THE DECALOGUE
WORKS BY R. H. CHARLES, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D.
ARCHDEACON OF WESTMINSTER FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
Published by Messrs. T. & T. CLARK
i. A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COM- MENTARY ON THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN.
With Introduction, Notes, and Indices:
also The Greek Text and English Translation.
{International Critical Commentary.) In 2 Vols. 20s. each.
Prof. J. Moffatt says : " It is far ahead of any commentary in any language."
" Dr. Charles's Commentary has been long in coming, but it was worth waiting for. There is no need to say that it realises the highest expectations that were formed of it. A great com- mentary on Revelation was badly needed, and no living scholar was so well-equipped for the task as Dr. Charles. It will take rank with the greatest commentaries on the New Testament Books."— The Christian World.
2. THE DECALOGUE.
Being- the Warburton Lectures delivered in Lincoln's Inn and Westminster Abbey, 1919-1923.
"Deeply as I have been interested in the critical and his- torical study of the Decalogue, it has been my main aim to interpret the Decalogue on the spiritual and ethical lines already laid down in the N.T., and to apply its lessons to the crying needs of our day."— R. H. Charles.
3. THE ADVENTURE INTO THE UNKNOWN. 7s. net And Other Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey.
" Here is a volume extraordinarily apt for the times. There is not a sermon that is not quick to the age, keen on the duties of the times, heavy on the sins of men, whether of the classes or the masses." — Methodist Recorder.
4. STUDIESINTHEAPOCALYPSE.7s.net "Dr. Charles's knowledge of Jewish and Christian 'Apoca- lyptic ' is unrivalled among English scholars. This volume is a real contribution towards the scientific study of the Apocalypse."
Churchman.
38 George St. T Rr T PTAT?TT Stationers' Hall Edinburgh 1 . <X J. . V^.L./1IS.IY London
c
THE DECALOGUE
BEING
THE WARBURTON LECTURES
DELIVERED IN
LINCOLN'S INN AND WESTMINSTER ABBEY 1919-1923
J?j\
BY
R*? H? CHARLES, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D.
ARCHDEACON OF WESTMINSTER FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
Edinburgh : T. & T. CLARK, 38 George Street
1923
MADE AND PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH
LONDON : 8IMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED NEW YORK : CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
PREFACE
rTlHE subject of these Warburton Lectures I have T* treated from three standpoints — the critical, the historical and the practical.
The Critical. — In the Introduction (pp. vii-lxiv) I have studied the Decalogue critically and have shown that it existed in various forms — at least five — its earliest dating from the close of the fourteenth century B.C., and its latest from the close of the third. The latest is preserved in the Nash Hebrew Papyrus (pp. vii- xxxiii). In its earliest and tersest form, in which each Commandment consisted of one brief crisp command (pp. xliv-xlviii), it comes from the great lawgiver, Moses. In the centuries that followed it received various accretions which were on the whole in keeping with the spirit of the original Commandments, save in the case of the Fourth as it is transmitted in Exodus xx. 11.
In order to represent the results of my research briefly and clearly, I have given on p. lv a genealogical tree, which shows the descent and relations of the successive forms of the Mosaic Decalogue, and on p. lxiii another
ii PREFACE
which exhibits the relations subsisting between the original Mosaic Decalogue and the two later documents — the Book of the Covenant and the Ritual Decalogue in Exodus xxxiv.
The Historical. — In the Lectures I have sought to ascertain the meaning and measure of obedience which were assigned to the Ten Commandments at various stages in the history of Israel and Judah,and particularly to the Second and Fourth. In my study of the Fourth it gradually became clear that a new and Judaistic conception of the Sabbath conflicting with the original one was introduced into Exodus xx. 11 about 500 B.C. or later, and that this later conception henceforward held the field in Judaism.
With the advent of Christianity the Decalogue was reinterpreted for the most part and given a new and spiritual significance. During the first three centuries no difficulties arose within the Church in connection with the Decalogue save that the Sabbath was observed by Jewish Christians as well as the Lord's Day. But in the subsequent centuries difficulties did arise and particularly in the case of the Second and Fourth Commandments. Gradually, though unwittingly, the entire Church abandoned the true conception of the Lord's Day, and substituted in its stead the later conception of the Jewish Sabbath, and clung to this wrong and Judaistic conception to the period of the
PREFACE iii
Reformation. In the case of the Second Commandment it was otherwise. This Commandment the Church misinterpreted for the most part wittingly, because it condemned absolutely the growing practice of image worship within the Church. From the thirteenth century, if not earlier, it jettisoned the Second Com- mandment bodily from the Decalogue, and published as authoritative a mutilated Decalogue till the time of the Reformers.
The Practical. — But deeply as I have been interested in the critical and historical study of the Decalogue, it has been my main aim to reinterpret the Decalogue on the spiritual and ethical lines already laid down in the N.T., and to apply its lessons to the crying needs of our own day.
For the very full Indexes I am indebted to the efficient
services of the Rev. A. LI. Davies, Vicar of Llanrhos,
Llandudno.
R. H. C.
4 Little Cloisters,
Westminster Abbey,
September 1923.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PAGES
Abbreviations and Brackets used in this Edition ...... vi
I. Summary op Conclusions arrived at . vii-xii
II. The Nash Papyrus of the Decalogue . xiii-xvi
III. Hebrew Text op the Nash Papyrus (i.e. N)
and Critical Notes .... xvi-xxii
IV. Translation op this Text and Critical
Notes ..... xxii-xxvii
V. Relations op N to Decalogue in Ex 20 and D 5. N — Egyptian in character — § 1. Agrees generally with D 5 against Ex 20 — § 2. Agrees occasionally with Ex 20 against D 6 — § 3. Agrees with LXX more than with any other authority — § 6 xxvii-xxxiii
VI. Date op Original Text op N — § 1. Diver- gences between Ex 20 and D 5 in n. iv. v. ix. x. — § 2. D 5 secondary to Ex 20 in v. ix. x. — § 3. Original form of n. — § 4. Various forms of iv. — § 5. Comparison of Decalogue (n. m.-v. ix.-x.) in E (8th Cent. B.C.) with Deca- logue in D 5 (7th Cent.) — § 6. Decalogue as it existed about 750 B.C. or earlier — § 7 . xxxiii-xliv
VII. Original porm op in. rv. x. — § 1. Decalogue purged of accretions goes back to Moses — § 2. Objections dealt with — § 3. Mosaic Deca- logue and its subsequent revisions and accre-
CONTENTS
tions down to 200 B.C. — genealogical tree — § 4. Book of Covenant presupposes Mosaic Decalogue — § 5. Decalogue in Ex 34 pre- supposes Mosaic Decalogue — § 6. Influence of Ex 34 on later forms of Decalogue in D 5 and Ex 20— §§ 7-8 .
xlv-lxiv
LECTURES
First Commandment
Second Commandment- First Lecture Second Lecture Third Lecture .
Third Commandment
Fourth Commandment — First Lecture Second Lecture Third Lecture
Fifth Commandment
Sixth Commandment — First Lecture Second Lecture
Seventh Commandment
Eighth Commandment
Ninth Commandment
Tenth Commandment
1-13
14-35
36-58 59-88
89-109
110-131 132-151 152-172
173-184
185-198 199-211
212-228
229-245
246-257
258-272
INDEX
I. Subjects 273-286
II. Passages from the Biblical and other writers dealt
with in the text
287-294
ABBREVIATIONS AND BRACKETS USED
IN THE INTRODUCTION
D = Deuteronomy.
E = Elohistic source used in the Hexateuch.
Ex. = Exodus.
J = Jahwistic source used in the Hexateuch.
Jub. = Book of Jubilees.
LXX = Septuagint.
M = Massoretic Text.
N = Nash Hebrew Papyrus.
Onk. = Targum of Onkelos in Walton's Polyglott.
Ps.-Jon. = Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel.
Sam. = Samaritan text of the Pentateuch.
Syr. = Syriac version of the O.T.
T Sam. = Samaritan Targum in Walton's Polyglott.
Vulg. = Vulgate.
< > = Words so enclosed are restored by the Editor
( ) = Words so enclosed are supplied by the Editor.
= Words so enclosed are interpolated.
INTRODUCTION
Summary of the critical Investigations made and Conclusions arrived at in this Introduction in regard to the mosaic decalogue, the Decalogue in Ex. 34 and the Book of the Covenant
(a) Hebrew Text of Decalogue about WO B.C. in Egypt. — The Nash Papyrus was discovered just over twenty years ago. It was written towards the close of the first century A.D., and was used probably as a Service Book or Catechism. It represents the Hebrew text of the Decalogue that was current in Egypt about 200 B.C., which was based mainly on D.1 I have given the Hebrew text of the papyrus restored by the help of Ex 20 and D 5,2 and an English translation,3 in both cases with critical notes pointing out the affinities of N.
From the above study it follows that N has a definite Egyptian character, that it is mainly de- scended from D, though in a few passages it is a
1 See ii. §§ 1-8, pp. xiii-xvi; v. § 6, p. xxxii.
2 See in. pp. xvi-xxii.
viii INTRODUCTION
conflate text, and especially so in the fourth Com- mandment where it follows Ex 2011.1 In two cases where M and Sam. (i.e. the older Semitic authorities) fail, N appears to preserve an older text.2 It is more closely related to the LXX than any other authority.3
(b) Hebrew Text of Decalogue in Egypt (and other localities) about 300 B.C. — From the text of N we move backwards to the closely related Hebrew text which is presupposed by the LXX of Ex 20 and D 5. The text of these two passages is corrupt in several passages. The LXX of D 5 has reacted on that of Ex 2012 in v. (i.e. 5 th Commandment) so that it adds * that it may be well with thee " before " that thy days," etc., exactly as in D 516: in x. the LXX of Ex 2017 adds "his field" before " nor his manservant," as in D 521. There are other reactions of the LXX of D 5 on that of Ex 20. On the other hand, there is a reaction of the LXX of Ex 2011 on that of D 514 which has led to the insertion in the latter of an entire sentence. Possibly the wrong order of the LXX in vn.-vi.-vni. in D 517-19 may have led to the anomalous order in Ex 2013~16.
When a critical text of the LXX of these two chapters is published it will be easy to recover the Hebrew it presupposes.
(c) Hebrew Text of Decalogue in Ex £Q in the fifth century B.C. and in D 5 about or before 621 B.C. — We can now put N aside, which is the latest,4 and con-
1 See v. §§ 1-3, pp. xxvii-xxxi. 2 See v. § 4, p. xxxi.
* See v. § 6, p. xxxii. 4 See VI. § 1, p. xxxiiisq.
INTRODUCTION ix
fine our attention to the two forms of the Decalogue in Ex. and D. These two agree in I. in. vi.-vm., but diverge from each other in n. iv.-v. ix.-x. Of these five the text of v. ix. x. is secondary in D to that in Ex. and owes its divergencies to the hand of the Deuteronomist.1
The real difficulties centre in n. and IV. First, as regards n. In this Commandment both Ex. and D agree. But the Hebrew is impossible. It is un- grammatical, if we attempt to give it an intelligible meaning by translating it thus : " Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image nor any likeness 2 of that which is in heaven," etc. On the other hand, it is unmeaning, if we translate it as it stands : " nor any likeness that is in heaven." No man makes " a like- ness that is in heaven." D 58b~10 (Ex 204b"6) can there- fore be best explained as originally a marginal gloss in D which was afterwards incorporated in the text in the fifth century B.C. and thence passed into Ex 20. But the phrase " nor any likeness " is differently situated. It is a distinctly Deuteronomic phrase and, like many other Deuteronomic phrases in D 5, is to be attributed to the author of D. Hence n. stood most probably as follows in D in 621 B.C.: " Thou shalt not make thee a graven image nor any likeness."3 All that follows in the present
1 See vi. §§ 2-3, p. xxxiv sq.
2 There is nothing to justify the rendering of the R.V. "nor the likeness o/any form that." The R.V., it is true, acknowledges by the italics that it inserts an explanatory phrase.
a See vi. § 4, pp. xxxv-xxxix.
x INTRODUCTION
Hebrew text of n. is to be regarded as due to the incorporation of a marginal gloss of the fifth century B.C.
In iv. the divergence between Ex 208-11 and D 512-16 is fundamental. All other variations between the two Decalogues may be regarded as explanatory additions or glosses, which are never contrary to the spirit of the original commandment, but it is other- wise in the case of rv. The interpolation of Ex 2011 alters essentially the entire character of the original commandment. By virtue of its actual words it was instituted to meet the needs of the Godhead and had no reference originally to man. This interpolation has made the acceptance of the fourth Commandment an impossibility outside a narrow Jewish circle.1 To this interpolation is most probably due the extrusion of the very ancient clause preserved in D 514, i.e., " that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou." This clause gives the right note. The Sabbath was made for man.
Thus the Decalogue as it stands at present in Ex 20 does not go back farther than the fifth century B.C., whereas that in D 5 goes back to 621 B.C. or earlier, if we remove the gloss in ii., i.e. 58b-10.
(d) Hebrew text of the Decalogue in Ex W as it stood in the eighth century B.C. or earlier, especially of II. IV. and v. as compared with the Decalogue in D 5 of 621 B.C. — The text of II. in D, as we have already
1 See vi. § 5, pp. xxxix-xl.
INTRODUCTION xi
seen in the preceding paragraph, ran as follows : " Thou shalt not make thee a graven image nor any likeness." But the last phrase " nor any likeness " is a Deuteronomic phrase and comes most probably from the Deuteronomist as do many other phrases in the Decalogue in D. Hence in the eighth century B.C., II. reads as follows : " Thou shalt not make thee a graven image." x
The eighth century form of iv. can also be re- covered. It read in all probability as follows : "Bemember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but <on> the seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Lord thy God : <on it> thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, <nor thine ox nor thine ass>, nor thy cattle, <that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou>."
V. read simply thus : " Honour thy father and thy mother." The remaining clauses are from the hand of the Deuteronomist.2
For the rest of the commandments as they stood in the eighth century, see vi. § 7.
(e) The fact that there was a steady, though sporadic, growth of explanatory additions from the eighth century to the second B.C. leads to the hypothesis that such ex- planatory clauses as still survive in in. I v. x. of the eighth century Decalogue are themselves accretions, and were unknown to the original Decalogue. — Since I have 1 See pp. xxxv-xxxix. 2 See vi. §§ 6-7.
xii INTRODUCTION
dealt with this question in vii. § 1, in a fashion in- telligible to the ordinary reader, it is not necessary to repeat any of the arguments there advanced. I have there concluded that the original form of in. iv. and x. was as follows :
in. " Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."
iv. " Eemember the Sabbath day to keep it holy."
x. " Thou shalt not covet."
Later, in vii. § 5—6, I have sought to prove that the Decalogue, even with certain additions in iv., is older than the Book of the Covenant in E and the Decalogue in Ex 34 (J).
(/) If the above conclusions are valid, it follows, first, that the Decalogue is presupposed by documents of the tenth century or older ; for E and J are merely his- torians making use of documents such as the Book of the Covenant and the Decalogue in Ex 34 : and, in the next place, that, if these things are so, there is no outstanding personality to whom the original Decalogue can be ascribed other than Moses}
With various objections to this conclusion I have dealt in vii. § 3, and in vii. § 4 (p. Iv) I have given a genealogical tree in which I have traced the development of the Decalogue from the time of Moses, 1320-1300 B.c, down to that of the Nash text of 200 B.C.
1 See vii. § 2.
INTRODUCTION xiii
II
The Nash Papyrus of the Decalogue
§ 1. Its date and character. — This papyrus was discovered in Egypt in 1902 by W. L. Nash, the Secretary of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, and presented by him to the University Library of Cambridge. It is generally assigned to the close of the first century A.D. (Burkitt) or the beginning of the second (Cook and Levi), and is thus about 600 to 750 years older than the oldest Hebrew MS of the O.T.1 Hebrew papyri are very rare. Hence independently of its contents the papyrus before us has an interest of its own.
This papyrus, which I shall forthwith designate with some earlier writers as N, consists of four mutilated fragments, which, when duly put together, measures 5 in. by 2 J in. It contains twenty-five lines, but of the last line only the tops of a few of the letters are decipherable. The papyrus contains neither vowel points, accents, nor diacritical marks. There are no verse divisions. Spaces intervene between the words, but the spacing is very irregular. In line 15 \yhv is written as one word pbv. Final letters are employed. For an account of the letters I must refer the reader to Cook's article in the
1 The oldest MS is in the British Museum {i.e. Or. 4445). It is undated, but was written, according to Ginsburg, about A.D. 820-850. The oldest dated Hebrew MS (i.e. a.d. 916) is in the Imperial Library of St. Petersburg.
xiv INTRODUCTION
Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archceology (Jan.
1903, pp. 34-56). This is accompanied by three
plates, one of which is a facsimile of the MS, the
second of its reproduction fully restored by the editor,
and the third of a table of Hebrew alphabets at
various periods. To this work I shall frequently refer.
In the Jewish Quarterly Review, xv. (1903) 392-408,
Burkitt deals with this papyrus under the title, " The
Hebrew Papyrus of the Ten Commandments," and
returns to it in xvi. (1904) 559-561, "The Nash
Papyrus, a New Photograph." A German study of the
papyrus was published by Peters, Die alteste Aoschrift
der zehn Gebote der Papyrus Nash (Freiburg), in 1905.1
This work is valuable for its collection of materials,
but its conclusions are frequently arbitrary.
The average number of letters in a line of N is
32—33 according to Cook, and 31 \ according to
Peters. According to my restoration of the text
there are 750 (or 749) letters in the first twenty-four
lines. Thus the average line contains 31 J letters.
The two longest lines are lines 5 and 10, which
consist of 36 letters each. The two shortest are
21 and 23, which consist respectively of 25 and 27
letters. Thus the lines are very irregular in length.
At the beginning of each line 2 to 8 letters are lost,
except in lines 15-18. The letters are of the square
character.
1 Two other scholars should be mentioned: Israel LeVi, "Un Papyrus Biblique," in the Revue des Mudes Juives, xlvi. (1903) 212- 217; von Gall, "Ein neuer hebraischer Text der zehn Gebote und desSchmaV'^TJFxxiii. 347-351.
INTRODUCTION xv
§ 2. N was possibly a Service Book or a Catechism. — At an early date the Decalogue and the Shema' (i.e. " Hear, 0 Israel," etc.) were recited daily in the Temple Service (Tamid, iv. ad fin. v. I).1 But, because the Minim (the Early Jewish Christians) claimed divine revelation exclusively for the Decalogue and discarded the other Mosaic laws as temporary enact- ments, the recital of the Decalogue in the daily morning liturgy was abolished (J. T. Ber. 3 c, 11a; B. T. Ber. 12a). In the last passage we are told that Eabba b. bar-Hana wished to restore at Sura the recital of the Decalogue, and that E. Ashi made the same attempt at Nehardea, but that their efforts failed.
Now it is most probable that N was simply a tiny prayer book consisting of the Decalogue and the Shema', and belonged therefore to the period before the recitation of the Decalogue was forbidden.2
§ 3. N represents a form of the Hebrew text that circulated in Egypt as early as WO B.C. — The evidence
1 ijnpffll T\~\vy i*opi wna . . . yet? nx nnp^= "to recite the Shema . . . they gave the blessing and recited the ten words." In his com- mentary on this passage (see Surenhusius, Pars quinta, p. 301) Maimonides' exposition is given. "Decern vero quotidie verba legebant . . . Cseterum jam dictum est quod in Terminis (extra terram Israelis) eas legere volebant, sed quod hoc prohibitum fuerit propter hsereticos ; sed Gemara non declarat qusenam sit ista hsereticorum controversia, sed in principio tractatus Berachoth in Talmude Jerusalymitano dicitur, fas erat ut decern verba legerentur quotidie, quare autem non leguntur ? Ob hsereticos, ne dicant, haec duntaxat a Mose data sunt in Sinai."
2 Cook (p. 55) suggests that in N we have a collection of passages of the Mosaic Law.
xvi INTRODUCTION
for this statement is given on pp. xxxii-xxxiii. The Jews in Egypt copied their sacred writings without the accuracy that was due to them. Thus Aristeas * (130-70 B.C.) writes: "The books of the law . . . were written in Hebrew characters and language, but they were copied2 carelessly and not in consonance with the original " (a/jueXearepov Be teal ov% virdp'^ei aearnMavTai). One of these copies may have been the ancestor of N. N was based mainly on D ; see pp. xxix-xxx.
Ill
Hebrew Text of the Papyrus restored by help of ex 20 and deut 5
(For the Abbreviations and Brackets, see p. vi. )
Lilies in Ex. xx. Papyrus.
2 <Dn*>» yum Tn<a^n> "*** Tn^ nw<0 ^:jk> i
3, 4 <i>Da i?> nvyn tvf? ,,<dq-^> o^na dt6k i<i n\T kiS>> 2
<nnnD> pan -ikw feoo &n&2 -ik>k <n3ion fet> 3
5 <Nih> nn^ rnnn^n wb p&6 nnn» d<o»3 -ibw> 4 <nuK iw n>pa map ta Trot msr <a3M <*a Dnavn> 5
6 <ion n^yi> «M3s6 d^xi hy) tmste to D<?sa to> 6
7 <dp n« «^>n Nib viwd n»K6i otk& <d^S>*6> 7
9, 10 <^a^n> Di^ai nn3N^» to nw inyn <nw nw> 10
<nna> nas^ fca n rron wfe T^ <w4 rosso 11
<V»>na ioi -pora iw in»M TW <in3i -p:n> 12
11 <mn>t' n&?y d^ nw *a t*W3 <*)&>« tw> 13
<D3 -i>^n to rmj D\n na pxn nxi D<oa&?n n*e> 14
<mo nx rw ^ia pby •■yatyn <dvq> rm is
1 See Charles, Apoc. and Pseudep. ii. 98.
2 Andrews (op. ci£. ii. 98) renders treo-fifiaPTai by "interpreted."
INTRODUCTION xvii
Lines in Ex. xx. Papyrus.
