Modern Views of the Origin and Nature of the Day of YahwehThe proliferation of day of Yahweh theories, together with the fragmentation within individual basic concepts, lays any exhaustive treatment of modern views out of the question. Salient elements in representative views, however, demand attention; and this survey will enhance a discriminative study of the Biblical texts. Certainly a study of the Old Testament use of Yom Yahweh will be enriched by an awareness of the various positions taken with reference to this subject.
GEORGE MARK ELLIOTT
Volume XI -- Number 3
All Rights Reserved
The Cincinnati Bible College & Seminary
The theses of Cooper,1 Umenhofer,2 and Murphy3 present no survey of modern theories.4
Buchanan5 gives a brief consideration of the views of (1) W. Robertson Smith; (2) Hugo Gressmann and Hermann Gunkel; (3) Sigmund Mowinckel; (4) William A. Heidel; (5) S. H. Hooke; and (6) Julian Morgenstern.
Ladislav Cerny,6 in his study of the "Day of Yahweh," gives a concise but relevantly full survey of the positions held by (1) R. H. Charles; (2) J. M. P. Smith; (3) Hermann Gunkel and Hugo Gressmann; (4) Sigmund Mowinckel and Julian Morgenstern; (5) and the "Myth-and-ritual" school.
It is proposed here to give the thrust of the position occupied by (1) W. Robertson Smith; (2) R. H. Charles; (3) J. M. P. Smith; (4) Hermann Gunkel and Hugo Gressmann; (5) Sigmund Mowinckel; (6) Julian Morgenstern; (7) Arent Jan Wensinck; (8) S. H. Hooke [the Myth and Ritual "school"]; (9) William A. Heidel; (10) Ladislav Cerny; and (11) Henry Alford Buchanan.
The views of numerous other authors on various phases of the theme, together with a consideration of more conservative views, will be given in succeeding chapters. Some critical observations will follow the setting forth of the eleven points of view just mentioned.
A. Concise Presentation of Representative views
1. W. Robertson Smith (1846-1894)
a) Day of battle. The primary idea of the word "day" in the expression "day of Yahweh" is, according to W. Robertson Smith, "day of battle":
The current idea that the day of Jehovah is primarily a day of judgment, or assise-day, is connected with the opinion that the earliest prophecy in which the idea occurs is that in Joel. See, for example, Ewald, Prophets, E. T., i. 111 seq. But if the book of Joel, as there is reason to believe (see Encyc. Brit. s.v.), is really one of the latest prophetical books, Amos v. 18 is the fundamental passage, and here the idea appears, not as peculiar to the prophet, but as a current popular notion, which Amos criticises, and, so to speak, turns upside down. The popular idea in question cannot have been that of a day of judicial retribution; the day which the men of Ephraim expected must have been a day of national deliverance, and, from the whole traditions of the warlike religion of old Israel, presumably a day of victory like the "day of Midian" (Isa. 1x.41). The last cited nassage shows that among the Hebrews, as among the Arabs, the word "day" is used in the definite sense of "day of battle." ....By taking the day of Jehovah to mean His day of battle and victory we gain for the conception a natural basis in Hebrew idiom.7b) Ground of popular idea. The idea that the day of Yahweh, popularly conceived as the day of Yahweh's "crowning victory,"8 was near at hand, was grounded, according to Smith, "not in political blindness or religious indifference, but [in] a profound and fanatical faith, that made Israel insensible to the danger so plainly looming on the honzon."9 Their expectation of national victory over their enemies was the fruitage of the alleged evidence that Yahweh was on their side as seen in the military victories and the accompanying material prosperity, consummated in the reign of Jeroboam II.10
