Israel, and has far more importance for our object, which is explained at scattered but suitable places in the history, or is touched upon below only in passing. What specially concern us are the institutions, considered as a whole, which existed in the ancient nation either by law or by public custom; or the life of the nation so far as it was determined and ruled by the truths and impulses of Jahveism which were stirring in it. Only what belongs to this has full significance for our purpose; but this significance is shared by even the smallest and apparently most insignificant thing, so far as the power of Jahveism contributed to make it exactly what it was, and thus confirms the principle that a powerful religion always completely penetrates the whole of the national life. And because a large portion of the history of Israel turns upon these institutions, it is this side of the antiquities of the nation respecting which we possess comparatively the richest sources of information, great as may be the carefulness 5 required to understand many of the details aright. When, however, we consider the particulars of even so limited a province as this, we meet with phenomena so excessively numerous and varied, that it appears difficult to describe them according to any arrangement which shall correspond to their essence and internal connection. In the ordinary textbooks on antiquities, the most superficial, and therefore the most capricious and irregular, arrangements prevail; for they are content merely to handle certain principal subjects one after another. But as we are about specially to describe here such customs and institutions as were either created or put into more definite shape under the predominant influence of the higher religion, we cannot have much doubt as to the proper arrangement of our varied matter. All religion consists in a living relation between God and man, a striving of man to raise himself up to God and so draw Him down to himself, God yet ever remaining sublimely exalted, his Ruler and Governor. The conception of true religion expresses itself throughout the Old Testament in the short phrase, 'Israel my people and I their God.' When the reciprocal relation between the nation and the true God, as it ought to exist according to this phrase, is perfect, then is all religion in that community perfect, for there can be no longer discord between man and God. But in the course of history we see only striving after this perfection; though this mere striving, when Comp. Hist. ii. 136 [first. ed. i. 559]. it is earnest and engrosses the whole energy, as was for the most part the case in Israel, secures a firm basis for progress in true religion. Man, then, on his side attempts everything to obtain the favour of his God. In every religion there arises in the course of its history a body of recognised and sanctified human efforts and institutions, which hope to secure without intermission the divine nearness and favour. It was, however, 6 in Israel, where everything divinely-human, that is, religious, strove to reach the highest perfection, that the most perfect body of this kind was formed. But independent of all these human efforts, and of those which true religion recognises and protects by its own sanctity, there are the divine demands for perfect righteousness; demands which man ought to satisfy, and which he is very far from so doing merely by the above efforts; because these only lead him to the point at which he should begin satisfying them truly, and are therefore only the ways to heaven, and like other ways (methods) can be easily worn into holes. We have therefore a twofold subject to discuss in order and throughout its whole sphere: the human efforts and actions which Jahveism allowed in order to attain unto the true God, and the divine demands for true righteousness which it placed before man. In every case, of course, our treatment will have special reference to the actual customs and institutions which arose and were maintained among the people. -These two sides of the national life have indeed very different starting-points, and can even come easily into collision. But still there is a connection between them, and both have their seat in the kingdom and government, as the needful unity of national life, which links together all its various efforts, and must in its turn be maintained by special institutions.-And when a religion is really the highest and most perfect possible as is Christianity-these two sides of the essence of all religion are in such perfect harmony within the firm ring of the unity of the kingdom, that the human efforts which it enjoins always lead again to the divine demands, and these to the right efforts; and it is thus that this religion ever shows its insurpassable perfection. But when a religion although true is yet defective, as was the case with Jahveism, this deficiency makes itself felt alike in the human efforts and in 7 the divine demands, and gives rise to a feeling of ceaseless dissatisfaction with the Present and its arrangements, and hence to a continuous series of fresh institutions which shall supply, at any rate for the time being, the want which always exists, and therefore always grows. The discussion of these institu tions aiming at the satisfaction of this felt want will form our concluding section; and it will lead up to the wider question whether the old Theocracy, as far as regards its customs and institutions, could have a perpetual existence in the special form in which it was founded under Moses. This will be followed, naturally, by the further discussion, whether the new institutions added by the human monarchy did or did not supply a stronger guarantee for its continuance unchanged.' 