to his abode in Sodom,
for which he implores Jehovah’s mercy. (Gen. xviii. 23).
To this intercession Lot evidently owes his preservation
from the ruin of Sodom. The intention of the legend
to win the sympathy of the population of Moab and
Ammon for the patriarch and his descendants is unde
niable, and is the more striking as another legend is
added to it, (Gen. xix. 30-38), which creates these
nations in drunkenness, incest and immorality of the
female sex.
To win these people by sympathy and to claim the
old blood relationship between Abraham and Lot, not
withstanding a hatred, which is clearly shown in the
latter legend, is an endeavour, which could only be
made at a time, when Moab and Ammon had already
been conquered by David, when clever politicians deemed
it necessary to reconcile people to their fate and to com
fort them for the loss of their independence, by the
flattering knowledge, that they were of one and the same
descent with the conqueror.
If those traits of the legend of Abraham show the
Judaic patriarch to be of a stamp very different to the
local Simeonic patriarch of Beer-sheba, everything else,
which is related of Abraham, tends to complete the
picture of a hero, who, in all directions, is richly endowed
with the attributes of a “high father” (Abram,) or a
“ Father of many people.” (Abraham.)
He migrated into the country at Jehovah’s bidding.
He entered neither Shecem nor Bethel: those were
places, hostile to Judah ; but with a true Judaic feeling,
�28
Origin of the Legends of
he erected “altars” in their neighbourhood, and invoked
the name of Jehovah. After his return from Egypt, he
wandered again through the country, even to its
geographical centre between Bethel and Ai, and again
invoked Jehovah; a fact which meant the religious
occupation of the country for Jehovah ! After Lot had
separated from him, (Gen. xiii. 14.) and Abraham’s
tribe had been in a way purified of the later worship
pers of “ Cemosh ” and “ Milcom ” he received the
command to walk through the land, northward and
southward, eastward and westward, “ in the length of
it and the breadth of it,” because all that country was
to be his. Such a man is not the hero of a republican
canton, but rather a monarchical hero, who suffers no
division of government, and who supports David’s prin
ciple of unity in the name of Jehovah.
Abraham took up his abode in Hebron. This is the
city which boasts of having been built seven years before
Zoan in Egypt (Numb. xiii. 22). That city, as legend
tells us, was governed by a race of giants : it was the
primeval city, the city which Caleb, of the tribe of
Judah, desired as an inheritance for all his descendants,
because of his faithfulness (Joshua xiv. 6, &c.). More
over, it is the city to which Judah owes its origin.
This city, as the history of David relates, (2 Sam. ii. 1.)
was directly recommended by Jehovah to David, after
Saul’s death, as his abode. This city was also the resid
ence of David during the first seven years of his reign.
There the patriarch again built an altar, and invoked
the name of Jehovah: but not in the way he was accus
tomed to do, as a passing guest, but as a stranger and
an inhabitant, preserver, and ally of the former possessors,
who recognized his mission as a “Prince of God.”
(Gen.xxiii. 6.) But Hebron was not only the ancestral
seat of the Judaic kingdom, whence the Elders of Israel
fetched David to give him the crown of the whole
undivided realm, but it was also the seat of the Judaic
worship at the time when David already resided in Zion.
�Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
29
Absolom, his son, pretended to have to go there, in
order “ to fulfil a pious vow to Jehovah” (2 Sam. xv.
7-10,) and there he began his rebellion and was crowned.
The patriarch in Hebron, with the prospect of possess
ing as his inheritance all the land northward and south
ward, eastward and westward, formed, as we see, a fit
model for the legend of David's state-unity.
From this place, the legend makes its hero, Abraham,
undertake a triumphal march (Gen. xiv.), which is
thoroughly in keeping with David's character. Four
great kings of Asia make war against the people of five
small kingdoms, supposed to have existed in the
territory of the Dead Sea. The Asiatic kings conquered
all around, slew, in the valley of Sidim, the native
kings, among whom was the king of Sodom, and took
the prisoners and all the booty with them. A fugitive
reported these facts to Abraham, who forthwith armed
all his allies, followed the conquerors, overtook them in
the extreme north, in Dan, fought with them and pur
sued them even beyond the boundaries of the land, as
far as Hoba on the left hand of Damascus, retook the
booty and brought back all the prisoners.
This unparalleled triumph of our hero, to whom the
whole land was to owe life and property, is further
enhanced by the disinterestedness with which Abraham
refused any portion of the spoil. Only the combatants,
the allies and the inhabitants of the environs of Hebron,
took their portion. Abraham solemnly lifted his hand
unto Jehovah, the most High God, the possessor of
heaven and earth, and swore that he would take neither
a thread nor a shoe-latchet.
To the moral and religious occupation in the name of
Jehovah, to whom Abraham erected altars at the most
celebrated places, whom he everywhere invoked and
from whom he everywhere received promises of pro
prietorship, were superadded martial reconquest and
with it legal right. A better claim for the annexation
of the whole land to Judah, could certainly not be made.
�30
Origin of the Legends of
The constant partisanship, with which the legend
presents the figure of Abraham, is still more decidedly
shown in the point, that he was the one with whom
Elohe made a covenant, and to whom He ordained the
circumcision as an indestructible sign in the flesh. The
circumcision is, according to all conscientious enquiries,
by no means of Hebrew origin. It existed and still
exists with many peoples who bear no relation whatever
to the Hebrews. The Hebrews themselves, when
they immigrated into Palestine, were all not circumcised,
(Joshua v. 2-8), and most probably accepted the
custom from the original inhabitants of Palestine, who
are nowhere designated as not circumcised. This
remark is only made about the Philistines, who had
only just immigrated, and it is unremittingly repeated
with them,
A
From the fact that the name of “ uncircumcised ”
was an insulting one in David’s time (1 Sam. xvii.
26, &c.), we may conclude that to the circumcision was
ascribed a sanctifying, consecrating power adhering to
entire tribes. To attribute the origin of this ceremony
to Abraham was consequently a strong argument to
concentrate universal veneration upon this patriarch by
all tribes who thought the custom holy.
However, all this was not sufficient for the Judaic
legend. The patriarch from Hebron must also be en
titled to possession by civil right. Divine promises
may be denied by sceptics, conquests may be annulled
by defeats, and moral victories of ancestors invalidated
by immoral actions of descendants. Nothing, there
fore, would sufice but a civil proceeding before princes
and assemblies of people, when a real purchase was con
cluded for ready weighed silver, in open negotiation
before all who tvent in and out. Only such an action
could procure the never-to-be-doubted possession, which
nobody had a right to touch, and which gave a char* We shall give details about the original inhabitants of
Shecem later on.
�Abraham, Isaac, and ^acob.
31
acter, never to be extinguished, to the sovereign power
of the ancestral seat.
The legend of Abraham presents to ns this civil pro- *
ceeding with special elaboration and precision. The
name of Hebron (Chebron) has too much affinity of
sound with Kibron (burial-place) to remain unexplored
by legend. "Whose burial-place could be more worthy
of adorning this very ancient city than that of the
ancestor Abraham ! The burial-place of an ancestor, a
saint, or more particularly of the founder of a religion,
is known to offer always the most pious and welcome
pretext for the conquest of it, and of the whole country
around, at any price. It could not be imagined that
such an argument in favour of possession would not be
noticed by a venerator of Davidic conquest.
By means of the sword Abraham would not gain
anything for himself. Presents and rewards he refused
disinterestedly in Palestine : a burial-place, first for his
wife and afterwards for himself, he would only buy for
current money (Gen. xxiii. 9), and then, indeed, only
in a public manner, which has no parallel for subtlety
and diplomatic precision. The whole of the 23rd
chapter of the first book of Moses is a masterpiece,
rarely seen, but admirably fitted for its purpose.
Even with all this, the hero of Hebron would not be
a universal patriarch were one trait wanting in his
history which could glorify the real central seat of
David’s united kingdom. It was not right that the
modern Jerusalem should surpass the ancient Hebron,
particularly in the cultivation of legends, which always
need the dark soil of high antiquity. But legend could
not leave the new central seat unconsidered, especially
as the grandeur of young Jerusalem excited the jealousy
of the old religious and political places,—-a jealousy
which, in the time of David’s grandchildren, led to
separation from the united kingdom, and to the forma
tion of the separate kingdom of Israel. Popular report
is not critical. It does not avoid anachronisms, and
�32
1
Origin of the Legends of
thereby often betrays its youth and arbitrariness to the
scrutinizing eye; but it possesses, as a rule, enough
critical tact to conceal the fault against chronology by a
vague description of time and locality. The legend of
Abraham shews this critical tact, relative to Jerusalem,
in two points. First of all, there arrives, on his return
from the great war of deliverance, one “ Malci Tzedek ”
(a king of justice), king of Salem (Gen. xiv. 18), in
order to greet the preserver of the country with bread
and wine. That Salem means Jerusalem cannot be
proved, and yet cannot be doubted, as the psalmist
(Ps. lxxvi.
particularly designates Jerusalem by that
name. Its king bears the honourable title of “ king of
justice,” and is, still more than that, “ the priest of the
most high God.” This priest of the most high God
not only greets Abraham, but blesses him, li and he
gave him tithes of all.” Who is the receiver? It
cannot be proved, but yet cannot well be doubted, that
the priest must be the receiver of the tithes. Thus
Abraham already beforehand knew the King of Jeru
salem as the King of Justice, and brought the tithes to
Jerusalem. This was sufficient for legend to glorify
Jerusalem, and to annihilate the competition of any
other place of royalty or of worship.
Legend, however, knows how to date another great
progress of civilization from Abraham, and with the
vagueness which legend loves in anachronistic state
ments, it is transferred to a place which is doubtlessly,
though not provably, meant to be Jerusalem.
Human sacrifice existed in Palestine up to the his
torical period. Legend relates (Gen. xxii.) that Elohe
asked from Abraham the sacrifice of his son, and that
Abraham was ready to make it, but that when the son
lay upon the altar, already bound, and the knife to
slay him was raised, an angel of “ Jehovah” hade him
stop, and that Abraham offered instead a ram caught in
the thicket by its horns.
In all legends a deep meaning is hidden behind the
�Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
33
'simplicity of a plain representation, and such, is un
doubtedly the case here, when the reversion from
-human to animal sacrifice is represented in the homely
shape of legend. As unassumingly as the narrative
•niters from Elohe to Jehovah, letting the former claim
the sacrifice while the latter prevents it, so unassum'ingly would legend place this great progress in civiliza
tion to the credit of the great patriarch of Judah. Not
less does the legend endeavour to remove the related
-event to the mountain of the temple in Jerusalem, al
though the anachronism is carefully concealed, so that
we may still doubt whether Moriah (verse 2) and
Mount of Jehovah (verse 14) really mean the place of
/the temple in Jerusalem.
Looking at the whole round of separate legends
which unroll the picture of a universal Patriarch, under
the popular guise of a simple family history, we may
well say that, with uncommon mastery, it knows how
to fulfil its partisan purpose under the plain cover of
simplicity. In the materials for legends of the He
brews, Abraham takes as prominent a place as is due
to the ancestor of so powerful a conqueror and king as
David.
VII.
THE LEGENDS OF ABRAHAM AND THE PROPHETS.
Although we know that legends grow only very slowly
•and imperceptibly, and that through entire generations
traditions may continue unaltered, and often, as we shall
■soon show, undergo a great change through political
•events, which deeply affect the life and views of the
people, and thereby, when complete, frequently seem
insolvable riddles—still, we believe, from all that has
preceded, we are justified in arriving at the following
•conclusions.
First of all, we may accept as probable that the
•.patriarch Abraham was not a direct invention of Davidic
c
�34
Origin of the Legends of
partisansh ip. At the place where he was venerated,,
and particularly at his supposed burial-place in Hebron,,
an Abraham, may already, at the time of the republic,
have been known, named, and poetically adorned. The
legends at first as harmless as the history of Isaac,,
grew with the fate of Hebron ; but they did not receive
their universally grand character, before the enthusiasm
about David’s mission was at its height. This bloom
of enthusiasm did not however coincide with the
blooming period of David’s reign, but was developed
later, when under the splendour and weakness of
Solomon’s reign, the hero-king stood in an ideal light
before the nation, and in the fancy of the people grew
higher and higher as an object of national enthusiasm.
The weaker his successors were, the less they under
stood how to keep up the unity of the kingdom, and
the more violently did blame attach itself to those
royal houses which did not walk “ in the ways of
Father David.”
If in that way, the circle of the Abrahamic legend,,
beginning in the simple time of the republic, gradually
acquired in Solomon’s time a national, political, and
religious importance, we may still suppose that it
reached the height of development, only after the divi
sion of Israel from Judah and after jealousy and wars
between the two kingdoms had, during the following
decennial period, lifted legendary fancy to an important
height.
The next impulse was given by the legend of the
Patriarch of Bethel, which appeared in the kingdom of
Israel. But before considering this rival patriarch, we
must answer two questions which might excite doubt
in reference to our already proclaimed views.
The first question is, why should Shiloh (1 Sam. i.
3, &c.), which, approaching the Davidic time, was
the place of worship, be silently passed by in the
Abrahamic legend ? Why should not the Davidic
legend have drawn Shiloh into the circle of Abraham’s
�Abraham, Isaac, and *Jacob.
35
activity, when it was the intention of those legends to
bring the patriarch, significantly at least, into the neigh
bourhood of all places of worship, in order to proclaim
Jehovah, as was the case for instance with Shecem and
Bethel ? The second question is of a different nature,
although akin to the first. If Abraham be really a
figure intended to glorify the Davidic Judah, why, with
the exception of the concluding verses in Micah, which
we have already quoted, do the old Judaic prophets not
mention him, either figuratively or personally ?
We answer these two questions in one sentence :
that the Davidic aim, viz., universal monarchy, and the
aim in Shiloh, a strong Republic, necessarily conflicted
with each other. But it was as decidedly in the in
terest of the monarchical party to crush Shiloh down to
insignificance, as it was in the interest of the Shilonites
to make the strongest opposition to royalty, even to
David’s kingdom
In Shiloh lived the prophet and judge Samuel, a
staunch republican, than whom no one could be found
more firm and inflexible. His words (1 Sam. viii. 2),
in which he describes the kingdom, are as bitter as
they are just. It is certainly stated that Samuel secretly
anointed the shepherd boy as king (1 Sam. xvi. 13),
but this is a mere invention of Davidic historians, who
want to bring Samuel’s authority into action for their
ideal monarch. He who could think of kings as
Samuel did, would not voluntarily anoint them. It is
a subject too of no doubt, that the disciples of Samuel,
the prophet’s pupils, were no more royalists than their
teacher. Shiloh, on the contrary, was the place where
the demagogic conspiracy against the Davidic univer
sal monarchy was initiated. It was the prophet and
demagogue Ahijah of Shiloh (1 Kings xi. 29) who
directly incited Jeroboam to rebellion. As a fact, one
might say, that Ahijah was the destroyer of the Davidic
kingdom ! There really existed scarcely any monarchi
cally minded prophets. They were all, according to
�36
Origin of the Legends of
circumstances, democrats, republicans, tbeocrats, and in
many cases, demagogues. Isaiah and Micah, who saw
their ideal in abetter future, painted it (Isaiah ii., etc., and
Micah iv., etc.,) as a time of everlasting peace, when God
would reign and kings be superfluous. “ Nation shall
not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they
learn war any more.” This hope for eternal peace
between people and people, is thoroughly anti-monar
chical. Although Isaiah, in cases of danger for the
state, and of national sufferings, addresses consolation
to reigning kings, still he is, and remains, thoroughly
the true man of the people, who with glowing ire
makes princes and their accessories feel the weight of
his words, and harshly criticises the debauchery of
princes and the passion for dress of the ladies of the
court. Between the true prophetdom and the kingdom,
there existed a conflict such as could only exist between
absolutism and democracy. Therefore it is not surprising,
that suddenly with David’s appearance the importance of
Shiloh should vanish ; that again at the time of David’s
grand-son, Rehoboam, a Shilonite should stir up a
powerful conspiracy, and that Shiloh, after the revolu
tion, separated from the kingdom of Judah, should rise
in war against the Israelitic kingdom ; and that in the
end, after the prophets dispersed in all directions, it
should fall into entire ruin.