12 <]v^ "i>bk niei t^k nx 122 vunp*) ^2vn 16
<i^n> r\mxT] by yw jwmr jvd^ ■£ in" n
14, 13, 15 Kb nnn kA ejfcon n-6 i? jna yrbx mrv» 18
16, 17 <rw> nionn kA ira iy ijro nayn *& 2J<:in> 19
<n3yi in>np ^jn n<^>3 n« nixnn ni<S> in n^N> 20
1jr£ nnc ^ ram rr\<w\ w»ki> 21
Deut. iv. 45
(vi. 2) <'»D3> na r\vn kiv ibw twpttwi b*<pnn fhnct> 22
„ vi. 4 yvw nnxo p«» Dnxva -anion <knw*> 23
„ vi. 5 nnnKi Kin nns rrvr wni« mir !»<ki^> 24
< . . . -pn>S> ^><nn> i<on>f><K rvur na> 25
Line 1. N >D*J3J> nao, though it is found both in Ex. and D.
1. 3. With miBD b (an addition of D ; see p. xxxvii sq.) contrast *?2 nWDfl in D 416- 23- 25. On the ungrammatical structure of the words "IPN naiDn, see p. xxxvi sqq. I have restored 1 before S>n as it is found in M. Sam. T Sam. LXX. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. of Ex 204 and all these authorities in D 58 save M. Onk.
1. 9. For "YD? D reads "rw. After 'WHph D adds yrbx rnrv ni* -jewd.
1. 12. M. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. of D 5U read \ before y\2V, but against Sam. LXX. Vulg. In Ex 2010 many Hebrew MSS with Syr. Ps.-Jon. also insert the l against all the remaining authorities cited by me. ■pom T*& So also D 5U (M. Sam. TSam. LXX. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg., save that M. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg. prefix 1). >Ex 2010 (M. Sam. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg., but T Sam. LXX. read as in N). fcfc So D 514 (M. Sam. TSam. LXX. Syr. Onk. b
xviii INTRODUCTION
Ps.-Jon. Vulg.). Ex 2010 (M. Syr. Onk.) >fa and Sam. Vulg. >!oi. But T Sam. LXX. Jub 507 read f>3l.
11. 13-16. tVtyl ... ^ is derived from Ex 2011 (M. Sam. TSam. LXX. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg.). This dogmatic reason has displaced the older ethical reason which is preserved in D: tied "]n»Kl "pay rnr ~\y£b. That the Deuteronomic clause is 200 or 300 years older than the clauses which have displaced it in Ex 2011 I have shown elsewhere. D adds a further reason — and this an historical one — for the observ- ance of the sabbath in 516, just as Ex. adds a dogmatic one in 2011. With the latter compare Ex 3117.
1. 16. After "pK D makes the same addition that it has already made after )unpb in 1. 12.
1. 17. On the addition pt&l^;3D» see note 6, p. xxiv.
I. 18. nnn mb e]Njn K"6. On this Egyptian order of these commandments, see note 1, p. xxv.
II. 18-20. For Kli*, which occurs here five times in N, D 518~21 (M. Onk.) reads t6t. But Sam. T Sam. LXX. Syr. of D 518"21>V
11. 18-20. N in omitting ) before KlS> (five times) is supported by D 518"21 (Sam. TSam. LXX. Syr.), Ex 2014-17 (M. LXX. Syr. Onk.). But TSam. Vulg. of Ex 2014-17 >) only the first four times and Sam. the first three. D 518-21 (M. Onk.), which inserts ) in all five cases, is secondary.
1. 19. «*. So D 520 (M. Sam. TSam.). Ex 2016 (M. Sam. TSam.) "ipP. The latter is an early ex-
INTRODUCTION xix
planation or rendering of KHS>, as Wellhausen observes, and makes a difficult and indefinite phrase clear. Hence D contains the original reading and Ex. is secondary but gives the right sense. TSam. gives the same Samaritan equivalent for MW in D 519 as it does for this word in Ex 231. The word Klfc> was a source of difficulty to Jewish scholars. In Ex 231, where it occurs twice, Onk. renders it by two different words. The evidence of the Greek and other versions is not helpful here.
riN. <Ex. and D.
1. 20. JV2 . . . n&U So N, following D 521 (M. LXX. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg.) and Ex 2017 LXX. But Ex 2017 (M. Sam. TSam. Syr. Onk. Vulg.) and D 521 (Sam. TSam.) preserve the original order riK>K . . . W2. As Steuernagel (Holzinger, Bent. p. 22) observes : " The Deuteronomist seeks also elsewhere to raise the position of the wife; cf. 21108qq- 22138qq- 2418qq\" The wife is no longer subsumed under the conception " house." nixnn. Here N follows D 521 (M. Onk. Ps.-Jon.). Sam. T Sam. Syr. read Tionn ; but here the reading of the Samaritan text in Ex 2017 has reacted on the Samaritan text in D 521, just as the LXX of D has reacted on the LXX of Ex. It is to be observed that ffltf occurs three times in D but not in Ex. WTO*. N follows D 521 (M. Sam. TSam. LXX. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg.). >Ex 2017 (M. Syr. Onk. Vulg.), but Sam. TSam. LXX of Ex 2017 support D. Here Sam. of D has reacted on Sam. of Ex., and the LXX of Ex. has been affected
xx INTRODUCTION
similarly by the LXX of D. In D 521 imw appears to be an addition of the Deuteronomist. By his transposition of nK>N . . . rTa he transformed the meaning of IV2, which originally was a comprehensive term for the entire household, and reduced it to the simple meaning of " house " in a material sense. This once done, the addition becomes natural. Ex 2017 could go back to the nomadic period : D 521 could not unless we take it as predictive in character. Hence Ex 2017 is superior to D 521 on every ground.
11. 22-23. But for the LXX text of D 64 we should naturally have concluded (as Swete, Introd. to O.T. in Greek, p. 332) that these lines were borrowed from D 445, "These are the testimonies and the statutes and the judgments which Moses spake (so LXX. BAL, but F reads evereiXaro) unto the children of Israel when they came forth out of Egypt " (D^pnn Dnvob Dns^3 krfr **a hv n^o -m iew d^d^dhi), in- fluenced by D 62, " All his statutes and his Command- ments which I command thee (71*0 •oatf n^N), thou and thy son, and thy son's son." But the Hebrew in our text, 11. 22—23, agrees almost verbatim with the LXX of 64 where it diverges from M (Sam. T Sam. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg.). The LXX reads : ical ravra to, ScKatcofiaTa teal ra Kpi/xara oaa ivere'CkaTO nvpio*; rots viol? 'IcrparjX, i%e\66vT(OV avrwv ire 777? Alyv7rrov' "A/cove, yI(Tparj\' Kvpto<; 6 Oebs rjfjL&v fcvpcos eh iartv. The Lyons 0. Latin codex also preserves these words, but in agreement with LXX. B*F reads Moyses for tcvpios, and DS tuus DNS unus est for o 0eo? rm&v. Cook
INTRODUCTION xxi
(Pre-Massoretic Biblical Papyrus, p. 44 sq.) regards these words as genuine and as having originally formed part of the Hebrew text of D 64. It is clear that, as Cook observes (op. cit. p. 44), icvpLos and rj^iSiv are inconsistent. Cook is of opinion that the subject of the verb commanded was originally unexpressed, and that this introduction to the Shema' (i.e. " Hear, 0 Israel," etc.) is genuine. He thinks that this intro- duction was omitted " partly because an introduction was already contained in 444 or, better, in 61," and "partly to avoid a break in the continuity." Now this last argument makes against the genuineness ; for the introduction in the LXX 64 constitutes an awkward break in the context. His next argument is that the Palestinian Targums on this passage ascribe the origin of the Shema' to the sons of Jacob which they uttered when urged by the dying Jacob to shun idolatry. Hence this introduction, which ascribes it to Moses, " was dropped either before or at the formation of the Massoretic text." But the passage in the Targums is brought in artificially. Besides, it is found in the Babylonian Talmud, Pesach, 56a, where it is attributed to Simeon ben Lakish of the third century a.d. Furthermore, the evidence of Sam. T Sam. and Syr. is wholly adverse to the genuineness of this passage in the Palestinian form of the Hebrew text. There is also the later evidence of Onk. Ps.-Jon. and the Vulg. Hence, since this introduction appears only in N and the LXX (with the versions derived from it), it seems most
xxii INTRODUCTION
reasonable to conclude that it represents a third or fourth (?) century B.C. intrusion in what afterwards became the Egyptian type of the Hebrew text.
1. 23. 13103, >LXX in D 64.
1. 24. Kin. Elsewhere only in LXX of D 64 (eVnw) and Mk 1229.
IV
Translation of the Hebrew Text of the Papyrus
Lines in Ex. xx. Papyrus.
2 <I am the L>ord thy God which 1 <brought> thee out of the land of E<gypt>.1 3, 4 Thou <shalt have none> other gods 2 <before> me. Thou shalt not make <unto thee a graven image>, <nor any likeness> that is in heaven 3 above, or that is in the earth <be- neath> , 5 <or that is in the water >s under the 4 earth : thou shalt not bow down to them <nor> <serve them : for> I the Lord thy God 5 am a jealous God, vis<iting the iniquity of the fathers>
1 Ex. and D add "out of the house of bondage." Its omission by N is probably due (as E. J. Pilcher suggests) to prudential reasons, as the MS was designed for circulation in Egypt.
INTRODUCTION xxiii
Lines in Ex. xx. Papyrus.
<upon the child>ren upon1 the third 6 and upon the fourth generation of them
6 that hate me ; <and showing mercy> <unto thousands of> them that love me 7
7 and keep my commandments. Thou shalt not t<ake the name of
the Lord thy G>od in vain ; for the Lord 8 will not hold him guiltless <that>
8 <taketh his na>me in vain. Eemember2 9
the sabbath day to <keep it holy>.3
9 <Six days> shalt thou labour, and do 10 1 0 all thy work : but on 4 the <seventh>
day is <the sabbath unto the Lord> thy God : 1 1
in it5 thou shalt not do any work,
<thou> <nor thy son nor thy daughter>, thy6 12
manservant nor thy maidservant, thine
1 So also D 59 (LXX. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon.) and Ex 20« (M. LXX. Syr. Onk.). But D 59 (M. Sam. TSam.) and Ex 205 (Sam. TSam.) read "and upon."
2 D reads "observe."
8 + "as the Lord thy God commanded thee," D.
4 >Ex. and D (M. Sam. TSam. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. in both Decalogues). But LXX and Vulg. (in Ex.) support N : also Ex 23ia 3421). Hence the "on" here appears to be original, though lost •arly in M and Sam.
5 >Ex. and D. But N is right, since Sam. T Sam. LXX. Jub. 507, Syr. Onk. Vulg. so read. Cf. Jer 1724 ad Jin.
6 So Ex 2010 (M. Sam. TSam. LXX. Onk. Vulg., but Syr. Ps-Jon. Vulg. read "nor thy") and D 514 (Sam. TSam. LXX, but M. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg. read "nor thy").
xxiv INTRODUCTION
Lines in Ex. xx. Papyrus.
ox nor thine ass,1 nor any 2 of <thy> ca<ttle>, <nor thy stranger that is> within thy 13
11 gates:3 for in six days the L<ord> made
<the heav>en and the earth, the sea and 14
all th<at in them is>, and rested the seventh day : wherefore 1 5
the Lord blessed <the day>
1 2 the seventh* and hallowed it. Honour thy 1 6
father and <thy> mother5 <that> it may he well with thee6 and that thy 17 days may be long upon the land <which>
1 >Ex 2010 (M. Sam. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon.} but TSam. LXX support N). D 514 (M. Sam. TSam. LXX. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg.) supports N save that for "thine ox" M. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. read "nor thine ox."
2N follows D 514 (M. Sam. TSam. LXX. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon.). Ex 2010 (M. Sam. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon.) >"any of." But TSam. LXX of Ex 2010 herein follow D.
3 The words "for in six days . . . which the Lord thy God giveth thee " are an interpolation in Ex 2015 of the sixth or fifth century B.C. See pp. 110-116. N has adopted this late text.
4 So only LXX. Syr. Hence this correction, due to Gn 23, may have originated in Egypt in the third century B.C. But 'yi&n may be merely a corruption of m&n.
5 + as the Lord thy God commanded thee, D.
6 Ex 2012 (M. Sam. T Sam. LXX. (A) Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg.) Under- lined words. LXX (B) supports them in their present position. D 518 (M. Sam. TSam. Syr. Onk. Vulg.) also adds this clause, but trans- poses it after the clause ' ' that thy days may be long, " etc. Hence since LXX of D 516 N insert them before "that thy days may be long," etc., and M. Sam. TSam. Syr. Onk. Vulg. insert them
INTRODUCTION xxv
Lines in Ex. xx. Papyrus.
14,13 the Lord thy God giveth thee. Thou 18 shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt do no murder.1 15 Thou shalt not
after this clause ; they appear to have been originally a marginal gloss which was afterwards incorporated in the text — by one scribe in one place, by another scribe in another. It is a favourite expression in D. Cf. 440 529- 33 63- 18 1225- ^ 1913 227. Both clauses, with words coming between, are found in 440 6^ 3 227, but with a divergence in order. 62, 3 (with intervening words) supports the order in 516, while 440 227 reverse this order as in N.
1 The order of the Commandments, vn.-vi.-vni., "Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not steal," is Egyptian. Ex 2013-14 (M. Sam. T Sam. LXX (AFL). Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg.) and D 517 (M. Sam. TSam. LXX(AF). Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg.) give the Palestinian and original order, i.e. vi. vn. viii., "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal." It is found also in Mt 1918 (521- w), Mk 1019 ; Josephus {Ant. iii. 5. 5) ; the Didache, ii. 2, iii. 2 sqq. ; Tertullian, Clem. Alex., Origen, etc. The order in N is supported in Ex 2013- 14 by some Greek cursives and B (in part ; for its arrangement is tii.-viii.-vi.) ; in D by Greek MSS, B and some cursives, Sahidic, Bohairic, Ethiopic ; Luke 1820, Ro 139, Ja 2U ; Philo, Jerome, Augustine, etc. This order seems clearly to have originated in Egypt. If so, the Hebrew text was naturally rearranged as in N for Egyptian Jews. Philo, writing nearly a hundred years before the Hebrew papyrus N was written, says that Moses placed the vn. Commandment before the vi. because he considered the vn. to be the greatest violation of the Law (ddiKrjfidTwv fityicrTov tovt etvai virokafi&v, De decern Orac. xxix. ad fin.). In the Jewish Encyc. iv. 496, an ancient opinion is given that adultery was a breach of seven other Commandments besides the seventh. This is the Jewish view. But Dr. Peters (Alteste Abschrift d. zehn Gebote, p. 33), not being acquainted with the attitude of the Jews on this question, thinks that the order vii.-vi.-viii. is the original one, and that it was changed de- liberately into vi.-vii.-viii. on the theological grounds that murder was a worse sin than adultery. It appears possibly in an ancient Babylonian document. Jeremias2 (Das alte Test, in Lichte des alien Orients, 1906, p. 208) gives the following rendering of it,
xxvi INTRODUCTION
Lines in Ex. xx. Papyrus.
16, 17 <st>eal. Thou shalt not1 bear vain2 19 witness against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not 3 covet 4 18 <Jthy neighbour's wife. Thou shalt n>ot 20 desire4 thy neighbour's house, <his> fi<eld,5 or his manservant > <or his maidservant, or his o>x or his 21 ass, or anything that is thy neighbour's.
which recalls the v.-vm. Commandments, but the order is peculiar and confused. I prefix the number of the Commandment in the Decalogue :
(v.) Hat er Vater und Mutter verachtet . . . (vill.) Falsche Wage gebraucht,
Falsches Geld genommen . . . (vn.) Hat er seines Nachsten Haus betreten Seines Nachsten Weib sich genaht vi. Seines Nachsten Blut vergossen viii. Seines Nachsten Kleid geraubt ?
In Budge's Books on Egypt and Chaldeans, vii. 365, quoted by Burney, JTS, April 1908, p. 350 sq., there are in the forty- two state- ments of the Negative Confession parallels to the in. and vi.-x. Commandments, but in an utterly illogical order.
1 For "thou shalt not " in Commandments vn.-x. Dreads " neither shalt thou " ; but see p. xviii, 11. 18-20 for the detailed evidence.
2 So D (M. Sam. TSam.). Ex. (M. Sam. TSam.) reads npr. See note on 1. 19, p. xviii sq.
8 So Ex. (M. LXX (-A). Syr. Onk. Vulg.): D (Sam. TSam. LXX. Syr. Vulg.), but Ex. (Sam. TSam.): D (M. Onk.) read "nor shalt thou."
* "Covet . . . desire." Here N follows D 520. See note on 1. 20, p. xix.
6 "His field." Here N follows D 521 (M. Sam. TSam.) in this addition. LXX. Syr. Onk. read " nor his field. " Sam. of D 5ai has reacted on Ex 2017. Hence Sam. T Sam. of Ex 2017 insert "his field." See note on 1. 20, p. xix sq.
INTRODUCTION xxvii
Lines in Deut. Papyrus,
vi. 4 <And these are the statute>s and the 22 judgments which Moses commanded the <children of> (iv. 45, <Israel> in the wilderness, when they 23 vi. 2) went forth from the land of Egypt.1
4 Hear
0 Is<rael> : the Lord our God is one 24
5 Lord : and thou shalt love
<the Lord> thy G<od with> a<ll thy 25 hea>rt
Conclusions drawn from the above Study as to n and its eelations to ex. and d in point of Time and Trustworthiness
§ 1. N has a definite Egyptian character. — (a) N was found in Cairo. This fact in itself proves nothing, but when taken in connection with the facts that follow, it possesses some evidential value.
(5) N agrees with the LXX, when the LXX has the Massoretic of D supported by Sam. T Sam. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg. against it in 64. (See notes on 11. 22-23, p. xx above.) In other words, the verse
1 These lines seem to be compounded of D 445 62, and to be an early intrusion in the Hebrew text of the third or fourth (?) cent, which circulated in Egypt. This Egyptian form of the text is supported only by N and the LXX (with the versions made from the latter). See note on lines 22-23, p. xx sq.
xxviii INTRODUCTION
which is interpolated in the LXX of D 64 was un- known in the fourth century B.C. as Sam.1 (T Sam.) prove, and continued to be unknown in non-Egyptian authorities till the second century A.D. if we assign the Old Latin to that date. This evidence is very strong.
(c) N omits " out of the house of bondage," against Ex. D and their versions. The most reasonable explanation of this omission is that the Jews in Egypt refrained from describing Egypt as a house of bondage (see footnote, p. xxii).
(d) N with LXX reads " on the seventh day " (Ex 2010 D 514), where M. Sam. T Sam. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. both in Ex. and D read " the seventh day."
(e) N reads " blessed the seventh day " in the fourth Commandment (Ex 2011), in agreement with LXX and Syr., where M. Sam. T Sam. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg. read " blessed the sabbath day." See footnote 4, p. xxiv.
(/) N reads the Commandments vi.-vii.— vm. in the order vii.-vi.-vni. The former order is attested by M. Sam. T Sam. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Yulg. both in Ex 2013- u
1 The Samaritan Pentateuch "has, presumably, escaped the cor- ruptions which have befallen the purely Jewish line of transmission since the fourth century B.C., whence now and then it agrees with the Septuagint in preserving words and letters which have dropped out of the Massoretic text." Burkitt in Encyc. Bib. iv. 5015. It is generally accepted that about the year 333 B.C., Manasseh, the grandson of the high priest Eliashib, carried off to Samaria the Hebrew Book of the Law, when Darius Codomannus gave him per- mission to build a temple on Mount Gerizim (Neh 1323"31 ; Jos. Ant. xi. 7. 8).
INTRODUCTION xxix
and D 517, Josephus (Ant. iii. 5. 5), the Didache, etc. The order vn.-vi.-vni. clearly originated in Egypt, possibly as early as the third century B.C. But N's only supporters are the Greek MSS B and some cursives. Hence the order of N and the LXX (B) may be later than the third century. Philo supports the order in N. This order is purely Egyptian. See footnote 1, p. xxv.
§ 2. iV agrees with D against Ex. and is dependent essentially on D or a descendant of D. — (a) N adds with D 514 " thine ox and thine ass" against Ex 2010. D has here the support of M. Sam. T Sam. LXX. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon., but M. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. insert " and " before " thine ox."
(b) N adds " any of " (i.e. So) before " thy cattle," with D 514 against Ex 2010.
(c) N and LXX (B) of D 516 add " that it may be well with thee." D 516 (i.e. M. Sam. T Sam. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg.) also makes this addition, but after "that thy days may be long." This addition originated in a marginal gloss in the Hebrew of D. See note 6, p. xxiv.
(d) N following D 520 (M. Sam. TSam.) reads " vain witness " (ifflP "ty). Here D N preserve the original reading. In Ex 2016 (M. Sam. TSam.) N1K> is rendered by ~ip&> ( = " false "). See note on 1. 19, p. xviii sq.
(e) N following D 521 (M. LXX. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg.) reads " wife . . . house." So also LXX (B) of Ex 2017, but wrongly. Ex 2017 (M. Sam. TSam.
xxx INTRODUCTION
Syr. Onk. Vulg.) and Sam. T Sam. of D 521 preserve the original order " house . . . wife." See note on 1. 20, p. xix. Here Sam. of Ex. has reacted on Sam. of D.
