131. There is not the least reason for stopping to consider why the religion of the expatriated Simeonites should not have been JHVH-worship.129 The names of several of their leaders compounded with the name JHVH, 1Ch.iv.34-37, point to this, as Prof. Dozy also has remarked, p.100.130 This is further supported by the fact of their giving to their new abode the name 'Shiloh,' p.97, inasmuch as in the place of that name in Canaan stood the great Sanctuary of JHVH, to which frequent pilgrimages were made.

132. Can any other evidence be produced for this? An idea has occurred to me, which I entertain with great hesitation, because I feel on how weak a foundation it rests. It is this. The name 'Hobal' is probably very old. Certainly, until the middle of the fifth century after Christ descendants of Israelites were guardians of the Meccan sanctuary, p.204,205. The Chozaha, who had possession of the supreme power, had made many innovations there in the worship, p.203, to the great disgust of the zealous Gorhum. Among other things, as said above, they had introduced the image of Hobal [?] and others. But it is not probable that if the name of the chief Deity was changed, Jews would either be still found willing to undertake the office or be endured as guardians.

133. Thus the name Hobal [that is, as Dr. OORT here supposes, the name of the chief Deity himself, previously and still worshipped at Mecca,-not of the image, which he supposes

=

been called Hobal 'the Baal,' though the Israelites might speak of 'GedorBaal,' 'Kirjath-Baal,' &c., just as now we speak of Kings-Town, Queen-Street, Lady-Day, &c.?

129 This is true in the sense of their worshipping JHVH as 'the Baal' of Canaan; and they may have known his mysterious name, JHVH, and, of course, they did know it, if the names of their leaders, 1Ch.iv.34-37, are genuine, many of them being compounded with JHVH; and that such names might exist in that age we know from those of the sons of Samuel, Saul, and David, some of which are Jehovistic. But, if they did, they have left behind no other trace of their having known it.

130 They migrated early in David's reign: and nearly a century before this time Samuel had called his sons by names compounded with JHVH, 1S.viii.2.

to have been made afterwards, and merely called by his name,] will have been no longer understood. Is it possible that the name JHVH may lie hid in it? We no longer know with certainty how this name was pronounced. But in Proper Names we have constantly, Jahu, e.g. in Jeremjahu =Jeremiah, &c: and I see no reason why that should be an abbreviation. From Jahu is to be explained the form of the name at the beginning of Proper Names, Jeho or Jo, as in Jehoshua, Joel. Also, if we write the name JHVH, as is now generally done, as the imperfect of nin, viz. Jahveh, we shall have the sound Jahwe or Jahuë, if the v is not pronounced sharply.

134. If this is true, then it is not impossible that the ancient name of the Meccan deity was at full length Jahuë, Baal of Ishmael, or something of that kind—perhaps, Jahuë, Baal of the Well; but this last I would not contend for, because it is uncertain whether, under the title 'Baal of the Well' and similar names, JHVH himself was worshipped anciently in Israel, or rather, perhaps, a subordinate Deity.* It is a common occurrence that in course of time the Ja or Je should be dropped,―e.g. Khizkiyyah (Hezekiah)=Jekhizkiyyah—[and so there would arise huë-baal=Hobal.131]

135. Meanwhile, whether the above conjecture be accepted or not, it does not decide the main question. In any case JHVH 132 was the God of the Simeonites; and there is no evi

131 It appears to me that this derivation, however ingenious, is far more improbable than that supposed by Prof. Dozy. But Dr. OORT allows that 'Baal' is part of the word. Then, surely, 'hab-Baal' must have been the whole of it.

132 Rather, 'in any case the Baal of Syria,—whose mysterious name, whether known to them, or not, or, rather, whether used by them familiarly, or not, at the time of their expatriation, was JHVH,- -was the God of the Simeonites.'

* If in 'Gedor-Baal' JHVH himself was worshipped, does not this support the view, which I have advanced with hesitation in § 2, that originally JHVH, and no subordinate Deity, was worshipped in the Sanctuaries, 'Baal of Judah,' &c.? OORT. [Certainly: but whether everywhere and in all ages the Syrian Baal was worshipped in Israel under the name JHVH, is not so certain: see note 129.-Ed.]

dence to show that they worshipped him under any one visible form or another. We have not learned anything new from the Meccan Sanctuary as to the relation between JHVH and the Baalim,133 In this matter, even after Prof. Dozy's admirable discovery, the O.T. remains still our only help. Is anything more to be expected from Mecca, having reference, in this or in any other respect, to the ancient religion of Israel?