c) Day of judgment idea a development. Amos turned the popular idea upside down, and became the precursor of the prophetic idea:That day of Jehovah's might is not necessarily a day of victory to Israel over foreign powers, but a day in which His righteousness is vindicated against the sinners of Israel as well as of the nations, is the characteristic prophetic idea due to Amos, and from this thought the notion of the day of judgment was gradually developed.11, 122. R. H. Charles (1835-1931)
Charles attempts to trace the deyelopment of the idea. of the day of Jehovah from the popular pre-Amos conception to the post-exilic belief that it marked "the advent of Messianic blessedness for Israel."13
a) The popular conception. The Messianic promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are regarded as having been written some eight hundred years after the Exodus; hence he comes at once to the popular idea of the day of Yahweh prior to the eighth century.14 The popular notion regarded the day of Yahweh as (1) a nonethical and nationalistic "day of battle" notion, and (2) an act of divine judgment which would inaugurate this "future national blessedness."15 This conception of the day of Yahweh as a judgment on the national enemies of Israel "originated, no doubt, from the old limited view of Yahweh as merely the national God of Israel."16
b) The prophetic doctrine. This popular idea was transformed by the prophets progressively, but with some retrogression. At first the prophetic teaching embraced (1) the idea of a regenerated nation, and (2) a community in which God's will was realized.17
(1) Pre-exilic--Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah. The pre-exilic teaching is held to be virtually devoid of any Messianic promise. The Messianic passages in Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah, with the exception of one passage in Isaiah,18 are regarded as prophets of doom. The day of Yahweh is "the day of Israel's vindication against their enemies through Yahweh."19The day for Israel must be a day of woe. While in Amos and Hosea the judgment was directed chiefly against Israel,20 in Isaiah and Micah "it was directed against Judah."21
(2) Pre-exilic--Nahum and Habakkuk. Here in Nahum and Habakkuk is found a retrogression to "a modified renewal of the old popular conception of the day of Yahweh."22 Whereas, according to the primitive view, Yahweh's intervention was grounded in "supposed natural affinities existing between them,"23 according to Nahum and Habakkuk it was based on ethical affinities.24 The sufferings of Israel and the reforms of Josiah bolstered the idea that Israel stood vindicated over against the world.25
(3) Pre-exilic--Zephaniah. In Zephaniah the day of Yahweh is conceived of as embracing universal judgment, issuing "in the survival of a righteous remnant of Israel."26
(4) Exilic--Jeremiah and Ezekiel. In the exile the judgment is alleged to shift from that of collectivity to the individualistic. "As a result of this judgment a righteous community was to emerge, forming the nucleus of the Messianic kingdom."27 The day of Yahweh would usher in this kingdom, embracing both Jews and Gentiles. Both Judah and other nations will drink the cup of the wrath of Yahweh; but the Messiah, as a dynasty rather than as an individual, will appear, and the kingdom will be established in Palestine.28,29
(5) Post-exilic--The Second Isaiah, xl.-lv; Psalms xxii., lxv., lxxxvi., lxxxvii.; Malachi; Jonah; Isaiah xix. 16-25 (and postexilic Isaianic fragments); Haggai; Zechariah 1. -viii.; Joel; Zechariah ix.1-xiii.6; Daniel. In the pre-exilic period the coming of Yahweh in "judgment meant all but universally a crisis of doom for Israel . . ." 30 The day of Yahweh as judgment, however, gave way in the postexilic development to the day of Yahweh as ushering in the earthly Messianic kingdom for Israel.31 The conversion of the nations was indicated in the Isaiah and Psalms references cited, Malachi, and Jonah. Their partial or complete destruction, or servitude, was anticipated by Haggai, Zechariah, Joel, and Daniel.