(/) N following D 521 (M. Onk. Ps.-Jon.) reads "desire" instead of "covet," as in Ex 2017. The change is due to the Deuteronomist. Here Sam. of Ex 2017 has reacted on Sam. of D 521 so that Sam. T Sam. agree in both Decalogues. M is right in both Decalogues. See footnote on 1. 20, p. xix.
(g) N following D 521 (M. Sam. T Sam. LXX. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon.) reads " his field." But Ex 2017 (M. Syr. Onk. Vulg.) omit this expression and rightly, though Sam. T Sam. LXX support D. Here Sam. of D 521 has reacted on Sam. Ex. 2017. See preceding note for the converse. Here also as in (/) M is right. See note on 1. 20, p. xix.
§ 3. N agrees with Ex. against D. — (a) N reads "remember" with Ex 208 (M. LXX. Syr. Onk. Ps.- Jon. Vulg.), against D 512 (M. Sam. TSam. LXX. Onk. Ps.-Jon. Vulg.) which reads " observe." Here Sam. TSam. of Ex 208 read "observe." The text of Sam. in D 512 has here, as in § 2 (g) above, reacted on Sam. of Ex 208.
(&) N follows Ex 2011 in adding "for in six days . . . and hallowed it." In Ex. this is an interpolation of the late fifth century : see pp. xviii, xxxix sq. But that such an addition to some texts of D was already made in the third century B.C., is proved by the LXX of D which, after " nor thy stranger that is within thy gates," inserts the following clause from Ex 2011 "for
INTRODUCTION xxxi
in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is (iv yap ef rjfiepai<; iiroiricrev icvpLos top T6 ovpavbv KaX T7jv yrjv Kol rrjv OdXaaaav /ecu irdvja tcl iv avroh). Hence the above agreement between N and Ex. does not necessarily prove any direct dependence of N on Ex.
(c) N agrees with LXX. Syr. Onk. of D 59 in omitting " and " before " upon the third," but M. Sam. TSam. read it. N agrees with Ex 206 (M. LXX. Syr. Onk), but again Sam. TSam. read "and." N therefore agrees with the LXX. Syr. Onk. in both Decalogues ; with M in Ex 2 05, but has M against it in D 59 and Sam. T Sam. in both Decalogues. N has, therefore, Semitic texts of the seventh to fourth centuries B.C. against it, i.e. M once and Sam. twice. It is allied to the LXX of the third century. It does not appear to be directly dependent on M in Ex 206.
§ 4. N right against Ex. and D. — N rightly reads " in it " before " thou shalt not do any work " (Ex 2010, D 514), since Sam. TSam. LXX. Syr. Vulg. in both Ex. and D so read : also Jub 5 07. Also the " on " before " the seventh day," though lost in M. Sam. TSam., belongs to an ancient form of the text.
§ 5. N has readings and forms of its own which do not affect the sense. — N alone inserts riK before n^K and 1V3 in Ex 2017, D 521. N always reads xb instead of fc& But both forms are found elsewhere in M, the former thirty-five times. Of the compounds wi>n and
xxxii INTRODUCTION
Kpn the Books of Samuel always have the former, while Chronicles always have the latter.
§ 6. N agrees with the LXX more than with any other authority, and apparently represents a form of the Hebrew text current in Egypt at the close of the third century B.C. — (a) N >" and" before "upon the third," with LXX. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon., against M. Sam. T Sam. of D 59.
(b) N represents a later stage of change than the LXX in the fourth Commandment. Thus, whereas the LXX of D 5U borrowed only the clause " for in six days the Lord created the heaven and the earth, and all that in them is," from Ex 20n (itself a late fifth- century interpolation ?), N has borrowed this clause and three others from the same source, Ex 2011.
(c) N agrees with the LXX against M. Sam. T Sam. Syr. Onk. in giving a different order of the two clauses in the fifth Commandment1 in D 516, "that thy days may be long, and that it may go well with thee."
(d) N agrees with the LXX of D 517"19 against M. Sam. TSam. Syr. Onk. Ps.-Jon. (see § 1 (/) above) in changing the order of the Commandments vi.-vii.-vm. into vii.-vi.-viii. Order of LXX in Ex 2Q13-15 is vii.-viii.-vi.
1 But as we have seen in note 6, p. xxiv, the clause ' ' that it may be well with thee" originated in a marginal gloss in D 516, which was subsequently incorporated by one scribe in an MS (which became the ancestor of M. Sam. TSam. Syr. Onk. Vulg.) after the clause "that thy days may be long," and by another scribe before this clause in an MS which was the archetype of the LXX of D and of N.
INTRODUCTION xxxiii
(e) N alone with the LXX interpolates in D 64 the following words : " And these are the statutes and the judgments which Moses commanded the children of Israel in the wilderness (>LXX last three words) when they went forth out of the land of Egypt."
VI
§ 1. The three forms of the Decalogue in Hebrew, i.e., in Exodus W, Deuteronomy 5 and the Nash Papyrus, and the date of the archetype of the last of these — not earlier than the close of the third century B.C. or the beginning of the second. — Owing to the discovery of the Nash Papyrus we now possess the Decalogue in Hebrew in three forms. These in the main agree with each other, and yet they differ essentially from each other in important features as regards both con- tents and dates. With the Nash Papyrus and its relations to the Decalogues in Exodus 20 and Deuter- onomy 5 we have already dealt. N is very closely related to the LXX of D. See p. xxxii. Further, it is dependent mainly on D : it reproduces the tenth Com- mandment in dependence on D where D diverges in three respects from Ex. In the ninth Commandment it again follows D against Ex. Also in the fifth it borrows a clause from D, and in the fourth it borrows twice from D, in all three cases against Ex. See v. § 2 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e—g), pp. xxix— xxx. There can be no question as to its dependence on D, and thus to the date of its archetype as subsequent to 600 B.c,
xxxiv INTRODUCTION
But N has borrowed from Ex. in the fourth Commandment, and from the latter half of that Com- mandment, which is itself an interpolation of the fifth century B.C. (or later), for the interpolation is either drawn from or based on the Priests' Code. (See p. xxx sq. § 3 (b), p. xxx.) Thus the date of N is brought down to the fifth century B.C.
But N is later still ; for the conjunctions with the LXX it arranges the Commandments vi.-vii.-vni. in the order vii.-vi.-viil — an order which is unknown in the fourth century, B.C., as the Samaritan text (not to speak of M) of Ex. and D proves. N also is with the LXX in interpolating a sentence composed of three clauses in D 64. (See § 6 (d) (e), p. xxxii.) The date of N thus comes down to the third century B.C.
It is very probable that N belongs to the close of the third or early in the second century B.C. To the latter date rather than to the former; for it agrees very markedly with the LXX against all other authorities, and, furthermore, it represents a still later form of text than the LXX. See v. § 6, pp. xxxii- xxxiii.
§ 2. The Decalogue in Ex %0 agrees literally with the Decalogue in D 5, in respect of Commandments I. Hi. VI.— VIII., but differs in respect of II. iv.—v. ix.—x. — Since the two Decalogues agree verbally in respect of I. in. vi.-viii. we have only to study the differences in II. iv.-v. ix.-x. Let us deal with the easiest of these problems first : with v. ix. x. first and in this order, and then with II. and iv.
INTRODUCTION xxxv
§ 3. A critical examination of v. ix. x. in respect of their differences proves that D 5 is wholly secondary to Ex 20 save in respect of a single word in ix.
(a) In v. the text of D is obviously secondary. First, the Deuteronomist has inserted the familiar " as the Lord thy God commanded thee " after the first clause, just as he has already inserted it after the first clause in iv. Again, we have a marginal gloss on D 516 in the words "that it may be well with thee," for they have been incorporated in one set of authorities after " that thy days may be long," and in another before this clause — a pretty sure sign of interpolation. This is a frequent Deuteronomic clause : cf. 440 529- M 63- 18 1226- 28 1913 227. See note 6, p. xxiv.
(b) In ix. the text of D is primary, that of Ex. secondary. D reads " vain witness." This indefinite phrase is made quite definite in Ex., and rendered "false witness." See note 2, p. xxvi; 1. 19, p. xviii, for the discussion of this question.
(c) In x. the text of D is secondary in three respects : (1) in transposing the order of " house " and " wife " (see 1. 20, p. xix) ; (2) in reading " desire " for " covet " (see same reference) ; (3) in adding " his field " (see note 5, p. xxvi; 1. 20, p. xix), where the grounds are given for branding D's text in x. as secondary.
§ 4. The text of II. is most difficult, but yields fruitful results on examination. The evidence tends to prove that in the eighth century B.C. the Commandment consisted of the words " Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven
xxxvi INTRODUCTION
image" or this with the addition " nor any likeness." But this JDeuteronomic phrase is most probably an addition of D. Subsequently the rest of the Commandment, which appeared first as a marginal gloss in D, was incorporated in D during the sixth or early in the fifth century B.C. From D it was copied into Ex. in the fifth century B.c.y or not later than the beginning of the fourth. — The evidence for the above statement is as follows : First of all, the evidence of M (save in D) and all the authorities, the Samaritan text, LXX, Syr., etc., alike in Ex 20* and D 58 (see 1. 3, p. xvii), prove that the text about 400 B.C. read "thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor l any likeness whatever." So far the problem presents no difficulty, but the moment we pass on to the words that follow we are brought face to face with untranslatable and, in fact, with ungrammatical Hebrew.2 If we translate the text as it stands it is meaningless, " Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness (ruion b), which is in heaven above," etc. But the context requires " nor any likeness of that which is in heaven above," etc. No craftsman could make
1 The text of M in D 58, which omits "nor," is simply a late corruption of M without the support of authority ; but Onk. Wellhausen and Kuenen assume that M in D 58 is right, and put •?D3 (= "graven image") in the construct state before Wt» Vs ( = "any likeness"). But Dillmann (see Holzinger, in loc.) objects that such a construction as is here supposed is not possible. In any case the textual evidence is against this proposal.
2 For a series of other like ungrammatical constructions in the Hebrew text, where as here genitives follow the absolute state, see Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar (Kautzsch), translated by Cowley, p. 414 sq.
INTRODUCTION xxxvii
a likeness which is in heaven. In order to get over this difficulty, it is proposed by Holzinger, followed by Peters, to read " nor the likeness of anything " (fa rw»n), as in D 416- 23- 25. But the entire textual evidence is against this proposal. Why should all the authorities agree in giving an unmeaning and ungrammatical text in D 58 (Ex 204), when in the preceding chapter we find three times these two words sound alike in sense and grammar ? It is true that the LXX renders miion hi by iravTos 6/jLoiayfia in D 58 and Ex 204. Here the LXX preserves the order of the Hebrew words, but gives them an im- possible rendering. On the other hand, in D 423, * the LXX has dfiofafia Trdvrcov (7rai/To<?), which is a correct rendering of i>3 nai»n. Cf. also D 516. Seeing, therefore, that the Sam. LXX, etc., distinguish care- fully the order and ungrammatical form of these words in D 58, Ex 204 from their order and grammatical form in D 4i6- 23- 25, there is no evading of the con- clusion that not only in the third century B.C. as in the LXX and N, but in the fourth century or earlier the text stood as it does at present. This unmeaning and ungrammatical text in D 58, Ex 204 came there- fore into being between the composition of D in the seventh century and the end of the fifth B.C. It could not have come from the hand of the Deuteronomist.
How then is this ungrammatical text to be ex- plained ? The evidence suggests that originally in D 58 (if not in the copy of the Decalogue current in the eighth century B.C.) this Commandment read as
xxxviii INTRODUCTION
follows : " Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image nor any likeness," i.e. of Yahweh. The word for " likeness " (nn»n) occurs eight times in the Penta- teuch, and, of these eight, six times in Deuteronomy. Of the remaining two, one occurs in Ex 204, which is itself, as it appears, borrowed from D 58.1 It is, therefore, a favourite word of the Deuteronomist. Hence it is natural to conclude that to the original Commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image," the Deuteronomist added, "nor any likeness." Later, by a scribe of the Deuteronomist's school, a gloss was added in the margin = " which is in heaven above ... in them that keep My com- mandments " (D 58b-10). Thus every phrase in 58b is to be found in D 439c and 418b, and not elsewhere in the Pentateuch outside the Decalogue. In 59 the glosser has drawn the clauses, " a jealous God," and " visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and upon the third and fourth generation," from Ex 3414b and 347 respectively (which are either J or JE), 510 "showing mercy2 unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments " is almost a verbal reproduction of D 79 : " God which keepeth . . . mercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations."
D 58b_1°, which appeared first as a gloss in the margin, was incorporated in the text by a later scribe
1 Elsewhere in the Pentateuch it is only found in Nu 128 (E).
2 The Hebrew phrase (nDn nary) is not found elsewhere in D, though it is a familiar one in J and E in Genesis. Cf. also Jos 212- 14.
INTRODUCTION xxxix
without a readjustment of the grammar. From D 58b-1° it was taken over into the Decalogue in Ex 204b"6, possibly in the fifth century B.C. and not later than the first half of the fourth. This last in- ference follows from the fact that the Samaritan text (fourth century B.C.) and the LXX reproduce the gloss.
§ 5. The divergence between IV. in D 512"15 and Ex 208"11 is great. But this divergence is due mainly to the comparatively late (fifth century B.C. ?) interpolation of 2011 in Ex. based on Gn 226 and Ex 3117 (both verses of the Priests' Code) and to the addition of 515 in D by the Deuteronomist. D 5Uc preserves a clause lost in Ex 208-10 and preserves the ancient sense of IV. lost in the present form of Ex 208"11.
I have elsewhere dealt with the interpolation in Ex 2011.1 The author of D would naturally add explanatory clauses but not omit them. Since this interpolation is practically unquestioned, we may turn aside to the additions made in D 516. Thus the words, " And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt and the Lord thy God brought thee out hence," are found almost verbally in 15i5 16i2 2418- 22. The next clause of 515 "by a mighty hand and a stretched out arm " have already occurred in 434 (only in the Pentateuch : cf. 621 78).
Thus iv. consists of 208~12 in Ex. and 512"1* in D. The last clause in D 514, " that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou," is with- out doubt older than D, as it occurs in Ex 2312 (E — a 1 See pp. 112-116.
xl INTRODUCTION
document over a hundred years older than D), " six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest : that thine ox and thine ass may have rest, and the son of thine handmaid, and the stranger may be refreshed." It is probable also that the words "nor thine ox nor thine ass" (which Ex 2010 omits) go back to the eighth century B.C., seeing that they occur in Ex 2312 as well as in D 514.
In D 512 the clause "as the Lord thy God com- manded thee " is obviously an addition of the Deuteronomist as also in 516. It is a favourite expression with him: cf. I19 45 532 625 2017 248, or in the form " which the Lord thy God hath com- manded thee": cf. I41 533 617 etc. etc.
This Commandment, therefore, on the united evidence of Ex 208"10, D 512-14 read most probably as follows in the eighth century B.C. :
" Eemember 1 the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work ; but <on> the seventh day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God ; <in it>2 thou shalt not do any work, thou nor thy son nor thy daughter nor 3 thy manservant, nor thy maidservant nor 3 thine ox nor thine ass, nor (any of) 3 thy cattle,4 that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou."
1 D reads "observe," but wrongly.
2 The words "in it" though omitted by M in Ex. and D are original ; see p. xxiii, note 5.
8 Found in D, but doubtful.
4 D adds " nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." See note 2, p. xlii.
INTRODUCTION
xli
§6.-4 comparison of the Decalogue in E as repro- duced in Ex W (as we conclude from the above investigation it stood in the eighth century or earlier) and the Decalogue in D 5 in respect of Commandments II. Hi.—v. and 1X.-X. (as it stood in the seventh).
Ex 204"12- 17 (eighth century B.C.)
II. i.e. (2 04). "Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image." 1
iv. (208"10). "Eemember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work : but <on> 3 the seventh day is a sab- bath unto the Lord thy God : <in it>4 thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, <nor thine
D 58-i6. 2i (62i B.c.)
(58a) "Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image nor any likeness." 2
512-M « Observe the sab- bath day to keep it holy, as the Lord thy God com- manded thee : six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work : but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God : <in it>4 thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy
1 Here was subsequently added not only the clause from D "nor any likeness," but also the marginal gloss that was incorporated by D between 600 and 500 B.C. See next note and also p. xxxvi sqq.
2 Here were incorporated ungrammatically the words that formerly stood as a marginal gloss : M that is in heaven above . . . and show- ing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments" (D 58b"10).
8 The "on" appears to belong to the text of the eighth century. Though loit in the Massoretic it is preserved in N of Ex 2010 : also in LXX and Vulg. and in the parallel passages in Ex 2312 3421.
4 " In it " belongs to the text of the Decalogue in the seventh as well as the eighth century.
xlii INTRODUCTION
ox, nor thine ass>,1 nor maidservant, nor thine ox, thy cattle,2 < that thy nor thine ass, nor any of manservant and thy maid- thy cattle, nor thy stranger servant may rest as well that is within thy gates ; as thou.">3 that thy manservant and
thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt,4 and the Lord thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by a
1 Restored from D514 and Book of Covenant, Ex 2312 in the same connection. The phrase occurs five times in the Book of the Covenant.
2 Here D adds "nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." The phrase "within thy ('your' or 'any of thy') gates" occurs nearly thirty times in D and not elsewhere in the Pentateuch save in Ex 2010 where it has been borrowed from D. The clause "thy stranger that is within thy gates " recurs in D 3112, and the words "thy stranger " four times in D but not elsewhere in the Pentateuch save in Ex 2010, where it is a loan from D.
3 This clause in brackets I have restored. It is found in D 5Hc : also in the Book of the Covenant in the same connection though in different phraseology, Ex 2312. The evidence, therefore, is in favour of the conclusion that it stood originally in Ex 20 after v.10, but was omitted by the interpolator of Ex 2011. Ex 2011 is based on Gn23.
4 The words, "that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt," which follow closely after "the stranger within thy gates," certainly recall the clauses in the Book of the Covenant, Ex 2221 239, "a stranger shalt thou not wrong (nnn : 'oppress,' fnVn, Ex 239) . . . for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Seeing that the Book of the Covenant to a considerable extent presupposes (see p. liv sqq. ) the Mosaic Decalogue, the Deuteronomist, who was acquainted with it, may have been encouraged thereby to add the many explanatory clauses, which as a matter of fact he does.
INTRODUCTION
xliii
v. (2012). "Honour thy father and thy mother." 1
ix. (2016)." Thou3 shalt not bear vain4 witness against thy neighbour."
x. (2017). "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his
stretched out arm : there- fore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day."
(516)" Honour thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God commanded thee: that thy days may be long2 upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."
(520) " Neither shalt thou bear vain witness against thy neighbour."
(521) " Neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's wife ; neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's house, his field, or his
1 The words that follow in Ex 2012, "that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee," are simply borrowed from D 516. The first clause is a Deuteronomic phrase : cf. 421- 40 533 62 ll9 1720 227 2515 30 l8 3247. It is not found elsewhere in the Pentateuch save in Ex 2012, where it is secondary and borrowed. The second clause, "upon the land which the Lord thy God is giving (always the participle jni) thee," is also a Deuteronomic phrase and not found elsewhere in the Pentateuch save in Ex 2012, where it is borrowed from D 516. With slight variations it is found almost forty times in D.
2 Here M. Sam. TSam. Syr. Onk. Vulg. add, "and that it may be well with thee," whereas LXX and N insert this clause before "that thy days may be long." This clause origin- ated in a marginal clause about or before 400 B.C. See note 6, p. xxiv.
• See p. xviii, 11. 18-20.
4 I have restored "vain " (i.e. kw). nptf ( = " false ") is a rendering which has displaced the original word.
xliv INTRODUCTION
maidservant, nor his ox, manservant, or his maid- nor his ass, nor anything servant, his ox, or his ass, that is thy neighbour's." or anything that is thy
neighbour's."
§ 7. The Decalogue as it existed about 750 B.C. or earlier,
I. " Thou shalt have none other gods before Me."
II. "Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image."
ill. " Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain ; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain."
rv. " Eemember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work : but <on> the seventh day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God : in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant : <nor thine ox nor thine ass> , nor thy cattle, <that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou>."
v. " Honour thy father and thy mother."
vi. " Thou shalt do no murder."
VII. " Thou shalt not commit adultery."
viii. " Thou shalt not steal."
IX. " Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
x. " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's."
INTRODUCTION xlv
VII
§ It The fact that there wasy as we have seen, a steady growth of explanatory accretions or changes from the eighth century to the second B.C., leads naturally to the hypothesis that such explanatory clauses as still sur- vive in the eighth century Decalogue in m.-iv. x. are themselves accretions. — This hypothesis is found first, so far as I am aware, in Ewald {Hist. ii. 159), who writes as follows : " If we take from the two copies which have been handed down to us, Ex 20 and Deut 5, the additions and explanations which we find there, they exhibit perfectly that sharp, clear brevity which every law ought to possess." Dillmann is of the same mind. But neither attempted to justify this hypothesis. Let us now study in. iv. and x. in the light of the results we have arrived at on critical grounds in the case of II. v. and partially in the case of iv. First of all as regards m. In this Commandment it seems obvious that the words " for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain," are an accretion. The second clause, " that taketh His name in vain," is simply based on the Commandment itself, and the first clause may be drawn verbally from Ex 347 if that passage belongs to J.
In iv. the original Commandment was most probably " Eemember the sabbath day to keep it holy." In primitive races ordinary work was sus-
xlvi INTRODUCTION
pended with a view to some religious function — not as in the present day with multitudes, simply and solely with a view to rest. The idea of rest and of recreation was, of course, early associated with that of worship.