Thus it is easily explained, why the Davidic develop
ment of legends, lets Abraham pass Shiloh by in
silence, and why the prophets, the Shilonites and their
successors, attach no value to the legend of Abraham.
VIII.
THE PATRIARCH OF BETH-EL.
The legends of the patriarch of Beth-el form a most
striking contrast to those of Abraham.
One need only picture to oneself the part that Beth
el played in the division of the Israelitic tribes from
�Abraham, Isaac, and *Jacob.
37
the Davidic kingdom, to see at once, that the patriarch
of the name of 11 Israel” or 11Jacob” was only invented
for the sake of glorifying Beth-el, in order to give to
that new place of worship a popular nimbus, which
enabled it to compete with Jerusalem.
A glance at the causes and the effects of this great
revolution will prove what we say.
The new capital of Jerusalem was, under the gor
geous reign of Solomon, the centre of the Davidic
monarchy. It was a fatal error of this king, that he
wanted to raise a young state, formed through mighty
and successful wars, to a splendour only fit for the great
old monarchies, between which it was situated. Jerus
alem, the capital, united in itself all the luxury and wan
tonness of the age. The people, accustomed to plain
republican ways, felt the yoke of monarchy grievously
(1 Kings xii. 4), and yielded only with reluctance to
the central state, which was governed from a new
centre, and which obscured the old traditional places of
worship and government. Temples, gorgeous build
ings, fleets, harems, gold, ivory, peacocks, monkeys,
statues, images, singers, dancers, and literary fancies
might well flatter the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and might
even call forth enthusiasm for the monarchy in the
canton of Judah; but they could dazzle a strong repub
lican simple people only for a short time. The old
towns were filled with violent anger against the new
Jerusalem, eating up the country. Therefore Solo
mon’s death was the signal for the breaking out of the
conspiracy, which the prophet Ahijah, the Shilonite,
and Jeroboam, the Ephraimite, had already initiated in
King Solomon’s lifetime (1 Kings xi. 26-40). Reho
boam, the foolish son of Solomon, was obliged to go to
Shecem, the old chief place, in order to be crowned at
the assembly of States. There, through Rehoboam’s
pride, the revolution broke out. Its leader, Jeroboam,
became king of the new realm, and the whole people
acknowledged him, with the exceptions of the canton of
�38
Origin of the Legends of
Judah, and the canton of Benjamin, which had been
humiliated through David’s sanguinary persecutions.
The new king resided in Shecem. But afraid that
the people in pilgrimage to Jerusalem might again turn
to David’s house, Jeroboam by way of competition
erected two new places of worship : one at the frontier
of Benjamin in Beth-el, the other at the most northern
end of the kingdom, in the city of Dan (1 Kings xii.
26-30).
Whilst the worship at Dan, in the furthest north,
does not seem to have been of more importance than
the one in Beer-sheba, in the furthest south, the worship
in Beth-el was potent enough, to do the most complete
damage to the pilgrimages to Jerusalem. All the pro
phets accuse Beth-el of the worst apostasy. But the
priest in Beth-el called it “ the king's chapelf li the
king's court,” (Amos vii. 13) which nobody was to
speak against!
Is it conceivable that such a place of worship could
be successfully established without an endeavour to
give it the prestige of great antiquity ? If we look at
the tales of Jacob, which are related in the first Book of
Moses, keeping to the fundamental thought, that these
tales are before us in a form which systematically har
monises, and are intended to harmonise, the historical
dissention of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, the
result is clear that Jacob was equipped by the legend
to be specifically a patriarch of Beth-el, and a rival of
Abraham. After the division of the kingdom a Jeroboamite patriarch is opposed to the David-like patriarch,
as fit to surpass the latter, as Beth-el was to outdo old
Hebron and Jerusalem.
Let us look closer at the new patriarch. We pass
over, at first, the history of Jacob’s youth, which we
shall have to consider at a later stage, and begin with
the scene which forms an introduction to his patriarchal
mission. Jacob arrived after travelling (Gen. xxviii.
10, 22) at a place called “ Luz there the sun had set,
�Abraham, Isaac, and 'Jacob.
39
•and he took one of the stones of that place, put it for
his pillow, and lay down to sleep. He dreamed and
behold! a ladder was set up on the earth and the top of
it reached to heaven and the angels of Elohe were
-ascending and descending on it. And behold ! Jehovah
stood above it and said : “I am Jehovah, the God of
Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac; the land
whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it and to thy
seed. And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth
(in quantity), and thou shalt spread abroad to the west
-and to the east, to the north and to the south, and in
thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”
And behold, “ I am with thee and will keep thee
whithersoever thou goest, and will bring thee again into
this land ; for I will not leave thee until I have done
that which I have spoken to thee of.” And Jacob
■awakened out of his sleep and he said : 11 Surely
Jehovah is in this place and I knew it not” (up to the
present). Then he was afraid and said : “ How fearful
is this place ! this is none other but the house of God,
■and this is the gate of heaven.” And Jacob rose up
•early in the morning and took the stone that he had
put for his pillow and set it up for a pillar (rm), and
poured oil on the top of it, and he called the name of that
place Beth-el (house of God). Luz had been the name
•of the city in former times. And Jacob made a vow say
ing : “ If Elohe will be with me and will keep me in
this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and
raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father’s
house in peace; then shall Jehovah be my God, and
this stone, which I have set for a pillar (Fm») shall be
God’s house, and of all that thou wilt give me I will
surely give the tenth unto thee."
A greater glorification of Beth-el could scarcely be
imagined ! How welcome it must have been to King
-Jeroboam, who erected there the house of God, and had
the door of heaven put in the same place ! How par
ticularly welcome this legend must have been to the
�40
Origin of the Legends of
priests in Beth-el whom Jeroboam had made of thelowest of the people and not of the sons of Levi,” (1
Kings xii. 31)—who did not wish that the tenth
should be brought to Jerusalem, to which, according
to the Hebron legend, Abraham had already given it,,
but to Beth-el, where the new patriarch had expressly
engaged to bring it ! From those concluding words
relative to the tithe, and which, without any motive,,
speak to God in the second person, whilst until then
God has always been mentioned in the third person,
we judge that particular value was attached to thepoint that the tenth should appear for Bethel as a per
sonal and very intimate obligation, voiced face to facej
an obligation which could never be got rid. of!
The competition with Abraham is fully expressed in
the promise of the whole land as a possession to thedescendants of Jacob. That promise so entirely com
prises all that gave a providential value to Abraham’s
mission, that the patriarch of Judah becomes quite
superfluous.
Certainly the basis of all this glorification of Beth-eL
is only a dream, and it may well be thought that it need
not be so pretentious ; but he who considers what is.
still before us, as remains of the Israelitic literature in
that of the Judaic, cannot fail to perceive that the liter
ary production in Judah is sober in comparison with
the poetry of the Israelitic narrative. With the point
that represents the glorification of Bethel, begins an
entire cycle of Israelitic literature, which embraces the
history of Jacob and Joseph to the end of the first Book
of Moses. From that time the dreams never cease.
Jacob dreams in Haran (Gen. xxxi. 11). Laban is
visited in a dream, (xxxi. 24). Joseph dreams twice
foreshadowings of his fate (xxxvii. 5, &c). His fellow
prisoners, the butler and the baker of Pharaoh, arevisited by dreams (xl. 5). Pharaoh himself dreams,
and Joseph’s wisdom as an interpreter of dreams influ
ences the fate of Egypt. In the end Elohe also comes.
�Abraham, Isaac, and ^Jacob.
4«
to Jacob “ in the visions of the night ” (Gen. xlvi. 2),
in Beer-sheba, and gives him promises which claimunlimited confidence. When one comes to consider,
that in the mouth of the people, a dream often is thought
much more significant than a perception with open eyes,
one would rather see in the dream in favour of Beth-el,
another argument for undoubted glorification of the
place. What a patriarch dreamed was certainly thought
in Israel much more trustworthy than what the people
could at any time see with their own eyes.
Nor can we fail to see, upon closer consideration, that
the story of this dream had necessarily a more intense
influence upon the imagination of the people than the
soft, modest, and half-concealed intimations of a glori
fication of Jerusalem through Abraham. As a successful
rebellion is much more energetic than legitimacy, so is
the legend of revolution much more powerful than tha
legitimate one. Beth-el is not veiled like Jerusalemunder “ Salem,” “ Moriah,” and il Mount of God,” but it
appears openly with all its pretensions as does Jeroboam
the rebel himself. Such things always impose upon a
people. Novelty alone could have brought Beth-el into
bad credit and raised doubts. Although Beth-el was
in Samuel’s times already a place where one went “ to
Elohe,” (1 Sam. x. 3) still one had not yet an idea of
such high importance. But why should surprise prevent
any one from fully acknowledging Beth-el, when the
patriarch himself avowed that he had not known it
before, and that he saw only now in his dream that
Jehovah dwelt there and that the door of heaven was
opened there !"
But it was not only the religious importance which
had to be won for Beth-el; but the whole of the poli
tical importance, which through David’s bold deeds
had glorified the kingdom of Judah, had to be annulled
in the tradition of the people and to be turned through
bold inventions towards the new kingdom of Jeroboam.
Whatever war might accomplish was tried with un
�42
Origin of the Legends of .
daunted energy. The war between both kingdoms
raged fully twenty-four years. But war requires also
the belief of the people in a justification for war, and to
this belief the new patriarch offered plenty of material
in the kingdom of Israel.
Before the establishment of the monarchy the
Hebrews lived in ten or twelve cantons which governed
themselves as republics. The names of these cantons
are certainly not the names of persons. In some of
them one recognises clearly the names of the gods who
were worshipped there as : “ Zebulon” the On of heaven,
“Dan” the Judge, “Gad” the god of Fortune, Venus.
It is not unlikely that Benjamin was a district where
“Meni” was worshipped- (Is. lxv. 11). Other names
of cantons probably originated in geographical or his
torical reasons, which can no more be followed up.
However that may be, it is absurd to allege the
population of ten or twelve cantons to be the issue of
as many sons of one and the same father. An idea
like this can no more be believed than perhaps an asser
tion that an ancestress “Borussia” had a number of
children, each of whom was the founder of a Prussian
province.
But the justification of Jeroboam’s politics required
strong belief from the people, and for the sake of such
a strong belief the patriarch of Beth-el was made
ancestor of all the cantons. The chief obj ect in view
was naturally to claim a privilege for the canton. “ Eph
raim” Jeroboam’s home (1 Kings xi. 26). Ephraim,
which is synonymous with “ Joseph” (both mean
fecundity, multiplication, and characterise the canton as
densely populated), had to be fully justified by the
legend of Beth-el in the privilege which Jeroboam
usurped. With this intention a complete cycle of legends
wTas marked out, which might rival in system the
cycle of the legends of Abraham, surpassing them far in
poetical elaboration, and which, in parts, are a real
masterwork of epic style, whilst polemically they are
�Abraham, Isaac, and 'Jacob.
43
as regardless of the Judaic cycle of legend as Jeroboam
was of the Davidic dynasty.
IX.
THE CONFLICT OF THE CYCLES OF LEGEND.
We proceed now to show the parallelism, the rivalry,
and lastly, the cutting polemics of these legends.
The patriarch of Beth-el went direct to Mesopo
tamia to marry. The legend of Abraham which—as a
proof of Judah’s intimate relation to Mesopotamia—
has a wife fetched thence for the son of the patriarch,
is much surpassed by the new legend, which lets Jacob
travel there in propria, persond. He married two wives,
sisters. One of them, the elder, was imposed upon
him and he hated her (Gen. xxix. 31). The other, the
younger one, was the beloved, for whose sake he joy
fully served as a herdsman for fourteen years. The
former, the hated one, bore him sons; the latter, the
beloved one, remained childless for a long time. Each
of the two wives brought to the patriarch her maid, so
that she might number her children as her own. In
this way ten sons were born to the patriarch in Meso
potamia, each of whom received the name of one of the
cantons of Palestine, and was intended to count as its
ancestor. But the mission of the patriarch was not
fulfilled thus. He waited patiently. At last the be
loved wife also bore him a son, who received the name
of Joseph, and directly after his birth (Gen. xxx. 25)
the patriarch wished to return to the land of promise.
Then, at length, he saw his mission fulfilled, because
not only was he going to take home the ancestors of all
the cantons, but also the own son of the beloved one, the
son full of promise, who was to be subject to wonderful
fates in the war with his brothers, the children of the
unbeloved one and of the maids, and who was destined,
to wear the crown, the crown of the kingdom of
“Joseph” “Ephraim” “Israel,” of the kingdom which.
Jeroboam, the Ephraimite, had founded.
�44
Origin of the Legends of
The intention of this history is clear enough. The
peaceful relations of the kingdoms of Jeroboam to neigh
bouring Mesopotamia, could scarcely be better expressed
than by the family legend, that all cantons of this^
kingdom, Judah included, were no more than colonies,
peopled by the children who had been born to the patri
arch in that district. Why the legend makes an excep
tion “ with. Benjamin” we shall soon consider.
But such very near family ties have their dangerous
points. A Mesopotamian conqueror might easily there
by have proved well-founded pretensions to these colo
nies sprung from his blood. For this reason the
separation of the patriarch from Mesopotamia was not a
light matter. Chapters xxx. and xxxi. contain a very
elaborate discussion about property between Laban the
representative of those countries and the patriarch, a dis
cussion which, like every one of its kind, does not pass,
without serious moments of threatened conflict, but
•which in the end terminates with a contract of peace,
the validity of which was unexceptionable.
The contract of peace was concluded as we see (Gen.
xxxi. 23) at the frontier of the country, in the Mount
of Gilead. There, at a place no longer to be traced, and
probably remarkable for its towering rocks, the treaty
was concluded at the express wish of Laban. The
companions of both parties gathered stones and con
structed a rocky hill. This hill “ Gal” was to be
“witness.” Thence originated the name “ Galeed,”
“ Gilead”
On the heights was a beacon, a.
watchtower, giving the motive for calling the place“Mizpah” (ns^O, rc¥£), because, as Laban exclaims,
Jehovah shall judge between me and thee.” This hill
and this Mizpah shall be witnesses that I will not passover this frontier to thee, and thou wilt not pass over to
me in hostile intention. Solemn vows, a meal, and a
hearty leave-taking concluded the contract of peace.
We may assert, with great probability, that this,
legend has for its foundation a real political motive,
�Abraham, Isaac, and 'Jacob.
