Abbildungen der Seite
PDF

blood should have acquired the name Makkah-rabbah, “great slaughter,' and that the place itself, so horribly defiled, should have been set apart from all human touch, as a kherem devoted to the Deity?

30. But what Deity was this? In Mohammed's time the chief Deity at Meccs was Hobal. His image was of agate-stone, in the form of a man, which, after the capture of Mecca, was broken in pieces by Mohammed's orders. An Arabian Deity it certainly was not: for the name is not Arabic. In fact, the Arabians say that it came to them from abroad: but they give different accounts of its history, -as, e.g. that their prince Hamr-ibn-Lokhei, who lived about A, D. 200, brought it to Mecca-some say from Hîth in Mesopotamia, others from Moab, where then the Amalekites lived. But these are mere fables, which have arisen from the endeavour of Mohammed and his followers to represent pure Monotheism as the original religion of the Arabians. Hamr-ibn-Lokhei was the scapegoat, upon whom all the sins of the people before Mohammed's time were laid, and among others this and all other idolatries. Yet even this opinion did not universally prerail. The writer of the Marâzid (III. p.305, ed. Juynboll) speaks of Hobal, but says not a word about Hamr-ibn-Lokhei; according to him, Chozeima, who lived about a century earlier, placed the idol in the temple. It is plain, there was no constant tradition about it.

31. Who or what, then, was Hobal ? Two centuries ago POCOCKB (Spec. Hist. Arab., p.98, ed. White) guessed rightly, though with him it was a mere guess, that the name was Syan, hab-Baal. In fact, the name Sya is easily corrupted into 5, by omission of the guttural. In Punic names this latter form occurs frequently-in their Roman representatives always, (e.g. Asdrubal, Hannibal, and in Aramean it is usual. The change of Habbal into Hobbal or Hobal will surprise no one, since in Arabic the change of the a sound into o is common.

And Prof. Dozy in his Introduction proceeds to give reasons for believing that ‘in Saul's time, when the Simeonites left Canaan, Baal was the chief Deity of the Israelites.'

32. We have seen that some of higher mind in that age, as Samuel and David, and the Prophets and Psalmists of that time, had more correct ideas of the Divine Being, and laboured to turn their countrymen from their idolatries. And such as these, it would seem, in their private devotions, and in the forms of prayer and praise which they composed for public use, used first 'Elohim,' and then, more and more freely by degrees, the mysterious name 'JHVH,' with a rererential awe, and expressions of trust and love,-giving thus plain evidence that they had begun already to realise, by Divine Inspiration, a true idea of the glorious perfections of the One Only True and Living God. It is plain, however, from the facts which we have had before us in Chap.xix,xx, that to the people generally, in that day and for centuries afterwards, even down to the Captivity, the name “JHVH' was but another name for the Baal,' (comp. 'the El,'G.xlvi.3,)—that is, the great Phænician Baal, whom they worshipped with all manner of impure and unhallowed practices.

33. With our view, therefore, it accords perfectly that the Simeonites, if they left the land of Canaan in the beginning of David's reign, when, as Ps.lx and Ps.lxviii show, the name "JHVH' was not yet commonly used in devotional compositions by eminent and pious writers, should have taken with them the worship of Baal-of Hobal = hab-Baal, i.e. 'the Baal,' or the Great Deity of the tribes of Canaan-but should not have handed down to future years the name

settled in the district where the worship of Adonis was localised (App.III.12). It might not have reached the Simeonites at all, at the extreme SW. of Canaan, at the time of their migration. If it had, and if they took it with them, it might not yet have acquired for them any great significance, and so might soon have been dropped out of use and forgotten. Some of the names, however, in 1Ch.iv.34-37 are compounded with Jehovah, and, if genuine, would show that they knew it.

34. At all events, the very fact before us, viz. that no trace of the name ‘JHVH' appears to have existed in connection with the ancient worship at Mecca, would be a very strong proof-if the Simeonitish origin of Mecca and its worship be admitted, that this name had never been familiar and endeared to the Israelites as the great name of the God of Israel-still less had been known to them for centuries as the name of their covenant-God, who had led them through so many dangers in the wilderness, and settled them securely in Canaan. In other words, it would be a strong proof that the narrative of the Pentateuch, in respect of the origin of this name, is not historically true, and that the name JHVI'was introduced into the religious history of Israel at a later date than the time of the Exodus.