Now the question arises : Is the addition in iv. anterior or subsequent to the corresponding commands in the Book of the Covenant, i.e. Ex 2312 (E) and the Decalogue in Ex 3421 (J) ? No important result follows, however we decide. But, on the whole, the addition seems to be older than the Book of the Covenant, and also than the Decalogue in Ex 34, and in other words than E and J, as I have to show later in vii. §§ 5-6. Thus Ex 3421ab consists verbally of two clauses occurring in two different parts of the addition in Ex 2010. As for the words of the Book of the Covenant in Ex 2312 "Six days shalt thou do thy work, and on the seventh shalt thou rest : x that thine ox and thine ass may have rest, and the son of thine handmaid, and the stranger may be refreshed," the first clause agrees in thought with the corre- sponding phrase in Ex 2010, while the last two clauses agree with the concluding clauses in Ex 2010 (as it
1 For "shalt thou rest" the LXX has avdiravais, i.e. "Sabbath," i.e. me>n instead of niern. This seems to be right ; but if so, it would be of the nature of a conjecture, since M. Sam. T Sam. Syr. support the former reading. Baentsch (D. Bundesbuch, p. 94) states categori cally that command " to rest " on the seventh day is more primitive than M to keep it holy." But the analogy of primitive religions proves that the main object is a religious one, and that the command "to rest" is simply with a view to the discharge of the religious obligation.
INTRODUCTION xlvii
stood in E) though the diction differs. It is easier to explain 3421ab and 2312 as based on Ex 2010 than vice versa.
In x. the problem is difficult. The analogy of I.— II. v.-ix. and in all probability of iii.-iv. suggests that the original form of this Commandment was • Thou shalt not covet," or " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house." If the latter conjecture is accepted, the remaining words are merely a very natural explanation of the Hebrew expression " house." But the more natural assumption is that the original form was simply " Thou shalt not covet," and that the exigencies of the times called for an expansion of this Commandment in the way of ex- planation. It is further to be observed that there is not the slightest allusion to this Commandment in the Book of the Covenant or in the Decalogue in Ex 34.
It must be acknowledged that this Commandment stands on a higher level than the preceding nine. But this fact in itself does not conflict with the possibility, or rather probability, of its existence in the Decalogue prior to E. For the time being, I assume that x. originally existed in the form, " Thou shalt not covet," without the accretions that accom- pany it in Ex 2017.
Hence, I conclude that in. iv. and x. originally read as follows :
in. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
xlviii INTRODUCTION
iv. Eemember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
x. Thou shalt not covet.1
But for this form of the Decalogue we should probably have to go back to the centuries preceding 900 B.C.
§ 2. If the above conclusions , and the hypothesis in VII. § 1, are valid, it follows that, before E and J were written, the Decalogue existed, each Commandment con- sisting of one clause, expressed in a few clear and crisp words, in the tenth century or earlier. But if this is so, then there is no outstanding personality to whom this Decalogue can be ascribed other than Moses. — Before the eighth century B.C. there is only one great outstanding personality to whom Israel attributed its primitive legislation, and this, of course, was Moses. In this attribution the tradition never wavers. No doubt the greater part of this legislation is late, but, whatever else may be of late derivation, the Decalogue, in the form represented in vi. § 7, vn. § 1 above, can hardly be traced to any other person than Moses, the founder of the preprophetic and ethical Yahwism of Israel. For the high ethical Yahwism introduced by Moses has to be distinguished from " the lower and naturalistic conception of the same deity2 already prevalent in
1 The Decalogue, including the introductory words, when relieved of the accretions of centuries, would amount to about 159 letters. These could be written on two small tables of stone. But the text as it stands at present in Ex 20 would run to 620 letters, which would require rather formidable stones for their inscription.
2 That Yahweh was originally an Amorite deity, see Burney, Judges, 243 sqq. Sayce was the first to discover the existence of Yahweh as a divine name in Babylon under the first dynasty.
INTRODUCTION xlix
Canaan." * Burney maintains that " no sharp line of demarcation can be drawn between the religion of Amos and that of the founder of the national life," and that " the title ? prophetic/ with its implications as applied to the earlier religion of the nation of Israel, is largely a misnomer." This is rather an overstatement. For, though the same ethical character attaches to the religious beliefs of Moses and of the eighth-century prophets, yet the prophetic conception of Yahweh was monotheistic, while that of Moses was henotheistic. In this respect a great intellectual gulf does exist between the religious beliefs of the prophets and of Moses.2
§ 3. Various objections to the conclusion that the Decalogue without the accretions of subsequent ages was Mosaic, stated and answered. — Baentsch (Das Bundesbuch, p. 95) and most O.T. scholars rightly maintain that "the higher the spiritual and moral development of a people rises, the more abstract appear these ethical laws." " The Decalogue in Ex 20 represents throughout the standpoint of that which is fas " (or purely ethical). " Confessedly the idea, the abstract is ever younger than the concrete "(p. 96). " The supremacy of abstract thought was reserved in Israel for the prophetic period" (p. 97).
These general observations are deserving of con- sideration in themselves, but we cannot conclude from
1 See Burney, Israel's Settlement in Canaan, p. 55 sq. n. ; JTS, 1908, 344 sqq.
a Burney, of course, recognise! this fact elsewhere ; see Judges, p. 315.
d
1 INTRODUCTION
them that the Decalogue is later than the Book of the Covenant and the Decalogue in Ex 34, unless we maintain at the same time that there was no religious or moral development outside Israel and anterior to Moses. But no scholar can maintain such a thesis at the present day. According to the universal Hebrew tra- dition, Moses was acquainted with the learning of the Egyptians, and, accordingly, with the ethical teaching of the Egyptians. Moreover, Egypt was not excluded from intercourse with the great religions of the East — at all events of Babylon. Hence, unless Hebrew thought and religion sprang spontaneously into exist- ence and grew in absolute isolation and continued to grow without any period of reaction, decadence, or obscurantism, the above theory that the Decalogue is not conceivable before the eighth century B.C. cannot be maintained. There are periods of reaction in all religions. That there have been such periods in Christianity is a fact too familiar to require further treatment, though we shall return to it later. In fact, the ethical teaching of Christianity is purest in its beginnings. In Brahmanism the ancient tenfold laws of Manu precede centuries of obscurantism and degradation in that religion. These are : content- ment, forgiveness, self-control, abstention from theft, purification, control of the organs, wisdom, knowledge (of the supreme soul), truthfulness, abstention from anger (SBE xxv. 215). Buddhism, like Christianity, was at its purest in its beginnings. But even as late as the beginning of the first century a.d. it requires
INTRODUCTION li
the following ten conditions of the heart : self-control, inward calm, long-suffering, self-restraint, temperance, voluntary subjection to meritorious vows, freedom from wrath and cruelty, truthfulness, purity of heart (SBE xxxv. 173 sq.). Zoroastrianism has its ten admonitions in regard to religion, but they are not of a high order (SBE xlvii. 167 sqq.).
Apart from these general analogies it should not be forgotten that in the Egyptian Book of the Dead there are several remarkable parallels to the original Mosaic Decalogue. Burney (JTS, 1908, 350 sq.) has already drawn attention to these in the Negative Confession, with its forty-two statements (Budge, Books on Egypt and Chaldcea, vii. 365 sqq.). I prefix the number of the Mosaic Commandment.
in. No. 38. I have not
cursed the god. No. 42. I have not thought scorn of the god who is in my city.
VI. No. 5. I have not
slain man or woman. (Cf. also No. 12.)
vii. No. 19 I have not
defiled the wife of a man. No. 20. I have not com- mitted any sin against purity. No. 27. I have not committed acts of impurity, neither have I lain with men.
lii INTRODUCTION
viii. No. 4. I have not
committed theft. Cf . No. 2.
ix. No. 9. I have not
uttered falsehood. No. 3 1 . I have not judged hastily.
Here the statements are terse and direct, and cer- tainly remind us of the Mosaic Decalogue. Parallels in the same crisp form are found in an ancient Babylonian document to Commandments v.-vni. as I have shown elsewhere ; see p. xxv sq. n. There is, there- fore, no a priori objection to the Mosaic Decalogue, while, on the other hand, there are abundant historical analogies that can be cited in support of it.
Again, this objection, that " the abstract is ever younger than the concrete," is in direct conflict with the actual history of the Decalogue from 800 to 200 B.C. The fourth Commandment becomes more con- crete with the progress of the centuries : so also does the fifth, and likewise the second and tenth.
Again, a great religious and moral revelation is not the work of a moral syndicate, but is due to the in- spiration of some great outstanding personality. Such lofty disclosures may fail in the lifetime of their author to effect their ends, but sooner or later they come into their own. Thus the second Commandment was ignored in Southern Israel till the tenth century (if not later), and in Northern Israel till the Exile. This fact is put forward as irrefragable evidence by many scholars that the second Commandment was non-existent down to the tenth century at all events.
INTRODUCTION liii
But we can never safely argue from the non-observance of a law at a certain period to the conclusion that no such law existed. Those who study the history of the Christian Church are well aware that from the Seventh General Council, 787 A.D., to the Kef ormation the second Commandment was either explained away or deliberately omitted from the Decalogue. In fact, this is the treatment meted out to this Command- ment by the Koman Church at the present day.1 Indeed, if we applied the same arguments to the penal laws connected with breaches of the Sabbath day, or of a wife's unfaithfulness in the Priests' Code, we should be obliged to deny their existence there, seeing that these laws were never apparently put into execution by the Jewish authorities except on one or more occasions in the course of all the centuries that have followed since their enactment.
Again, it is maintained that the eighth-century prophets never appeal to the Decalogue, and therefore it did not exist before their time. But surely the reason that they made no such appeal is that they took for granted Israel's acquaintance with it. As Burney (JTS, 1908, 331) rightly urges: "The eighth- century prophets . . . when they attack the religious and social abuses of their time, appear, in fact, to attack them as abuses, i.e. , they seem to regard them- selves not as founders of a new type of Yahwe-religion, but as interpreting and insisting upon religious essentials which ought to have been patent to Israel
1 See pp. 71-74.
liv INTRODUCTION
at large. The whole tenor of their teaching may be said to presuppose the Decalogue. It is difficult to understand the severity of their language, if it was aimed, not against a moral declension, but against a stage of morals which as yet knew of no higher ideal." \
§ 4. The Mosaic Decalogue and its subsequent re- visions and accretions down to WO B.C. See opposite page.
§ 5. The Book of the Covenant, i.e. Ex 2022-2333 presupposes the Decalogue.
In order to avoid complications we have hitherto ignored the relation, chronological or other, in which the Decalogue stands to the Book of the Covenant, 2022-2333, and to the Decalogue in Ex 34. This question has been discussed by most of the O.T. scholars. It is too large to be discussed here. And yet it cannot be put aside wholly, though only some of the chief conclusions can be considered. First, as to the relation of the Book of the Covenant 2 to the Decalogue, Kothstein concludes that the former is a commentary on the latter. Klostermann holds that the Book of the Covenant was built on the Decalogue. Both these hypotheses have been rejected by the vast body of scholars.
Notwithstanding, I am constrained to adopt an hypothesis not unrelated to those of the two scholars just mentioned. I have briefly shown in § 3 (p. xlix sqq.) that the main objections to the existence of the
1 The italics in the last clause are mine.
2 This designation of this section is found in Ex 247.
Mosaic Decalogue, each Commandment consisting of one short clause, c. 1320-1300 B.C.
Decalogue with the earliest additions in in. (?),* iv." x.5
c. 900 B.C. or earlier.4
I
Decalogue as it stood before its incorporation in E. c. 800-750 B.C.
I
I
Decalogue in D with addition in II. of "nor any likeness" in 58 ; in iv. of 516 ; in v. of 5i6bce.fi c> 62i B#a
I
Decalogue in D with marginal gloss in ii., i.e. 5^-10^6 incor. porated from margin ; in v., i.e. D 516d.r c. 6th Cent. B.C.
II Decalogue in Ex. with borrowings in 11., i.e. Ex 204b"6, from D 58b10 ; in v., i.e. Ex 2012bc, from D 516ce,8 and interpolation in iv., i.e. Ex 2011, which has displaced the final clause still pre- served In D 514.9 c. 5th Cent. B.C.
I
Hebrew Archetype used by LXX current in Egypt, c. 300 B.C.
I
Nash Hebrew Papyrus. c. 200 B.C.
N.B. — Heavy lines denote direct descent, light lines indirect descent.
1 i.e. Ex 207b. 3 i.e. Ex 209-10 and last clause in D 514.
3 i.e. Ex 207 "thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet . . . anything that is thy neighbour's. "
4 For the ground for this date see § 13 ad Jin. and the footnotes 2, 3.
5 516b <«as the Lord thy God commanded thee " is peculiar to D.
6 58b-io "that is in heaven above . . . keep My commandments."
7 5i6d " And that it may go well with thee."
8 Ex 2012bc u that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."
9 i.e. "that thy manservant and maidservant may rest as well
as thou."
Iv
lvi INTRODUCTION
Decalogue from the Mosaic period onwards are really without weight.
In the Book of the Covenant there are, as it has been shown, borrowings x from the Decalogue in Ex 34, and possibly interpolations.2 The order is likewise confused.3 There is an intermingling of ethical, religious (2022-26 2217-2319) and judicial elements (212-2217). But the ethical commands and the judgments (expressed hypothetically) both alike rightly belong to the document. The latter are simply a practical application of the former in specific cases. Their aim is to regulate the life of a people living under primitive conditions and mainly engaged in agriculture.
Now it is to be noted that of the ten Command- ments account is taken of seven (or possibly nine). In other words, these seven (or nine) are presupposed. That the tenth is omitted is natural. Such a practical document as the Book of the Covenant can take little or no account of the thoughts of the heart.4 In the next place, the omission of the second Com- mandment in a document composed in the Northern Kingdom (for the Book of the Covenant is derived
1 i.e. 2314"19 from 3418- 22-23- *■*
2 2022-23 22s3- 21b* 24 2310* n* 13b.
8 Thus 2117 should be restored before 2116 ; 2118"25 read in the following order 2118"19- 23"25- P- 20"21. The text in 221'4 is also con- fused.
4 Some elements which take account of motives appear in 2221- % 234"6, 9, but they are probably of later origin. In any case they do not approach the profound and universal ethical character of the tenth Commandment.
INTRODUCTION
lvii
from E) would not be astonishing or even remarkable, seeing that it was ignored by Northern Israel as a whole till the Exile. And yet, if 2023 is original, then it presupposes both the first and second (?) Commandments.
A priori, therefore, we should not expect a docu- ment of this nature to deal with more than eight out of the ten Commandments, and when we examine the Book of the Covenant we find that eight (or seven) are actually dealt with. Clearly the Book of the Covenant is incomplete ; else there would be a section on the adulterous wife. The seven (or six) are as follows :
Decalogue before its incorporation in E.
I. " Thou shalt have none other gods before Me."
Book of Covenant, Ex 2022-2333.
This Commandment is presupposed in Ex 2313- 24. »-» 2 o23. The Israelites are required not even to mention the name of other gods (2 313): they are not to make any covenant with them (2332), nor serve them (2324' 33), nor make images of them in silver or gold (2023). But this last verse is regarded as a secondary addition to the text. If it were original it would im- plicitly (?) forbid the
lviii
INTRODUCTION
i.— ii.
ill. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."
iv. " Eemember the sabbath day to keep it holy . . . that thy man- servant and thy maid- servant may rest as well as thou." (See above, pp. xli sq., xliv.)
making of images of Yah- weh (i.e. the second Com- mandment).
Ex 2023 "Ye shall not make other gods * with Me ; gods of silver or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you." These words, if original, presuppose the existence of Yahweh and other gods. The pro- hibition of images of the latter may carry with it the prohibition of images of Yahweh.
? Ex 2228 "Thou shalt not revile God." But for " God " we should most probably render " the judges," as in 216 228. If the latter rendering is right, then only seven of the Commandments are presupposed.
Ex 2312 "Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh thou shalt rest : that thine ox and thine ass may have rest, and the son of thine hand- maid, and the stranger, may be refreshed."
The words "other gods " are restored by Dillmann.
INTRODUCTION lix
v. " Honour thy father Ex 2116 "He that and thy mother." smiteth his father, or
mother, shall surely be put to death." 2117 " And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
yL ]£X 2112-14, 20* 23_24* 29.
These are practical appli- cations of VI.
vii. ? Ex 2216. This is not a
judgment following logic- ally from vii., but may be part of a section now lost which dealt with the adulterous wife. The Book of the Covenant would be incomplete without such a section.
viii. Ex 221"5- 7~8- 12.
ix. Ex 231"2.
That such a document as the Decalogue is pre- supposed by the Book of the Covenant follows naturally from the above comparison.
§ 6. The Decalogue in Ex 8 % (i.e. J)1 has several
1 "Wellhausen, Comp. des Hexat. pp. 331-332, tries to recover the Decalogue in 34. He makes it out as follows : I. Thou shalt worship no other god (3414). II. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods (3417). in. The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt keep (3418). iv. All that openeth the womb is Mine (3419). v. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks (3422a). vi. <Thou shalt observe > the feast of ingathering at the year's end (3422c). vii. Thou shalt not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread (3426a). viii. The fat of
lx INTRODUCTION
points in common with the Decalogue of Ex <20 as it stood in 900 B.C. before it was incorporated in E (see p. xliv sqq.). The former betrays a relation of dependence on the latter. — The Decalogue in Ex 34 is very far removed from that in Ex 20. The former Decalogue is preserved in 3411-20, but practically no two scholars agree as to what the ten Commandments were. According to Baentsch {Das Bundesbuch, p. 98), "The Decalogue in Ex 34 stands on the preprophetic stage of the Yahweh-Keligion and so undoubtedly nearer to the Book of the Covenant than to the Decalogue in Ex 20." And again (p. 101): "in this its original form . . . the Decalogue in Ex 34 is older than the Book of the Covenant: in its revised form, on the other hand, in which it now lies before us, it bears manifestly the stamp of a later time." Baentsch
My feast shall not remain all night until the morning (3425b). ix. The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring into the house of the Lord thy God (3426a). x. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk (3426b). So also Holzinger, Ex. 119. Stade (Gesch. L 510) agrees with the above, save that for v. and vi. he reads as follows : v. Thou shalt keep the sabbath (3421). vi. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks and the feast of the ingathering at the year's end (3422). Kennett (Deut. p. 40 sq.) defines them as follows : I. Thou shalt worship no other god. EL The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt keep. in. All that open the matrix is Mine, and •very firstling, etc. iv. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest. In the remaining six he agrees with Wellhausen. This Decalogue presupposes the settlement of Israel in Canaan. The nation has already abandoned the life of the nomad for that of the agriculturist. It celebrates three festivals, two of which are concerned with husbandry solely. But the Decalogue in Ex 20, when stripped of its later accretions, knows only of a weekly festival— a sabbath of rest for worship. This Decalogue is adapted to a nomadic people.
INTRODUCTION lxi
holds that the Decalogue in Ex 20 is the latest of the three documents in question. Holzinger's view {Ex. p. 120) is interesting. He concludes that the Decalogue in Ex 34, which is preserved by J, is older than that in Ex 20 preserved by E; but that this Decalogue in E shows traces of a groundwork which is older than the Decalogue of J.
In the preceding pages I have sought to show that the Decalogue in Ex 20 and D 5, when stripped of the accretions it received after 900 B.C., consisted of ten Commandments of one clause each, save in the case of III. (?), IV. and X. (see p. xliv sqq.), and also that the Book of the Covenant presupposes this Decalogue (see § 5).
If the Decalogue in Ex 20 stood in this relation to the Book of the Covenant, we have now to try and discover in what relation it stood to the Decalogue in Ex 34. The latter, as I hope to show, manifests in some degree its dependence on the former. Let us now compare the two Decalogues.
Ex 20, c. 900 B.C. Ex 34, c. 900-850.
I. Ex 203 "Thou shalt Ex 34u "Thou shalt have none other gods worship no other god." before Me."
ii. Ex 2 04 "Thou shalt Ex 3417 "Thou shalt not make unto thee a make thee no molten graven image" gods."
Molten images belong to a later period than graven images.
Ixii INTRODUCTION
iv. " Six days thou shalt Ex 3421 " Six days thou work1 . . . but2 on the shalt work,1 but on the seventh day is a sabbath." seventh day thou shalt
rest."
These correspondences are not coincidences. The one authority is dependent on the other. That Ex 34 in regard to the second Commandment is secondary to the form in Ex 204 there can be no question. Similarly, the first Commandment in Ex 3414 is secondary likewise. It is an interpretation or definition of Ex 204. If the fourth stood alone, it would not be decisive either way, but when taken in conjunction with the evidence of the first and second Commandments it not only attests the dependence of Ex 34 on the Mosaic Decalogue, but also the existence in that Decalogue of accretions in the fourth Com- mandment, before J (i.e. c. 850 B.C.) made use of the materials in Ex 341-28. Hence the Mosaic Decalogue with accretions in the fourth, most prob- ably in the tenth 3 and possibly in the third,4 existed in this form in 900 B.C. or earlier.
1 Exactly the same Hebrew clause in each case.
2 See footnote 3 on p. xli.
3 Seeing that the tenth Commandment in its original form must have been an occasion of great difficulty to the teachers of Israel, it is reason- able to assume that the addition to the original words, "thou shalt not covet, " was made in it at an early date, i. e. 900 b. o. or earlier. For it was already in the Decalogue incorporated in E about 800-750 b. c. D, about 621 B.C. or rather earlier, recast this addition, as we have already seen.
4 The evidence of D 511 throws back the date of the accretion in this Commandment to 621 B.C. at latest, while the joint evidence of D 5U and Ex 207 presupposes a date anterior to 800-750 B.C., when E was composed of pre-existing materials.