45
tfrom the time of Jeroboam. It is a matter of course
■that neither Egypt nor Mesopotamia could observe with,
indifference the growth of a bold, vigorous monarchy,
out of a conglomeration of small powerless strips of land,
■upon a border, which formed the natural guard at the
people's bridge in Suez. Although one cannot say that
David’s kingdom really extended from Egypt’s “ brook
unto the Euphrates,” still, it is a fact, that all through
this wide territory his power made itself felt. David’s
:glorious wars against Aram, and his treaty with Toi,
king of Hamath, could not appear insignificant. In
Egypt those events were considered with attention.
Solomon received a daughter of Pharaoh from Egypt,
as his wife, which really was no small concession to
so young a kingdom, considering the pride of caste of
the Egyptian dynasty. Nevertheless, Egypt was soon
filled with jealousy of the Davidic kingdom. The
Court received, in a friendly spirit, Hadad, a fugitive
prince from Edom, who was waiting for the death of
David and his general, Joab, to free his country from
the yoke of the Davidic reign (1 Kings xi. 14-22). The
Edomite prince found such favour in the sight of
Pharaoh, that he gave him as a wife, the sister of his
own wife, the queen, and allowed him to undertake,
after the death of David, the war of deliverance in
Edom.
Just as in Egypt, a fugitive, “Rezon,” proved in.
Damascus a lucky adversary of Solomon, (1 Kings
xi. 23,) we may also conclude with certainty, that
Jeroboam, as a fugitive in Egypt, leagued himself
with the Court there, against the kingdom of Judah.
This alone explains that five years after Jeroboam’s
reign in Israel (1 Kings xiv. 25), Shishak, king of
Egypt came up to Jerusalem, took away all the treasures
■of the temple and the palace, but left the kingdom of
Israel perfectly intact. Although we must not accept
the repeated statement that the war between Jeroboam
and Rehoboam lasted “all their days ” as an exact ex-
�46
Origin of the Legends oj
pression, still we cannot doubt that Shishak had been,
incited to this predatory invasion against Rehoboam,
by the former fugitive in Egypt, then king Jeroboam
in Israel.
Under such political conditions, it was quite within
the reach of probability, that Jeroboam should not fail
to strive for friendly opinion for his newly formed king
dom in the North East; not, however, by means of
patriarchal legends of ancient times, but by means of
real diplomatic negotiations, such as had been usual in
the time of David (2 Sam. viii. 10). But when a
friendly treaty of this kind had been concluded, it was
quite natural, that for the ingenuous belief of the people,
it should be represented as a family picture of the life
of Laban and the Patriarch of Bethel.
This well contrived plan, to consecrate in a popular
spirit, through the Patriarch of Bethel, the peaceful
relations between the newly formed kingdoms of Israel
and Mesopotamia, was surpassed by the cleverness, in
which the same legend made the much more intimate
relation of Jeroboam to Egypt, palatable to the people.
It would have been an easy matter to give to the
Teal son of the Patriarch and his beloved wife, the
name of a Ephraim,” and thus to introduce the ancestor
of the canton who was to have the vocation to stand
at the head of all, as a true Mesopotamian. But the
intimate relation of Jeroboam to Egypt required a much
more subtle plan. Joseph, the real son of the Patriarch,
was to come from the Euphrates, but diplomacy was
not satisfied with this title alone. It was necessary
that the real son should be hated, persecuted by his
brothers, and left to die ; should be saved from being
murdered by a feeling of humanity in the bosom of the
eldest of his brothers, Reuben, and through God’s won
derful interposition, sold as a slave at the advice of
Judah, the most mighty of the brothers.
Joseph, thus arrived in Egypt, rose to the posts of
preserver, benefactor, and powerful minister of Egypt.
�Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
47
Pharaoh gave him as a wife, the daughter of Potiphera,
priest of On, in the temple of the Sun, Heliopolis, and
he had by her, Ephraim, the ancestor of Jeroboam, the
new king. He was, in truth, only a grandson of the
Patriarch, but for that very reason, Jacob solemnly
adopted him in Egypt as his own son (Gen. xlviii. 5).
By the maternal side, however, Ephraim was related by
blood, at the. same time, to Mesopotamia and Egypt.
How could he fail to be incontestably acknowledged
as the crowned one, among the brothers'? (Gen. xlix. 26,
and Deut. xxxiii. 16).
X.
ANIMOSITY AGAINST THE JUDAIC LEGENDS.
If already a slight sketch of the Ephraimitic legend
suffices to show its Jeroboamic tendency, a closer inspec
tion of details affords a deeper view of the entire want
of consideration, and of the hostility with which that
legend attacks the Davidic dynasty. It needs only
impartial observation to discover in the rich, much
altered, and even mutilated material, the fundamental
characteristics which the legend had in its original
shape. By this means there are also opened to our
view large portions of the side scenery, which under the
present harmonious covering present themselves to us
as so many dark problems. We perceive, not a one
sided attack proceeding from a legend only, but a mutual
conflict of the two legends. We observe how, besides
the eternal wars of the kings Jeroboam and Rehoboam,
of which history contains but scanty records, religious
contests also of an embittered nature were recorded and
fought out in the popular tales.
First of all, let us divert our attention from the great
Jeroboamic characteristics which the legend presents
for Ephraim’s glorification to some smaller traits which
strengthen our conviction by their number rather than
their weight. Eor this purpose we cannot consider the
�48
Origin of the Legends of
’events in the same order as they are described in the
first book of Moses, but, as the conclusion will show,
•our digressions for a few moments will always be with a
view to compass the entire round of legends.
After the patriarch had taken leave of Laban, he
forthwith sent a message of peace and friendship to
Esau, who at once hastened to meet him, and demon
strated his brotherly love to such a degree, that the
patriarch exclaimed that Esau’s face appeared to him as
though it was “the face of God,” (Gen. xxxiii. 10).
Before however this meeting took place, the patriarch
had at night (xxxii. 24, &c.) a struggle with a real God,
a matter we shall afterwards consider. At present only
the one fact is of interest, that the patriarch saw there
also a “face of God” face to face, so vividly indeed,
that he could not help calling the place “ Peniel,” God’s
face ($K 'JS).
The conference with Esau having been satisfactorily
■concluded, the patriarch proceeded. He built a house
and erected “booths” for liiscattle, wherefore he called
the place “ Succoth.” But he did not remain there.
He went to Shecem and encamped before the city.
There he bought part of the field where he pitched has
tent from the hand of the children of Ham or, the father
of Shecem for the price of a hundred kesitah, and he
-erected there an altar and called it “ El God of Israel.”
If we stop a moment to consider the latter passage
in particular, there is no doubt that the word “ altar,”
{mjD mizbeach,) does not at all agree with the word
vaiatzeb,
which informs us of the setting up. Eor
the erection of an altar we find everywhere either p'H
vaiiben, “ he built,” or b’y') vaiaas, “he made,” or also,
Op'l vaiakam, “ he erected,” whilst the word
vaiatzeb is only used for the erection of a pillar
matzebah, which is clearly based upon the uniformity
of sound and origin of both words. We have evidently
only the choice of assuming either the verb or the sub
stantive as the wrong reading, and we shall have to
�Abraham, Isaac, and ’ acob.
J
49
consider for whicli rectification we have to pronounce.
Certainly we find in the further history of the patri
arch that he also “ built ” an altar FDTD mizbeach, in
Bethel, (xxxv. 7.) but we have already quoted the plan
according to which (xxviii. 18-22.) he erected a pillar
“Matzebah” in Bethel; in the same chapter xxxv.
while, according to verse 7, he built the “altar” in
Bethel, his wandering to Bethel is again related where
he set up a Matzebah, (?;. 14.) “a matzebah of stone,”
as is added with peculiar stress. Inquiring further, we
find that the same patriarch raised up a matzebah in
Gilead (Gen. xxxi. 45.), and finally that he set up
another upon the tomb of Rachel (Gen. xxxv. 20).
Now we are well justified in the opinion that the fact
cannot be accidental, that Abraham should never set up
a pillar but always build “ an altar,” for which he
always invoked the name of “ Jehovah,” and that it
should be a speciality of our new patriarch throughout,
only to set up pillars, and never to invoke or exclaim
“Jehovah,” but always “El” or “Elohe:” he even
sometimes called the erected stone itself by that name.
After this, one may well allow that in the passage
itself (xxxiii. 20), we must also read “ pillar ” matzebah,
instead of “ altar,” mizbeach, and that, in consequence,
the patriarch set up in Shecem a stone, calling it
“ El, Elohe, Israel,” “ God, a God of Israel.” How
much this is antagonistic to Judaic worship is clearly
shewn by the so-called Mosaic law, in the following
words,—“Neither shalt thou set thee up any pillar,
matzebah, which Jehovah thy God hateth.” (Deut. xvi.
22.)
The above mentioned circumstance, however, causes
us to ask why a place before Shecem should be
honoured in this way ? But when we recollect that
Abraham upon his first entry into Canaan (Gen. xii.
■6, 7), came also exactly unto the place of Shecem
and there built “ an altar, mizbeach, to Jehovah,” it is
sufficiently clear that it was incumbent upon his comD
�5b
Origin of the Legends of
petitor and adversary to set up a pillar matzebah, in
that very place for “ Elohe,” and even to designate the
stone itself with the title of “ El,” God.
The wonderful purchase, too, for a hundred Kesitah
is nothing but a competing side-piece to Abraham’s
purchase of an hereditary burial-ground. How much
a Kesitah is worth we do not know. Judging by Job
xiii. 1.1, we are justified in thinking it of value. A
hundred such pieces of money may be more than 400
shekels of silver, the sum paid by Abraham at the pur
chase at Hebron. But the competing legend is right
in representing the new patriarch as liberal. He founded
something greater than Abraham’s burial-ground. The
place was to be the burial-ground of Joseph ; so the
continuation of the legend (Joshua xxiv. 32) states.
To the glory of Hebron as Abraham’s burial-place,
Shecem is here opposed as the burial-place of the
crowned one among the brothers. There a Davidic,
here an Ephraimitic memorial, which might well take
up the challenge for precedence.
But will not the new patriarch, be himself buried in
Hebron ? According to the present harmonious com
pilation of the material of the whole of the legends,
yes, but according to the originally contrived and ener
getically worked out legend, no. We will show this,
when we have more closely observed the territory on
which we are now standing.
We are before Shecem, as the narrator states, the
stations of the patriarch were, “ Mizpah, Mahanaim,
Succoth and Peniel.” Now we have cause to remem
ber, that those places were not, simply, as they are
represented, places of encampment, pasture-grounds,
and places where one saw God’s face. They are places
full of historical reminiscences. Mizpah is the place
where Saul was appointed king, he whose dynasty was
overthrown by David (1 Sam. x. 17). Mahanaim is
the city where the adversaries of David, after Saul’s
death, proclaimed his son Ishbosheth as king of all
�Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
5i
Israel (2 Sam. ii. 8). Sbecem is the place where, in
the republican period, which was called the time of the
Judges, the unfortunate attempt was made to establish
a kingdom. The hero, Gideon, has left in Succoth and
Peniel memorials of the severe punishment which he
inflicted upon the chiefs of those towns, because they
would not give him bread when he fought against the
enemies of the country, Zebach and Tsalmunna (Judges
viii. 10). When the hero returned, the royal crown was
offered to him. One of his sons, however, Abimelech of
Shecem, knew how to raise himself by lucky intrigues,
and after having murdered seventy of hisbrothers upon a
stone, founded a kingdom, which was ruined after
wild energy and bloody anarchy, but not until
Shecem, the birthplace of the miserable kingdom, had,
by self-chosen tyrants, been ravaged by fire and sword.
But the town recovered. Nay, it soon became the
centre of popular life, because there, the assembly was
held, which was to crown the grandson of David.
There Jeroboam appeared and destroyed the Davidic
monarchy. The Judaic minister of Finance, Adoram,
appears to have been stoned to death in Shecem,
whereupon the legitimate king fled to Jerusalem
(1 Kings xii. 18). Then Jeroboam seized the sceptre,
and was proclaimed king in Shecem, where he took
up his residence. His first royal act was to build the
fortress of Peniel, and to establish worship in Bethel.
Remembering that this was the birthplace of the life
and deeds of a new patriarch, it is clear why legend
cannot pass over this portion of Jeroboam’s kingdom
without conferring a special sanctity upon Shecem.
Was it not the first residence of the king Jeroboam,
just as Hebron was of David, and certainly as worthy
as the latter, of a great patriarch’s visit and adoration ?
But Peniel also, the first fortress of Jeroboam, de
serves the honour of high consideration. The patriarch
named the place thus, because there he had seen God
“face to face.” We possess too few historical records
�52
Origin of the Legends of
of Jeroboam’s reign, to judge why it was necessary for
jeroboam’s patriarch to confer, also, upon Succoth, the
honour of a visit. But the coincidence of “ Mizpah,
Mahanaim, Shecem and Peniel” in history and legend,
is sufficient to prove that legend makes the patriarch ap
pear wherever history glorifies the adversaries of David,
and the king Jeroboam.
We have, however, not yet done with Shecem. We
see, in legend, a whole chapter dedicated to a sanguinary
romance, enacted in Shecem (Gen. xxxiv.). Is not
some Jeroboamic partisanship concealed behind this
little masterpiece ?
We shall treat this question presently : but first, we
must make the history a little clearer than it appears
at present, and we must glance over some other matters,
before we are able to throw a light upon the true
intention of the romance.
A romantic adventure is very well placed here. If
the patriarch of Hebron experienced the same at the
Courts of Abimelech and Pharaoh, we must not grudge
to his competitor an event of this nature, especially as
it concerns a virgin daughter who is put to no other
use in the whole of the legend. But what really is
supposed to have happened there, why it was invented,
and how the occurrence took place, has been entirely
altered by interpolation, and can only become clear, when
the partisanship for Jeroboam has been thoroughly
unveiled, and all its want of consideration laid bare.
That we have in chapter xxxiv. of the first Book of
Moses a mere legend is sufficiently proved by the fact,
that a person of the name of “ Shecem the son of
Hamor" never existed. Hamor is the name of a patri
cian who, in the time of the Judges, exercised his power
in Shecem, and therefore was called “Father of
Shecem ”
'HK. The generation itself was called
(Gen. xxxiii. 19, and Joshua xxiv. 32), “the Sons of
Hamor,” or “Men of Hamor.” (Judges ix. 28). If one
imagines Hamor and Shecem to be father and son,
�Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
53
verse 19.of chapter xxxiii. of the first Book of Moses,
has no meaning. According to that, Jacob bought a piece
of land
*
'□K “Wfl
from the children of Hamor,
father of Shecem, which might very much more simply
have been expressed by from Shecem and his Brothers,
the children of Hamor. The legend contained in chap
ter thirty-four is thus based upon a misinterpretation of
the words “ father of Shecem.” That there is nothing
historical in the legend is evident from the circum
stance that according to it Hamor and Shecem, and
all males of the city, were killed, all women and children
taken away, whilst according to the historically au
thentic book of Judges (chap. ix. 28), the patrician
family of Hamor still existed at the time of Abimelech,
consequently about five hundred years after the alleged
destruction !
In fact, the 34th chapter is originally a libel upon
all the grown-up sons of the patriarch. Joseph was
then a mere child and naturally took no part. Simeon
and Levi were specially accused of having broken their
faith and word in a most sanguinary way, against
the confiding, loving and well-intentioned Shecem;
for, according to the original story, the princely
youth Shecem did not take Dinah and defile her by
force, but “ he loved the damsel,” spoke kindly to her,
and asked his father Hamor to give him the damsel
to wife. (Gen. xxxiv. 3, 4). The last words of the
second verse, which state the contrary, are a later addi
tion and incoherent. He who can and does satisfy his
desire so unreservedly, is neither loving nor modest
enough to ask his father’s permission.