(6) Postexilic--Isaiah lxv., lxvi. (before 400 B.C.). Charles designedly treats these chapters out of the historical sequence which he adopts. He sees here a new development. Under the idea of "a new heaven and a new earth," the Messianic kingdom would be "the same material Jerusalem as before, but supernaturally blessed."32 Finally, (1) the developments of the day of Yahweh idea pursued their independent ways down to the exile; (2) "mutual interaction" led to a synthesis at the close of the third century or during the earlier part of the second; (3) the eschatology of the individual and that of the nation issued in a synthesis embracing the "righteous individual and the righteous nation."33,34
3. John M. P. Smith (1866-1932)
John Merlin Powis Smith states that "the origin of the day of Yahweh must be sought in the pre-prophetic stage of Israel's history"35 and that "the first appearance of the conception in the Old Testament is in the prophecy of Amos....36
a) Origin of the concept.37 A confluence of the following factors is regarded as responsible for the origin of the day of Yahweh idea: (1) the early tradition of a divine national mission; (2) the desire of Semitic nations to extend as far as possible the influence of the respective national gods; (3) the encouragement engendered by the conquest of Canaan; (4) the idea of a glorious destiny bolstered by subsequent national victories; and (5) the influence of the earliest prophets, with the possible exception of Elijah.38
b) The nature of the popular39 conception. The prevailing idea (1) lacked a high ethical or religious content; (2) was grounded in monolatrous worship; (3) was determined partially by the idea that Yahweh was especially a war-god; and (4) issued in the idea of a "great day of battle" when Yahweh would lead Israel in triumph over all their enemies.40
c) The idea transformed by Amos.41
(1) Old elements employed. Amos is alleged to have utilized elements of the popular view; e.g.,the thought that Yahweh was to manifest himself personally in judgment; that this would occur on a specific day; that this day would be a day of battle; that wonderful phenomena on earth and in the heavens would accompany the day; that in connection with the judgment punishment would fall upon the enemies of Israel and of Yahweh; and, above all, that it would be the time when Yahweh would vindicate himself in the sight of the whole world.42(2) Amos' doctrine of the day of Yahweh. Amos departed radically from the popular concept in that he built on his conviction that "Yahweh's predominant characteristic was righteousness";43 and that "Yahweh's vindication involves Israel's discomfiture rather than her triumph."44 The day of Yahweh, then, would "subserve ethical and religious ends no less efficiently than it had thus far subserved the purpose of national and political development."45
d) Development since Amos.
(1) Pre-exilic. While Amos' immediate successors made scant use of the term, yet the idea advanced by Amos was strenuously enforced by them.46 Hosea, Micah, and Isaiah add nothing essential to the view of Amos, although Isaiah's doctrine of the remnant paved the way for "the announcements of a blessed future from later prophets."47 Zephaniah, granting that 3:8 came from him, makes the judgment well-nigh world-wide;48 but fails to envision a really universal judgment. The pre-exilic idea of the day of Yahweh was essentially that of a day of judgment, involving punishment for Israel.49
(2) Exilic and postexilic.50 The thrust of the prophetic message was that of hope and encouragement to Israel, and her "restoration to Yahweh's favor." The wicked will be destroyed, and a glorious age will be opened for the righteous. Ezekiel gave up the older "idea of one day," and seems to speak of the day as embracing three stages: (a) "a day upon Israel when Jerusalem falls"; (2) "a day upon Egypt and the nations when Israel is restored"; and (3) "a final day upon the representatives of the whole heathen world."51 The prophet also lays the foundation for the dogma of the judgment upon the Gentile nations as such,52 apart from the employment of historical agents.53 The conception finally developed "is eschatological and apocalyptic rather than prophetic, and it is dominated by the most intense particularism."54
e) Characteristic features. Certain common characteristics, with different degrees of emphasis, are said to run through this development. Seven are indicated:55 (1) consciousness of the inability of the nation "to work out its own destiny"; (2) the recognition of the fact that "the present age was only temporary and must give way to an abiding more glorious one"; (3) the conviction of the personal coming of Yahweh "to inaugurate and establish this new era"; (4) "a series of great catastrophies in the natural world" and "marvelous portents on land and sea, in air and sky" to accompany the coming of Yahweh; (5) the nations to be punished, and Israel to share the chastisement; (6) the time of the coming of the day left indefinite; and (7) the day of Yahweh "always represented as introducing a new political state."