INTRODUCTION
lxiii
§ 7. Ex 3If has influenced the later form of the
Decalogue in D 5 and thereby of the Decalogue in Ex
W. — In § 4, p. xxxvii sqq., I have sought to show that
Mosaic Decalogue with additions in in. (?), iv. X. (see pp. xliv-xlviii). c. 900 B.C. or earlier.
|i
Decalogue before its incorporation in E. c. 800-750. I
I Decalogue in Ex. 34 by unknown author ; pre- served in J. c. 850 B.C.
Book of Covenant Ex. 2022- 2333 by unknown author, preserved in E. c. 800- 750 b.c. I
Decalogue in D 5 with addition of "nor any likeness " in n. ; of 515 in iv. ; 516bce in v. c. 621 b.c.
I
1 I
Decalogue in D 5 with addition of ungram- matical gloss, i.e. 58b-10 in ii. ; of 516d in v. c. 600 B.C.
I I
Decalogue in Ex 20 with borrowings in n. v. and in- terpolation in iv., i.e. 2011. c. 5th Cent. b.c. See p. Iv.
N.B.— Heavy lines denote direct descent, light lines indirect descent.
D 59_1° was originally a gloss based on Ex 3414, 7. For the other sources of the gloss, see § 4. From D 58b~10 this accretion passed over into the Ex 204b-6.
lxiv INTRODUCTION
§ 8. The relations of Ex 34 and the Book of the Covenant (Ex 2022-2333): the latter is later than the former. — Into this question it is not the duty of the present writer to enter here. Baentsch and other scholars have arrived at the conclusion that Ex 34 (J) in its original form is older than Ex 2022-2323 (E). Both documents, however, have suffered severely in the course of transmission and editing, so that Ex 34, which is the older document, contains elements which bear the stamp of a later period than Ex 2022-2333. See Baentsch, Das Bundesbuch, 97-103.
§ 9. Relations of the Mosaic Decalogue to the Decalogue in Ex $4 and the Book of the Covenant, i.e. Ex 2023-2322, and later form of Mosaic Decalogue in Ex %0. See previous page.
FIRST COMMANDMENT
" Thou shalt have none other gods beside Me." — Ex. xx. 3.
" The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." — 2 Cor. xiii. 14.
HAVE chosen these two texts to indicate the ■*■ development in the knowledge of God which man won through his spiritual experience in the course of some 1400 years. I propose to treat this development in the Old Testament at some length and to deal briefly with its consummation in the New Testament, a con- summation which was desiderated or in part promised in the Old Testament.
You are aware, my brethren, that the Decalogue is preserved in two different forms, in the twentieth chapter of Exodus and the fifth chapter of Deuteronomy. Both have clearly undergone editorial changes.
An older form of the Decalogue is presupposed in the Book of the Covenant, while quite a different Decalogue is given in Ex. xxxiv. The relation of this last Code1 to the other two just mentioned is still a matter of controversy. This third Code has not, however, been preserved accurately, and for our present purpose may be ignored.
1 See Introduction, p. lix sqq.
I
2 THE DECALOGUE
The two codes we are considering are ascribed both in Exodus and in Deuteronomy to Moses. In some form, no doubt, they go back to him, but what the exact form was it is difficult now to determine with certainty.1 In the Old Testament, as it was usual to attribute all the Wisdom books to Solomon and all the Psalms to David, so all Hebrew Law was universally ascribed to Moses — even the latest development of this law in the fifth century. Nevertheless, when we strip the Deca- logue of obviously later accretions the essential element in each Commandment appears to be Mosaic.
There can be no valid ground alleged against the primitive Mosaic origin of the first Commandment : " Thou shalt have no other gods beside Me." Now let us weigh well these words. By the careless reader they are regarded as asserting that there is but one God. But that is exactly what the words do not assert. This first Commandment is not a formal declaration of Monotheism, that is, that there is only one God. For the words " Thou shalt have no other gods beside Me " did not require Israel to deny that other divinities existed. What they did require was that Israel should not worship any God but the God of Israel. The terms of this Commandment are perfectly consistent with the belief on the part of Israel that every nation had its own god, to whose protection it could trust, and whose, sovereignty alone it was its duty to acknowledge. And as a matter of fact in the pre-prophetic times in Israel the existence of such independent deities outside Israel 1 See Introduction, pp. xxxiv, xliv, xlvii.
FIRST COMMANDMENT 3
was fully acknowledged by Israel. Each nation had its own god. Milcom was the god of Amnion, Ash- toreth of the Zidonians, and Chemosh of Moab. Accord- ing to the belief of this period it was these gods that had given their respective peoples their territories, just as Yahweh had given Canaan to Israel. The divine name Yahweh may be unfamiliar to some of you, though you are all familiar with the shortened form " Yah " in the Psalms. Hence I would call the attention of such to the fact that the word Jehovah which is used in our English version in place of Yahweh is a vox nulla ; that is, no real word at all. Taken at the best, it arises from a mispronunciation of the divine name. Such a pronunciation of the divine name was not introduced till a.d. 1520, or about 2800 years after the Mosaic legislation. This mispronunciation arose as follows. The name Yahweh was held so sacred by the later Jews that they avoided writing or pronouncing this name with its proper vowels and supplied its vocalisation from Adonai or Elohim. It is time that the use of this word should be abandoned. It is a fictitious form : it combines the consonants of the divine name with the vowels of one or other of two different divine names.
But let us return. We had observed that the various nations in the pre-prophetic period worshipped each its god. We find distinct reference to such beliefs in the Old Testament. Thus in the times of the Judges, say, about the end of the twelfth century B.C., Jephthah, who was leading Israel against the Ammonites, sends
4 THE DECALOGUE
the following message to the Ammonites (Judg. xi. 24) : " Wilt thou not possess that which f Chemosh f x thy god giveth thee to possess ? So whomsoever Yahweh our God hath dispossessed from before us, them will we possess." Not only was the power of the national deity conceived to be paramount within his own land, but all who were resident in his country — even so- journers or strangers — were regarded as in duty bound to worship him. Hence one hundred years later David complains to Saul that he had been driven forth from his own land, and so had been compelled to abandon the worship of Yahweh for the worship of the gods of the land in which he was an exile. Thus in 1 Sam. xxvi. 19, David complains : " If it be Yahweh that hath stirred thee up against me, let Him accept an offering ; but if it be the children of men, cursed be they before Yahweh ... in that they say, Go serve other gods." Thus the sovereignty of the national deities was popu- larly held to be coextensive and conterminous with the bounds of their own lands and not to extend beyond them. If an Israelite in those early days went into the land of Moab, he would have felt it his duty, or at all events he would have found it expedient, to worship the god of that country, or if into the land of Ammon, the god of Ammon. Indeed a man could not worship a god in those days unless he was actually in the country of that god, or was standing on the very soil of that country. Thus about 850 B.C. Naaman the
1 This is a primitive textual error. Chemosh was the god of Moab,
FIRST COMMANDMENT 5
Syrian, after he had been cleansed of his leprosy, sought permission from Elisha the prophet to take home with him two mules' burden of earth. The object of this request was that he might offer sacrifices to Yahweh on Israelitish soil, that is, on the soil of Yahweh's own land. Otherwise he believed he could not have wor- shipped Yahweh. Since Elisha dismissed Naaman with the words " Go in peace," Elisha implicitly granted the request of Naaman. The inscription of Mesha, king of Moab, on what is called " the Moabite Stone," an inscription which belongs to the ninth century B.C., and is still preserved, and a copy of which you can see in the British Museum, the original being in Paris, confirms independently the account just given of the relation of the god of Moab, as intervening on behalf of his people and defeating Yahweh, the god of Israel, and this in very good Hebrew and in Biblical phraseology.
Now, if some of you are wondering why I have brought before you these primitive beliefs of ancient Israel and the neighbouring nations, there is no difficulty in furnishing the reason. For it is important that we should be acquainted with the early stages of God's divine education of Israel, and that we should recognise them as early stages, and that, accordingly, things that were permissible at such early stages were not per- missible at later times.
At first the Israelites were practically Semitic heathens without intellectual culture, without spiritual attain- ment, only yesterday rescued from the land of Egypt, only yesterday emancipated from the house of bondage.
6 THE DECALOGUE
It was to such, as these that God entrusted the truths which have been growing ever since in depth and fullness and which are slowly transforming the world. At this early stage God revealed Himself to Israel through the great lawgiver Moses, and claimed their undivided worship in the words : " Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."
This Commandment did not tell the Israelites that the gods of the neighbouring nations were non-existent : it only forbade them to worship them. The Israelites must worship Yahweh and Yahweh alone. Now this Commandment was good so far as it went. It required from these nomadic Hebrew tribes just as much as they could give at the time. If the Israelities obeyed it faithfully, all other gods would of necessity cease to exist for them. For a religious doctrine perishes, if it is not rooted inwardly in the heart and sustained out- wardly by religious life and worship. Thus the belief in polytheism was ultimately doomed, if Israel were but faithful. We have already seen that such a claim extends only to those living in Yahveh's own land. Hence at this period there was no idea of Yahweh's jurisdiction extending to the next life. The beliefs with regard to the future life were throughout this early period purely heathen.
The primitive hope of the individual and his view of the future life were gloomy in the extreme. Sheol was the ultimate goal of all men. In Sheol a shadowy life prevailed, which faintly reflected the realities of the upper world. In Sheol, further, not moral but
FIRST COMMANDMENT 7
social distinctions were observed : a man enjoyed a position among the shades corresponding to the social position he had held in his earthly life. The poor man and the serf were a poor man and a serf still : the king and the noble a king and a noble still. In Isa. xiv. you find a survival of this belief. The shadowy kings on their shadowy thrones in Sheol rise up to greet the shade of the great King of Babylon when it enters Sheol, but it is with the derisive words which the prophet places in their mouth : " Art thou become weak as we ? art thou become like unto us ? " That such a realm was not under the sovereignty of Yahweh was to be expected, since Yahweh's jurisdiction was limited exclusively to the upper world, and in the upper world to His own nation and His own land. Thus a com- pletely heathen view of the future life was not incon- sistent with a genuine belief in Yahweh in its earliest stage. In other words, before the eighth century B.C. no conflict between Hebrew Theology and man's belief in the next world was possible, for their provinces were mutually exclusive.
The next stage of development appears in the eighth century. This was monotheistic. It was the work of the great eighth-century prophets — Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Micah — and no doubt of many others whose names are lost to history. As opposed to the earlier teaching as it appears in the Decalogue, " Thou shalt have no other gods before Me," the teaching of monotheism from the close of the ninth century onwards was, " There are no other gods but Me."
8 THE DECALOGUE
Thus monotheism shows itself in the account of the creation in Gen. i., and in the addition to the fourth Commandment in Ex. xx. The God of Israel was now no longer worshipped as the God of a tribe, but as the one and only God who had created heaven and earth. Now, since the recognition of this great truth led to the recasting of the beliefs of Israel as to the beginnings of things, that is, as to the creation of heaven and earth and all that in them is, it ought to have led to the recasting of their heathen beliefs and expectations as to the final issues of this life in the world beyond the grave. But, as a matter of fact, these heathen expecta- tions remained uninfluenced for 400 years or more, and it was not till 600 years later, i.e. in the second century B.C., that a belief in a blessed future life was accepted by a considerable body of the Jews. Even down to the fall of the Temple in a.d. 70 the powerful party of the Sadducees for the most part clung to the primitive beliefs of Israel in regard to the future life.
This startling fact cannot be too strongly emphasised. Though Israel possessed a monotheistic faith from the eighth century onwards, it did not for many centuries arrive at the obvious conclusion that, since God had created all things, the next world, just as much as this world, must be subject to His sovereignty, and that accordingly the heathen views of their forefathers as to the next world were quite impossible. Clearly the lesson we are to learn from this startling fact is that man learns his best lessons in religion not through the logical processes of the intellect, though these are
FIRST COMMANDMENT 9
indispensable in their right place, but through religious experience. Thus Israel ultimately learnt the fact of a blessed future life through the religious experience of its saints and psalmists, and therein arrived at a truth that is verifiable by all men should all men be willing to surrender themselves to like experiences. And so the Jews discovered for themselves, as every individual can discover for himself, that the only belief in a future life that can really endure, is that which men arrive at through the life of faith. All great spiritual truths must realise themselves in life before they can be clearly apprehended and defined by the intellect. God commits to life the best instruction in things divine.
After the eighth century the Jews themselves naturally interpreted the first Commandment from the standpoint of monotheism. Thereby the very roots of polytheism were destroyed. So far as the Israelites were obedient to the Commandment in the monotheistic sense they were freed from superstition, from belief in magic, spells and sorcery : from trust in amulets, which to the shame of Christendom reappeared under the form of mascots in the late war, and were accepted by large numbers of persons whose intelligence was not equal to the task of putting a bridle on their credulity and superstition.
He who believes in God will not trust in chance or luck, nor will he, Micawber-like, neglect his obvious duties and yet cherish the delusion that something will turn up. This early Commandment forbids oppor-
io THE DECALOGUE
tunism and mere expediency in statecraft, which have been the bane of all governments from the earliest ages, and are the curse of most governments and most states- men at the present day.
In the seventh century the writer of Deut. vi. 4, 5 gave a positive content to this Commandment, which was accepted and repeated by our Lord. " Hear, 0 Israel : the Lord our God is one Lord : and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." If we Christians fulfil this commandment of the Old Testament, we shall fulfil all that is required of us in the New. For the duty of man towards God cannot be more perfectly expressed. Notwithstanding, there is a fuller revelation of God in the New Testament.
There God is revealed by Christ first and foremost as our Father, a term which the individual Israelite in the Old Testament could not use in addressing God, but only the nation as a whole.1 It is true that about seventy years after our Lord's ministry was closed this term was introduced officially into the public and private prayers of the Jews. It had been used occa- sionally by individual Jews at an earlier date. But however this may be, the idea of God's Fatherhood has never won in Judaism the central position which it has occupied in Christianity from the first. For whilst we
1 This term is used twice in Sirach. But its meaning is necessarily- limited by the Sadducean context in which it occurs. Moreover, in xvii. 17, Israel is said to be God's portion (/xepis), whereas the nations are put under the dominion of angels. It occurs also in Test. Levi iv. 2 and Wis. ii. 16.
FIRST COMMANDMENT n
as Christians, alike in public and private worship, address God naturally and under all circumstances as " Our Father," the preponderating phrase in Jewish prayer books, even in the present day, is " 0 Lord our God, King of the universe." While the Christian phrase emphasises the nearness of God to His children, the phrase most commonly used in Jewish prayers expresses rather the vast gulf between God and the men whom He has created.
Now it is this fullest revelation of God's Fatherhood that we, His erring children, need. It is not enough for us to know that God loves them that love Him ; for the best of us know that our love for Him is poor indeed : it is not enough for us to be assured that, like as a father pitieth his own children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him ; for our fear and reverence are so fitful and ineffective : it is not enough to be told that the Lord heareth them that cry unto Him ; for often, when we need Him most, we cry unto Him least. Nay, my brethren, the highest revelations of the Old Testament do not suffice. We need the knowledge that Christ gives us of the Fatherhood of God, who most reveals the Father when He goes forth after the lost masses of mankind ; when He sitteth with publicans and sinners, and eateth with them ; when He is gracious not only to those that love Him but to those who love Him not ; when He follows the prodigal into the far country, and visits him with the chastenings of His love till he repent and return ; when He leaves the ninety and nine in the wilderness and goes after the
12 THE DECALOGUE
wandering sheep and seeketh it till He finds. This is the Fatherhood that Christ teaches us in the Gospel : this is the Fatherhood which alone can satisfy the hearts of men.
If, then, we would know God as the Father, we must do so through personal knowledge of the Son. In fact, it is only through Christ that we can have the ever- growing and fullest revelation of the Father. Through Him we learn that God is love : that man needs to be reconciled to God, not God to man : that God has been in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, removing from man's heart the sin and wrongness that estrange him from God : that there is not, and never has been, unforgivingness in God : and that since God is supremely desirous to redeem man, all God's power is pledged to man's salvation, if only man will come unto Him through Christ.
But the revelation of God in the Father and the Son was not yet complete. So long as Christ was here on earth, His presence was limited by the conditions of time and space. Not till He had left this earth was He freed from the bonds of personal, local and national ties, and His presence become possible here and every- where, now and at all times. And this fuller revelation has come through the manifestation of the Spirit of God, to whom we owe in ever greater fullness the further teachings of God and Christ. The Spirit of God had, it is true, been active throughout all the earlier ages, but with the day of Pentecost there was a manifestation of His influence hitherto inexperienced
FIRST COMMANDMENT 13
and unknown, and ever down the ages that influence had made itself felt in an increasing degree in the hearts of individuals and of Churches.
Such, in short, has been the historical manifestation of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as revealed in the spiritual experience of man. With the metaphysical relations of the three Persons of the Godhead I have not the ability to deal ; nay more, I do not believe that it is possible for the human intellect to define these, however often men may essay such a task, and essay it with all the audacity of an Athanasius, an Augustine, or a Thomas Aquinas.
SECOND COMMANDMENT FIRST LECTUKE
" Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth : thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them : for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me ; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My commandments." x — Ex. xx. 4-6.
rjlHE first Commandment which we dealt with in ■*■ the last lecture forbade the Hebrews to worship any other god than Yahweh : it did not deny the existence of other gods, but it required Israel to wor- ship Yahweh alone. From the Captivity onwards, however, or rather from the eighth century B.C., the first Commandment was reinterpreted, not only as requiring Israel to worship Yahweh alone, but as implicitly denying the existence of all other gods but Yahweh.
It is in this sense that it was understood by the primitive Christian Church. From the standpoint of this later interpretation of the first Commandment we
1 On the primitive form of this commandment and the forms it assumed in the different Decalogues, see pp. xxxv sq., xli.
M
SECOND COMMANDMENT 15
can distinguish the first and second Commandments shortly as follows. The first forbids the worship of any but the one and true God : the second forbids the worship of the true God in a wrong way, that is, by means of images or the likeness of anything in heaven or earth.
Before we enter on the main subject of our sermon, I must draw your attention to the order of the Com- mandments as well as to the different numberings of the Commandments which prevail in Judaism and in the various Churches of Christendom since the fourth century. As regards the right order of the Command- ments, most readers of the New Testament assume that in the three passages in the New Testament (Luke xviii. 20 ; Rom. xiii. 9 ; Jas. ii. 11) in which the seventh Commandment is placed before the sixth, this order is a purely accidental one, or added by the writer with the intention of enforcing his own immediate object. But this is not so. In the first centuries of the Christian era the seventh Commandment was generally placed before the sixth in works of Egyptian origin. Thus this order is found in the Hebrew Nash Papyrus, which is over seven hundred years older than any Hebrew MS of the Old Testament. It is found also in the first century B.C. in Philo (Be decern Oraculis, 24-25), Clement of Alexandria (Strom, vi.), Augustine (Sermo ix. 7 (Paris, 1836, V. 79 a.b.) ; c. Faustum, xv. 4 (Paris, viii. 443c)) and other writers, as well as in the Codex B of Exodus, where the order is seventh, eighth, sixth ; and Deuteronomy, where the
16 THE DECALOGUE
order is seventh, sixth, eighth. This is, in fact, the order that was most usual in Egypt. But the familiar order that we find in Exodus and Deuteronomy, Matt. v. 21, 27, xix. 18 ; Mark x. 19 ; Josephus (Ant. iii. 5. 5), the Didache (ii. 2, iii. 3), is the Palestinian,1 and this may be accepted as the original.
Turning from the ordering to the numbering of the Commandments, we find that three distinct numberings have prevailed in Judaism and Christianity. (1) The first numbering is that of the Jewish Church. Thus the Talmud and the Jewish Prayer Books take the introductory words, "I am Yahweh, thy God that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondmen," as constituting the first Commandment. Next in order, not to break with the traditional number ten, they put together the first and second Command- ments and reckoned these two as the second Com- mandment. This usage prevails in Judaism to the present day.2 (2) The second numbering is that adopted by the Roman and Lutheran 3 Churches, which follow the example of Augustine. Augustine merged
1 Though the Palestinian order has the support of the MSS, the Samaritan text, the Targums of Onk. and Ps.-Jon., the Syriac and Vulgate versions, yet Dr. Peters (Alteste Abschrift der zehn Gebote, p. 33) regards it as a corruption of that which prevailed in Egypt. In the Book of the Dead the latter order is found (Brugsch, Steinin- schrift und Bibelwort, 1891, p. 260).
2 This practice was followed for some time by the Greek Church also. Thus it is found in Syncellus (c. a.d. 790) and Cedrenus (1130). See Geffken, " Eintheilung des Dekalogs," 1838, quoted in Encyc. Bib. i. 1050 n. It is recognised in the margin of Codex B in Ex. xx. 2.
3 But the Lutheran Church parts with the Roman Church by adopting the order in Ex. in the ninth and tenth Commandments.
SECOND COMMANDMENT 17
the first and second Commandments together1 as one Commandment, and then in order to preserve the original number ten, divided the tenth Commandment into two, the ninth of which consists of " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife," and the tenth of " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house.2 (3) The third numbering is that adopted by the Church of England, which follows the precedents set by the ancient
1 Augustine's division of the Commandments into groups of three and seven is due to dogmatic and arbitrary grounds. He deliber- ately rejected the division into groups of four and six — a division that had been adopted in the past by Philo, Josephus, Origen and the Early Christian Church, and has since the Reformation been observed by the Anglican, Greek and Reformed Churches generally. Having rejected this division, he divided the Commandments into groups of three and seven. The three referred to God, and indicated, according to Augustine's fanciful and extraordinary method of exposition, the Three Persons of the Trinity : Epistolce, ii. 55. 20 (Paris, 1836, vol. ii., 202 B.o.) : Qucestiones inExod. 71 (III. 698 c.d.). It is not surprising that the grounds given here for this dogmatic exposition are inconsistent with those put forward in Sermo ccl. 3 (V. 1506 c.d.). Thus the division of the Commandments accepted from Augustine by the Mediaeval Church and observed by the Roman Church rests on a groundless conceit. Augustine's methods of dealing with the Decalogue cannot be pronounced happy from the standpoint of modern research. The compression of the first four Commandments into three is implied in the margin of MS A, Ex xx. 9, 12, 15.