136. We know now that the pre-Islamite religion of the Arabians was partly derived from Israel. The decyphering of the great Festival of Islam, a tableau vivant of the Feast on the Gilgal,' (as my friend Dr. DE GOEJE names it, in his notice of Prof. Dozy's work, Gids for May, 1864, p.297-312,)-and many other particulars, give us good hope that the cultivators of Arabian Literature will, with further study, bring us much more light upon the subject. And certainly I can reckon upon the assent of all who are interested in the study of the antiquities of Israel, when I conclude with the assurance that we shall be grateful to Prof. Dozy, as well as to all his fellow-students in the same department of Science, if out of Mecca they shall be able to dissipate somewhat of the obscurity, in which the ancient condition of Israel is still to a great extent hidden.

133 If the name JHVH was known to the Simeonites (131), as the names in 1Ch.iv.34-37, if genuine, would imply,—and if the name of the Chief Deity at Mecca was anciently (132), in the Simeonitish time, Hobal,—and if this name means really, as we suppose, hab-Baal,—then we have learned from the Meccan Temple this fact, that JHVH was most probably regarded popularly by the Jews of David's time as identical with 'the Baal.' This is no new fact, it is true; for it is also indicated, as we have seen, in the Bible. And it throws no more light on 'the relation of JHVH to the Baalim': but it leaves them still, as we have found them to be, in all probability, only representatives of 'the Baal' at different localities in Israel.

79

APPENDIX I.

ANALYSIS OF E.XX.1-17.

(i) v.2, the phrase, 'brought thee out of the land of Egypt,' occurs identically in D.v.6,vi.12,viii.14,xiii.10(11), and nowhere else in the Bible; though other varieties of this formula, e.g. 'brought you, them, us, Israel, &c. out of Egypt,' occur repeatedly in Deuteronomy and elsewhere: see (P.V.Anal.79.ix).

(ii) v.2, 'house of servants,' D.v.6, vi. 12, vii. 8, viii. 14,xiii.5(6), 10(11),—nowhere else in the Bible, except Jer.xxxiv.13.

(iii) v.3, 'other gods,' D.v.7,vi.14, vii.4, viii. 19,xi.16,28,xiii. 2,6,13,xvii.3,xviii.20, xxviii. 14,36,64,xxix.26,xxx.17,xxxi.18,20, and also E.xxiii.13,* xxxiv.14.*

(iv) v.4, pp, pesel, ‘graven-image,' D.iv.16,23,25, v.8, xxvii.15, and also L.xxvi.1,*-nowhere else in the Pentateuch.

6

(v) v.4, mad♫, těmunah, ‘likeness,' D.iv.12,15,16,23,25,v.8, and also N.xii.8.] (vi) v.5, bow down and serve,' D.iv.19, v.9, viii. 19,xi.16,xvii.3,xxix, 26(25) xxx.17, and also E.xxiii. 24,*-nowhere else in the Pentateuch.

(vii) v.5, Nặp, kanna, ‘jealous,' D.iv.24, v.9, vi.15, and also E.xxxiv.14,* comp. D.xxix. 20(19),xxxii. 16,21.

(viii) v.5, 'visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation,' as in E.xxxiv.7.*

(ix) v.6, 'doing mercy to thousands,' comp. E.xxxiv.7,* 'keeping mercy to thousands.'

(x) v.6, 'keep my commandments,' D.iv.2,40, v.10,29, vi.2,17, vii.9,11, viii. 2,6,11, x.13, xi.1,8,22, xiii.4,18, xix.9, xxvi. 17,18, xxvii.1, xxviii.9,45, xxx.10,16, G.xxvi.5, (P.V.Anal.164), and also E.xvi.28, L.xxii.31, xxvi.3.*

(xi) v.7, mpa? No5, lo yěnakkeh, 'will not clear,' D.v.11, and also E.xxxiv.7,* N.xiv.18,*-nowhere else in the Pentateuch.