f) Concluding observation. Smith, in his closing comments, statesthat the development of the idea of the Day of Yahweh in Israelitish history was marked, not so much by the addition from time to time of new features, as by the expansion and deepening of elements already present, at least in germ, at the time of the origin of the prophetic conception.56And "the instrument of all this change . . . was the historical experience through which the nation was compelled to pass."57
4. Hermann Gunkel and Hugo Gressmann (1862-1932; 1877-1927)
Hermann Gunkel and his colleague, Hugo Gressmann, were prominent in the development of a new hermeneutical approach to the Old Testament which was partially a reaction to "the classical Wellhausen system."58
a) A new approach. K. Grobel59 suggests that "category-criticism" is a better English term than form-criticism (Formgeshichte) to designate the method of the "historico-folkloristic school."60 A solid block of literature would be broken into numerous categories and units. The reconstruction of "the internal development of the several literary forms represented in the Bible" was based partially on the respective "situation in life" (Sitz im Leben)."61 Hermann Gunkel applied this method to the Old Testament,62 and was followed by Hugo Gressmann. More definitely, however, this school and method, using their own terminology, may be called "die religiongeschichtliche Schule."63
b) Mythological and eschatological origin of the day of Yahweh. As early as 1895 Gunkel projected "the theory that eschatology is primal history, as originally conceived in Babylonian mythology, projected forward to the end of time. . ."64,65 Hugo Gressmann emphasized comparative mythology. North states "that for Wellhausen eschatology is the goal of prophecy, while for Gressmann eschatology is the starting point, the background, the source of prophecy."66 The elaboration of this general statement by Mowinckel will be presented later. Gressmann was inclined to the idea that ultimately Semitic eschatology was grounded in the ancient Babylonian computation of time upon the "supposed course of the sun around the earth, a course completed and again renewed every so many centuries or millenniums of years."67 Here are the calculated roots of "woe-eschatology" and "weal-eschatology" (Unheils and Heilseschatologie) .68 Both the woe and the bliss are supposed to have had their origin in prehistoric myth, the future age of bliss reflecting the origin and age of paradise.69 The disaster or woe element "is, he suggests, a mitigated representation of a return to Chaos";70 which will mean the destruction of the world, although some will be spared. Gressmann believed that this world eschatology was appropriated from "foreign geographic and ethnic" sources; the occasions in particular being a preprophetic and a postexilic "incursion of the old mythological eschatology into Canaan. . . "71 Gressmann developed Gunkel's thesis that the inclusion of the creation myth into the prophetic tradition is to be accounted for on the basis that it was brought into Israel in ancient times and that the Babylonian origin had been forgotten.72 The three stages in the development of the mythological-eschatological origin of the day of Yahweh "would be (a) foreign, universal, (b) Israelite, national, (c) prophetic, refined."73 In the prophetic refinement the "Woe and Weal remain, but the earlier, popular, mythical elements tend to vanish."74
c) The content of the day of Yahweh. (1) The "day of battle" is regarded as quite inadequate. (2) The day of Yahweh stands in the framework of "a world-catastrophe in the worldeschatology of Babylonia mediated to the Israelites through the Canaanites."75 (3) The development of the day of Yahweh idea in Israel included " 'days of Jehovah' of many vaneties"76 which were finally "summed together in the conception of His epiphany in 'the Day of Jehovah.' "77 (4) This day ushers in "the golden age, the return to Paradise," but includes "the disaster which is to precede the golden age."78 (5) In the prophetic refinement "ethical truth" takes the place of earlier popular notions; and because of her sins, Israel will be involved in the catastrophe.79 (6) The golden age to be ushered in by the day of Yahweh will be a return to the bliss of the paradisaical order. There will be "the Messiah, the Servant of Yahweh, and the Son of Man."80 (1) The Jewish Messianic belief is alleged to be rooted in Babylonia.81 Although "the Babylonians knew apparently no Messiah . . . yet, we may suppose from the Irra myth that Marduk was probably the Babylonian Messiah."82 The Messiah is a mythologic figure, a being half-divine, "and the 'almah of Isa. 7 : 14 is the goddess-mother."83 "The story of the star of Bethlehem, flashing forth simultaneously with the birth of the Messianic king"84 is a legend from Babylon. (2) The Servant of Yahweh idea is also regarded as having had its "origin in the realm of myth, and therefore in the prehistoric period."85 The "Servant of Yahweh is likewise a resuscitated mythical being, a parallel form to the Messiah, related to the Tammuz-Adonis cult . ."86 (3) The Son of man, also originated from myth, "is the first man, a divine being, who opened the present age and is to return to inaugurate the golden age.'' 88,89
5. Sigmund Mowinckel (1870-
Sigmund Mowinckel, a Norwegian scholar who belongs to the so-called Scandinavian school, was a pupil of Gunkel.