The following verse, the fifth, has also been interpo
lated ; in the correct original text, verse 6 excellently
joins verse 4. The right text also contained only the
first words of verse 7, which relates how the sons of
the patriarch came out of the field and overheard
* From the children of Chamor (who was called') abi
shecem.
�54
Origin of the Legends of
what the father of Shecem said to the patriarch.
Whatever else verse 7 relates of the grief and wrath of
the sons is interpolated, a fact which is clear, not only
from its purpose, but also from the circumstance that
it spoils the flow of the tale. It is sufficient proof of
the want of genuineness of this addition, that here
“ Israel” is mentioned as a people, of whom naturally
the sons of Jacob could know nothing. In verse 13
again, the latter words are interpolated quite idly, and
only for the purpose of expressing something which
gives a different character to the story. In verse 27
also, the last words, which betray their heterogeneous
ness through disturbing the text, ought to be omitted.
And clearly the whole of the concluding verse 31
should be omitted, if one would re-establish the origi
nal narrative.
That our idea about the original text is not an arbit
rary one, follows from reading the chapter, omitting all
the words denounced by us as interpolations. The
coherence of the story is more close, and the character
of Shecem gains in probability. Only a sincere lover,
not a violent voluptuary, who has already satisfied his
lust, can be thought capable of the exacted sacrifices.
The very circumstance, that in a short tale one can in
six passages omit entire sentences without disturbing
the coherence, and that on the contrary by doing so,
and without adding a single word, one adds to the
sense, is a good proof that the original text might
have read thus. With this probability we are satisfied
until we show by other proofs that the text really read
as we allege.
For this purpose we must introduce two other parts
of the legend, one of which is only a fragment, but
still evidently betraying its intention ; the second por
tion has been preserved in a more elaborate shape, and
although veiled, when closely considered, the intention
is clear. This intention is : to libel the elder brothers
of Joseph.
�Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
55
The fragment in question consists of the two verses 21
■and 22 of the 35th chapter of the first Book of Moses.
That these two verses belong together, is clearly shown
from the designation of our patriarch as “ Israel; ” thus
these two verses form a striking contrast to the preced
ing and successive parts in which, as usual, the patri
arch figures as “ Jacob.” As we have to consider more
elaborately, the origin of both names, we will only pre>cursorily observe that the name of “ Israel” is certainly
intended to be the more honourable one of the patri
arch, and that we must therefore regard those two
verses which use that name, conspicuously enough
three times, as a fragment of truly Israelitic Ephraimitic production. This fragment mentions an incestuous
deed of the eldest son of Leah, Reuben, the first-born
of the patriarch. “ Israel” heard of this incestuous
deed, perpetrated by his son and . . . here the narra
tive breaks off, leaving us to draw our own inferences
as to the probable continuation.
The mildest conjecture is this : that there, originally,
followed a passage, condemning Reuben’s deed, declar
ing him to have forfeited his right of primogeniture,
and conferring the same upon another son of the patri
arch. Who that should be is beyond doubt, when,
upon the adoption of the two sons of Joseph, Jacob
says (Gen. xlviii. 5), “Ephraim and Manasseh, as
Reuben and Simeon they shall be unto me.” In the
first Book of Chronicles (v. 1, 2) this transfer of pri
mogeniture to Ephraim is expressed, together with the
motive, with most complete decision. Here we see
Ephraim, step into Reuben!s place, a fact quite in keep
ing with the Ephraimitic treating of legends.
When, however, we compare with this the first Book
of Moses, chapter xlix. verses 3, 4, where the patriarch
■upon his death-bed remembers Reuben’s deed of incest,
and declares him to have forfeited his right of primo
geniture, we come necessarily to the conclusion, that
the passage omitted in our fragment must have run
much more severely. How severely we cannot know.
�56
Origin of the Legends of
But it is sufficient for us to gather that a truly Ephraimitic legend has devised this scandalous deed against
Reuben, for the very purpose of having him dethroned
from his birthright by the patriarch.
The second portion we must here refer to, is the
entire 38th chapter of the first Book of Moses. In
this, Judah, the fourth son of the patriarch, is shown
in a light which is to lay hare the stain of his existence.
Judah went to Adullam where lived his friend “Chirah.”
He married a “ Canaanite,” the daughter of “ Shu ah.”His eldest son was called
“ Er.” He was displeas
ing in the eyes of Jehovah, therefore Jehovah slew him.
His second son was called “ Onan”
; he died in
consequence of his sexual sins. The third son’s name
was “Shelah,” and, as it is mysteriously stated after
his name (v. 5): he was at “Cezib” when she bore him.
Cezib is certainly the name of a place, and the addition
may therefore signify, that the mother had named theboy Shelah, because the father Judah happened to be
in Cezib at the time,' absent from home. Cezib has,
however, a second meaning. The prophet Micah, over
flowing with “ plays upon words,” in order to attach
political thoughts to local names, knows and makes use
of this second meaning. Cezib means “ deception,
lie,” and is used by the prophet in this sense (i. 14).
Now, as Shelah, in our narrative, serves to deceiveTamar’s hopes, held out by Judah, the allusion to Cezib
is appropriate. However this may be, Judah's sons are
all represented as despicable. Even Judah himself fell
into bad ways and was trapped into the snares laid by
his daughter-in-law Tamar, who played the prostitute.
Thus only did Judah found a generation, from which
King David is said to descend, from a son of Judah,
called “Paretz” (flE)), meaning “ breaking through,” in
which manner he is supposed to have behaved towards
his brother at his birth.
Veiled as the libel' is here, it becomes apparent, as
soon as we cast a glance upon David’s family. The
picture which this libel draws of Judah hits David
�Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
57-
himself sharply. The “ Canaanite ”—-namely, whom
Judah marries- is no other than the “ Hittite,” the
wife of “ Uriah the Hittite,” (murdered at David’s
command,) whom David himself married adulterously.
(2 Sam. xi. 12.) This wife of Judah is said to have
been the daughter of a man of the name of Shuah.
Therefore she is a “ Bath-shuah,” and is thus called.
(Gen. xxxviii. 12.) But Bath-shuah is also Bath-sheba
herself, as one may conclude from Chronicles. (1 Chron.
iii. 5.) The eldest son died, hateful in the sight of God,
just like the first son of Bath-sheba. (2 Sam. xii. 15.)
This son of Judah is alleged to have been called “Er”
(“ijl) ; why ? because reading it backwards (jn, wrong)
it means “ bad,” “ wicked.” The second son is called
Onan (plX), and dies for sexual sins. He is no other
than David’s son “ Amnon ” (JWN), who meets his
death on account of his sexual sins. (2 Sam. xiii.) The
Tamar of Judah’s story is the same, who was dis
honoured by Amnon, the daughter of David, who, in
spite of her misfortune and her purity, to the entire
ruin of her good name, is humiliated to a person who
plays the part of a public harlot. And Shelah (nSt2),
who does not die,—add only to his name the letter D,
and you have
Solomon ! The addition of Cezib
in giving the name means certainly to convey, that
behind this peaceably sounding “ Solomon ” there is
naught but lies and frauds of his father David.
It is probable that Chirah, the friend mentioned in
this libel upon Judah, was no other than Chiram, king
of Tyre, and a friend of David’s house. To him the
part is allotted to run about with a kid and to search
for the harlot, to whom his friend had pledged the
royal insignia, “ signet, bracelets and staff.” The place
where the “ harlot by the wayside ” is sought is called
Timnath; this is a reminiscence of Samson’s love
adventure at the place of that name. (Judges xiv.)
“ Adullam,” however, where Judah stopped with his
friend Chirah, is really the name of a town, but here,
�58
Origin of the Legends of
probably, only another writing of Adunam, DJ'iJZ, which
■means “ seat of voluptuousness.” Lastly, the point of
the tale, the breaking through of Paretz, is only a
counterpart to the violence which was related of Jacob’s
birth, in the Judaic legends, as we shall further prove.
If this story of Judah is disclosed as a bitter personal
libel upon David, the source whence it sprang cannot
be doubted. We have before us a Jeroboamic pro
duction full of spite and venom against Rehoboam.
And where is this libel ? In the history of Joseph,
which is to glorify the Ephraimite. The narrator,
who is about to shew us the ancestor of Jeroboam, the
pure, chaste Joseph, in the house of Potiphar, interrupts
himself at the most convenient point to shew first the
reverse of the picture, the ancestor of David, in a
subtly devised obscenity, where each pretended person
is, as intended, a stain upon David's house.
That this libel has been preserved shews the great
naivett of the later harmonists, who accept a bitter libel
like this as “ history.” But it gives us also an approxi
mate idea of what might appear too harsh even for such
mild censorship. Erom what is allowed to happen to
Judah, we may judge what has been buried for Reuben.
We are certainly limited only to dark hypotheses;
but the whole libel upon Judah, which hits David and
his house so sharply, leads us to the conclusion that
the fragment about Reuben was similarly intended.
Strange as Reuben’s deed sounds, it agrees perfectly
with the shameful act of Absalom, David’s son, which
the second book of Samuel (xvi. 22) mentions. Absa
lom was at that time the eldest son of David, as Amnon
the elder had been murdered at Absalom’s command,
and Daniel the second son, whom Chronicles mention
(1 Chronicles iii. 1), seems to have died earlier, as all
communication about him is wanting. But the eldest
son, when he takes possession of his father’s harem,
■thereby, as we see in Absalom’s history, irrevocably
entered upon the full inheritance, and the natural con
�Abraham, Isaac, and ^Jacob.
59
sequence would be, if he did not settle with his father,
the disinheriting of the son. The legend, which made
Reuben perpetrate the deed of Absalom, was, on the
one hand, intended to remind one of the stain upon
David’s house, and, on the other, to shew the legitimacy
of the degradation of Reuben, the “ hated ” Leah’s
eldest son, in favour of the descendants of the beloved
Rachel.
In that manner Reuben and Judah were treated, but
Ihere existed still, not so much as cantons as u sons of
Leah,” two more persons, Simeon and Levi, between
Reuben and Judah ; and we are completely justified in
the view already expressed, that the 34th chapter of the
first book of Moses did not originally read as it does
now, where Simeon and Levi, as avengers of the honour
■of their sister, seem half justified, but that all the
passages which assert the forcible violation of Dinah
are later additions. The original purpose of the legend
was certainly no other than to extinguish from the
'memory of the inhabitants of Shecem, the residence of
-Jeroboam, an old reminiscence of a sanguinary annihila
tion of Shecem, through the son of Gideon, of Joseph's
tribe, who was their chosen king (Judges vi. 15, and ix.
45), and in its stead to insert a feigned destruction,
which the brothers of Joseph, without the patriarch’s
wish or knowledge, had brought about, and that at a
time when Joseph was yet a child.
In this history, not only Simeon and Levi are accused
of a most murderous breach of faith against the con
fiding brotherly Shecem, but all the brothers who
hated Joseph, are said to have taken part in the plun
dering of the city, and the robbing of the women and
•children, and all that was in the houses (Gen. xxxiv.
27—29).
The harmonist, indeed, has not only endeavoured to
soften, through his additions, the deed of Simeon and
Levi, but also in the supposed last admonition of the
.patriarch (Gen. xlix. 5-7), lets these two brothers
■alone appear answerable.
�6o
Origin of the Legends of
XI.
THE PATRIARCH AND BENJAMIN.
But how stands it with Benjamin the youngest of
the brothers ? Why does the legend not permit this
alleged ancestor of the canton to be born like the others
(Gen. xxxv. 24-26) in Mesopotamia 1 Why should
Rachel, the mother of Joseph, pass at the same time
for the mother of Benjamin, so that a second son of
the beloved wife should exist, who might compete with
the first ?
The solution is easily found if we do not lose
sight of the fundamental thought that our whole
cycle of legends is designed to popularise the Jeroboamic kingdom, by glorifying the patriarch of
Beth-el, and that for this purpose the Judaic-Davidic
kingdom is humiliated without the slightest considera
tion, and attempts are made to deprive it of any moral
influence over the people. Bor this purpose the work
of the Jeroboamic legends enters at any price into any
relation which might be used in some way against the
kingdom of Judah. Such a handle lay geographically and
politically ready in the shape of the canton of Benjamin.
Geographically the canton of Benjamin was so situ
ated that a war between the two kingdoms must neces
sarily have taken place first upon that territory. The
military road, where the enemy had to cross defiles,
mountain passes, ravines and ridges, in order to pass
through Benjamin to Jerusalem, is mentioned by the
prophet Isaiah with keen brevity (Chap. x. 28—32).
The possession of the canton of Benjamin therefore
was a matter of vital importance for Judah. Of course
the Israelitic kingdom had the same interest to acquire
that territory, and as far as the wars through twentyfour years of Jeroboam’s dynasty made it possible, they
certainly tried to acquire it strategically. However, if
one may believe the strongly coloured statements in
Chronicles, Jeroboam was not very successful in war
�Abraham, Isaac, and 'Jacob.
(2 Chronicles xi).
61
With greater industry, therefore, did
the legendary material turn to his moral conquests, and
thus the seed fell in Benjamin upon a soil made sensi
tive and susceptible through David’s barbarous spirit of
persecution against the generation of King Saul.
The whole kingdom of Saul is historically enveloped
in a very impenetrable fog. Saul’s character is dark ;
his age, even his reign, a problem, and still more enig
matical is the fact that he was capable of converting
into a monarchy a republic, which had been so com
pletely split up into special cantons. But what speaks
for him incontestibly is the affection which the people,
with the single exception of Judah, displayed towards
him, and the fidelity which they manifested, even seven
years after his death, to his thoroughly incapable son,
Ishbosheth.
Saul was a Benjamite, and therefore the attachment
to him and his descendants was of longest duration in
the canton of Benjamin ; but this sympathy extended
also to the adjacent mountains of Ephraim, and it was
not unfrequently called into action by the adversaries
of David, when inciting little rebellions against him.
The rebel Sheba, son of Bicri (2 Samuel xx.), who
after the rebellion of Absalom raised the flag of in
surrection in favour of Saul’s heirs, is called Benjamite
as well as Ephraimite (Verses 1 and 21). His home may
have been in the frontier mountain where some places
were situated, which at one time belonged to Benjamin,
at another to Ephraim. In the mountains of Ephraim
a jealous^ of Judah was felt even in peaceful and quiet
times, and so the sympathy of Benjamin, which had
been so deeply outraged by David, could always be
reckoned upon.
It is true that David’s persecutions of the family of
Saul, which has rightly procured him the name of
“ bloody man” (2 Samuel xvi. 7), had exterminated the
last offspring of that dangerous family. What is re
lated to us of the last blood-scene (2 Samuel xxi. 14) is
�62
Origin of the Legends of
(■
well calculated to prove that thence any trace of a Saulic
revolution was destroyed. In the will of David (1 Kings
ii. 8, 9) we find an admonition to his son Solomon, not
to spare the Benjamite old rebel Shimei, the son of
Gera, to whom David, in a capricious moment of power,
had granted a free pardon, but “to bring his hoar head
to the grave with blood.” In fact there is no instance
during Solomon’s reign beyond this recommended one
that another execution of Saul’s partisans was needed.
