will long maintain itself. But it is also accordant with the nature of all development that, as Polytheism assumed a settled form, Monotheism struggled against it the more powerfully. Even by the Patriarchs of Israel, according to every indication, this struggle was maintained; and we may well assume that the Canaanites also were at that time so far cultivated that among them also there were incipient and scattered monotheistic movements; indeed, the instance of Melchizedek gives sufficient evidence of this. But that the faith of the Patriarchs of Israel was entirely independent appears from their peculiar name for the true God, El-Shaddai.

But although this was certainly a commencement of Monotheism, it was not quite the Mosaic form of it. It was only the one supreme and almighty God, whom individual enlightened spirits knew, and sought as far as possible to retain in their own circle; it was the one true God, whom the father of a household, having clearly known him, elevated over all others as the God at least of himself and his house, because in that age the mere household of one powerful man was all-important, and no nation in the higher sense of the word had as yet been developed at all. And in this sense each of the three Patriarchs could hold the more firmly to one God, the more purely domestic his own rule was; their god continuing thus to be an individual household God. That they apprehended this one God under a strict moral aspect, and in opposition to many lower conceptions, is vouched by their whole life as the founders of a new epoch, on which their posterity looked back with pride. The Canaanite Priest-king also, when (according to the ancient fragment, Gen. xiv. 20, comp. ver. 22) he would bless Abraham, calls on the Supreme God, the Creator of heaven and earth,' as the God whom he adores. But a god of a household, however exalted he may be conceived, still suffers other gods besides himself for other households and other men, and thus is by no means a safeguard against polytheism, especially since these can easily be somehow associated with him. And that the Divine Being in the pre-Mosaic period was apprehended with this idea of undefined extent and possible divisibility, is proved by the most ancient tradition itself, in which the god of Abraham and the god of Nahor are invoked by oath as two different gods, and the God of the father of both' is placed above this duality, simply that the two gods may not

1 Even at a much later period this was xxiv. 15; compare Ex. xxxii. 10; 1 Chron. still laid down as a possibility, Josh. iv. 10.

Y

1

appear to have a separate existence and thus contradict the Mosaic religion. It is also shown by plain indications (see p. 290 sqq.), that at least in the popular conception a HeroPantheon was superadded to the chief god and the house-god of the ruler. Equally ineffective was this indefinite apprehension of one god completely to suppress idolatry. How firmly rooted this practice was, at least among the women and inferior domestics, is evident from the obstinate retention of the Teraphim (or Penates) many centuries after Moses, and in spite of the commands of the higher religion. Tradition indeed does not deny idolatry at least on the part of Rachel and Laban.2 Thus there was wanting to the one God worshipped by the Patriarchs all the distinctness and definiteness of the God of Moses.

But as in that early period mankind were strongly exposed to the immediate influence of the visible, and everything symbolical exerted over them a living power, some of the most ancient symbols of higher thoughts lasted from it even to the later Mosaic times; and these reveal most plainly an original connection of the Hebrews with the northern nations. The Israelites under Moses would assuredly have known nothing of Cherubs or of Seraphim as heavenly animals, unless the memory of these shapes of the older religious faith had been preserved from a higher antiquity; and with these are connected the other sacred reminiscences which have been above related.

3

But if this was the state of the most ancient religion in the Hebrew nation while yet they sojourned in their northern home, it is evident how great a risk they ran of falling before the allurements of a low sensuous faith and a dissolute ungodly life. And this result must have really taken place in that nation (who had otherwise remained so simple and robust) even before Abraham: indeed Abraham must have had to combat most strenuously among his nearest kindred and in his own house with the seductions of the ripening heathenism, and men corrupted by them. The Fifth Narrator has omitted to relate this before the present brilliant opening of the history of Abraham

3

In the undoubtedly ancient phrase, heaven were the best watchers and guarGen. xxxi. 53. dians of the heavenly throne. The gigantic Cherub was originally only one, whereas of the smaller and more fairy-like seraphs there were always many. The fact that Sphinxes are unknown to the most ancient sculpture and writing of Egypt, and only appear there after the Hyksos period, is an additional proof that all such symbolical images had their origin not in Egypt but in Central Asia.