a) Gunkel, Gressmann, and Mowinckel. Gunkel on the basis of the Sitz im Leben approach, attempted "to classify the psalms according to their types (Gattungen) . . "89 One type was designated as " 'Royal Psalms' (Konigspsalman)."90 This group was not a special type "from the point of view of the history of style or literature or liturgy,"91 but rather because of a common emphasis on a king, a native pre-exilic native Israelite monarch.92 The following psalms are involved in this category: Psalms ii, xviii, xx, xxi, xlv, lxxii, ci, cx, cxxxii.93 Both Gunkel and Gressmann regarded eschatology as a projection of primeval history concerned in the mythology of Babylonia.94 Mowinckel followed the tendency, manifested in Gunkel and Gressmann, in looking especially to Assyro-Bablyonia for Hebrew origin. But instead of deriving the day of Yahweh, as did Gressmann, from eschatology; Mowinckel regarded eschatology as being derived from the day. Gunkel held that while the Royal Psalms originated in large measure in cultic circles,95 most of them had been dissociated from this connection. Mowinckel departed sharply from Gunkel's view and maintained "the cultic interpretation of the enthronement psalms ..."96, 97, 98
b) Elements in Mowinckel's view.
(1) The New Year Festival, the cultic day of Yahweh's enthronement. A drama was allegedly enacted once a year at Jerusalem on the autumnal New Year Festival. The expression "Yahweh reigneth"99 is supposed to be properly translated "Yahweh is (now) become king."100, 101 The Royal Psalms, especially Psalms 47, 93, 95-100,102 are urged as giving evidence for "an actual triumphal procession, a ritual combat in which Yahweh is victorious over rival gods, and they also extol Yahweh as creator."103 This annual festival of the enthronement of Yahweh (Thronbesteigungsfest)104 was fashioned after "the Babylonian akitu festival and partially analogous ritual of the Osiris-Horus complex, including, of course, the associated royal ideology."105, 106 The Babylonian ideas were, according to Mowinckel, mediated through the milieu which Israel found when they entered Canaan.107
(2) The day of enthronement the day of Yahweh. The day of Yahweh is taken to mean originally the day of His manifestation in the drama of the New Year festival.108, 109 At first this day of Yahweh had no eschatological significance.110 This cultic representation of myth was prior to any eschatological connotation.
(3) The eschatological day of Yahweh. The eschatological day of Yahweh is derived from the cultic enthronement festival. On this cultic day the people of Israel experienced the coming of Yahweh; and this coming "guaranteed victory over enemies, deliverance from distress, and the realization of peace, good fortune, and favourable conditions . . . "111 In times of disillusionment and distress, "the people would long for the coming days of Yahweh . . "112 When the day of Yahweh was so envisioned, there was a "separation of the idea from the cultic festival."113 It is urged that strict eschatology in the prophetic books belongs to "the later strata, and comes from the age of postexilic Judaism."114 Thus the prophetic eschatological hopes of Israel are traced to the festival of Yahweh's enthronement. Disaster forced hope into existence; and also faith in the "final and unsurpassable day of Yahweh, if not this year or next year, yet assuredly some time . . . "115 This process "happened in Deutero-Isaiah," who transformed the enthronement festival into a message of hope and "a promise of restoration."116 And thus was born "the inexhaustible source of the prophetic message about the future . . . "117 The original day, Yahweh's epiphany, is now transformed to embrace "the whole picture of the future,"118 which "will be realized within the present world order."118, 120 The hope of restoration is not as yet eschatological; it is only "what Toynbee has called 'futurism.' "121 This trend, however, led to the Trito-Isaianic otherworldly new heavens and a new earth, "the wistful longing of an oppressed, suffering, longing people ..."122 The hope, nevertheless, "continued in large measure to have a this-worldly, national, and political character with the same features as in the earlier period of Judaism."123
6. Julian Morgenstern (1881-
Julian Morgenstern has numerous articles in volumes of the Hebrew Union College Annual which bear directly or indirectly on his view of the day of Yahweh. A few salient features are indicated here.