2 This order is found in the LXX of Ex. xx. 17 (with the ex- ception of some MSS) and Theod. and Symmachus. Hence Augustine had three of the Greek versions of Ex. and the Hebrew (but not Sam. T Sam.) of Deut. v. 21 in support of the order he adopted. Against this order in Ex. are M. Sam. T Sam. Syr. Onk. Aquila, Vulg. Luther follows the Roman Church in dividing the tenth Commandment. But he makes " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house " as the ninth and the rest of the Commandment as the tenth. But Augustine is inconsistent ; in Sermo ix. 7 (Paris, 1836, vol. i. 793), QucBst. in Exod. 71, we have the order given above in the text, but in Sermo ccl. 3 (V. 1507 C) this order is reversed.
2
i THE DECALOGUE
Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, by Origen and the Early Christian Church for the most part, by the later Greek Church, and the Kef ormed Churches generally.
1. Now as regards the Jewish division, it is enough to observe that the introductory words do not really form a Commandment at all. They simply state a fact, and are therefore in regard to form not homogeneous with the Commandments that follow.
2. In the next place, to the division adopted by the Koman and Lutheran Churches there is this strong objection. These Churches agree, as we have seen, in regarding the second Commandment as part of the first. This consolidation of the first and second Com- mandments into one has led to different modes of counting the remaining eight Commandments. Thus our third Commandment is the second in the Koman Church, our fourth their third, and so on, till our ninth corresponds with their eighth and our tenth with their ninth and tenth. Thus Augustine and his followers were forced to divide the tenth Commandment into two in order to get the number ten. Hence it comes to pass that the ninth Commandment in the Koman Church is " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, and the tenth " Thou shalt not desire thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's."
But this division of the tenth Commandment is unjustifiable. That it is one Commandment is manifest from the essential unity of its subject. It deals with one and the same sin, that of coveting. The Decalogue
SECOND COMMANDMENT 19
devotes to the sin of coveting one Commandment, and not two, and thereby follows the same principle that it has done throughout by assigning one Command- ment to one subject. Again, if we compare this Com- mandment in Ex. xx. 17 and Deut. v. 21 we find that the order of the first two clauses in Ex. are transposed in Deut., and that, whereas the neighbour's house is put before the neighbour's wife in Ex., the neighbour's wife is put before the neighbour's house in Deut. Since both these clauses belong to the same Commandment according to the numbering of the Jewish, English and most other Christian Churches, this transference does not affect them. But the effect is disconcerting for the Koman Church : for what is the ninth Command- ment in Ex. becomes according to the Koman Church the tenth according to Deut,
But this is not all. Ex. furnishes us with the earliest recension : x yet the Koman Church adopts the recension in Deut., which in this respect is probably two hundred years later.
At the outset it may be well to indicate that we shall interpret this Commandment as forbidding the worship of God alike through images and unfigured symbols, as it was in Judaism from the Captivity onwards. The images were iconic ; that is, were likenesses of some deity in the form of pictures or statues : the unfigured symbols, which were sacred stones, pillars, trees and the like, were aniconic ; that is, they were not the like-
1So M. Sam. Syr. Vulg. But the LXX. Sym. and Theod. give the same order as in Deut.
20 THE DECALOGUE
nesses of any god, but a god was believed to dwell or manifest himself in them.
The wide diffusion of idolatry in ancient Israel is to be inferred from the wide range of the objects, natural and manufactured, that were worshipped. The Hebrews had quite a dozen of words for various kinds of idols. But the subject is so vast that we cannot enter into it here. All we conclude from the second Commandment is that men were not to use any objects, whether iconic or aniconic, in the worship of Yahweh. The difference between these two terms should be carefully borne in mind. The aniconic worship * of stones, trees and other substances, which is often designated fetishism, is the older, but it has not been dislodged by the iconic or the worship of images. The worship of images arose with the birth of art, and belongs to a comparatively advanced stage of religion. These two stages coexist, as will be shown in a later lecture in modern Christianity.
The second Commandment presents many difficulties in connection with the history of Israel and Christianity, whether we study this Commandment in its original context, in the interpretations assigned to it at various times by the Jewish and Christian Churches, or in the unjustifiable abuses it has suffered from the eighth century down to the present day in the Councils and Catechisms of the Mediaeval and Roman Churches.
The first problem that confronts us is set forth by a strong body of scholars who maintain that the second,
1 Strictly speaking, aniconic worship does not come under this Commandment.
SECOND COMMANDMENT 21
fourth and tenth Commandments were later additions to the Decalogue.1 With the fourth and tenth we are not at present concerned. For the thesis that the second Commandment was not earlier than the eighth or ninth century B.C. there is certainly evidence in the Old Testament. During the preceding centuries the Israelites appear to have combined image worship with the worship of Yahweh, and that without any con- sciousness of wrongdoing. Thus in Judg. xvii.-xviii. the priest who conducted the worship of Yahweh in Micah's house was Jonathan, a grandson of Moses. The rites connected with this worship were certainly of an idolatrous character, and yet of this idola- trous worship there is no sign of disapproval in the text. The idolatrous images used were the ephod 2 and teraphim. The teraphim was an idol or image in a human form. David, the champion of Yahwism, kept such images in his house (1 Sam. xix. 13-16). Now the teraphim of Micah, which was a graven image, was transferred to the great sanctuary at Dan, and the Book of Judges (xviii. 30) records
1 So Kautzsch HDB v. 634b, following Eerdmans.
2 This word appears originally to have had two meanings: (l)the garment worn by the priest ; (2) some symbol of the divinity — probably some kind of statue. See, however, Burney, Judges, pp. 236-243, who concludes that the ephod was never an idol, but only " the ordinary priestly vestment which was employed in obtaining an oracle." Lotz, Foote and Sellin take the same view, but most scholars are of opinion that the word had two distinct meanings. See Nowack, Hebrdische Archaologie, ii. 21 sq. ; Marti, Gesch. der Israelit. Religion, 29, 30 ; Stade, Gesch. i. 466 ; Budde, Richter and Samuel, 115 n. ; Moore in Encyc. Bib. ii. 1306 sqq. ; Kautzsch, Die heilige Schrift, i. p. 264.
22 THE DECALOGUE
that Jonathan, the grandson of Moses, and his sons after him were priests at Dan till the time of the Captivity.1
At Bethel and Dan, Yahweh was worshipped under the form of golden Bulls — called calves in the Old Testament in the way of derision — a form of worship quite in keeping with the conception of Yahwism in the tenth century B.C.
Yet according to the author of the Book of Kings, written towards the close of the seventh century, Jeroboam (933-912 B.C.) is represented as being the first to introduce this worship into the Northern Kingdom. But it is hardly credible that, when Jeroboam rebelled against the dynasty of David, he would have been so imprudent as to endanger his own position and that of his successors by setting up strange and alien images in the great sanctuaries of the Northern Kingdom. There is nothing so perilous as for a king or dynasty to interfere forcibly with the traditional beliefs of a vigorous race. In fact, the truth lies the other way. Jeroboam came forward as the champion of the traditional faith of Northern Israel over against the heathen innovations introduced by Solomon in the Southern Kingdom, which were breaches of the first Commandment, such as the worship of Ashtoreth, Chemosh and Molech (1 Kings xi. 1-8), and by Rehoboam, who sanctioned the consecration of prosti-
1 But the text here seems uncertain. Houbigant, followed by Burney, emends the text so that it reads " until the day of the captivity of the ark," instead of " until the day of the captivity of the land." But the emendation is unconvincing.
SECOND COMMANDMENT 23
tutes to serve in sacred worship (1 Kings xiv. 23, 24). x Jeroboam, therefore, rallied to his standard the up- holders of the older traditional elements in the Hebrew religion — in other words, he rallied to his standard the religious conservative party in the Northern Kingdom, and thereby strengthened his position over against the Southern Kingdom, in which the reaction to heathenism initiated by Solomon persisted to the reign of Asa, 913-873 B.C. (1 Kings xv. 12, 13).
Again, that the worship of Yahweh was associated with the worship of the golden calves long before the reign of Jeroboam, is to be inferred from the fact that Elijah uttered no word of protest against the worship of Yahweh through the golden calves at Dan, Bethel and Samaria.
And yet Elijah 2 was the chief prophet of the Northern
1 These " Temple prostitutes " were a standing feature of the Canaanite sanctuaries. Deut. xxiii. 17 forbids their introduction into Israel. Asa (1 Kings xv. 12) and Jehoshaphat (xxii. 46) banished them from Judah. Josiah destroyed the houses of these persons, which during Manasseh's reign had been built in the Temple precincts (2 Kings xxiii. 7).
* There were, it is true, two distinct schools of the prophets in the Northern Kingdom, and both upholders of Yahwism. One school came to terms apparently with the foreign influences that were active under Ahab and so escaped persecution, but the other school opposed them to the death. To the former belong the 400 prophets under Zedekiah mentioned in 1 Kings xxii. These supported Ahab against Micaiah. When first consulted they spoke of God as Adonai (xxii. 6), and only later when pressed by Jehoshaphat did they give Him the name Yahweh (xxii. 12). It is not likely that Jezebel took active measures against this temporising school as she did against the other school (1 Kings xviii. 4, xix. 10-14 ; 2 Kings ix. 7). To this other school belonged the 7000 prophets, who were no doubt in sympathy with Elijah (1 Kings xix. 18). But neither school took any objection to the worship of Yahweh through the symbols of the golden calves.
24 THE DECALOGUE
Kingdom in the ninth century and destroyed the worship and priests of Baal, since Baal was a false god and his worship a direct breach of the first Command- ment. No more did his great disciple Elisha protest against this worship, nor seemingly the far greater pro- phet Amos in his terrible indictment of the morals and worship of the Northern Kingdom. These facts imply that these prophets were acquainted with the first Com- mandment, but that either they knew nothing of the second or regarded the second as in abeyance.
But before we proceed further in this investigation, we should bear in mind that the use of the golden calves at these sanctuaries of the Northern Kingdom was mainly symbolic. They were not identified with Yahweh : they were to the intelligent worshipper symbols of Yahweh : Yahweh was worshipped through them, and the festival celebrated in their honour was a festival of Yahweh. But to the unintelligent, that is, to the people generally, they were, no doubt, actual idols. Such worship in Northern Israel was, therefore, in reality the survival, and not, as it is generally repre- sented, the revival of a more primitive and lower phase of worship. But, though the three prophets * of the ninth and eighth centuries just mentioned did not impeach the worship of the golden calves, Hosea, the
1 Amos, of course, was a prophet of the Southern Kingdom, but his prophecies dealt largely with the Northern. Amos may include under " the sin of Samaria " (viii. 14) the cult of the golden calves, but he nowhere expressly mentions this cult ; for the worship of the calves was expressly the sin of Dan and Bethel, and not distinctively that of Samaria. But both text and interpretation are doubtful.
SECOND COMMANDMENT 25
younger contemporary of Amos in the Northern King- dom, denounced every form of idolatry, and that in the most scathing terms, declaring that these their idols would be shattered, and that, as Israel has sown the wind, it should reap the whirlwind (Hos. viii. 4-6, x. 5, xiii. 1-3). But in the Southern Kingdom the revolt against idolatry had begun at least a century earlier under King Asa (913-873), who, we read, re- moved all the idols that his father had made (1 Kings xv. 12-13). In the so-called older Decalogue in Ex. xxxiv. 17, which many scholars assign to this period, only the worship of molten images, not of graven, was for- bidden— a point of view which may be reflected in the story of Aaron's making the golden calf, and which may form from a later standpoint a repudiation of the religion of Northern Israel.
Isaiah forbade the use of idols of silver and gold (ii. 8, 20). x It was in all likelihood Isaiah who prevailed on Hezekiah to destroy the brazen Serpent 2 which received divine honours in the Temple in Jerusalem. This brings us to the close of the eighth century, the date at which the second Commandment either first took its place in the now completed Decalogue, or rather, since we recognise its origin as Mosaic, came to exercise its legitimate force. The fact that it lay in
1 Scholars are divided as to the meaning of Isa. xix. 19, some holding that Isaiah in this passage condoned the use of the pillar in connection with divine worship.
2 That the worship (2 Kings xviii. 4) offered to the brazen serpent was a breach of the second Commandment cannot be explained away.
26 THE DECALOGUE
abeyance from 400 to 600 years in Palestine need cause no difficulty, seeing that it was deliberately explained away or ignored by the entire Christian Church despite the unmistakable and universal condemnation of the worship of images in the New Testament from the seventh century to the sixteenth, that is, for 800 years ; while the Koman and, in part, the Eastern Churches have treated it as null and void from the seventh General Council to the present day, that is, for over 1100 years.
Hence we can see no reasonable objection to the acceptance of the second Commandment as Mosaic in ori- gin, though it long failed to become effective in Palestine.
For a similar declension from the purity and truth of primitive teaching we have only to turn to Buddhism in India. Its founder was born in the sixth century b.c. (circa 586). Ethically Buddhism was unsurpassed even by the Judaism of the time. It rejected sacrifice and taught the Noble Eightfold Path. But it, too, declined from its lofty ideals and approximated more and more with each century to the popular superstitions and the degraded religions which surrounded it. Its most striking outward success, in securing the conversion of Asoka in the third century B.C. and the support of this powerful prince, only hastened its decline, as the con- version of Constantine contributed to the paganising of Christianity. In both cases thousands, nay millions, of nominal converts followed the safe and fashionable line of least resistance, and their adhesion corrupted the faith they had joined : they introduced into the religions they severally adopted the very superstitions,
SECOND COMMANDMENT 27
idolatries and abominations which these religions condemned as anathema.
After this period the prophetic elements of the nation advance steadily towards the conception of a non- idolatrous worship of God. The motive for such worship is given in Deut. iv. 12 : " The Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire : ye heard the voice of words, but ye saw no form." In this book it is ordained that not only is the idolater to be put to death (xvii. 2 sqq.), but also the man who entices another into this sin (xiii. 6-9).
And yet as late as the reign of Josiah (639-608) there were asherim standing by the altar of Yahweh, not only in Samaria (2 Kings xiii. 6) and Bethel (2 Kings xxiii. 15), but even in the temple in Jerusalem (2 Kings xxiii. 6).
In the seventh century and later we find the prophets treating the gods of the heathen with the utmost con- tempt and identifying them with idols, while the writers of the sixth and later centuries assail with trenchant satire the makers of gods of gold and silver, of wood and stone (Isa. xl. 18-20, xli. 6 sqq., xliv. 9-20, xlvi. 6 sq. ; Jer. x. 2-5, 9, 14 sq.).
When we reach the second century the propaganda against idolatry has become so relentless and to a certain extent extravagant and irrational, that the second Com- mandment is interpreted as forbidding not only the manufacture of images for worship, but the manufacture of any kind of image, picture or likeness, even when these were not intended for worship at all (Wis. xiv.
28 THE DECALOGUE
12-21). This unjustifiable interpretation shows itself in an embittered form in later Judaism.1 Thus, whereas we know that Solomon's Temple contained representa- tions of many natural objects, animal and other, in the later Temple no image of any kind was allowed ; and a wild storm of indignation burst forth against Herod when he set a large golden eagle above the great gate of the Temple (Jos. Ant. xvii. 6. 2-4 ; B.J. i. 33. 2-4 ; Vita, 12). Still later the same extreme party succeeded in thwarting Pilate's attempt to introduce the Koman legions into Jerusalem, because their ensigns bore the image of Caesar (Ant. xviii. 3. 1 ; B.J. ii. 9. 2 sq.). The impression that the Jews made on the Romans is rightly represented by the Roman historian Tacitus (Hist. v. 5), who writes : " The Jews worship one God in their minds only . . . therefore they allow no image in their cities much less in their temples." This was the law in Palestine ; but at Palmyra, Rome, Carthage and else- where there are carvings of human and other figures on the Jewish tombs.
This usage of the Jews of the Dispersion shows a more rational interpretation of the second Command- ment. To resume our conclusions, therefore, we observe that the tendency of the best religious elements in
1 Even Philo so interpreted the second Commandment ; see p. 29 n. Also Josephus, who writes thus : " The second Commandment forbids us to make the image of any living thing and worship it " (6 8t 5ei/repos KeXeijei firjdevbs dicbva fyov iroi-qaavTas irpovnvveiv, Ant. iii. 5. 5). These words might, of course, be interpreted in two ways, but there is no doubt as to Josephus' view ; for he condemns Solomon for making the brazen oxen (Ant. viii. 7. 5). See also xvii. 6. 2, xviii. 3. 1 ; B.J. i. 33. 2, ii. 9. 2, 10. 4.
SECOND COMMANDMENT 29
Judaism from the seventh century b.c. was to lay an increasing emphasis on the second Commandment,1 which forbade the use of any kind of image in order to worship God through it. In remarkable contrast with this fact we shall have to call attention to the contrary tendency in Christianity from the sixth century of the Christian era onwards, which either by explaining away the second Commandment or by suppressing it alto- gether, put its claims out of court and introduced image worship into the Christian Church. The Jewish tendency led to the destruction of art in worship : the Christian tendency leads to the destruction of religion itself.
It is needless to controvert the narrow Jewish mis- interpretation of the second Commandment to which we have above referred. But we may well wonder why the enforcement of this Commandment was adjourned
1 Philo's (De decern Orac. xv., xvi., xxix. ; Be Vita Contemplativa, i.-ii.) condemnation of images is expressed in vigorous terms. The worshippers of images are greater sinners than polytheists (De decern Orac. xiv.). Philo even condemns art under this commandment. He anticipates the Christian objection of later times, that it would have been more proper to deify the artists rather than the things they had created. Kal d£oi>, etirep dpa i^rjfidprapov, roi)s furypdcpovs at/rods Kal dvdpiaPTOTroious uirepfloKats ti/aQv iKTedeuanivai, roiis ph etaaav &<pav€L$ ovdtv ir\£ov irapaaxbvTes, t& 5' vrr iKeivoiv dyfiiovpyTjdtvTa TrXdafiara Kal ^cpypacprifMara deotis ivd/miaav (op. cit. 14). Philo, as he proceeds, presses this argument in an intensely ironical vein : " I have known that some of the men who made the idolatrous images both pray and offer sacrifices to the very things they had themselves made. Now for these it would have been much better to worship their own hands severally ; but, in case they shunned the reproach of self-conceit ... at all events to worship their anvils, and hammers and graving tools ... by means of which the materials took their shape."
30 THE DECALOGUE
to the eighth century B.C. in the history of Israel. The answer shortly is that it is in keeping with the rest of God's education of man. This education is adapted to the capacities of the pupil, and yet is always in advance of the pupil's attainments. It is no greater difficulty than the facts that God was worshipped by Israel as one God amongst many for several centuries, and that a belief in a blessed future life was not arrived at by Israel till the third or second century before the Christian era. Hence this semi-idolatrous period in the history of Israel had its part in the education of mankind. That in the childhood of the race God should be con- ceived as a Being with certain human passions of a not wholly desirable kind, and that He should be worshipped through symbols and images is not un- natural. Pious souls have risen in such periods and with such imperfect means of worship to faith and hope and holiness — even to a real communion with God. But though all this be admitted, it must at the same time be maintained that such imperfect worship can only rightly belong to the childhood of the race, and that, so far as a man worships God through images, he thereby makes it evident that he has not yet put away childish things from him, nor as yet come into the prerogatives that belong to his spiritual manhood. Furthermore, where, as in Christianity, the principles of spiritual worship are laid down from the outset, the tolerance, much more the teaching of an idolatrous worship of God, calls for the strongest reprobation. When such primitive worship of God by means of
SECOND COMMANDMENT 31
images or unfigured forms — permissible in the early childhood of the race — is deliberately introduced into or tolerated in Christianity, it is nothing less than gross idolatry.
That such idolatry is practised in the Christian Church is undeniable, if we compare the idolatrous rites, which the Hebrew prophets denounced, with the rites that have prevailed in many Christian Churches for the past 1400 years. In fact, the Christian Church from the fourth century a.d. onwards began to revive the very rites explicitly condemned by the Hebrew prophets as idolatrous. Thus the prophets brand as idolatrous the following practices : the custom of kissing idols or images (Hos. xiii. 2 ; 1 Kings xix. 18) ; of clothing them in costly garments (Ezek. xvi. 18 ; Jer. x. 9) ; of offering incense to them (Ezek. viii. 11) ; of making genuflexions and prostrations before them (Isa. xliv. 15 ; Ep. Jer. 6) ; of embracing, anointing or washing them (Sanh. vii. 6) ; of carrying them in procession (Isa. xlvi. 1, 7 ; Jer. x. 5 ; Ep. Jer. 4, 26) ; of lighting candles before them (Ep. Jer. 19).1 That these idolatrous practices of Judaism and the idolatrous practices of Christianity are practically one and the same, is clear even to the most superficial observer.
But image worship has had in all ages its defenders. Christians who maintain the value of images in worship urge first of all that no one supposes that the
1 Lactantius (Institut. vi. 2) speaks ironically of this practice : " They kindle lights as for one who is in the dark " (" accendunt lumina velut in tenebris agenti"), and asks if the worshipper who offers such a gift is " in his right senses " (mentis suae compos).