2 Gen. xxxi. 19 sq., xxxv. 2-4. 27 points to an Aryan derivation (see my remarks on Ezekiel i.): and despite the slight mutation of sounds, is indisputably of the same origin as Spákov. As sharp glowing eyes and colours were regarded by the ancients as the chief features of this creature, so in virtue of exactly such eyes the winged seraphs of

(Gen. xii.), as if he hastened past this dark picture to give greater prominence to that noble introduction which had been already delineated by the Fourth (Gen. xii. 1-3); but the remembrance of it has been elsewhere preserved.' The strife was assuredly long and hard. But the highest and most peculiar element in his history, and that which has become most fruitful for all future time, is, that he clung so firmly to his assurance of the one true God, and recognised so clearly that true salvation can come from him alone, that he chose rather to abandon fatherland and relations than faith in the sole omnipotence and helpfulness of this supersensuous, heavenly and only true God, and resolved to make this confidence the root of his life and influence. With this feeling he must first have acted as a powerful prince towards his own extensive household, and afterwards have persevered in the same course in Canaan and in Egypt, among nations where he encountered a much higher wisdom and more enlarged experience, but at the same time much over-refinement and moral corruption.

3) Abraham as exhibited by the existing narratives.

Although we may convince ourselves satisfactorily of the truth of all that has hitherto been explained of the actual history of Abraham, it is not to be denied that in the Old Testament but few and scattered passages concerning him from the oldest writings have been preserved. What we now know of him with any considerable coherence is due to no earlier source than the Book of Origins; but, unhappily, a large portion of that which this book had originally told of this greatest of the Patriarchs has been lost. As it, however (see p. 82 sqq.), brings forward with the greatest interest all that relates to law and rule, Abraham appears in it chiefly as the great father and founder of the people of Israel; as the type of the true ruler, in so far as he is a father of his house and nation; and as the first Hebrew inhabitant of the Holy Land at the commencement of the Third Age of the world, and at the same time as the noble prototype of all its later inhabitants.

versal depravity of manners, from which Abraham alone, as the venerated founder of this Age, was by God himself preserved. But then the Deuteronomist himself must have derived from earlier records the information respecting Abraham's relatives which he introduces incidentally, Josh.

Apart from the Deuteronomic and subsequent narratives which will be discussed hereafter, it follows from the arrangement of the Book of Origins itself, as displayed in my Alterthümer, p. 118, 2nd ed. that its author must have described, at the close of the second and commencement of the third age, a uni- xxiv.

In the second place, so far as concerns law, the idea of a covenant between God and man being the highest point of view taken in this book of every great crisis of history (see p. 85 sqq.), a new covenant of this kind serves also to express the grandeur of Abraham's whole life, all that is eminent in it being gathered together under this conception. The covenant stipulates, on the part of man, first of all, the right regulation and attitude of the spiritual life (Gen. xvii. 1, 2), and then demands, as an outward sign of this moral purity and consecration (a Sacrament), Circumcision (ver. 9-14). But immediately upon that primary condition of inward consecration, there follows on Elohim's side the promise of the highest blessing, as his part of the covenant; and thus the sublimest divine words which this narrator can conceive to have been addressed to Abraham are accumulated at this point (ver. 4-8). Circumcision, as the sign of this sublime covenant, is enacted very beautifully exactly at the time when the birth of Isaac is approaching; so that this first child of the community may at his very birth become the type of all its true children, and enter through this sign into the higher community now formed. Thus here also is placed the sublime moment when, among other promises, is given that of the approaching birth of Isaac, and through him the secure continuance of this covenant and its blessings for ever, and when Abram and Sarai, as the first parents in this eternal covenant, receive the new names of Abraham and Sarah,' corresponding to their new higher dignity (ver. 5, 15 21). And that this zenith of Abraham's life may be attained at the true noon of the life of a Patriarch of this era (see pp. 275 sq.), the sacred year of this covenant and expectation of the genuine child of the community is Abraham's 100th year (ver. 24, xxi. 5); that is, in the original sense of the tradition, not much beyond the golden middle of the Patriarch's life (compare