From the fact that the Benjamites at the time of the
revolution in Shecem still sided with Judah, we must
draw the conclusion that their former attempts at revo
lution were incited only by the direct members of Saul’s
family, and that after that family had been extinguished
no rebellious voice could sound.
However, the strategic importance of Benjamin was
such for Jeroboam, that he continually tried to fan the
flame of rebellion, naturally relying upon the presump
tion that Joseph and Benjamin were the real sons of the
patriarch and his beloved wife Rachel, and that there
fore Benjamin must undoubtedly cleave to the house of
Joseph.
In itself, this assertion was not exactly a new inven
tion but only the working out of an already existing
idea. From the moment when, after Saul’s death,
David split the already united kingdom by severing.
Judah, and the fate of Saul’s descendants depended
upon the attitude of the powerful canton of Ephraim,
the Benjamites considered themselves partisans of
Ephraim or Joseph. The rebel Shimei son of Gera
was of the family of Saul and therefore a Benjamite
(2 Samuel xvi. 5), and even after his last submission
had hoped for grace, because he had been the first ‘‘ of
all the house of Joseph ” who had come to beg David’s
pardon and to acknowledge him (2 Samuel xix. 20).
But this idea does not as yet bear the imprint of one
which produces partisan legends. The Jeroboamic
struggle against Judah first brought Benjamin into the
�Abraham^ Isaac, and Jacob.
6$
great cycle of legends of the Patriarch of Bethel—into
a place fit for the interest of the Ephraimites. The
legend runs thus (Gen. xxxv. 16).
The patriarch
journeyed from Bethel, the sacred place where Elohe
talked to him direct, through the district of Benjamin,
toward “ Ephrath,” which is Bethlehem in Judah.
Before he reached that city, “ a little piece of ground
before,” his beloved wife Rachel was taken in labour.
She bore a son, but his life was bought with the mother’s..
She dying, called him Benoni, “son of my pains," but
the father called him Benjamin, son of the right hand.
There Rachel was buried, and the patriarch set a pillaF
on her grave, a “ matzebah ” “ and that is the pillar of
Rachel's grave unto this day."
Looking at this statement quite apart from its Jeroboamic tendency, one can at once recognise its legendary
character, as it forms again only a parallel to the legend
of Abraham. As Sarah there, so Rachel here, is in
tended to consecrate a particular spot by her grave.
But to this legend is also added, for the sake of proof,
a historical memorial which has long ago challenged
criticism to a severe examination of the accuracy of'the
legend ; and the result has so much turned against such
accuracy that we are more even than in all other por
tions of this cycle of legends, referred to partisanship as
the only motive.
In the first book of Samuel (chapter x. 2), Rachel’s
sepulchre is simply mentioned as a designation of the
locality which Saul had to pass. According to that,,
the grave of Rachel was situated on the way between
Ramah and Gibeah, therefore in any case, north of
Jerusalem, whilst according to the legend in question
it is alleged to have been in the so
ten English miles
from Jerusalem, in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem.
Now there would be no difficulty in accepting the sepul-.
chre of Rachel in the north of Jerusalem near Ramah
as the tomb of a woman unknown to us, but cele
brated in her time. Besides that monument which was
�64
Origin of the Legends of
known in Saul’s time, a second one might have existed
founded by our patriarch near Bethlehem, and con
taining the earthly remains of the ancestress of the
Benjamites. But apart from its being a miraculous
incident that two monuments of the same name should
exist north and south of Jerusalem, there is a passage
in the prophet Jeremiah (chapter xxxi. 15.) where
“ Rachel’s” voice was heard in Ramah “ lamenting over
her children wandering as exiles.” Rachel is beyond
doubt the ancestress indicated by legend. Her voice
in “ Ramah” is therefore a clear proof that the prophet
Jeremiah knew nothing of a grave of Rachel in the
neighbourhood of Bethlehem. This grave of Rachel
therefore is an invention of our legend, and we have
serious cause to look for the true motives why legend
should try to transfer the birth of Benjamin, the death
of Rachel and her tomb, into the very heart of Judah,
the neighbourhood of Bethlehem.
From all that we have proved about the partisanship
of the patriarchal legends of Bethel, the solution of
things follows naturally.
It was in the interest , of the Jeroboamic policy to
gain the canton of Benjamin at any price. Therefore
Benjamin was preferred to all the so-called brothers of
Joseph. The longing for Benjamin is treated in a
masterly way in Joseph’s history. Joseph is deeply
moved when he sees him again for the first time (Gen.
xliii. 29): “ Elohe, be gracious unto thee, my son,” he
exclaims, rushing from the room because his feelings
overcame him. He weeps in an adjoining room and
washes his face in order to hide the traces of his tears.
In a masterly spirit, approaching in dramatic effect the
most noble creations of art of any time, the historical
conflict between Judah and Joseph about the territory
of Benjamin is introduced in this history, (Gen. xliv.
11-34), as a family scene in Egypt. Judah is ready
to sacrifice himself and to bear slavery rather than
abandon Benjamin. Then Joseph discovers himself.
�Abraha?n, Isaac, and Jacob.
65
He is the master, the benefactor, the provider for dll, the
■mighty one, who can take revenge for all the malice of
■his brothers, but who deals good for evil.
The brothers all stand ashamed and frightened, but
he falls upon Benjamin’s neck and weeps, and Benjamin
weeps upon the neck of his magnanimous brother (Gen.
■xlv. 15). The climax of Joseph’s history however is
reached in the concluding scene (1. 18-21), when all his
•brothers kneel down before him and exclaim “ we are
•thy servants,” and Joseph comforts them, that they
thought evil against him but Elohe had turned it into
good ! He promises to nourish them and to provide for
them, comforts them and speaks to their hearts. Ben
jamin alone is innocent and pure, and must naturally
cleave more completely to his magnanimous brother in
true love. But what is behind all these scenes, wrought
out as they are with such beauty and masterly art ?
Hothing but the plan to gain, through the territory of
Benjamin, an entrance into the very heart of Judah.
The monument of their common mother in Bethlehem
was to be liberated. Benjamin had to recognise, that there,
at the place of his birth, he had to reclaim for himself
a dear memorial of his beloved mother from the usur
pation of Judah. And more than the burial ground of
the common mother had to be conquered, more still, it
was necessary to conquer also the tomb of the patri
arch himself. Of the patriarch ? Certainly this sounds
■strange, if one accepts as matter of faith the text of the
story as it has been worked out by the harmonist in
chapters xlvii. 1 as the original. Luckily for a closer
examination, the harmonist, evidently moved by the
beauty of the original before him, has only slightly accom
modated these chapters to his idea, by displacing, inter
polating, and omitting: anyhow he has preserved enough
of the Ephraimitic spirit of the original to enable us to
re-establish it in the main. Then it sounds of course
•quite differently.
The passages which we have to examine begin with
E
�66
Origin of the Legends of
verse 29 of the 47th chapter, and end with verse 13 of the50th chapter of the first hook of Moses. The material
for this narrative is, in language and contents, so un
commonly rich, that the scientific critic has here an
extraordinary scope for exploration. We, however,
influenced chiefly by our task, intend simply to con
centrate our attention upon this point, that an
Ephraimitic idea permeates the intermingled text.
Truly Ephraimitic is every part where the name of the
patriarch “ Israel” pervades the whole story. Where
it alternates with the name of “Jacob,” the text is,,
to say the least, suspicious. Doubtlessly Ephraimitic is
the text in every passage which represents the son of
Joseph, Ephraim, as much preferred by the patriarch :
doubtful, at least, is the text where the sons of Joseph
are represented as equal but not superior to the actual
sons of the patriarch. Ephraimitic is the text when it
shows Joseph in intimate relations with the patriarch,
doubtful when the text introduces Joseph in the midst
of his brothers. Ephraimitic is the text when it specially
mentions Rachel; doubtful, at the least, when it
mentions Leah and is silent about Rachel.
When we examine the text again upon these assump
tions, we find that two facts are stated in two different
versions, which we are still able to distinguish clearly
from each other.
One of the facts is, that Israel discusses directly with
Joseph (chapter xlvii. 29-31), where he wishes to be
buried, and makes him swear that he will do as his
father bids. In this discussion, it remains throughout
doubtful where he is to be buried, it certainly says
(TfiDK DJI
“ when I lay me down with my
fathers,” and afterwards “ bury me in their burying
place” (DDIDpD ^rODp'l) from which it might follow that
he meant the tomb of his “ fathers.” But the ex
pression, “ when I lay me down with my fathers,’ is
only a metaphor for death, by no means implying re
ference to particular ancestors. Anyhow, doubt may
�Abraham, Isaac, and ^Jacob.
67
still be entertained as to where the wished for grave
was to be. But besides this particular discussion with
Joseph alone, there exists a second portion (chapter
xlix. 29-32) where the same subject is discussed with
all the sons, and where the burial place is most ac
curately indicated, as if it were important to avoid a
misunderstanding under any circumstances.
After the death of the patriarch it was necessary to
execute his will. Joseph sent a communication to
Pharaoh, begging leave to travel, in which he says
(chapter 1. 5) “my father made me swear, saying : be
hold I die ! in my grave which I have digged for me
in the land of Canaan, there shalt thou bury me.”
Where he had prepared such a grave is not said. But
the text continues that the sons all did as their father
had bidden them to do j and again, it is related with
painful precision (verse 13) that they buried him in
the cave of the field of Macpelah, and the buyer
“Abraham,” and the seller “Ephron,” and the place
are cited so accurately, and with such stress, as if, after
all the detailed descriptions in four complete verses
(Gen. xlix. 29-32) it was necessary at any cost, that
any other idea about the grave of this patriarch should
be emphatically averted.
What different idea then could arise? Wherefore
all these details about a place which apparently nobody
had doubted ? For the purpose of elucidating these
questions, we must look at two other portions of these
chapters, which also refer to one and the same subject,
but with decided variations.
Thepatriarchadopts Joseph’ssons (chapter xlviii. 1-6).
He is called “ Jacob ” in that passage. He puts Joseph’s
sons upon an equality with his own two eldest sons.
Ephraim and Manasseh shall be to me as Reuben and
Simeon. Then without any motive, and referring to
neither what had preceded, nor to what follows, comes
a verse which speaks of Rachel’s death, and of her
grave in “Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.” And nnw
�68
Origin of the Legends of
follows from verse 8 to the end of the chapter, a
wonderfully drawn picture of the blessings which the
patriarch of the name of “ Israel ” bestows upon the
sons of Joseph, not thinking at all of his other sons, but
blessing most Ephraim; to whom he specially says,
verse 20,
"pZT' “p with, in or by “thee, shall Israel
bless.” In this sentence which is elucidated, Israel
means the people of “ Israel,” not yet existing at the
time of the patriarch.
Comparing the two portions, the adoption of the two
sons of Joseph (verses 1-6), and the high preference
for Ephraim (verses 8-20), one does not fail to remark
that the latter part is entirely Ephraimitic, while the
preceding part suggests a mitigation of the same fact,
a sort of balance, by which Ephraim’s importance is
not denied, but still, according to rank, is only placed
equal with Reuben’s and not by any means at the head
of all others.
If it be correct that here one and the same scene is
before us, in two portions of different significance, which
compared with each other certainly do not agree, and
if we must accept the first portion as interpolated,
because in the second (verses 8-9), the patriarch does
not even know who these two children are whom he is
just said to have adopted, then we must consider,
where the lost seventh verse ought to be put which stands
betwreen the two portions, and is not to be brought
into any natural relation with one or the other.
Certainly there is ample ground for asserting that this
seventh verse, which refers to the tomb of “ Rachel,”
belongs entirely to the conversation with Joseph, as
lower down (chapter xlix. 31) the remembrance of
“ Leah ” and her grave belong to the conversation of
the patriarch with the other sons.
In other words, there exist two versions of where the
patriarch wished to be buried. According to the one,
he had only discussed the matter with Joseph ; accord
ing to the other, he had communicated to all his sons
�Abraham, Isaac, and ^Jacob.
6g
his wishes in that respect. According to the one ver
sion, he had indicated to Joseph the grave,
as that “which he digged himself” (chapter 1. 5);
according to the other, he had indicated it to his sons,
with uncommon elaboration and precision, with all the
details of main and surrounding circumstances, which
we find in the verses 29-32 of chapter xlix.
Here we have exactly the same thing as before, with
the glorification of Ephraim ; first, a truly Ephraimitic
description of the grave, and secondly, an amelioration
devised by the harmonist, and treated with particular
care and accuracy, in order to remove the trenchant
difference of the Ephraimitic legend. And withal, the
harmonist has only moved the 7th verse, which betrays
the original text, from its correct place, and has only
altered one word, so that he offers the opportunity of
re-establishing the original text.
Doing this, and replacing the text, it would read
thus:—* nzipri on-api
Ti'oxDy Torjen
rw
'’xnn ox
(Gen. xivfi. 30.)
Tm
rnnpx') nmsx
px rrw
p-nn pna
H2>tfX OOX
(Gen. xlviii. 7.) Dn^FI'n X1H mSX
“pmO- (Gen. xlvii. 30.)
In the translation, the correct text, by transferring
the seventh verse from chapter 48 to its right place,
would run thus: “ When I lay me down with my
fathers, thou shalt carry me out of Egypt and bury me
in my grave: for when I came from Padan (Mesopo
tamia) Rachel died on the road, in the land of Canaan,
when there was yet but a little way to come unto
Ephrath. And I buried her there on the way to
Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.” And he (Joseph) said,
I will do as thou hast said.
Where the patriarch wished to be buried is no more
doubtful after this; and all this coincides exactly with
Joseph's alleged communication to Pharaoh (chapter
* Possibly there may have followed the words
(Gen. 1. 5.) which I digged for myself.
'DDO “It^X’
�yo
Origin of the Legends of ■
1. 5), that he would bury his father in the grave which
he had digged for himself.
If now the accuracy of this text be proved, it cannot
be a matter of doubt that this, as well as the whole
legend of a grave of Each el, the mother of Joseph and
Benjamin, is nothing more than an attempt of the
Ephraimite Jeroboam, to attract the Benjamites to his
side in his wars against Eehoboam.
As “ Abraham and Sarah in Hebron,” so “ Israel and
Bachel” were to have a common grave near Bethlehem.
To acquire this grave from Judah was to be the task of
Joseph’s sons, and especially of Benjamin, who was the
dying Eachel’s son of sorrow, and who could never be
forgetful of the noble Joseph’s brotherly love.
XII.
MUTUAL ELUCIDATION OF LEGEND AND HISTORY.
He who after what has preceded has arrived with
us at the conviction that behind the patriarchs of Heb
ron and of Beth-el stand historical personalities veiled
by the nimbus of legend; and that the apparently simple
idyllic events of the family lives of those patriarchs,
are only the ingenious reflections of the great events of
their time, will have no objection to follow our attempts
to draw from both causes the eventual solutions of
mutual elucidation, i.e., of supplementing history by
means of legend, and of making legend more intelli
gible by means of history.