35. Prof. Dozy suggests also, and attempts to prove by a very ingenious piece of criticism, that there appears to have been a special connection of the Simeonites with the particular Baal who was worshipped at Mecca.

The Book of Azrakî in several places mentions that in the temple at Mecca, under the image of Hobal, on the right-hand, was a pit of 44 feet deep. The pit was the treasury of the Sanctuary; into it the presents were thrown, gold, silver. ornaments, incense, &c. ; and the treasure itself long survived its ancient possessor. Mohammed and his follower Abu-Bekr left it untouched. The Khalif Omar wished to distribute it among the poor; but his friends -Ali especially-dissuaded him; they shared in the general feeling that it was ‘most holy,' and must not be touched. One of the guardians,' says Azrakî, in the year 188 (A.D. 804), told Mahommed Ibu-Jakhjá, that the treasures were still in the treasury.'

The usual Arabian name for this pit, as appears from Azrakî, was gobb well ;' but it was also called ber, meaning also, as the Heb. 783, beer, 'well.' This was, as is seen clearly in Azrakî, the true, ancient, original, Hebrew name; just as in the Koran, Sur.xii, in the story of Joseph, gobb is used for the pit into which he was thrown, where the Heb. of Genesis, has bor=bčer,—the Arabians not usually employing ber for a pít without water.

36. Now in Jo.xix. 8, (at the end of the list of the Simeonite towns,) we read at present as follows—and all the villages that were round about these towns to Baalath Beer, Ramath of the south, (2nox7 983 nya-my).' But the Hebrew is hero corrupted: there are two towns named, as the Arabic translation shows, inserting 'and' before 'Ramath.' And, in fact, the very place itself is named, viz. · Ramoth-Negeb,' among the towns of Judah, (including some of Simeon), to which David sent presents, 1S.xxx.27. Again, the passage in 1Ch.iv.33, which is the counterpart of Jo.xix.8, has 'and all the villages that were round about these towns unto Baal.' Observing, then, that noxy may hare arisen from noxy, which is used in D.iv.43, comp. Jo.xx.8,1Ch.vi.73(58),80(65), instead of the more usual form nion, and that n and 17 may be easily confounded, Prof. Dozy suggests that the whole passage in Joshua should be read 7x31 Spa2 niony,unto Baal of the Pit (Well) and Ramoth-Negeb.' This would seem to imply that the Baal of Mecca was only the copy of that which they had left behind in Canaan, which last stood, no doubt, as that at Mecca did, over a pit, into which the gifts to the Deity were thrown.

37. Probably, the Canaanitish Baal of the Pit was no town, but only a temple or sanctuary, standing within a sacred enclosure.* This was the case with that at Mecca, where the temple was built most simply, consisting merely of four walls of uncemented stones, 45 feet long, 33 feet wide, and 13 feet high, and was entend by a single door. The four walls-or in other words, the whole building-were called collectively al-gadr or al-gidâr, = 'the walled enclosure.' In Hebrew, the words gader, geder, gederah, gedor, have exactly the same meaning, so that many towns in Palestine were so called from the walls which enclosed them, comp. Jo.xij.13, xv.36,41,58, 1Ch.xii.7, &c. So the Phænician colony in Spain was called from its walls Gader, which became with the Romans Gades, and is now Cadiz. From all this Prof. Dozy infers that the Gedor' which is mentioned in 1 Ch.iv.39, is simply the stone-enclosure' at Mecca.

38. And he confirms this from 2Ch.xxvi.7, where we read that God helped Uzziah against the Philistines, and against the Arabians that dwelt in Gur-Deal and the Mchunim.' The Mehunim'are, as before, the Minæans,' i.e, we should read Dug'von for Osiyon, and accordingly the LXX has é tous Miralous. But what is Gur-Baal, Sya 712? No one has been able to make out; and WINER, in his Bibl. RW. I.p.447, writes thus: 'Gur-Baal, a district, as it would seem,t inhabited by Arabians, but on the borders of Judea, 2Ch. xxvi.7. The Targumist has, 'the Arabians that dwelt in Gerar,' [reading 970a). We can

* This may, perhaps, be indicated by the juxta-position of the two names in Jo.xix.8. Ramoth-Negeb, lit. ‘high-places of the south,' may have been the name of the village or town, near which this famous southern Sanctuary stood. Hence the two names may have been written correctly one after the other, without the article, as in the Heb. Text, one being in apposition to the other, and the tro together denoting only one locality. This also may explain why only 'RamothNegeb’is named in 1S.xxx.27, and only 'Baal' in 1Ch.iv.33. Ed.