1 As, however, the alteration of both these names only consists in a slight difference of pronunciation, we must suppose the story of the change of the name Jacob into Israil to be the earlier, and this to be formed from it. The original name does not seem to be (Abram, which might be a similar formation to

the name of Moses' father), as this pronunciation would put the utmost difficulty in the way of the interpretation given in Gen. xvii. 5, but 08 (Abraham), where (Ab), may be

a dialectic abbreviation for (Abi, father of; see my Lehrbuch, § 273b), and □77

(Raham) could be easily shortened into

(Rẩm; see Lehrbuch, § 72c). In the other case, however, the pronunciation

(Sarai) is certainly the older, and its original meaning the obscurer. But the longer name Abraham, as synonymous with Ab-Hamon (father of a multitude), and

(Sarah), as meaning Princess, appeared to the narrator most suited to the higher dignity conferred upon them. Moreover, the giving of names stands in connection with circumcision; see my Alterthümer, p. 110.

ch. xxv. 7.)1 This opens large sections of Abraham's history to further chronological arrangement. We necessarily expect the birth of Isaac, and in connection with it the expulsion of Ishmael, somewhat as they are described in Gen. xxi. 1-21. The assumption of the mid-life of the Patriarch reacts also on the conception of his earlier history. For since at the introduction of circumcision, according to old and well-founded traditions, Ishmael was about 13 years old, Abraham must at his birth have been 86 years old; while still further back, at the time of his immigration into Canaan, 75 years are assigned to him, corresponding very well with this number 100.4 And since the 175 years of his whole life evidently answer to these 75 and 100, all the years of Abraham's life are accounted for.

So far, therefore, we can securely trace the plan of the life of Abraham given by this chief narrator. Many other passages are to be referred, with more or less modification, to him and the other ancient sources; as the story of Sarah's fate in the court of the Prince Abimelech, ch. xx.; that of the legal procedure for giving possession of Beersheba, ch. xxi. 22-32 (where the name of that prince's captain, Phichol, nowhere else mentioned, must be derived from old tradition); that of the family sepulchre, ch. xxiii., where in beautiful picturesque language the Book of Origins again finely discloses its deep sense of law. But on the whole, these remains of the ancient sources are very scattered.

The Fourth and Fifth Narrators conceive the preeminence of Abraham in a different manner, and thereby transform a chief part of this history. In their time the lapse of centuries had strengthened the nation's consciousness of the great blessing of the true religion which flowed in upon them abundantly out of the primeval period of their past ancestors. Thus they, even more strongly than the Book of Origins, figured Abraham chiefly as the type of the great and universal Divine blessing, spreading from one saintly man to many, to all his nation, and even to many nations; the idea being then modified by the

1 Tradition similarly magnifies many other numbers belonging to the same period: Ishmael is a child fourteen years of age, Gen. xxi. 14-16; the sacrificed lamb is three years old, xv. 9: and Isaac and Esau were both married in their fortieth year, xxv. 20, xxvi. 34.

2 See Zeitschrift für das Morgenland, iii. p. 230; Zohar (i. p. 165b ed. Amstel.) takes the twelfth year as the first of puberty and accountability.

3 Gen. xvi. 16.

4 Gen. xii. 4: the discrepancy between this number and that assigned to Terah's life in xi. 26, 32, is to be explained (contrary to Acts vii. 4) by the assumption that Abraham departed from Haran before his father's death; for the numbers are undoubtedly all taken from the Book of Origins, whose author, in his usual way, finished off with Terah only that he might be able then to dwell on Abraham's history alone.