N.B. By P.I,P.II, &c., reference is made to the First, Second &c. Parts of my INTRODUCTION. 1. A FEW months ago appeared the work of Dr. R. Dozy, Professor at Leyden, entitled The Israelites at Mecca, from the time of David to the fifth century of our Era. The object of it is to show that the ancient Sanctuary of Mecca was founded about David's reign,' by a body of emigrating, or rather expatriated, Israelites of the tribe of Simeon, that these established the great Festival of Mecca, the origin and meaning of which has hitherto lain in obscurity, and, lastly, that in the time of the Babylonish Captivity a second colony of Israelites, called by the Arabians the Second Gorhum,' arrived at Mecca. 3 2. The consequences, that follow from these conjectures,which are supported by so many proofs of various kinds that 1 This statement of Dr. OORT, 'about David's reign,' agrees more closely with my own view (P.V.App.I.11-14) than with that of Dr. Dozy, who supposes that the movement in question may have taken place in the latter part of Saul's reign, p.56,59. But the difference in time is, of course, very inconsiderable; and, indeed, Dozy himself speaks elsewhere, p.17, of its having happened in 'the time of David,' and on p.94 he leaves the matter doubtful:-'Whether they thus settled themselves at Mecca at the time of Saul's reign, or perhaps at the time of David's, I must leave undecided; and, if any one chooses to read in my Title 'Saul' instead of 'David,' I can as little show that he is wrong, as he on the other hand can show that he is right.' But see the reasons given by me for 'the reign of David' in P.V.App.I.12,14. 2 According to my view (P.V.App.I.18) this movement of the Simeonites was a regular migration,—‘chiefly for want of room, and to relieve the necessities of their condition as described in G.xlix.7,'—and was not occasioned by a sentence of exile, for their remissness in the war with Amalek, as Prof. Dozy supposes. According to Dozy, 'Gorhum '=', 'sojourners' or 'strangers'; for 'the change of garim or gerim into gorhum or gurhum has nothing strange in the mouth of an Arabian,' Dozy, p.105. The Simeonites, of course, were the 'First Gorhum.' in my opinion they stand incontestably confirmed,—are of the highest importance. In the first place, Prof. Dozy's results are of inestimable value for those who are engaged in the study of Arabian History and Literature; since they supply the key to innumerable riddles, and throw light for them upon the darkest questions: and, building on upon the foundations here laid by Dozy, they may probably discover new facts of still greater interest. 3. But the respected Author does not desire only to furnish an important contribution for the knowledge of Arabian History; he wishes also to do this at the same time for the people of Israel; and he hopes that, from the new point of view here opened, a light may be thrown upon the original Israelitish worship. This expectation is very natural. If the din Ibrahim, the old religion in Arabia, which it was Mohammed's object to restore, was a remainder of the religion of the Simeonites, who had founded the Sanctuary,-if the great Festival of Islam was originally an Israelitish Feast,—— then we have here given us a new source of help towards the knowledge of the religious condition of Israel about the time when the tribe of Simeon emigrated. 4. Something of this kind was very greatly needed: for, as every one knows, the sources, from which we are obliged to derive the knowledge of that time, are scanty and not always even trustworthy. The writers and compilers of those Books, which communicate to us certain particulars about it, give us frequently all along, either in good faith or of set purpose, a distorted image of it. One after another, Prophets, Priests, and Rabbies, regarding the history of ancient times from their own point of view, have done their best to hide from us the truth. It is one-sided when Prof. Dozy lays the blame only on the men of the Great Synagogue: Prophets and Priests before them have done no less than they. 5. In the lapse of ages the religion of Israel was unspeak ably changed; so that, from what it was a few centuries after the Captivity, it is impossible to make out its condition five centuries before that event. Those, who give us the history of that time, believed that the orthodox worship of their own days was the original, and that every variation from it in former centuries, as well as in their own time, was to be called an apostasy. And under the influence of this conviction, they have frequently allowed themselves the liberty of colouring the facts in accordance with their own views.1 6. The Israelitish worship at Mecca has not had the same development. There were no Prophets, Priests, or Rabbies, who thought it necessary, in the interest of their own convictions, to set forth incorrectly the ancient state of things. Hence there is ground for hoping that at Mecca facts may be brought to light, in reference to the ancient religious worship of Israel, the traces of which may have wholly or nearly disappeared in the Books of the Old Testament. 7. But, in drawing conclusions from what existed at Mecca to what may have also existed in Canaan, we must not forget that the fate of this ancient tribe also has not remained unchanged, nor been handed down to us, traditionally, with certainty. It is probable, no doubt, that the religion of the Simeonites, cut loose from the Holy Land, may have come rapidly to a standstill, and that no such a fermentation may have taken place in it as in Judah: but it cannot all at once have turned into stone. 8. The amalgamation of the Simeonites with the Minei (Dozy, p.74,75), from whom they had conquered their new fatherland, or with other surrounding Arabian tribes, must also have had an influence. The Second Gorhum,' the refugee settlers from Cutha, though they adapted themselves to the habits of their countrymen whom they found already living at Mecca, This remark is especially true of the history as told by the Chronicler: see P.V.271. in my opinion they stand incontestably confirmed,—are of the highest importance. In the first place, Prof. Dozy's results are of inestimable value for those who are engaged in the study of Arabian History and Literature; since they supply the key to innumerable riddles, and throw light for them upon the darkest questions: and, building on upon the foundations here laid by Dozy, they may probably discover new facts of still greater interest. 3. But the respected Author does not desire only to furnish an important contribution for the knowledge of Arabian History; he wishes also to do this at the same time for the people of Israel; and he hopes that, from the new point of view here opened, a light may be thrown upon the original Israelitish worship. This expectation is very natural. If the din Ibrahim, the old religion in Arabia, which it was Mohammed's object to restore, was a remainder of the religion of the Simeonites, who had founded the Sanctuary,-if the great Festival of Islam was originally an Israelitish Feast,-then we have here given us a new source of help towards the knowledge of the religious condition of Israel about the time when the tribe of Simeon emigrated. 4. Something of this kind was very greatly needed: for, as every one knows, the sources, from which we are obliged to derive the knowledge of that time, are seanty and not always even trustworthy. The writers and compilers of those Books, which communicate to us certain particulars about it, give us frequently all along, either in good faith or of set purpose, a distorted image of it. One after another, Prophets, Priests, and Rabbies, regarding the history of ancient times from their own point of view, have done their best to hide from us the truth. It is one-sided when Prof. Dozy lays the blame only on the men of the Great Synagogue: Prophets and Priests before them have done no less than they. 5. In the lapse of ages the religion of Israel was unspeak |