M
32 THE DECALOGUE
figured or unfigured block of wood or stone or gold is the real god : they contend that it is only a symbol of the unseen Being to whom the worship is really offered.
Further, they contend that even those who condemn material images of God do themselves form an intel- lectual image of God, and by means of such an image offer to God their worship ; and wherein, they ask, does worship offered by means of a material image differ from worship rendered by means of an intellectual image ? In both cases the representation is far re- moved from the Divine Original it stands for, and in both cases the symbol is of our own creation. If the one is a material idol, it follows that the other is a mental idol.
But, however forcible this reasoning may appear at first sight, we feel instinctively that it is not valid. For all history teaches that the curse, pronounced on those who change the glory of the invisible into the visible, of the spiritual into the material, has been fulfilled in the case of every nation upon earth ; and that the Church or people which degrades the con- ception of God inevitably brings about its own degradation.
But to deal with this argument more definitely. It is not true that intellectual images are as hurtful as material. It is not true that it is just as dangerous to the race to form a mental image of God in our minds as to make an external and material image of Him. Both even at their best are confessedly inadequate,
SECOND COMMANDMENT 33
but material images are more hurtful than intellectual, and for this reason. The mental image is capable of being improved : it can grow in purity with the man's spiritual growth, whereas the material image is fixed, crystallised and incapable of growth, and thus becomes a reactionary element in religion and cannot fail to degrade the worship of such as avail themselves of its services. The growth of the conception of God is manifest in the history of the Jewish people. Their Scriptures, while representing God as a Spiritual Personal Power, assigned to Him in earlier days many an attribute that was wholly unworthy of the Deity. But so far as Israel was faithful to the truth they had, nobler and diviner truths were revealed to them, and so they reached more adequate conceptions of God, who, if He is to be worshipped at all, must be conceived as infinitely better than the best conceivable by us.
Since, then, images are the embodiment of an utterly inadequate and likewise a degrading conception of God, and can never represent the invisible God, Israel was forbidden their use in worship. If it was God's purpose to reveal to Israel, and through Israel to the whole world, some of the highest and truest conceptions of the Divine attainable by man, the prohibition of image worship was inevitable at some period in the course of the Divine education of Israel. For, so far as religion makes use of images, it anchors itself inevitably to a pagan level.
At this stage, for the sake of avoiding confused thought, let us distinguish images of God, whether 3
34 THE DECALOGUE
material or mental, the essential element of which is their form, from conceptions of God which are purely mental and formless. In religious worship the use of images, whether material or mental, was absolutely forbidden by the later Old Testament prophets. This prohibition, however, was not extended in the Decalogue to intellectual conceptions of deity which are mental and formless. But, since such conceptions, though form- less, might be either good or bad, to cherish wrong or degrading conceptions of God came in due time to be denounced by Hebrew prophecy as idolatry — a mental idolatry independent wholly of the use of images. Thus Ezekiel (xiv. 3) declares, " Son of man, these men have taken their idols into their hearts/' and the Psalmist (1. 21), " Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself." Through such mental idolatry men become the worshippers and the slaves of the idols of their own hearts — either of lawless ambitions or ungovernable passions, of greed or malice, of lying, hate or lust, whether as embodied in, or suggested by outward idols or not. Hence over against such idols, material or mental, formed or formless, with all their evil qualities the Bible proclaims the God of Israel as " The Lord God compassionate and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in mercy and truth " (Ex. xxxiv. 6), " for- giving iniquity and transgression, and that will by no means clear the guilty ' ' (Num. xiv. 18). Or again, ' ' Thus saith the High and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is holy : I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit "
SECOND COMMANDMENT 35
(Isa. lvii. 15). Now to such a conception of God we can attach no form. No more can we attach any form to such individual attributes of God as His truth, or His righteousness, His purity or mercy, His Omni- presence or His eternal years. In the New Testament the same teaching is enforced and developed. Thus in the Fourth Gospel we read, " Ye have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His shape " (John v. 37) ; and in an earlier chapter, " the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth : for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is Spirit : and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth " (iv. 23, 24) ; and again, if we turn to the Johannine Epistles we find the two crowning definitions of the Deity, the first being " God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all " (1 John i. 5), and the second and greatest of all, " God is love " (iv. 8). Such concep- tions cannot be visualised. Hence in Christianity from the very outset the prohibition of idolatrous images and conceptions is inevitable, not only of images material and mental, but also of all unworthy concep- tions of God. A degraded conception of God is an idol. Hence the Fourth Evangelist in his first Epistle is never tired of repeating : " Little children, keep yourselves from idols."
SECOND COMMANDMENT SECOND LECTURE
" Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, nor any likeness that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them." — Ex. xx. 4, 5.
" God is Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." — John iv. 24.
TN my first lecture on the second Commandment I ■*■ dealt with this Commandment as promulgated and enforced in the Old Testament, and accepted and still further developed in the New Testament. This morning we have to inquire how far the Christian Church has been faithful to the teaching which the prophets of the Old Testament gave on the true worship of God, and which culminated in that of the New Testament — " God is Spirit : and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." The chief writers in the Early Church were faithful to all that was best in the past. Apparently in the first two centuries there were no attempts at image worship within the Church. In + these centuries the Christian apologists directed their attacks against idolatry outside the Church in the
pagan world ; but in the third century, not only against
36
SECOND COMMANDMENT 37
idolatry in the pagan world, but in its beginnings in * Christianity. Thus in the first half of the second century Justin Martyr denounces the infatuation of heathen idolatry,1 and attacks the Greeks for making images of God in the likeness of men.2 Tatian3 follows in the footsteps of Justin. Later in the same century Athenagoras 4 maintains that the heathen gods are of recent origin, and their images only of yesterday. His contemporary, Melito of Sardis, condemns the worship of idols wrought in stone and other materials.5 About the same date Theophilus,6 sixth Bishop of Antioch, inveighs against the gods of the heathen as the work of men's hands and made of stone or brass or wood or other material, and in still more vigorous terms the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus, ii. Irenseus (flor. 180) attributes the first use of images to heretics, namely, to the Gnostics, who claimed that a likeness of Christ had been made by Pilate.7
Early in the third century Tertullian (a.d. 155-222) maintains that the artificer of an idol is as guilty of idolatry as its worshipper ; 8 while a few decades later
1 Apol. i. 9.
2 Cohort, ad Gentiles, xxxiv. 8 Ad Grcecos, iv.
4 Legatio pro Christo, xv.-xvii.
6 Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, p. 483.
6 Ad Autolycum, ii. 2.
7 Hcer. i. 25. 6.
8 De Idol. i. 3, 4. In this treatise Tertullian charges Christians with idolatry on the ground that they had manufactured idols for their heathen neighbours, made contracts in their names and taken part in their festivals.
38 THE DECALOGUE
Minucius Felix x (c. a.d. 234) holds up to derision the idols of the heathen gods, and states2 that the charge brought against the Christians was that they had no images. Celsus3 states that the Christians " could not tolerate either temples, altars or images " ; and Origen replies that it is on the ground of the second Commandment that Christians abhor all worship or use of images,4 and adds that "It is not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to images." 5 Cyprian (200-258) 6 maintains that evil spirits have their habitation in heathen idols, and that the heathen take them to be gods.7
In Canon xxxvi. of the Synod of Elvira (c. a.d. 300) we read : " It is ordained that pictures are not to be placed in the churches, nor is that which is worshipped and adored to be painted on the walls." Lactantius (260-340) directs the shafts of his wit against idolaters bowing down before the work of their own hands. " These most foolish beings," he writes, " do not under- stand that, if their images had been endowed with sense and motion, they would have taken the initiative and adored the artist to whom they owe their creation." 8 Eusebius (ob. 340) calls representations of Christ and
1 Octavius, 23.
* Op. cit. 10.
8 Origen (185-254), c. Cdsum, vii. 62. 4 Op. cit. vii. 64.
* Op. cit. vii. 65.
6 De Idolorum vanitate, vii.
7 Testimonia, 51.
8 Div. Instit. u. 2 : " Ultro adoraturi hominem a quo sunt expolita." See note on Philo's view, p. 29 n.
SECOND COMMANDMENT 39
His Apostles in pictures " a heathen custom " ; x and Epiphanius of Salamis {oh. a.d. 403) tore down a curtain in a Palestinian church because it had a picture of Christ or a saint upon it.2
St. Augustine, in condemning heathen idolatry, con- demns implicitly the use of images in Christian worship. The heathen, he writes, alleges in defence of his worship : " I worship not the image, but what the images signify " ; but Augustine will have none of this, and brands such worship as sheer idolatry : "He who worships an image turns the truth of God into a lie." 3 In support of his attack on heathen idolatry, Augustine enforces his argu- ments by quoting even a heathen author, namely, Varro, on this subject. Varro, he informs us, main- tained that worship was holier and purer (castius) when dissociated from images ; and Varro supported this con- tention by actually adducing the example of Jewish worship.4 Augustine adduces Seneca also as repro- bating the use of images.5 If Augustine denounces so strongly image worship even amongst the heathen, how unsparing must have been his condemnation of image worship amongst Christians ; and yet to his great
1 H.E. vii. 18 : idviK^ <rvvr)deia. Eusebius says in this passage that there were such paintings in his time (eU6vas . . . 5ia xp^^tuv iv ypa.(pais o-wfo/^as). Here also he states that he saw in Caesarea Philippi a bronze relief (iKTvirw/ma x^^eov) which was said to be of Christ healing the woman with an issue of blood.
2 Epiphanius, Ep. ad Joann. Hieros.
8 Sermo cxcvii. (Paris), vol. v. 1313 A: "Non simulacrum colo sed quod significant simulacra . . . qui simulacrum colit convertit veritatem Dei in mendacium."
4 August. De civ. Dei, iv. 31. 2 (vol. vii. 182 C).
6 De civ. Dei, vi. 10. 1 (vol. vii. 256 C).
40 THE DECALOGUE
sorrow he was obliged to confess that there were already many idolaters in the Christian Church.1
From the above evidence, which could be largely increased, it is clear that images were not used in the earliest days of the Christian Church ; but that, though sporadic attempts were made to introduce them from the close of the second century onward, yet the greatest thinkers, apologists, writers and bishops of the first four centuries protested against any use of images in the Christian Church. This attitude of the Church to image worship is very intelligible ; for before the time of Constantine the Church had been engaged in a mortal struggle against an idolatrous Empire and an idolatrous world. Accordingly, to its converts from heathenism the use of images was absolutely forbidden ; but, with the so-called conversion of the Empire, the bulk of its heathen subjects, lightly relinquishing their old faith and as lightly embracing the new, carried over with them into Christianity their idolatrous tendencies and practices.2
1 De Mor. eccles. cath. i. 75, vol. i. 1153.
2 Cumont (Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, p. xxiv, 1911, trans, from the French) speaks of the invaluable contributions of the Oriental cults towards preparing the way for Christianity. He writes : " As the religious history of the Empire is studied more closely the triumph of the Church will, in our opinion, appear more and more as the culmination of a long evolution of beliefs. We can understand the Christianity of the fifth century with its greatnesses and its weaknesses, its spiritual exaltation and its puerile super- stitions, if we know the moral antecedents of the world in which it developed." Amongst the most puerile but most dangerous of these superstitions may be reckoned the idolatrous elements in these Oriental Cults.
SECOND COMMANDMENT 41
Furthermore, with this conversion of the Empire to Christianity in the beginning of the fourth century, the arts came to be cultivated by Christians, and the services of painting and sculpture were increasingly made use of in worship, apparently without the sanction of any regular ecclesiastical authority. Image worship, more- over, followed naturally in the wake of the worship of the saints. The honours of the original were inevitably transferred to their images.1
For a time the Church resisted this pressure of heathenism from without ; but the evil leaven went on steadily, leavening the Church at large, and that so successfully, that in the sixth and seventh and eighth centuries the grossest idolatry was practised throughout the greater part of Christendom. This abuse naturally led to a reaction, which culminated in the Iconoclastic controversy in the eighth and ninth centuries.
But before we touch on this controversy let us ask archaeology what report it has to make on the date of the introduction and use of images in the Christian Church. No images of any kind were apparently used for some generations after the foundation of the Christian Church. In the Catacombs,2 Christ is represented on
1 The assertion of this astounding obliquity of thought does not appear first in Basil the Great, as it is generally maintained. We shall return to this subject later.
* The Catacombs were discovered by an accident on May 31, 1578. They contain little that can be called sculpture. Pope Damasus (a.d. 366-384) employed an engraver, Furius Philocalus, to restore the works of art on the walls. This gave rise to extensive alterations which have much lessened their value as authentic memorials of the second and third centuries.
42 THE DECALOGUE
a bas-relief as the Good Shepherd,1 or as seated before figures of saints, and once as crowned with thorns in the Catacomb of Praetextatus on the Appian Way.2 But there is not a single picture of the Crucifixion in any of the Catacombs, and yet Christians were buried there down to the sack of Rome in a.d. 410. The only representation of the Crucifixion of an early date is a caricature scratched in derision by a pagan soldier in the Palatine Barracks.3 From the fourth to the seventh century in countless churches Christ is represented in the apse of the church as triumphant and not as crucified. The cross, it is true, was treated as an honoured symbol from the middle of the second century onwards. Justin Martyr (Dial. c. Try ph. 91) attempts to discover its symbolism in various events in the Old Testament, and Tertullian states that the heathen charged Christians with being " priests of the cross." 4 But the reverence with which the cross was treated was a thing wholly apart from image worship. Yet even in the Catacombs it is portrayed in a veiled and hesitating manner.
In keeping with the information we have elicited from the Catacombs, is the further truth that in Christian worship the use of the crucifix was unknown till the
1 There is a statue of Christ as the Good Shepherd in the Lateran Museum. The Vatican possesses a statue of this character said to be derived from the earliest part of the third century (Kraus, Gesch. d. christl. Kunst, i. 227 ; 1896, Freiburg. See Catholic Encyc. vii. 666.
2 Leclercq, Manuel a" Archeologie Chretienne, i. 542 ; Paris, 1907 (quoted in the Catholic Encyc. vii. 666).
3 Kraus, Gesch. d. christlichen Kunst, i. 173 ; Freiburg, 1896 (quoted in Catholic Encyc. vii. 666).
4 Antistites crucis. Adv. Nationes, i. 12.
SECOND COMMANDMENT 43
sixth century. The earliest representations have been found at Gaza, Tours and Narbonne.1 Now it is a remarkable fact that crucifixes were unknown during the first five centuries of the Christian Church : it is, moreover, an impressive fact that the use of crucifixes form part and parcel of the idolatrous development that reached its climax in the ninth and later centuries.
This development we shall deal with presently, but let us for a few minutes pause and consider the growing use of the crucifix in the present day. Is it also part and parcel of a similar movement towards idolatry as that which occurred between the sixth and ninth centuries ? Is this use of the crucifix salutary or strengthening ? Now it must be acknowledged that the image of Christ in His dying agony, His face strained with suffering, His hands and His feet nailed to the cross, may make a strong appeal to the heart and imagi- nation, and awake such anguish and grief as may lead
1 The worship of the crucifix was introduced into the West by the Syrian Church : cf . Brehier, Les Origines du crucifix dans Vart religieux, 1904 ; Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism (translated 1911), p. 109: "During the first five centuries Christians felt an unconquerable repugnance to the representation of the Saviour of the world nailed to an instrument of punishment. . . . The Syrians were the first to substitute reality in all its pathetic horror for a vague symbolism." Gregory of Tours (o&. 595), De gloria Martyrum, i. 23, describes the crucifix in Narbonne. But since this crucifix gave offence, it was veiled by order of the Bishop and only uncovered on special occasions. Bede (iv. 376, ed. Giles) relates that a crucifix was brought from Rome to the British cloister at Weremouth in 686. The crucifix was first officially authorised at the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 692. " Hereafter instead of the Lamb the human figure of Christ shall be set up on the images." As early as the fifth century the figure of the Lamb was attached to the cross, sometimes at the top, sometimes at the bottom.
44 THE DECALOGUE
to a reformation of life. It is on the strength of such impressions that those who use this symbol as a means of worship base their justification of its use. But, on the other hand, there are not a few weighty objections. The very same arguments could have been alleged in defence of the golden calf, which, according to the Pentateuch, Aaron made to satisfy the sensuous longings of the people for a visible symbol of Yahweh. Though the sight of the golden calf made Yahweh's presence more vivid and real to His people, were they really brought nearer in their sensuous worship to Him than they had been before ? The golden calves in Dan, Bethel and Samaria were treated as outward symbols of Deity and not as Deity itself, and had just as valid claims to be used in the religion of Israel as the crucifix and other images in Christianity. Though a few may use such symbols safely as suggestive of the claims of Christ on their obedience and not as images through which to offer Him worship, by the inevitable laws of association such symbols cannot but become a danger to the many. The symbols may be at first symbols and nothing more : they may stir and quicken thought, but inevitably they gather round them associations of sacredness and reverence, which are of the essence of idolatry when directed to anything short of God Himself. In such worship also the sensuous feelings and sym- pathies which are stirred into activity, are wrongly identified by the worshippers with the spiritual faith which addresses itself direct to nothing less than God Himself as revealed in Christ. Such feelings are much
SECOND COMMANDMENT 45
more easily aroused by influences coming from below than by influences which make their appeal from above ; and when men, and especially women, have once yielded to the hypnotic spell of the sensuous in religion, the still small voice of God's Spirit in the conscience and the understanding has but a slender chance of being heard.
Ruskin denounces in the strongest language the evil effects of realistic art on the religious mind of Europe. He admits that such realistic art in its higher branches may touch the most sincere religious minds, but that " in its lowest it addresses itself not only to the most vulgar desires for religious excitement, but to the mere thirst for sensation of horror which characterises the uneducated orders of partially civilised countries ; nor merely to the thirst for horror, but to the strange love of death, as such, which has sometimes in Catholic churches showed itself peculiarly by the endeavour to paint the images in the chapels of the Sepulchre to look . . . like corpses. The same morbid interest has affected the minds of many among the more imaginative and powerful artists with a feverish gloom, which distorts their finest work, and, lastly ... it has occupied the sensibility of Christian women, universally, in lamenting the sufferings of Christ, instead of preventing those of His people." x
And what holds true of the use of images generally is true in a wholly exceptional degree of the use of the crucifix. The representation of physical anguish, torture and agony is a thing that the Eastern religions,
1 Lectures on Art, p. 53 sq.
46 THE DECALOGUE
such as Hinduism, delight in. Devotion to such horrors is characteristic of lower types of civilisation. In the West it is characteristic of women more than of men, and amongst men it is a sign of the morbid and less sound and healthy types.1
Furthermore, what must we think of such representa- tions as that of the crucifix, if contemplated from the Divine side ? Christ's appeal throughout the Gospels is practically first and last to man's conscience, thought and will. Devotion based simply on the emotions He rejects in the most scathing terms, as in the case of Peter. And yet in the crucifix the appeal is first and mainly to the emotions, and to those elements that are paramount in men and women that are most lacking in self-control and self-respect. In fact, the crucifix is a crowning exhibition of self-pity, an unblushing pro- clamation to all and sundry of the physical sufferings sustained by Christ for the sons of men, and a demand, clamant though unvoiced, for their due recognition. Homeric heroes and North American braves were in olden days accustomed to acclaim their own doughty and heroic deeds ; but no real disciple of Christ, no true
1 " When any of you next go abroad, observe and consider the meaning of the sculptures and paintings which, of every rank in art, and in every chapel and cathedral, and by every mountain path, recall the hours, and represent the agonies, of the Passion of Christ : and try to form some estimate of the efforts that have been made by the four arts of eloquence, music, painting and sculpture, since the twelfth century, to wring out of the hearts of women the last drops of pity that could be excited for this merely physical agony : for the art nearly always dwells on the physical wounds or exhaustion chiefly, and degrades, far more than it animates, the conception of pain " (Ruskin, op. cit. p. 54).
SECOND COMMANDMENT 47
Christian martyr or child of God, can follow in their footsteps ; and least of all can such conduct be ascribed to, or admitted as possible in, Him who is the mani- festation of God, and the supreme Exemplar of that to which all that is best and noblest in man responds by virtue of an inherent and divine necessity. The last words that were spoken by Christ to the women that followed Him as He bare the cross to Golgotha, " Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children " (Luke xxiii. 28), ought to have made the horrors of the crucifix an im- possibility, and taught His disciples the true character of the Christ, who is the most self-forgetful and unself- conscious figure in all history, and not a sentimental being, full of the weak self-consciousness and self-pity which the combined evil ministeries of art and religion have represented Him for over 1200 years.1
It should here be added that the Sermon, which makes its sole appeal to the emotions, comes under the same condemnation.
Preachers have often laid the main emphasis on the physical sufferings of Christ — on the bloody sweat in the garden, on the scourging in the governor's palace,
1 Ruskin (op. cit. p. 56) in this connection speaks of "the deadly- function of art in its ministry to what, whether in heathen or Christian lands, and whether in the pageantry of words, or colours, or fair forms, is truly, and in the deep sense, to be called idolatry — the serving with the best of our hearts and minds, some dear or sad phantasy which we have made for ourselves, while we disobey the present call of the Master, who is not dead, and who is not now fainting under His cross, but requiring us to take up ours." The italics are mine.
48 THE DECALOGUE
on the overwhelming weight of the cross, on the jeering multitudes, on the horrors of the crucifixion, and described these in such rhetorical and passionate terms that even strong men, and not merely women and children, have broken down in an agony of weeping and of tears. But in such experiences the vehemence of human passion has been wrongly taken to be the expression of a living faith. If our religious feelings have been aroused while our conscience and will have remained quiescent, then every such right feeling that has been aroused and not been forthwith translated into action is so much waste of the spiritual nature, and tends to degrade the life it was designed to transform and strengthen.