3. We have, then, chiefly to consider here, only that portion of the Antiquities of Israel which is stamped with its most characteristic life, and in which that spirit was revealed which operated in it as in no other nation of the old world. From this spirit there sprang not a few institutions of a truly creative character, which in their whole formation and style bear, so to speak, a peculiar stamp, so genuinely Mosaic and also so universally diffused, that they could have come into existence nowhere but within the community of the people of 8 Jahveh,' and there even at no other time but the exalted days of Moses and Joshua. That among the various institutions and customs existing in ancient Israel there were some of genuine Mosaic origin, is a fact of high historical value; and to prove all this accurately in detail is not the least important aim of the following analysis. The object of the great legislator was not to ordain a long series of new laws, and violently overthrow all that he found existing, but before everything to implant in the community the fear of the true God. The fundamental thought which he brought into the world and ineradicably fixed in the people of Israel in the first instance, was as a drop thrown into the wide ocean of the whole ancient world, although of infinite power, and destined gradually to penetrate all that was foreign to itself. Its consequences, so far as they belong here, are as follows: Many customs and practices which had previously existed in the nation were retained in Jahveism, and were modified sooner or later by its influence if they could be reconciled with its spirit; or were in the course of time more and more suppressed if they were essentially opposed to it. The proof The two sides which form the basis of the whole arrangement here are evidently in many respects the same as is given by a division into things ‘sacred' (sacra) and secular' (civilia), but it is equally clear that I do not draw this distinction so incorrectly and unfortunately as is done by the Papists and many Protestants. Moreover, the term 'civilia' is altogether unsuitable for use, if the as of all this is due here, and inasmuch as many of these ancient customs carry us back to the larger circles of nations, under which Israel was comprised, either by descent or training, previous to the founding of Jahveism, these traces of the connection of Israel with other ancient nations, which are most instructive for the purposes of history, must be here carefully examined. The legislation of Israel falls moreover in a period of very remote antiquity, all the peculiar features of which still existed among the nations which developed themselves the earliest. Antiquity as such has a most characteristic spirit-and this spirit ruled the world before the gradual advance of Jahveism, 9 and of Christianity, which ensued as its goal and perfection, raised to power a completely different spirit, such as was alone capable of laying a sure foundation for a new era. As therefore there prevailed in the world when Jahveism was founded a spirit quite different from that which it vigorously manifested itself, the influence of the earlier spirit on Jahveism was from the first very considerable. Many customs and practices which had their origin in this spirit, still retained their place, some of them at first without even being called in question; but besides this the new views, institutions, and laws during that primitive creative period, were in many cases deeply imbued with that spirit which had hitherto ruled unchallenged. Accordingly we find amongst the institutions and practices of the community of Jahveh which sprang up and were legalised during the earliest times, very much that has an exact counterpart in those of all ancient nations, especially of such as stood on the same level of general culture; and great care is needed not to confuse the similarities which flowed only from the whole spirit of Antiquity, with those touched on above which sprang from the closer connection of Israel with a particular circle of nations. Countless similarities may be traced back to the life of the whole ancient world, but to trace these countless similarities is of far less importance than to understand somewhat better the essence of Antiquity as distinguished from our own times. The following are some of its main characteristics having special reference to our present subject. Man, with all his sensitive endowments, stood much closer to creation (or Nature), felt more as a child towards what was living, and animated even what was dead with his ingenuous sympathy. He was the more exposed to the impressions of Nature, in proportion as he received less aid, on the one hand, from a religion standing far above her, and on the other, from 10 a thorough investigation, and at the same time unsympathetic examination of her. But no less fresh and lively was the feeling of man for what was Divine; for this always lurks behind Nature and himself, and thus the feeling for it will always vary according to the kind of feeling entertained towards Nature and towards man. The national customs, institutions, and laws were accordingly full of a keen though properly only passive sympathy for the animate and inanimate non-human world, of deep impressions of Nature, of grand attempts of men to draw her into a partnership of joy and sorrow with themselves.' All this repeats itself, moreover, with regard to the Divine. But in spite of his standing so near to Nature, and as far as that went feeling himself gay and satisfied in her, yet, just because he knew so little of her, man cherished an almost blind terror of all her unusual phenomena, and so far felt towards her utterly strange and fearful. But he trembled yet more before all that was Divine, lying concealed behind her and behind himself. For he had also had experience of its strength and force, but attained respecting it little true and trustworthy knowledge. To overcome this terror and the apparent hostility alike of Nature and of God, and to attain and uphold a special religion wherever the need of it was felt, was infinitely harder for Antiquity than it is for us. This accounts for the number of most elaborate regulations, of burdensome laws, and of harsh correctives, of which it is difficult for us to frame a correct representation. An essential addition to these circumstances is the fact, that whatever Antiquity had once seized upon, it undertook with a youthful power and unjaded strength, with a magnificent con11 sistency and simplicity, and with an openness and uprightness which are only too often found wanting in later times, and wherein it remains an eternal model for our own apparently or really more intricate relations. And as man stood altogether much nearer to Nature, his youthful open-hearted impulses drove him to express by outward signs, as strongly and appropriately as possible, his feelings and the deep meaning of his efforts and actions; particularly as the truths which thus sought for manifestation in the most forcible signs, were now for the first time looking for a lasting home on the earth. 1 Compare also conceptions and expressions suggesting such thoughts; Hos. ii. 20 [22], iv. 3; Jer. xii. 4; Zeph. i. 3; Ps. xxxvi. 7 [6]; Jonah iii. 7, 8; iv. 11.- |