We propose to limit ourselves in that task to one
fixed point, namely, to the question why the legend of
the patriarch of Beth-el, in relation to neighbouring
nations, deviates so essentially from the legends of the
patriarch of Hebron 1
We have already seen how the heroes of both legends
maintain with careful consideration friendly relations
to the great neighbouring states of Mesopotamia and
Egypt. The Hebron legend represents in a mild mod-
�Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
71
erate form dignified legitimacy ; the Beth-el legend in
an exaggerated degree, unscrupulous usurpation. Does
not the Beth-el legend for the purpose of glorifying the
intimacy of Jeroboam with Egypt, go so far as to bring
the patriarch himself into a personal audience with
Pharaoh, where the patriarch, in coming and in going
bestows “ his blessing ” upon Pharaoh. The more sur
prising is it that the two cycles of legends differ almost
purposely in their relations towards small neighbouring
nations. The legend of Abraham seeks, partly through
histories of descent, partly through treaties of peace, to
keep up friendly intercourse with the Philistines, with
Ammon and Moab, and the Ishmaelites; whilst the
Beth-el legend passes these tribes and nations in entire
silence. On the other hand, the Hebron legend throws
Edom completely out of sight, whilst the Beth-el legend
dedicates elaborate scenes to this relation, and shows
the patriarch as the peace-seeking brother of Esau (Gen.
xxxii. and xxxiii).
The solution of these facts can only be given by his
tory, of which legend is the reflection. In those
legends is shown the reflection of the terms on which
•on one side, the Davidic dynasty, on the other side the
Jeroboamic usurpation stood, and were obliged to stand
with neighbouring nations.
David was a warrior who, sword in hand, conquered
the small surrounding nations, and who, during a state
of war, repressed any opposition by prodigious cruelty
(2 Sam. viii). But when the bloodshed was over he
tried to win their sympathies where they could be won.
In Ammon, Moab, and in the land of the Philistines this
course succeeded for a long time. The warlike expedi
tions of the Philistines ceased. The Moabites appear
to have been obliged, through the fortress Peniel having
been built by Jeroboam at the frontier river, to join the
kingdom of Israel, and they only recovered courage a
-century later under their king Mesha to strike for inde
pendence (2 Kings iii). It was almost as long before
�yz
Origin of the Legends of
Ammon ventured to rise against the kingdom of Judah?
(2 Chron. xx), and this being so, the Hebron legend
stands also on friendly terms with those subjected
nations, and through blood alliances as well as through'
treaties of peace, manages to keep up a long connection
with the hero of the Judaic legends, Abraham.
The case is different with Edom, and partly also with
Damascus. Both were subdued by David, but their
resistance was not so soon broken. Military stations
had to be erected in both kingdoms (2 Sam. viii. 6,14).
Especially in Edom, Joab the captain of David, initiated
bloodshed which lasted full six months (1 Kings xi.
16), “until he had cut off every male in Edom.”
Therefore we hear also, very soon after David’s death,
of an opposition in Damascus, organised by Rezon, who
caused many difficulties to Solomon (1 Kings xi. 23)..
From Edom, however, a young prince, “ Hadad,” fled
to Egypt, met there, as we have already mentioned,,
with a friendly reception, married the sister of the
Queen of Egypt, and after David’s death returned to
his country to liberate it (1 Kings xi. 14-22).
As we already know, Egypt was also the refuge of'
Jeroboam when he was obliged to leave his country
after his conspiracy with Ahijah, the Shilonite, had
been discovered. We have already shown the high
probability of the intimacy of Jeroboam with the
Egyptian court. Unprejudiced statement (1 Kings xi..
40) se.eins to put it beyond any doubt. The legend
which makes the patriarch of Beth-el bless Pharaoh
be/ * the seal of veracity upon it. This intimate
s
friend, as we are already aware, soon after Jeroboam’s
fortunate usurpation, invaded Jerusalem and spoliated
it thoroughly.
Is it, after all this, imaginable that Jeroboam should
have stood in no relation to Hadad of Edom ?
Hadad was certainly older than Jeroboam. At the
time of David’s death he was already married, and at
Solomon’s death he may have been sixty years old„
�Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
7$
while Jeroboam, who wore the royal crown of Israel
for another twenty-two years, could only have reached
the prime of manhood at Solomon’s death. We must
also believe, according to present historical records, that
the two enemies of David’s dynasty did not live con
temporaneously in Egypt. The presumption, however,
is on the surface, that Jeroboam did not forego gaining
for himself so decided an enemy of David’s house as
Hadad was, and to raise hopes in him for the throne of
Edom, should he be his ally.
Of this, even History itself gives no solution. But
if we only consider clearly what sort of historical per
sonage is concealed behind the patriarch of Beth-el, and
when we find a long account of an embassy with
presents, which the patriarch sent to Edom, to his brother
Esau, that this brother comes to meet him, and that the
patriarch upon beholding the Edomite, expresses
his assurance of having seen a face of Elohe, a face of
God—we may then well assert, that Legend, in the
harmless garb of a family scene, has preserved a part
of History, and that the meeting with the patriarch is
only a legendary reflexion of the historical fact of
a meeting between Jeroboam and Hadad.
Having allowed ourselves in this way to supplement
History by Legend, we may also be permitted to eluci
date a dark part of legend by a historical statement.
In the story of the patriarch (Gen. xxxii. 25) a scene
is pictured, in which at “ Peniel,” a God wrestled with
the patriarch the whole night, until day-break. The
God could not prevail against the patriarch; on the
contrary, the patriarch held him tight and would not
let him go, until he got his blessing. This blessing
consisted in the alteration of his name into “Israel,”
which means : “ Champion of God ” or rather “ Con
queror of God.” But the God had left a mark of his
strength upon the patriarch, he had touched the hollow
of his thigh and put it out of joint in the struggle.
And when the sun rose upon Peniel, the patriarch
limped upon his thigh.
�74
Origin of the Legends of
We pass over the curious remark which verse thirtysecond makes upon this strange narrative as a subject
not within our enquiry.
We, therefore, purpose only to refer to the legend,
which evidently endeavours to justify the name of Israel
“Champion of God,” and we will see, in how far that
legend might be based upon historical ground.
The legend of a struggle with a God, does not belong
to the curiosities of antiquity. He who dies suddenly
has been struck by God, he who suddenly becomes
lame has been afflicted by the same fate in a mitigated
form, he who sustained an attack of the kind, and came
off with only a slightly injured limb could boast of
having conquered God, and could consider the conquest
as an honour.
As we know now what kind of historical personage
is concealed behind the patriarch of Beth-el, we may be
bold enough to seek a solution of this “ wrestling with
God,” and the fact that it is easily found is certainly
not uninteresting.
In chapter xiii. of the first book of Kangs the follow
ing story is related at some length :
A man of God came out of Judah, by the word of
Jehovah, to Beth-el, just as Jeroboam stood by the
altar to burn incense. Then the man prophesied, in an
address to the altar, that a son would be born to the
house of David who would slaughter all the priests who
burned incense upon that altar, and, as a sign, the altar
should be rent, and the ashes that were upon it should
be dispersed. When Jeroboam heard this he put forth
his hand, exclaiming, Arrest him! but his hand re
mained numb, and he could not draw it in again to
wards himself, and the altar was rent, and the ashes
were strewn about. Then the king begged of the man
of God to entreat Jehovah to restore motion to his
hand. The man of God did so, and the hand re
covered.
The further very strange adventures of this man of
�Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
75
God are elaborately stated at the place mentioned. As
they do not concern our subject, we only gather from
the miraculous description this much, that on a certain
occasion, perhaps at the building of an altar or the
erection of a pillar, or perhaps at the building of the
fortress of Peniel, a stone splintered and hurt the king
Jeroboam, who happened to be present, upon his hand or
foot, or upon both limbs, so that he could not move his
hand, and was lame.
An event like that was certainly sufficient to be
regarded by pious men of Judaic spirit—and their
number in Israel was great—as a wonderful sign that
God had struck the sinner. Jeroboam’s partisans have
given the opposite interpretation, and pronounced him
to be a true “ Israel ” whom God could not conquer,
but only slightly injure, a fact which redounded to the
honour of the champion. That this, reflected in the
patriarchal legend, sounds somewhat differently, is easily
understood in a time where the historical material was
used for legendary garb.
XIII.
THE NAMES OF “ ISRAEL ” AND “ JACOB.”
We arrive at length at the questions, under which
name the patriarch of Beth-el may have been originally
introduced, and how it stands about the so-called altera
tion of name which, in the present text of the narrative,
is presented under two different versions ? (Gen. xxxii.
28; xxxv. 10.)
“ Jacob” signifies, as already remarked, literally,
“ holder by the heel,” which means somebody who
trips up his neighbour. But it means also “ im
postor,” and is so thoroughly adopted in that sense in
the Hebrew language, that not only personal deeds of
cunning are designated by the word
(2 Kings
x. 19), but it is also used to picture the general decad
ence of moral condition. The prophet Jeremiah (chap.
�26
Origin of the Legends of
ix. 1-5), describing the moral abyss of his time,
where lies, treason, deceit, and perfidy held sway, ex
presses it with the words, Spy llpy HN Si
that
brother will deceive brother. Even the narrator of the
patriarchal story causes Esau to exclaim, as already
mentioned, “ It is well that he be called Jacob, for he
hath supplanted me these two times.” (Gen. xxvii. 36.)
If the fact be surprising that this insulting word'
should be given as a name for a child, it is the more so
when that name is not at all usual and does not recur.
It is, of course, most astonishing when such a name is
given to a patriarch, but most of all, it is surprising
when, amongst the stories which are told of this patri
arch, many occur which evidently justify the appella
tion. From this fact alone we must conclude that there
are particular circumstances in connection with this
name, and that the designation “ Israel,” with its most
honourable signification, is a counterpoise to the re
proach of the other.
But whence is the name of Israel derived ?
As a proper name, it nowhere recurs. It is the
name of a people, but also not the proper one—so to
say, the nationally privileged one—because that sounds
unconditionally in contradistinction to other nations,
Ebrim or Hebrews. Israel is only the name of honour
by which their own poets and thinkers chose to call the
peoples of separate cantons in their entirety. Later
poets attempted to introduce the still more ethical name
of “ Jeshurun,” the just ones, but they were not able to
deprive the name of Israel of its general value. The
oldest designation of the people by the name of “ Israel ”
is certainly in the very old song of Deborah. (Judges
v.) But the name of Israel culminated to its true value
only upon the establishment of the Jeroboamic kingdom,
which thereafter was simply designated as the kingdom
of Israel, in opposition to a second kingdom of Judah.
When we inquire into the origin of this name, and
want to keep aloof from all legendary pictures, we must
�Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
77
look for it in the country bearing the name of “Jezreel,”
SnJHT11 (Izreel), a country which was of such import
ance in the history of the people that we cannot be
astonished if they all gradually derived their name
from it. In that country existed an old town of
the same name. It is not improbable that the “ God
•of Fecundity,”
was worshipped there, and that
the town and country being widely celebrated for
fecundity, received their name from him, The inhabi
tants of that table-land took their collective name of
“ Joseph,” “ Ephraim,” from that “ multiplication ” and
“ fecundity.” “ Jezreel, Joseph, and Ephraim,” are in
that sense synonymous.
The country of Jezreel comprised a piece of land
which formed the largest plain in the otherwise very
mountainous country, for which reason also that table
land was the scene of the most important wars of the
people which lived in their remembrance for centuries.
Upon the plain of Jezreel was fought the battle of
Tabor against Sisera which is glorified and immortalized
in the song of Deborah (Judges v). The same place was
the scene of Gideon’s deeds whose “ day of Midian ”
lived for centuries as a day of most glorious remem
brance. (Judges vi. 33, and Isaiah ix. 3, and x. 26).
There also was fought the unfortunate battle of Gilboa,
where Saul and Jonathan fell (1 Samuel xxxi. 1). We
find that at a later date, upon this plain were fought bat
tles which always decidedly influenced the fate of the
whole land (1 Kings xx. 26, and 2 Kings xxiii. 29).
Therefore the population of that table-land felt itself
politically supreme, and with the canton of Ephraim at
its head, always stood up in jealousy and war against
Judah as soon as that nation claimed supremacy.
Under these circumstances it needs no further expla
nation that the name of the land “ Jezreel” passed over
in old times to the entire people whose fate was decided
in that valley. At first the people may have been
called
(with a soft z) Isreelim.
But the
�78
Origin of the Legends of
Ephraimites whose tongue, as we know, sharpened all
hissing sounds and pronounced “ Shiholeth ” as “ Sibboleth,” (Judges xii. 6), may also have altered “ Izreel”
into 11 Israel.” The name of Israel would in that way
have a very natural origin.
The canton of Ephraim, situated in that valley of
Jezreel also turned to its own advantage the spirit against
any privilege of Judah. After the death of Saul,
Ephraim and Jezreel were the points of opposition
against, David. The son of Saul, Ishbosheth, was
acknowledged there and proclaimed king over Benjamin
(2 Sam. ii. 9). The town of Jezreel also became later
the residence of the king of Israel (1 Kings xviii. 45).
The town of Jezreel and the plain of Jezreel are, as
we see, so much interwoven with the fate of the people
that we cannot think it strange that Jeroboam who
made himself king of Israel should also have adopted
for his patriarch this universal name of the tribes, and
let him appear under the denomination of “ Israel.”
But just as natural is it that the defending patron of
the rebel was called in the kingdom of Judah a “de
ceiver” or an “ impostor” a “ Jacob.” The alliance of
Jeroboam with the prophet Ahijah, with Shishak of
Egypt, with Rezon of Aram, and with Hadad of Edom;
the bitter calumnies against Reuben, against Simeon
and Levi, the libel upon Judah, the part taken by the
rebel in the assembly at Shecem, the agitation in Ben
jamin—all this could not be regarded in Judah other
than as a web of high treason, of lies and frauds and
deceit intended to ruin the house of David. The malig
nant legends were reciprocated by malignant descriptions
of the patriarch. One professed to know how already
at his birth he had been a supplanter and therefore re
ceived from his parents the name of Jacob. In face of
the intrigues of Jeroboam who tried to persuade Hadad
to revolt against Judah, one could readily allow that
Jacobwas the brother of EsaufovA abrotherwho deceived
In's brother and only made use of him to ruin him.
�Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
79
Even now, when the harsh differences of the legends
have long been smoothed over and reconciled by har
monists, by means of omissions, interpolations, and
alterations, we are well able to discern how the Judaic
hostility to Ephraimitic legends was more and more
nourished by mere libels. Even now we can quote
passages of the so-called history of the life of Jacob and
Esau which have been added to the already existing
slanders in order to heap insult upon insult on “Jacob’s ”
name.
In Gen. xxv. 19, &c., the birth of Esau is related.
That their parents were Isaac and Rebekah is a harmonistic supposition of later date, when it was required
at any cost to mould all the patriarchs into one family
history.
In the narrative of the birth of the twins, Esau is so
depicted as to supply numerous motives why he should
become the ancestor of Edom upon the mount of Seir.
Edom, we mean the country of the name, consisted mostly
of red earth and iron-oxide rocks; as Edom denotes “red
colour,” the name also suited the outward appearance
of the country. The mountain also was called “ Seir,”
which means “ hairy,” and denoted either the stunted
and bristly vegetation, or the inhabitants who were
thought to be wild and covered with hair. Esau is
described as being born “ red” in colour and “ all over
his skin like a hairy garment or cloak such description
evidently furnishing the motives for the name of the
land : Edom, “ Seir,” the ancestor of which he was
intended to be.
