For

historical interest as by a sense of the religious import of what is narrated. It has not pleased God,' says a recent writer, 'to convey to us instruction concerning the ancient period [of Israel's history] in the form of indisputably historical documents; consequently the external details of the narrative cannot be for us the matters of chief significance. Occasionally the prophetic elucidation of material not in itself religious may be the important thing in a particular book. example, to a historian the narratives in the book of Judges which relate the exploits of Hebrew heroes are more important than the Deuteronomic framework; yet it is precisely this framework that gives the book its canonical character. The historical and the canonical valuations of a book follow different laws, and go in different directions'.' The evident aim, generally speaking, of the writers and compilers of the sacred history is to convey and emphasize a certain religious impression, not to give a complete or rigidly accurate picture of events.

II. The second of those general aspects of the Old Testament which will occupy our attention is by far the most important. The Old Testament does not merely contain the history of a divine redemptive movement: it is also the record of a self-revelation of Almighty God; it describes the gradual disclosure of the divine name and attributes. The permanent interest of Israel's history for mankind lies in the fact that in the history a supreme moral personality is unveiled. Israel's sacred literature is primarily a school of divine knowledge for the whole world.

Now, that the Old Testament exhibits a gradual evolution of the idea of God is, of course, indisputable. Naturalistic criticism gives its own clear, plausible, intelligible account of the gradual advance of Israel's belief. In the earliest stage of Semitic thought the divine nature is vaguely conceived in polytheistic fashion as distributed among a plurality of beings 1 Dalman, Das A. T. ein Wort Gottes, p. 15.

whose operation lies hidden behind the various processes of nature. As the consciousness of tribal unity is developed, each tribe recognizes a special deity, linked to itself by ties of interest and natural affinity. When different tribes coalesce and realize something of national unity, the deity is elevated to the position of a national god, united by a special bond to one particular people and land. Presently, when the nation comes into conflict with neighbouring peoples and their gods, the dignity and importance of the deity is enhanced in proportion to the measure of national success in warfare. He is honoured as the mighty god whose power extends even beyond the limits of his own special sphere of influence. With the advance of culture and civilization, men recognize moral qualities in their god, attributing to him the virtues which they fear or reverence in their fellowmen. As the horizon of human thought widens, the deity is acknowledged to be a righteous being who controls and guides the destinies, not only of his own subjects, but also those of alien nations. Finally, when the faculties of abstraction and reflection have reached a certain point of development, the conception is formed of one God, the creator of all things, reigning in solitary majesty over all the nations of the earth. The whole process is thus represented as one of simple natural development, and the idea of special revelation is set aside as unwelcome and unnecessary.

As is usually the case, the same set of facts is capable of being interpreted in two distinct ways and from two opposite points of view. The real question at issue in our present-day controversy with naturalistic criticism is whether or no God is a living being1, to whom the spiritual interests of mankind are of supreme importance, and who at each stage of development, physical or moral, is Himself present in the universe

1 See Oettli, Der gegenwärtige Kampf um das A. T. p. 13; Valeton, Christus und das A. 7. p. 1.

as an impelling, directing and overruling cause1. The distinctive feature of Israel's religion is prophetism, and where the voice of inspired prophecy is heard, God is specially at work in history; the purely naturalistic account of the phenomena breaks down. It is no part of our present task, however, to discuss so fundamental a point as this. There can be no question in regard to the belief of those who felt themselves to be not chance discoverers of interesting truths, but inspired organs of divine revelation. We may observe, however, that the idea of a gradual evolution in the conception. of God is expressly recognized by the Old Testament itself. One main object of the priestly narrative which forms the basis of the Pentateuch seems to be that of indicating successive stages in the self-revelation of God, each stage being apparently marked by some new declaration of the divine name, in other words, by some express manifestation of His character. It will be our duty to examine hereafter the theological import of these several names. At this point it is only necessary to notice the general outlines of the Old Testament doctrine of God, surveyed as a whole. The divine self-revelation, be it remembered, was chiefly embodied in action and history. Indeed the Bible contains very little of mere abstract teaching or formal doctrine; the character of God and His relation to the universe are rather left to be inferred from His action. To the prophets the supreme interest of human history lies in its being a sphere of observation in which the attributes, purposes and methods of God may be studied. And the very foundation of Israel's national history was constituted by an event to which in later times the religious mind of the people continually reverted,—a signal historical deliverance, an act of divine intervention, which in itself implied a unique manifestation of God's nature and character. The incidents of the exodus could scarcely fail to suggest some general ideas about God which the whole subse

1 Cp. Oettli, op. cit. p. 4.

quent history was destined to elucidate, confirm, and enlarge; even at this early stage there emerged, so to speak, the ideas of the divine unity, the divine holiness, the divine grace, that is, the willingness and power of God to redeem.