(xii) v.8, viɔ, zachor, 'remember,' D.xxiv.9, xxv.17, and also E.xiii.3*; comp. D.ix.7,27, xxxii.7, and also E.xxxii.13.

(xiii) v.10, 'thy stranger that is within thy gates,' D.v.14, xiv.21, xxxi.12; comp. also 'the Levite that is within thy gates,' D.xii.12,18, xiv.27, xvi.11; and note that neither of the above formulæ occurs elsewhere in the Bible: so 'thy gates' occurs

* All these passages I believe to be Deuteronomistic. But I have not space here to show this, or to enter into the questions which arise out of this analysis. It is sufficient at present to notice that the phrases in question,--if used at all by other writers of the Pentateuch,—are clearly most common and familiar with the Deuteronomist.

G

29 times in Deuteronomy, but nowhere else in the Pentateuch, and only besides in very late passages, viz. Ps.cxxii.2, cxlvii.13, Is.liv.12, lx.11,18, Ez.xxvi. 10.

(xiv) v.12, 'that thy days may be long in the land,' D.v.16, comp. 'that thou mayest prolong thy days in the land,' D.iv.40, v.33, xxx.18, xxxii.47, comp. also D.iv.1, vi.2, viii.1, xi.21, xvi.20, xxx.6,15-20, and also E.xxiii.26.*

(xv) v.12, 'the ground which Jehovah thy Elohim giveth thee,' repeated identically in D.iv.40, v.16, xxi.1,23, xxv.15,-nowhere else in the Bible; comp. also the similar phrases, 'the land which Jehovah thy Elohim giveth thee,' D.iv.21, xv.4.7, xvi.20, xvii.14, xviii.9, xix.2,10,14, xxiv.4, xxv.19, xxvi. 1,2, xxvii.2,3, xxviii. 8,-'thy gates which Jehovah thy Elohim giveth thee,' D.xvi.5,18, xvii.2,-'the nations whose land Jehovah thy Elohim giveth thee,' D.xix. 1,-'these peoples whom Jehovah thy Elohim giveth thee,' D.vii.16, xx.16,—with other variations, viz. 'the mountain of the Amorites (land, inheritance, cities,) which Jehovah (our (your) Elohim, the Elohim of your fathers) giveth us (them),' D.i.20,25, ü.29,iii.20, iv.1, xi.17,31, xii.9, xiii.12, Jo.i.11,15 (P.V.5)—not one of which formule occurs anywhere else in the whole Bible.

From the above analysis it seems almost certain that the first edition of the Decalogue, in E.xx, is due to the Deuteronomist, as well as the second in D.v. Consequently, the repeated use of the phrase 'Jehovah thy Elohim,' in E.xx.2,5, 7,10,12, is only an instance of the Deuteronomistic peculiarity, noticed in P.III.554.

On the traditionary view, we should have to suppose that Moses having made use of the phrases (i), (ii), (xiii), (xv), in the record of the solemn utterance of the Ten Commandments, in the third month of the Exodus, never used any one of them again in any of his writings until his last address in the fortieth year, and then began suddenly to use each one of them freely. The same remark applies also to (iii), (vi), (xiv), whether, or not, we take into account the fact that E.xxiii.20–33, xxxiii.12-xxxiv.28, appear to be Deuteronomistic interpolations; since these passages belong to the same period in the story as the utterance of the Ten Commandments.

APPENDIX II.

THE DEUTERONOMISTIC ORIGIN OF N.X.33-36.

In N.x.33 we have the expression Ark of the Covenant of Jehovah,' a phrase which is used repeatedly by the Deuteronomist, x.8,xxxi.9,25,26, Jo.iii.3,17,iv.7,18, vi.8,viii.33, comp. also 'Ark of the Covenant,' Jo.iii.6,6,8,11,14,iv.9, vi.6,—'Ark of Jehovah,' Jo.iii.13,iv.5,11, vi. 11,12,vii.6-all, most probably, Deuteronomistic passages; and not one of these formulæ occurs anywhere else in the Pentateuch, except the first of them in N.xiv.44.

But N.xiv.40-45, also, is evidently Deuteronomistic; see D.i.41-43, and comp.

* See note, p.79.