Directly after, in verse 29, &c., is related the notorious
sale of his birthright for a meal of lentils. There we read:
Esau said to Jacob, “ Let me swallow down, I pray
thee, some of that yonder red pottage, for I am faint,”
and it is added : therefore was his name called Edom
(a red one). Considering that in the. 25th verse, the
name of Edom for Esau is already fully explained, it is
impossible to believe that the story of his birth, and
�8o
Origin of the Legends of
that of the sale of his birthright, can be one and the
same, and have originated from one and the same
author. As the first story representing Jacob as trip
ping up his brother has the purpose of slandering the
patriarch; and as the second story, although the
harmonist probably smoothed it by describing Esau as
rough, implies still more trenchant derision of Jacob,
we see clearly enough, how the legends against the
patriarch grew by degrees, and outvied each other in
degrading the patriarch.
We can call attention to the insertion of another
libel, more bitter still, in the midst of a quite innocent
text.
Verse 32 of Gen. xxvi. begins with the word tn'l
“ and it came to pass,” which words are generally the
beginning of a long narrative; but in the following
verse the narrative breaks off suddenly and a new
narrative begins with the word ‘m “ and it came to
pass ” (Ch. xxvii. J). This new narrative contains
down to the last verse (46) the infamous story of how
Jacob lied to his old blind father, how he cheated his
brother out of his father’s blessing, and how, in con
sequence, he was obliged to fly, to avoid Esau’s first
anger.
But the whole of that slandering story does not at all
•coincide with what the following chapter (xxviii.) relates.
According to the latter, Jacob did not fly, was not dis
missed by his father in anger, and had evidently
nothing at all to fear from Esau. That chapter, in
fact, is no other than an exaggerated imitation of the
Abrahamic legend. As Abraham (Gen. xxiv.) wished
there, so did the father of Jacob wish here, that the
son should not marry a “ Canaanite,” and instead of
sending a servant on the errand of wooing, Isaac sends
Jacob himself to Mesopotamia. There is no trace of a
conflict with Esau, or of a flight from him. On the
•contrary, Esau followed the good example of Jacob, to
whom he in nowise grudged the farewell blessing, and
�Abraham, Isaac, and 'Jacob.
8i
•married an Ishmaelite in addition to his Canaanite
wives.
On closer examination of the text, we observe whence
■these contradictions originate. The original text had
literally begun with the 'iTI of verse 34 of chapter xxvi. ;
thereupon followed verse 35, and then in the closest
union the 46th verse of chapter xxvii., upon which
“-chapter xxviii. continues the story logically, and con-cludes with verse 9. This original story is certainly
Ephraimitic. It imitates indeed, as we observed, the
•legend of Abraham, and tries to surpass it; but, on the
whole, it is otherwise uncaptious. But the Judaic indig
nation could notallow “Jacob” to pass straight on,
with his father’s blessing. Therefore that bitter libel
was devised, partly to paint the patriarch as black as
possible, partly to show the Edomites what they had to
think of the brotherly love of the Ephraimites.
And as a matter of fact, Jeroboam’s intrigues had no
great influence upon Edom. Edom remained with
Judah and did not join the kingdom of Israel. It is
not impossible, that the libellous legends against Jacob,
and his behaviour therein depicted, towards the honest
straightforward Esau, contributed much to Edom’s stay
ing with the kingdom of Judah.
Somewhat darker and more veiled are the passages
which concern Jacob’s relations with Laban. The text
has been so much intermixed and elaborated by the
harmonist, that the Ephraimitic original, and the
•Judaic libel, can only be disentangled with the utmost
difficulty. We must be satisfied with the general
■characteristic that Jacob remains nowhere unsullied.
Whether Laban outcheated him, or he outcheated
Laban, is, in the present condition of the text, a
question difficult to decide. But as a sign of the most
bitter hostility, we must not fail to mention, how
the so-called ancestresses are drawn into this scandal.
In opposition to the Ephraimitic slander of Leah who
•is designated as “the hated one,” (Gen. xxix. 31), the
F
�82
Origin of the Legends of
Judaic pamphletist casts a stain upon Rachel, letting
her steal the images of her father “ Teraphim” (Gen.
xxxi. 19), and hide them slily and successfully.
Another point is enveloped also in mysterious dark
ness, which it is no easy task now to penetrate. Jacob
and Esau separated; the latter removed to Edom, the
former remained in Canaan. The reason of this sepa
ration is so represented in chapter xxxvi. verses 6-8, as
to make it obvious how the Ephraimitic legend, in the
most clumsy way copied a Judaic Abrahamic one. As
Abraham (Gen. xiii. 5-12) separated himself from Lot,
because the number of the cattle was too large for one
district, such is said also to have been the case with
Jacob and Esau. The 6th verse of chapter xiii. is
almost literally copied in the 7th verse of chapter xxxvi.
But so affectionate a parting is not at all to the mind
of the Judaic interpolator. Elight, hostility, deadly
hatred, fear, presents, and, finally, sly subterfuge, (Gen.
xxxiii. 13-14) must be brought in aid. Jacob even
promised that he would follow “ his lord” Esau slowly
“ until he should come to him unto Seir” which, of
course, never happened.
Comparing, now, the conflict of the legends with
each other, it is of interest to observe that their heroes
are opposed to each other, almost as faithfully, as the
historical personages who peep through the veil of
legend. We might be induced to say that Abraham
stands to Jacob as David to Jeroboam, as legitimacy to
usurpation, as simplicity to intrigue. It really seems
as though the times, which govern men, imprint them
selves upon their imagination. They invent what
they experience. They imagine they are painting the
pictures of the past, and they create forms which be
tray their own present to posterity.
�Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
83
XIV.
THE HARMONIST AND HARMONIZATION.
We have tried to ascertain the manner and times of the
origin of the patriarchal legends, and we must now pro
ceed to the much more difficult attempt of sketching the
history of the development of the legends, and of follow
ing them up, at least in a general way, to the shape in
which they are now before us. The conflict of legends
lasted, in all probability, no longer than the interest of
their producers in the continuation of such conflict.
Now the epoch of the Ephraimites, the reign of Jero
boam, lasted only twenty-four years. After Jeroboam
had reigned for twenty-two years, his son Nadab became
king : but in the second year of his reign, he was
murdered by one of his captains, Baasha, who then
seized the reins of government in the kingdom of Israel
and exterminated the whole house of Jeroboam (1 Kings
xv. 25-34). Baasha was no Ephraimite, but of the
canton of Issachar. He continued the wars against
the kingdom of Judah, but an alliance of Judah with
Aram, forced him to give up, or at least to interrupt
the war. Baasha reigned thirty-four years, when his
son Elah began to reign, and he, in his turn, was
murdered by a captain of his, Zimri, who wanted to
govern. But the captain Omri, who led the people in
a war against the Philistines, dethroned Zimri and
ascended the throne. Omri reigned twelve years, and
was succeeded by his son Ahab, whose reign lasted
twenty-two years. During the reign of the latter, an
alliance was formed between Israel and Judah, which
lasted some time, and so materially altered the relations
of the two kingdoms towards each other, from what they
had been under the reign of Jeroboam, that one may
well say, the specific Ephraimitic character of the king
dom of Israel disappeared with Jeroboam its founder,
although poets and prophets still designated the kingdom by the name of “ Ephraim.'’ Comparing Jero
�84
Origin of the Legends of
boam with all his successors on the throne of Israel,
we cannot help ascribing to him a high importance.
It certainly must redound to his credit, that he was, at
least, endeavouring to lean his rebellion on the sympa
thies of the people, and to legalize his reign in a
national spirit by traditions and legends.
He was an Ephraimite, and it cannot be denied
that the canton of Ephraim had full claim to direct the
nation. It is true that the whole structure which he
created, and the elaboration of which he favoured, had
been built up in his personal interest; still it was based
upon a national idea of Ephraim’s sacredness, conferred
upon it by a patriarch. His religious institutions were
arranged after the Egyptian type. He set up golden
calves in Beth-el and Dan, but such idols were neither
strange nor unknown to Israel. The legends which
were circulated in his time had, although fabricated, a
moral and national tendency. He did not by any means
despise tradition, on the contrary, he wanted to rival
and surpass the legend of Abraham. He had used the
necessities of the country as an excuse for his personal
ambition to obtain power: but he sought to support his
power by ideal formations in the national spirit. His
patriarch “ Israel” may have been ever so much dis
figured by the stories of “Jacob,” yet there is about
him a characteristic, pious spirit, which sparkles
through all his deformities. But in poetic value the
sound of Israel’s legends far surpass the legends of
Abraham. The pictures of Joseph, of Benjamin, and
of Rachel, are and must remain masterworks of art, and
preserve poetically the type of immortal creations,
which mere tyrants never had the mind or spirit to
produce or to advance.
Of Jeroboam’s successors, none but Ahab, stands on
a higher footing than that of a military usurper who,
supported by the army, seized upon power. Not one is
designated “ Ephraimite” The origin, even of most of
them is unknown. In Ahab, indeed, a more impor
�Abraham, Isaac, and *Jacob.
85
tent monarch appears again in Israel. But neither in
politics nor in intellect did he pursue the path which
Jeroboam had smoothed for him. He sought and made
a political alliance with Judah, and induced by his
wife, the daughter of a Phoenician king, he raised the
worship of Baal, to be the official worship, thus offering
no points of affinity with the traditions of the Ephraimite Jeroboam.
There was, however, another revolution after Ahab
and his son. A captain, “Jehu,” was incited by the
Jehovistic prophet “ Elisha ” to seize power. He
murdered the king, exterminated the whole house of
Ahab, destroyed the temple of Baal, and murdered its
priests and followers. Of this Jehu we are told (2
Kings x. 29) that he did not depart from the sin of
Jeroboam, and did not destroy the golden calves in
Bethel and Dan. From this one might conclude that
Jehu was also in spirit a successor of Jeroboam ; but,
besides there being no further trace of that fact, and
not even an intimation of Jehu having been an Ephiaimite, the political discussion in the kingdom of Israel
now appeared so marked, that all the provinces beyond " ■
the Jordan were snatched away by Aram. Conse
quently all probability speaks against a spiritual flight
having taken place in the kingdom of Israel.
The dynasty of Jehu, it is true, counted one other
fortunate monarch, who reigned for forty-one years, and
who was a successful warrior, but even he did not im
pede the fall of the Israelitic kingdom. His son again
was removed by murder, and the murderer again was
hurled from the throne by another murderer. Then
Assyria appeared on the scene of our events, with its
invasions of conquest, and brought about the complete
ruin of the kingdom of Israel.
We quote all these well-known facts for the simple
purpose of showing that in the two and a-half cen
turies of the existence of the kingdom of Israel (from
978-720), no other epoch than the Jeroboamic one
shines forth as a period of glorification for Ephraim.
�86
Origin of the Legends of
If it is undeniable, that the whole cycle of legends
about the patriarch of Bethel aimed at a glorification
of Ephraim, and if our proofs be sufficient to show that
this did not succeed without continual wars, we must
logically conclude that with the extermination of the
Ephraimitic dynasty (about the year 950 before our
usual chronology) the conflict of the legends with each
other was extinguished also. Then the epoch com
menced, when in pious minds the conflicting legends
gradually intermingled, and their origin faded, until
the time arose when the whole material was worked up
into a heroically pre-historic account of the whole
nation.
The question, whether, in such remote antiquity, the
legends had been reduced to writing, we must decidedly
answer in the affirmative, after having conscientiously
examined those which remain, and which have not been
interpolated by the harmonist. They possess already,
in the song of Deborah, (Judges v.) a literary produc
tion, the original text of which was doubtless devised
very soon after the conquest of Siserah (1330 before
our chronology), and was preserved, not only verbally,
but in writing. We must not omit to consider, that in
respect of literature, Palestine stood upon a different
footing to contemporary flourishing states. In great
monarchies, where the dynasty is the centre of all in
terests, the instinct of perpetuation, is satisfied by mag
nificent buildings, palaces, temples, pictures, and in
scriptions.
But in republican nations, where no dynasties absorb
the common interest, but where rulers and judges,
chosen for a time, hold the reins of government, aris
tocracy of mind gains an ascendancy which tries to
immortalise its whole thoughts and aspirations in
song and speech, and in written records. Therefore
the fact must not surprise us that neither mighty
Egypt nor Assyria, but the small Palestine, handed
down an old literature to posterity. There, too, lite
�Abraham, Isaac, and 'Jacob.
87
rary production was not disturbed by a rising kingdom,
but on the contrary was used as a support, and there
fore progressed.
If we recognise, now, in the Abrahamic legends, the
preliminary pictures of the Davidic kingdom, there is
no reason to doubt that, in addition to verbal narrative,
those legends were reduced to writing in the cultivated
places of Hebron and Jerusalem. The literary fancies
•of Solomon certainly only tended to encourage this pro
duction.
Now, if it was Jeroboam’s plan to surpass David, it
is most probable that he provided for Bethel written
documents of the legends. Many a comparison between
the Abrahamic and the Israelitic legends shows that
favourite turns and figures of speech of the one were
used for the other. In illustration,' the curious
passage from the Abrahamic cycle ‘□T’ nnn ‘]T> N3 Ct?
“ Put thy hand under my thigh ” (Gen. xxiv. 2) is
•accepted literally, in the legend of Israel (Gen. xlvii.
29), whilst in the whole of the Hebrew literature there
is neither a repetition nor any trace of explanation of
this form of speech. If we do not adopt the orthodox
loophole, that that form of speech was used by the real
Abraham, and as chance would have it, by his grandson,
the real Jacob, nothing remains but the supposition that
it occurred in the composition of the Abrahamic legend,
and. that it was copied in Bethel as a classical, patri
archal turn of speech. We have also already mentioned
that in the legend of Israel (Gen. xxxvi. 7) a whole
verse from the legend of Abraham (Gen. xiii. 6) is
almost literally copied, from which it follows that
written records of both legends existed.
It is perfectly impossible to believe that the already
characterized libel upon David and his family was not
written, because all the disfigurements of names pro
duce an effect only when written, whilst verbally, (as
for instance H^t? for
and "itf and JH) they are en
tirely lost. One important fact speaks above every
�88
Origin of the Legends of
thing in favour of the reduction of the legends to writ
ing, namely, that we are even now in a position topick out entire portions of the legends in their almost
completely uncorrected shape, as for instance, the whole
of chapter xliii., where, in contrast to the preceding
chapter, the name of “Jacob” does not once occur,,
but the name only of “ Israel ” is used ; and lastly, the
passage in which Ephraim, although the younger
brother, is preferred to Manasseh the elder (Gen. xlviii..
8-22). In the 15th and 16th verses, only the few
words which mention Abraham and Isaac are inter
polated, but, otherwise, the original text stands forth
so clearly that one cannot imagine it otherwise than,
as having been transmitted in a written form.
The Jeroboamic genuineness of this portion cannot
well be doubted, from the fact that it is a characteristic
of all usurpers, to prefer the after-horn to the first-born;
and as a proof of the genuineness comes the as com
pletely preserved parallel passage of the harmonist
(Gen. xlviii. 4-6) which we have already considered.
The reduction of the legends to writing being put
now beyond doubt, we may well suppose that with;
the destruction of the Ephraimitic house, with the ex
termination of the whole family of Jeroboam, not only
the mutual conflict, but also the production of the
legends ceased. The thirty-eight years of bloodshed
which followed the extermination of the house of Jero
boam was little conducive to literary production. At
that time also the rotation of old circumstances returned.