We should be passing beyond the limits of probability if we insisted that the exodus did more than suggest these ideas. It will scarcely be disputed that they can have been apprehended, perhaps not very distinctly, only by a few leading spirits in the newlyformed nation; and they were not openly preached, so far as we can judge, until the period of the eighthcentury prophets. In the book of Deuteronomy they may be said to be leading and characteristic theses. Take, for instance, the first of the ideas now in question —that of the divine unity. An unbiassed study of the Old Testament discloses to us the gradual development of the conception. It is practically certain that in its earlier stages the worship of the ordinary Hebrew was not monotheistic but monolatrous. Till a comparatively late period the average Israelite seems to have believed in the existence of other gods than Jehovah-deities who stood in the same relation to foreign tribes and nations, as that in which Jehovah stood to Israel. Prof. Riehm draws attention to the tendency, common apparently among tribes of Semitic descent, to acknowledge a special tribal god. The natural basis on which a true monotheism could be securely built up was formed by monolatry or henotheism 1. Israel's earliest religious lesson was, in fact, learned on the Red Sea shore. In the marvellous deliverance of His people from the tyranny of Egypt, Jehovah was already proved to be at least incomparable, or unique, among gods 2. It was not as yet distinctly perceived, at least by the mass of the

1ATI. Theologie, p. 45. The remark of Renan that 'even from the most ancient times the Semite patriarch had a secret tendency towards monotheism, or at least towards a simple and comparatively reasonable worship,' is questionable.

2 Exod. xv. II. Cp. 1 Sam. ii. 2; Isa. xl. 25.

ransomed people, that Israel's God was the Lord of all the earth. He was regarded as the tribal god of the Hebrews, fighting its battles, and claiming its allegiance, in opposition to the gods of surrounding nations. It has been thought by some critics that the idea of Jehovah's uniqueness only appears in the early period of the monarchy 1; but it is more probable that it arose as a direct consequence of the events of the exodus. That solemn crisis in Israel's history signally manifested the impotence and insignificance of other gods in comparison of Jehovah. Thus the foundation of a consistent monotheism was laid, not in any definite declarations of the divine unity-such as we find at a later period-but in a practical proof that other 'Elohim were powerless to resist the will of the Deity who had chosen Israel for Himself and had wrought its salvation 2. The exodus manifested the incomparable glory and irresistible might of Israel's God. And indeed during the period of its conflict for the possession of the promised land Israel was too deeply absorbed in practical tasks to feel any special interest in the question whether other gods 'had or had not metaphysical existence. The practical point was that Jehovah proved Himself stronger than they by giving Israel victory over their worshippers3.' And so long as other supernatural beings were regarded as merely

1

Cp. Darmesteter, Les Prophètes d'Israël, pp. 23, 24: Avec les victoires de David, avec les splendeurs de Salomon, avec la construction du temple qui donne enfin à Jéhovah une demeure fixe et à son culte un centre de plus en plus absorbant, Jéhovah devient définitivement le dieu propre d'Israël. Les triomphes de David prouvent qu'il est plus puissant que les dieux voisins: Qui est comme toi parmi les Élohim, ô Jéhovah?' Cp. Oehler, Theol. of the O. T. § 43; König, The Religious History of Israel [Eng. Tr.], p. 74.

2

3 Robertson Smith, The Prophets of Israel (ed. 1), p. 60. Darmesteter, op. cit. pp. 217, 218, seems to state the case correctly: La tribu ... est polytheiste, puisque le croyant reconnaît la multiplicité des forces et des volontés divines et croit plus de dieux qu'il n'en adore; mais elle est monothéiste en ce qu'elle se livre spécialement à un seul, monothéisme chancelant, qui se concilie parfaitement avec l'idolâtrie et transportera aisément son obédience et ses offrandes de Jahvé à Molokh, Baal ou Camoch, etc. . . . Mais ce monothéisme incertain, idolâtrique et sans morale, contient en germe le monothéisme strict.'