With such sensuous appeals to the emotions, either through images or through words, contrast the calm accounts of the Evangelists. With what a severe reticence, with what an austere self-control, the Evan- gelists tell in simple and inimitable words the story of the cross. Their appeal is addressed primarily, not to man's emotions through dwelling on the natural horrors inspired by human agony, but first and foremost to man's conscience and thought, and then to his will and affections through this crowning manifestation of the love of God in Christ.
Let us now return to the history of image worship in the Church. To Basil the Great has been attributed the statement : " I honour and kiss the features of their images " (i.e. of Christ, the Virgin, Apostles, etc.), " inasmuch as they were handed down from the holy
SECOND COMMANDMENT 49
apostles " (Ep. ccclx.). But the Epistle in which these words occur is now rejected as spurious on the ground that the vocabulary and style are unlike those of Basil.1 I have found it further ascribed to Basil that he maintained in regard to images, that "the honour paid to an image passes on to the prototype." But these words have been wrested from their context and given a meaning and comprehension they were never intended to bear. This relation of the image to its prototype Basil uses only in reference to God.2 His brother, Gregory of Nyssa (oh. 395), held that much good was done by paintings on sacred subjects ; and
1 Maran {Vita Bas. xxxix.), quoted in footnote on Basil, p. 326 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers).
* De Spiritu Sancto, xviii. (Migne, PG xxxii. 149). The words in inverted commas are used by Basil in reference to Christ as the image of the Father — not to an image of Christ. The Greek is : i) rrjs elubvos rifii) iirl rb irptarbTvirov 8ia/3aLpei. These words are immediately followed by a clause that defines their application : 5 odv £<rriv ivravda fjufAyracCbs rj eticibv, tovto 4k€i (pvcriKws 6 vlds : i.e. " What value therefore the image has here by force of outward likeness, there the Son has by (His) essential nature." These words of Basil were later unjustifiably extended to images of every description. Again, in the same treatise, Basil (ch. ix. (Migne, PG xxxii. 109)) speaks of Christ as tt\v eUbva rod dopdrov. For the universal applica- tion of these words, see John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa, iv. 16, " the honour rendered to the image passes to the prototype." Basil's words, it is true, lend themselves easily to this abuse. But I cannot find any real instance of it in Basil himself. The relation of the image to its prototype seems to be limited to the Divine Being. Thus in his Comm. in Esaiam, cap. xiii. 267 (vol. i. 583 ; Paris, 1721, ed. Gamier) he states that those who "treat the temple with insolenoe, treat with insolence also something connected with the image of the Creator" (4i-vj3pLfrovcn . . . teal els rb Kara dtcbva rod Kplaavros). These words are followed by a similar phrase to that given above : " Through the image the insolence passes to the Creator " (did rrjs elicbvos r] u/3pis dvaflaLvei iiri rbv KTlcravra).
4
50 THE DECALOGUE
Paulinus of Nola (ob. 409) thought that the uneducated rustic was influenced for good and restrained from evil by such representations.1 St. Augustine (ob. 435) laments that among the Christian masses there were many image worshippers,2 but treats these as merely nominal members of the Church and as lacking in the essence of the Christian faith. Leontius, bishop of Neapolis, in Cyprus (fl. 582-602), wrote a defence of Christianity against the Jews, and maintained rightly that the law of Moses was not directed unconditionally against the use of religious images, but against the worship of them, and that sinners were daily moved to contrition and led to renounce their sins by a look at the Cross of Christ. It is clear, however, that idolatry combined with imposture had already made great strides in connection with image worship ; for this bishop ingenuously maintains that blood flowed miraculously in his day from many of the images.3 In his letter to Severus, Pope Gregory i. (ob. 604) defends the use of images and describes them as the books of the unlearned. Image worship at this time had become to the mass of the people the worship of the material
1 Carmen, ix. and x. de S. Felicis natali.
2 Novi multos esse . . . picturarum adoratores (De Mor. Eccles. Cath. (i.) 75). Adorare in its technical sense = worship of God Him- self. That the uninstructed, if not many of the instructed, have lapsed since Augustine's time to the present day into the belief that the picture and image are not merely such things in themselves, but are tenements and vehicles of Deity and so possessed of divine powers, is manifest to the student of history.
8 iroWaias al[i6.T(j)v pfoeis £i- eUdvwv yeydvaatv. See the fragments of this Apology in the fourth Act of the Second Council of Nicaea.
SECOND COMMANDMENT 51
present image rather than of the spiritual power it symbolised. The Church's leaders might continue to draw fine distinctions between images as objects of reverence and images as objects of adoration, but the vulgar neither understood nor paid heed to them.
This wholesale reversion to idolatry called forth the opposition of several of the Byzantine Emperors, who strove to destroy all images throughout the Christian world. But the evil was too deeply rooted to be destroyed by the State. Moreover, the Church was already in a large measure committed to it. Three champions of image worship came forward in the per- sons of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Pope Gregory 11. and John of Damascus in the eighth century. We shall consider only the latter two. Pope Gregory in the year 729 wrote two letters to the Iconoclastic Emperor Leo. The first letter is an astonishing pro- duction for an occupant of the Papal See — astonishing alike for its lack of dignity, its dogmatism, its arrogance and its ignorance. Gregory asserts that David placed the brazen serpent in the Temple. Now we do not require the erudition of Macaulay's schoolboy to be assured that David was dead before the foundation of the Temple was laid. Gregory takes Hezekiah, who destroyed the brazen serpent, to have been the same man with his grandfather Uzziah, who wished to exercise the priest's office, though he began to reign eighty-four years before Hezekiah.1 He maintains that images were made of Christ and of the apostles and
1 Cf. 2 Chron. xxvi. 16 and 2 Kings xviii. 4.
52 THE DECALOGUE
disseminated throughout the world in the first half of the first century. For this extraordinary statement he finds the evidence in a still more extraordinary inter- pretation of certain words of Christ : " Where the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together." " The body," says Pope Gregory, "is Christ, and the eagles are the religious men who flew from all quarters to behold Him. When they beheld Him, they made a picture of Him. But not of Him only, but also of James the brother of the Lord, of Stephen and of all the martyrs." Gregory denies that Christians adore the images as gods : they only use them as reminders, and invoke their intercession. But the fact that the worshipper invokes the intercession of the image invests it with supernatural associations. Hence when Gregory speaks of the statue of St. Peter at Rome, we are not surprised that he describes it as one " which all the kingdoms of the West esteem as a god upon earth." 1 These words surely have a thoroughly idolatrous ring about them. In his second letter he answers Leo's question : " Why have not the Councils commanded image worship ? " with the counter- question, " Why have they not commanded us to eat and drink ? " It thus appears that Gregory considered images as indis- pensable to the spiritual life as food is to the bodily life. Furthermore, Gregory asserts that " no religious man goes on a pilgrimage without an image."
But the strongest champion of image worship was John of Damascus, whose life extends over the greater
1 Quam omnia Occidentis regna velut Deum terrestrem habent,
SECOND COMMANDMENT 53
part of the eighth century. In his three famous orations he expresses the ordinary arguments of the day with greater ingenuity and in more vigorous style than any of his contemporaries. He was a man of great learning and high character. I state this fact in order to make clear the grip which image worship had won on the leading men of the time, and the havoc such worship had wrought on their mental and ethical outlook. Only reflect to what depths of mental degradation such men had sunk, when John of Damascus could quote the following story as supporting the duty of image worship. John tells how a certain recluse x on the Mount of Olives
1 The monk's name is said to have been John Moschus (ob. 620). The story is told in the N4os HapaSaaos attributed to him and trans- lated into Latin under the title Pratum spirituale. It is recounted in full by John of Damascus, De imaginibus oratio, i. 328 (Migne, PQ xciv. col. 1280) :
4k tov Aeifiowaplov tov dylov iraTpbs 7]/xCjp "Zwcppoplov apx^-maKdirov 'lepoffoKvpnav.
"WKeyep 6 d^^ds Qeddupos 6 AtXtuirT/s, 8ti ijv tcs HyKXeicrros 4p Tip opei twp 'EXcuw?', dyuviaTTjs irdpv' iiroXe'/xet. 8e avrip 6 Sal/xup ttjs iroppelas. Ej> fiia odv, ibs iir^Keiro avTtp acpoSpQs, ifpi-aro 6 yipup diroSvpeadai, Kal \4yei rep BaifiovL' "Ews wbre ovk ipSLSus fioi; dirbara Xonrbv air ifiov. 2vveyripa<r&s /xoi. Qalverat avrcp b 8alp.o)p 6<pda\p.o<papQs, XiyuV "Ofioabp /AOt 6tl ovSepl Xiyeus 8 yuiXXw \4yeip crot, Kal ovk4ti <joi iro\ep.Q. Kal tifuxrev avrcp 6 yipuv, 8ti fid rbv ipoiKovpra 4v rote v\j/larois. Ovk etiru) tipL, Sirep \4yeis fxot. Tbre \4yei avrip 6 Sal/xcop' Mr; irpoo~KVPri<rris raOrr} rfj eUdvt, Kal ovk4ti crol iroXe/xQ' ET^e 84 ij cIkwp 4KT6iru)fxa rrjs Aeairolprjs tj/auiu rrjs aylas Mapias . . . Atyei 6 ZyKXeurTOS rip Sal- fiopi. "A<f>es, (TKixJ/ofJLai. T77 o$p iiratipiov SrjXoi rip afifiq. QeoSibpip . . . oIkovvti t6t€ iv rrj \a6pr} Qapdop, Kal 1j\de, Kal SirjyeiTai. avnp dirapra. 0 84 y4pup \4yei rip 4yK\ei(TT(p optws a{i(3a' "EpeiralxQys, 8ti &p.o<ras Tip 8aip.opt' tt\t)p KaXuis iwoirjaas O-eLirdop' avp.(p4pei 84 <rot, /it) 4a<rat els rrjp ir6\ip radr^p iropprjp (? iroppetop) els 8 /tr) el<r4pxv, $ i^a dpp-rjo-y rb irpocrKVpelp rip Kvplip Kal deip rjfxQp 'lr]aov Xpio~Tip fxerd rijs ISlas avrov firp-pbs.
54 THE DECALOGUE
was tempted by a demon of uncleanness. One day the demon appeared to him and offered to discontinue his assaults, if the monk would but cease to worship an image of the Virgin and the Infant Christ which hung in his cell. In his weakness the monk consented, but, later, conscience-smitten, he disclosed his rash vow to his spiritual adviser, a well-known abbot. " Better," said the abbot, " that you should visit every brothel in Jerusalem, than abandon this worship." That such a story should be approved by the highest authorities in the Church of the time shows how the moral sense can be destroyed in an ecstatic devotion to sensuous symbols. Hence adultery and perjury were regarded by the leaders of the Church as venial offences compared with the mortal sin of refusing to worship a brazen or other image.
Notwithstanding the universal trend of the Empire to image worship, the Emperor Constantine succeeded in convening a Council against this worship at Con- stantinople in 754. This Council appealed first and last to the second Commandment in its strict sense as interpreted by the Jews and Early Christians, and it denounced, accordingly, image worship as a relapse into heathen idolatry. But the iconoclastic party were profoundly and hopelessly inconsistent. They rejected the worship of images and at the same time clung to the worship of the saints. And yet the latter super- stition is the parent of the former. In the gathering darkness, which had been deepening in intensity since the reign of Constantine the Great, the Church had lost
SECOND COMMANDMENT 55
its way and could not unravel the mazes of the labyrinth into which it had wandered. Accordingly this partial reaction in the direction of a purer worship could only be of a negative character and of no real spiritual value. It is, therefore, not surprising that in 787 another Council was called under the Empress Irene at Nicaea, a Council afterwards known as the Second Council of Nicaea or Seventh General Council. At this Council the shocking story of the monk which I have just quoted to you from John of Damascus was twice read with approval, as well as the spurious Epistle of Basil above referred to. At its Seventh Session it was enacted — " that both the figures of the sacred and life-giving cross, as also the venerated and holy images, whether in colours or mosaic or other materials, are to be placed in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vest- ments, on walls and pictures, in houses and by roads . . . that people may kiss them and do them honour- able reverence {aairacrfiov koI TifirjTiKrjv irpoaKvvrja-Lv) but not real adoration (aXrjOivrjp Xarpeiav)} . . . Offerings of incense and lights are to be given unto the images. For honour paid to an image passes on to its prototype.2 He who worships (0 irpoa-Kvv&v) an
1 \arpela ( = adoratio) is the worship addressed to God. irpoaic6vii<ris or 5ov\ela ( = veneratio and cultus) is relative as distinguished from absolute worship, and could be addressed to images. In honouring the sign we honour the prototype according to this theory. This worship is paid with prostrations, genuflexions, kisses, incense and crowns. But this distinction does not relieve image worship of its idolatrous character.
* 7) y&p tt?s eUdvos rtfir) itcl rb irpioT&rvirov 8ia(3alvei. This view is wrongly ascribed to Basil the Great ; see p. 49 n.
56 THE DECALOGUE
image worships the reality of him who is painted on it." Only paintings and other representations on a flat surface were sanctioned at this Council.1 Statues were not sanctioned as they were subsequently by the Koman Church. To this law the Greek Church has ever since adhered.
I must now conclude, but I cannot do so without drawing attention to the character of the Empress who thus succeeded in degrading the worship of the Christian Church.
The Empress Irene, who convened this Council and acted as the sponsor for image worship, has left behind her an unsavoury record. A devoted image worshipper all her life, she concealed this fact from her iconoclastic husband, Leo iv., and on his death reversed all his legislation on this question. Acclaimed by the Council of Nicsea as a model of Christian virtue and devotion, this woman, with a view to getting the supreme power of the Empire into her own hands, deliberately en- couraged her son Constantine in vicious habits : she also persuaded him to blind and mutilate his uncles, and five years later procured the murder of this son in the very bedchamber in which she had given him birth. Is it strange that the Church plunged
1 Though this Council settled the iconoclastic controversy for the Eastern Church, the conflict of the two parties was renewed and carried on with varying fortunes till it was finally brought to a close by a Synod at Constantinople in 842. The chief advocate for image worship during this period was Theodore of Studium. It is note- worthy that eimbv, which in earlier days could mean either a picture or statue, was henceforth used only in the former sense.
SECOND COMMANDMENT 57
into still grosser idolatries in the centuries that followed ?
Romanists, it is true, maintain that, since prostra- tions and kisses were the customary ways of showing honour to civil and social superiors, the early Christians after Constantine came naturally to treat symbols in the same way, paying to them the honour that was meant really for their prototypes. But to bow to or kiss a friend is an act inherently different from a like act in connection with an image, seeing that, according to the Roman view, it is of the essence of the latter act that it is conceived as passing on automatically to the prototype. The one is a purely social act, the other, according to the presupposition of the image worshippers, a supernatural one.
This argument holds still more strongly in the case of incense. Incense implied the presence of deity in some form. These and similar acts of worship in con- nection with images are, as I have shown, denounced in the Old Testament and in the Talmud as idolatrous in essence, and have sooner or later always issued in idolatry in practice.
In the Catholic Encyclopedia, vii. 618, it is practically conceded that worship was addressed actually to the images in the seventh and eighth centuries. God worked miracles through images. They were crowned with garlands, they were kissed, they were censed and carried about in processions. Hymns were sung in their honour. They were held to possess magical powers, and placed in the face of menacing floods and
58 THE DECALOGUE
fires to bar their progress.1 Personality of a certain kind was ascribed to them ; for Theodore of Studium (ob. 823), the leading protagonist of image worship in the ninth century, congratulates an official of the Court for choosing a holy image as godfather for his son (Migne, PG xcix. 962-963). Still later these images were accredited with powers of physical movement. Thus even to the present day there are in plastic form winking Madonnas and weeping saints.
1 Since this lecture was delivered history has repeated itself in the case of Southern Italy, where the images were used to withstand the rivers of lava from Etna, and different towns came into conflict in support of their respective images and idols. Superstition dies hard in the Roman Church — if it can die at all.
SECOND COMMANDMENT THIRD LECTURE
" Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, nor any likeness that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth ; thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them." — Ex. xx. 4-5.
TN my last lecture on the second Commandment I -*- set before you at some length the hostile and un- compromising attitude adopted by the Christian Church towards image worship in the first four centuries, and then the slow but steady declension of the Church from its high ideals during the next four centuries, till at last image worship received the sanction of the Seventh General Council.
Now it may be helpful to recall to your recollection certain salient facts in this reversion to a heathen type of worship. First of all we found that Irenseus attributed the introduction of image worship to heretics ; next, that the chief Fathers of the first four centuries denounced in the most scathing terms every form of image worship ; and amongst these Fathers were the greatest thinkers, teachers and saints of the Christian Church — such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian,
59
60 THE DECALOGUE
Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius and Augustine. By the Church of the first four centuries, then, image worship was condemned as an evil thing — derived from an evil origin. But with the conversion of the Roman Empire under Constantine a change set in. The Church was forthwith deluged by crowds of half -converted heathens, and not unnaturally these new converts brought with them many of their heathen practices into their newly adopted faith.1 Amongst these was image worship. Thus it came about that the worship of images at first took root without the sanction of any regular ecclesi- astical authority. It began with the more ignorant and more or less heathen elements in the Church. Not- withstanding, this degenerate element in religion made steady progress in illicit and unauthorised ways during the fourth and fifth centuries. And yet the progress was slow ; for we find that even the crucifix was wholly unknown till the sixth century.
But from the sixth century onwards the degradation of religion grew apace, till at last image worship was all but wholly in the ascendant, and Christians began to justify this worship by the very same arguments that the heathen themselves had used centuries earlier in its defence.2 This leavening of the Christian Church
1 Jerome (on Ezek. xliv., Migne, PL xxv. ; Jerome, v. 437), writing about a.d. 410-414, protests against the introduction of the heathen practice of the tonsure. " By this it is clear that we ought not to have shaven heads (rasis capitibus) like the priests and worshippers of Isis and Serapis ":..." shaven heads belong to heathen superstition " (rasa capita habet superstitio gentilis), v. 548.
1 See pp. 65 sqq., 37 sqq.
SECOND COMMANDMENT 61
with an idolatrous spirit having begun with the masses, at last got hold of the leaders of the Eastern Churches and of the Church in Rome, though not for several generations later of the Churches of France, Germany and England. Hence in the eighth century the Seventh General Council (a.d. 787) enacted that " the venerated and holy images . . . should be placed in the holy Churches of God . . . that they should receive honour- able worship . . . that offerings of incense and lights should be made to them ; for that any honour paid to an image passed on to its prototype."
The Empress Irene, who summoned this Council, was a person of infamous character, and some of the grounds advanced for the acceptance of image worship were as infamous as was the Empress herself.
Though derived from such a source, Pope Hadrian I. (ob. 795) gave his sanction to the decrees of this Council. Notwithstanding this action of the Papacy it failed to secure for nearly two hundred years the general accept- ance of image worship by the French, German and English Churches. Amongst the earliest and most notable opponents of the Seventh General Council was Charlemagne.
Charlemagne, with the aid of French theologians and, above all, of the English scholar Alcuin,1 published in 790 an important work on image worship entitled The
1 Some writers have questioned Alcuin's share in the composition of the Caroline Books ; but, as Dr. Stubbs (DCB i. 76) states, these objections are based on late authorities and are futile.
62 THE DECALOGUE
Four Caroline Books.1 In this work the worship of images is condemned, and the Second Council of Nicsea — i.e. the Seventh General Council — is denounced as a conclave of fools.2 This work maintained that to salute, bow, or kneel before images, to kiss them, to strew incense or light candles before them, is super- stitious and idolatrous. Images, it conceded, may be used to adorn the Churches or to perpetuate the memory of the persons they represent. Yet even this con- cession it urged was unnecessary ; for without such sensuous means Christians ought to be able to ascend to the fount of eternal light.
The Synod of Frankfort, which met in a.d. 794,3 and represented the Churches of France and Germany, and also of England through Alcuin and other English scholars, endorsed the conclusions of the Caroline Books, and in the presence of two Papal legates this Synod condemned without a dissentient voice every form of
1 Quatuor libri Carolini. Baronius, Bellarmine and other Rom- anists denied the genuineness of this work, and ascribed it to heretics of the time of Charlemagne ; others, to Carlstadt of the Reformation period ! But in 1866 a tenth-century MS was dis- covered in the Vatican. The genuineness of this work is no longer questioned. The best edition is that of Heumann, Hanover, 1731, under the title Augusta Concilii Nicceni II. Censera, i.e. Caroli Magni de impio imaginum cultu libri IV. Migne unfortunately- reprinted the earlier and less truthworthy edition of Elias Philyra (i.e. Jean du Tillet, Paris, 1549).
8 The words are St/nodus ineptissima.
8 This Synod made some mistakes. Thus it supposed that the Second Nicene Council sat at Constantinople. Also owing to the mistranslation of TrpocrKtivriais by adoratio in the Latin version before them, Roman controversialists claim that it made this Nicene Council authorise the adoration of images. See, however, next note. In any case this Synod condemned every form of image worship.
SECOND COMMANDMENT 63
image worship, and rejected the Seventh General Council.1 This was the last great attempt for over six centuries to stem the growing idolatry of Christian worship. There were, it is true, sporadic efforts to recover a more enlightened faith, such as that of the Conference of French Bishops at Paris in 825. This Conference adopted practically the same attitude on the question as the Synod of Frankfort, but their efforts produced no effect at the Vatican. Notwithstanding, down to the eleventh century here and there were heard voices in the wilderness