Shecem, the residence of Jeroboam, was abandoned,.,
and in its stead Thirzali and at a later time Samariawere chosen by the new ruler. Unhappy wars and all
the new regicides disturbed the course of legendary
imagination, and curbed zeal for or against them. A
new monarch “ Ahab ” appeared, who gave up the
Ephraimitic war against the kingdom of Judah, and
who supplanted the worship at Bethel by the worship
of Baal. With this, political conflict also entirely
�Abraham, Isaac, and ^acob.
89-
abated. But religious zeal advanced in the temples of
Baal, and their priests presented for persecution a new
object of hatred, which had no relation whatever to the
foregone conflict of the legends. The prophet Elijah
was so filled with hatred against the worship of Baal,
that he had no words of wrath left for Bethel.
The era of harmonizing was evidently advancing in
that direction.
XV.
ELIJAH AND HARMONIZATION.
Is the prophet Elijah the harmonist 1 We do not
answer the question in the affirmative. We possess no
personal writings of Elijah which guarantee his
language. The narrator of his life and deeds, the
author of the Books of the Kings, lived much too late
to be able to give us authentic statements, and is too
fond of miracles to be historically trustworthy. Still
we must not leave untouched the little in the history
of Elijah which might indicate him as the harmonist.
In (chapter xviii. 31) of the Eirst Book of the Kings,
we are told that Elijah took twelve stones for the pur
pose of building an altar, according to the number of
the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of
the Lord came, saying, “ Israel shall be thy name."
Thus we find here, completely expressed by a historical
person, belief in a Jacob, who, at Jehovah’s bidding,,
was to be called “ Israel.” However, these are only
words of the narrator, to which we need not attach
any value. But in verse 36 of the same chapter, words
of Elijah himself are reported. If we may give full
belief to them, we have before us the most perfect
harmonist, because the words run thus : “ Jehovah,
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known,
this day that thou art God in Israel, and that' I am
thy servant,” and so forth. Had these words been
historically authenticated, we should not only have.
�90
Origin of the Legends of
Abraham and Israel, or Jacob already harmonized,
but also Isaac would have been joined as an inter
mediate link. A suggestion for this latter possibility,
lies in the circumstance that Elijah upon his travels
visited Beersheba (1 Kings xix. 3) and therefore, might
have heard some mention of the patriarch Isaac, who
had been thrust into the background. Even had he
made this journey at a later period, it is still possible,
even probable, that Beersheba and its patriarch would
not have been unknown to him. However, all these
data are and must remain much too unsafe, to be
critically valuable. On the contrary, there are strong
presumptions for the fact that as the legend of Isaac
had been entirely out of the conflict of legends, it did
not enter into the harmonizing work for a long time,
and that this intermediate link between the chief
patriarchs was only at a later time, accepted in its order
for the purpose of entirely completing the family history.
First of all the orthography in the alleged speech of
Elijah is suspicious. The older authors do not know a
Itzchak prw but a Ischak pntJ ’’. Even the later Jere
*
miah (chapter xxxiii. 26), and the Psalms (Psalm cv.
9), call him Ischak. The prophet Amos, the only one
who knew anything of the worship in Beersheba, speaks
likewise only of the “ heights of Ischak ” and the
“house of Ischak.” Only the very late books of the
Chronicles (1 Chron. xvi. 16), quote Psalm cv. and
write Itzchak instead. Anyhow the name in the mouth
of the prophet Elijah must be incorrect. But even if
one could look over that fact, the astonishing circum
stance remains, that the prophet Micah only knows
Abraham and Jacob as fathers “ of the days of old,”
and does not mention an “ Isaac ” (at the very end of
Micah). Even the very late “ second Isaiah” (chapter
Ixiii. 16), in his surprising expression about Abraham
and Israel does not mention Isaac. Another circum
stance is added, which makes it probable that in the
beginning of the harmonization, Abraham was made the
father of Jacob.
�Abraham, Isaac, and ’ acob.
J
91
In the narrative of the dream of Jacob in Bethel, we
read (Gen. xxviii. 13). And behold Jehovah stood
above it and said, “I am Jehovah, God of Abraham thy
father.'’ Certainly the words, “ and the God of Isaac,”
are added, but that does not alter the fact that Abraham
is designated as Jacob’s father. The same version is twice
repeated in chapter xxxi. There we read : “ Except the
God of my father, the God of Abraham had been with
ine.” Verse 42 again follows Isaac’s name even asso
ciated with il Pachad.” Laban likewise expresses himself (verse 53), as if Abraham were Jae, father of Jacob,
and again directly afterwards the “Pachad” of Isaac
is quoted.
These passages, together with the words of the pro
phet Micah, must really make us think that originally
the harmonization was only intended to reconcile the
legends of Abraham and Jacob. As a fact only those
hoo were seriously conflicting. The legend of Isaac
with its modest pretension to local authority in Beer
sheba, could not be an object of contest when universal
value and the great struggles between the kingdoms of
Judah and Israel were concerned.
When we consider all these points which, though not
strictly proof, are still most worthy of regard, we be
lieve we are in a condition to affirm that “ harmonizing ”
was very slowly advanced. It may have begun after
the ruin of the Ephraimitic generation of Jeroboam.
It advanced when with Ahab’s reign an alliance was
concluded between Judah and Israel. But the round
ed off of the legends with all the intermediate links
completing the family picture, was most likely a work
of later date ; a literary work which probably was begun
when the kingdom of Israel had been already ruined,
and when the general national grief had reconciled to
all minds the conflicting points of legendary materials,
The task of following harmonization in all its phases,
belongs so entirely to the criticism of the text, that it
must be left to a special and elaborate enquiry. The
�92
Origin of the Legends of
bible-text, already an object of the most careful criticism
through the Elohistic and Jehovistic separation of
originals, will require, by reason of our indicating the
Ephraimitic and Judaic formation of the legends a par
ticularly exact analysis. To establish harmony between
the three patriarchs as it is now before us, was also no
easy or quickly executed task. It was specially neces
sary to make geographical leaps without being able toaccount for them from natural motives. As they were
unable to send out the locally fixed Isaac, it was neces
sary that Abraham should undertake a journey to the
south (Gen. xx. 1), for which all natural reasons arewanting. Again, as they wished to give full importance
to the grave in Hebron it was necessary not only to
presuppose silently the return of Abraham to the place,
but also, contrary to all preceding statements, to affirm
that Isaac also lived in Hebron (Gen. xxxv. 27). The
patriarch Jacob was bound, according to the harmonist,
to begin his migration from Beersheba his birthplace,
and return on account of the harmony to Hebron after all his wanderings in the kingdom of Israel, where he
played the chief part, though it is inconceivable how
any one residing in Hebron should allow his cattle to
go to pasture near Shecem, a distance of more than ahundred English miles. Einally, the harmonist, who
cannot entirely drop Beersheba, makes Jacob take up
his station there when he travelled to Egypt. There
also he had another revelation of Elohe (Gen. xlvi.
1-4), with which he was so often favoured in the king
dom of Israel, while during the alleged sojourn of Jacob
in the kingdom of Judah, which lasted at least fifteen
years, Elohe never appeared to the patriarch.
To follow the harmonization in all its phases, is in
deed a very interesting work, which must be separately
undertaken. We must content ourselves, therefore, in
this preliminary examination with a superficial survey
of harmonistic views, as they are shown in the writings
of the most liberally minded of the Hebrew nation, the-
�Abraham, Isaac, and 'Jacob.
93
■prophets, because those are and must remain the chief
intellectual source to which one can most successfully
turn for light and truth.
Among the Judaic prophets the most sublime Isaiah
stands completely free from all traditional hypothesis.
It is true that he speaks of a “ house of Jacob,” but he
means only the nation, not the descendants of a certain
person. He speaks of a “ house of Judah,” but by no
word betrays a belief in the legends already in full
circulation in his time, about a person of the name of
J udah. Of an Abraham or an Isaac he makes no men
tion. We refer, of course, to the old Isaiah, not to the
so-called second Isaiah, as he abstains altogether from any
traditional views, and speaks neither of a Moses nor of
any other person belonging to the cycle of the legends
of the nation.
All this does not yet prove that the prophet was a
partisan enemy of traditions, but only that with the
rich power of his thoughts and language he needed not
the support of old legendary forms, and that from the
depth of his soul he was creative enough to dispense
with the traditional auxiliaries of rhetoric.
Nevertheless, considering that he, in common with
■all other prophets, who, like him, condemned the
Egyptian politics of the Judaic courts, severely in
veighed against the faithlessness of Egypt, we are sur
prised to find that there is no allusion whatever to the
history of Joseph, and to the great benefit which he is
■said to have conferred upon the kingdom. If the pro
phets had looked upon that story as more than a flat
tering popular legend of the Ephraimites, it would be
incredible that there should be no allusion to it. We
have mentioned all that bears upon our subject, from
the older prophet Amos and the prophet Micah, Isaiah’s
■contemporary. Amos knew no Abraham and no Jacob,
■and was only aware of a worship upon the “ heights of
Ischak,” and of a “house of Ischak,” whilst Micah,
who abounds with old traditions, and who knew
�94
Origin of the Legends of
Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Balak, and Balaam, speaks only
of Abraham and Jacob, but not of Isaac. He draws,
in his speeches, which are directed against the demoral
ization of the kingdoms of Judah and of Israel, a very
marked distinction between “ Jacob and Judah.”
Jacob is with him “Samaria,” the capital of Israel,
whilst by Judah he understands the capital “ Jeru
salem J (Micah i. 5.) But he still regards the unity of
the nation as the ideal of a better future, and this is
represented to his mind, as to Isaiah’s, as a time “when
the mountain of the house of Jehovah shall be estab
lished in the top of the mountains ” (Micah iv. 1, and
Isaiah ii. 2), so that the centre of the happy times
would again be Jerusalem.
More productive than this survey is an examination
of the words of the prophet Hosea. He shews, not
only a knowledge of the Ephraimitic material of legends,
but also evident traces of harmonistic tendency. The
prophet himself was most probably an Ephraimite.
In support of such a view, we may at least quote his
unbounded love for “ Israel ” and “ Ephraim,” and the
touching lamentation over apostasy, and the punish
ment which it should incur. The whole chapter xi. is
a proof of this love and pain, and balances all reasons
which might denote a Judaic descent of the prophet.
For our subject, however, chapter xii. is of import
ance. In that chapter a considerable portion of the
legends of Jacob is reflected, and undoubtedly the pro
phet was acquainted with those legends, though, per
haps, in a sense which does not altogether agree with
the materials which the legends of Bethel place before
us. He speaks of Jacob (chapter xii. 4, 5), “ He took
his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength
he had power with God : he had power over the angel
and prevailed, so that he wept and made supplication
unto him: he would find him in Bethel, and there he
will speak to us.”
Dark as the meaning of these verses may be, they
�Abraham, Isaac, and ’ acob.
J
95
shew beyond doubt that the Ephraimitic legends
were in the mind of the prophet. Verse 13 also of the
same chapter bears the type of those legends: “And
Jacob fled into the country of Aram, and Israel served
for a wife and for a wife he kept sheep.” But as an
Ephraimite himself, and in his love for Ephraim, led
on to the most tender and painful utterances, the pro
phet feels no more of the old conflict of the legends.
He already carries within himself the ideal of the
harmony, and recognizing the fall of Ephraim, perceives
a last ray of hope in the alliance with Judah. He sees
in the fall of Israel (chapter iii. 4, 5), the fall of king
and prince, of sacrifice and statue, of Ephod and Teraphim, the ruin of government and worship, of state
and church.
But afterwards he hopes “ that the children of Israel
shall return and seek Jehovah their God and David
their king, and fearing shall hasten to Jehovah and to
his goodness in the latter days.”
Erom the noble Ephraimite there shines forth the
harmony, which is the basis of the later harmonisation
of the old conflicting legends. Ephraim did not return.
Eate overtook it not long after Hosea’s time. When
Jeroboam, the Ephraimite, tore asunder the Davidic
kingdom, he also destroyed the possibility of the exis
tence of that intermediate realm between two great
ones. The legends of Laban and the eternal peace at
the separating mountain of Gilead (Gen. xxxi. 52) did
not prevent Assyria invading the country and destroy
ing the kingdom of Israel. The kingdom of Judah
was heir to the kingdom of Israel, and thus adopted
also legends and traditions of Ephraimitic origin. But
it inherited also the grief of ruin and the emblem of an
equal fate.
For more than a century the kingdom of Judah pre
served its ever threatened existence. Its last prophet,
the grief-stricken prophet Jeremiah, who saw the
“ misery of his people,” derived the last consolation of
�96
Origin of the Legends of
all dying nations from the deceiving fount of a future
reconstitution.
“ .Return will the people, return
Jehovah,” “ return history—and renewed will be the
days of old."
Therefore the old time radiated before his eye, as
brilliantly as the future does in the light of hope. Not
Judah alone, but also “Israel, Ephraim,” are included
in the bright dream of restoration. Every remembrance
■of Ephraim's destructive influence upon the Davidic
kingdom now fades. The prophet sees the return of the
banished ones (Jeremiah xxxi. 8-20). He lets Jehovah
say, “ Behold I will bring them from the north country,
they shall come with weeping, and with supplications
will I lead them 1 I will cause them to walk by the
rivers of waters, in a straight way, wherein they shall
not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim
is my first-born. Then shall the virgin rejoice in the
dance, both young men and old together : for I will
turn their mourning into joy and will comfort them and
make them rejoice from their sorrow. Jehovah heark
ens to “ the voice of the weeping Rachel in Ramah,”
the mother of Ephraim, 11 bewailing her children who
have been banished.” He hearkens to the lamen
tations of the mother and comforts her. “ Refrain thy
voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears. I have
surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus. Is not
Ephraim my dear son, is he not a dear son unto me (or
a child that I dandle). For the more I speak of him,
do I earnestly remember him again ; therefore are my
inward parts moved for him ; I will surely have mercy
upon him, saith Jehovah."
The harmony between Judah and Ephraim is here,
already, so entirely completed, that the conflicts of the
legends have no more echo in the soul of the prophet.
Therefore he vows in the name of Jehovah (Jeremiah
xxxiii. 25, 26) “ by the covenant of day and night, and
the eternal ordinances of heaven and earth,” that he
will not despise the seed of Jacob and of David, that
�filbraham, Isaac, and ’ acob.
J
gy
he will create rulers from amongst them for the return
ing children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Jeremiah, the last prophet in the falling Judah, is
the first who introduces the three' ancestors in this com
bination and in this order.
XVI.
CONCLUSION.
The legends of a nation are not its history, hut they
often reflect in their wonderful images that which his
tory in forgotten centuries has impressed upon the
human soul. In the light conflict of the legends harsh
struggles of past generations are hidden. But as on
the field of battle, the strife having abated, the earth
rises fresh over conquerors and conquered alike, and
covers all the combatants under one hill, so poetry
wreathes for friend and foe the common garland of
piety, and from the sight of later times covers with its
harmonising veil the discordant struggles of the past.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Origin of the legends of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Critically examined
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bernstein, Aaron David [1812-1884]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 97 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The translator is signed 'A German Lady' who expresses a wish to remain anonymous. "critically examined by A. Bernstein". Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Preface dated 1871.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1871?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT206
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Origin of the legends of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Critically examined), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Abraham (Biblical patriarch)
Bible-O.T.
Conway Tracts
Isaac (Biblical patriarch)
Jacob (Biblical Patriarch)
Patriarchs (Bible)