+ Not as it would seem': the Chronicler says it expressly. Dozy.

| This does not at all appear from the place cited, the only one where this name occurs. Dozy.

produce nothing to clear up this geographical word. Nor can the name be explained etymologically.'

39. But, observing that the ‘Minæans' are here closely connected with these Arabians,—so closely that the preposition Sy, 'against,' which stands before 'the Arabians,' is not repeated before 'the Minæans,' whence it would appear that Uzziah's conflict took place with both together,—what if we write not 7), as the Targumist, but 972, instead of 793? We have then simply "Gedor-Baal,' the

stone-enclosure of Baal ?' In other words, Uzziah fought with the Arabians who lived about Mecca, and their allies the Minæans, living (as we have seen) in their neighbourhood, who may, perhaps, have joined in attacking Uzziah's people, when he ‘built Eloth'—the port Æla, at the head of the Ælanitic Gulf of the Red Sea

and restored it to Judah,' after his father's death, 2Ch.xxvi.2. More than two centuries had now elapsed since the Simeonite migration; and mixed up as they were, no doubt, with Arabian tribes, it is very intelligible that the people about Mecca are here called 'Arabians.'

40. The Alex. version of the Chronicles-'one of the best portions,' says BERTHEAU quoted by Movers, of the Greek translation,' and whose excellence is universally admitted—renders the passage, 2 Ch.xxvi.7, thus, & Tojs "Apaßas Tous KATOLKOûrtas dard tñs trét pas mal del Tows Mivalous ; that is, in place of "Gedor-Baal' they have read dal añs trépas, at the stone.' What does this mean? The ancients,' says FRESNEL, himself acquainted with Arabia, “knew the interior of Arabia Felix better than we do.' Above all, the Alexandrians were well-acquainted with Arabia. In Ptolemy's time there was an active intercourse between Egypt and Arabia, and both the admirable accounts of Arabia by Eratosthenes and Agatharchides, and the Greek translation of the 0. T., date from that time. Observing this, we can have little doubt that the translator of the Chronicles meant by his expression, at the stone,' to indicate the renowned, holy, black stone of Mecca. He has thus in another way, but probably more intelligibly for his contemporaries, expressed the same as the Hebrew writer by his 'Gedor-Baal.'

41. Once more, it now stands, in 1 Ch.iv.39, Xyo ndip ny 97a xizm 10821, and they went until they came to Gedor, as far as to the east of the Valley,' LXX, {ws twv åvaror rñs ral. Here the LXX have translated xy as a proper name, which was very probably applied to the valley in which the Sanctuary at Mecca stands,-just exactly as a valley between Mecca and Medina was called Ge, and as, in fact, Mecca itself is now called by the Arabs al-wadi,

the Valley.' But the awkward expression - Jy, though common with the later Chronicler, would certainly not have been used in the extract out of Hezekiah's time. And, observing that in 2Ch.xxvi.7, the place is called “Gedor-Baal,' it

גדר בעל has taken the place of the original נדר עד seems very possible that here

In fact, the later Jews have repeatedly expressed their abhorrence of the name • Baal,' by altering it in the Sacred Text in places where it stood originally, as it would here, in connection with Israelites,* though they have left it in others

* Thus in Samuel the names Eshbaal, Merilbaal, Baalyadah, (which are still

where it affected only foreigners, as the Arabians in 2Ch.xxvi.7. The passage would now run-until they came to Gedor-Baal, to the east of the Valley'-where the name 'Gedor-Baal,' would be used by a prolepsis, as e.g. 'Ebenezer' is used in 1S.iv.1, v.1, before the name is given in 18.vii.12.

42. We have now finished the examination of the passage in Chronicles, though we have by no means exhausted the proofs of Prof. Dozy's position. We have done enough, however, to show the very great importance of his researches, and to commend his book to the attention of English students. It will be seen that his view, as to the worship of Baal having been prevalent in Israel in the time of Saul, and having been most probably established by the Simeonites at Mecca, accords entirely with our own conclusions, which are quite independent of his, and do not on all points agree with them.

left in the less-studied Book of Chronicles, 1 Ch. viii.33, 34, ix.39,40, xiv.7), are changed into Ishbosheth, Mephibosheth, Elyadah, 28.ji.8, &c. iv.4, &c.v.16. This appears to have been done by the later scribes. Dozy, p.43, note.

« ZurückWeiter »