a) The "Day of Yahweh," "New Year's Day," and mythology. The following citation sums Morgenstern's theory concerning the origin of the day of Yahweh concept:The roots of the concept of the Day of Yahweh were not new in any sense. They were embedded in the observance of the day of the fall equinox as the New Year's Day and its ritual in Solomon's new Temple in Jerusalem, in the entrance at dawn of this day of the first rays of the rising sun through the open eastern gate into the debir at the western end of the sanctuary, and the interpretation of this as the entrance of the radiant Yahweh into His Temple, there to take His place upon His throne as divine king and pronounce judgment upon and shape the fortunes and destinies of His people for the new year now beginning. But in its ultimate origins the concept reached back far beyond this to Phoenician and North Semitic, and even to general mythological and religious concepts, belief, and practice of the early Semitic agricultural peoples, to the great struggle at the very beginning of existence, the first New Year's Day, the struggle and victory of light over darkness, of good over evil, of Marduk over Tiamat, of 'Al'eyan Ba'al over Mot, of life over death, of resurrection and renewed life over eternal negation of existence in the dark and nether-world. This basic idea was general among agricultural peoples. It came to Israel definitely, as we have seen, in the time of Solomon through Phoenician mediation from an ultimate North Semitic source.124b) "Yahweh as a world-god" and the day of Yahweh. The idea of struggle issues in Amos' day in the concept of Yahweh as a world-god who purposed for Israel world-dominion. This was His ultimate purpose with Israel; and this purpose would be realized upon His great day."125 This "would be the great New Year's Day of the world, and would usher in a new world-era, an unending era of Israel's undisputed supremacy."126 "Perhaps the very next New Year's Day would be the Day of Yahweh!"127
c) The day of Yahweh a day of doom. The day of Yahweh would come, perhaps on the very next New Year's Day;128 but, because of Israel's iniquity, Amos announced that it would be for Israel a day of destruction.129
d) Hope for the remnant. Amos is conceded only a slight degree of universalism beyond the range of the thought of his contemporaries.130 It would take "two more centuries of complex historical development and of searching theological speculation"131 before "Deutero-Isaiah" would clearly perceive and proclaim the doctrine of universalism.132 Israel and Judah must be completely destroyed, but a faithful remnant would escape. Isaiah, however, had no clear conception of what that future would be.133 But at the time of the "dedication of the second Temple upon the Jewish New Year's Day in 516 B.C., "134 the conditions135for the realization of Deutero-Isaiah's program of world-salvation by Yahweh and the conversion of all nations and peoples . . . to His worship were satisfied completely and literally.1367. Arent Jan Wensinck (1882-1939)
Geo Widengren137 refers to Wensinck as a scholar who preceded the later Myth and Ritual studies, and as being handicapped by having to find parallels in Mesopotamia rather than in the Ras Shamra discoveries.138
Wensinck, however, presents a view of the day of Yahweh that resembles in many respects various popular negative views. The basis of his conception is to be found in "the natural phenomena at the changes of the season, "139 and his system may be summarized under four points.
a) The New Year and Creation. According to this theory, the division of time was originally "based upon personal needs and mode of life" and "the periodic amenity of nature." 140 The new year was "equivalent to the new harvest, the new supplies of food which through the raising of the taboo are made accessible."141 This renewal was projected back into primeval times. 1"Thus have arisen cosmogony and cosmology."142 The New Year is, then, the festival of creation.143 "New Year belongs to cosmogony, New Year and Creation are the reflection one of the other."144
b) Cosmos and chaos and the king. The Biblical account of creation is shunted. Creation is the projection of "the chaos which returns every year and ends with the beginning of each New Year."145 This New Year conception is focused in the king, who "becomes a slave at New Year, while a slave is made king."146 The king "is even trampled upon by the powers of chaos, but he rises again and puts the false king, the false Messiah to death."147 The dramatization of enthronement is regarded as integral in the Semitic New Year liturgy, and is embraced in Psalms which allegedly "celebrate the enthronement of Jahwe at the beginning of the new era."148 The periods of fruitfulness and barrenness, which follow each other, are, according to the theory expressed in such figures as "the Demiburg";149 "Adam, Ut-Napishtim, Cyrus, Christ, as representative figures . . . [and] at the same time kings";150 and the supposedly mythological "Suffering Servant."151 In Isaiah 53 and the New Testament "we find a striking counterpart to Cyrus and the Sufferer in the person of Christ, who at Epiphany as sol invictus rises out of chaos . . . "152 The projection of the seasonal changes is not only projected back to Creation but also ahead. Herein is found the origin of eschatology which is simply a cosmogony of the future.153 Resurrection is regarded as "analogous with the constantly repeated creation."154
c) The nature of eschatology and the day of Yahweh. Eschatology is held to be a projection of things which are observed in nature.155 It is regarded as embodied in a new era "not only at the Creation, after the Deluge, and after the Exile, but . . . every year, every season and every sunrise forms in principle the beginning of a new era."156 The eschatological idea, then, is local in character; and belongs only to a part of the earth.157 Or, more definitely, in the primitive mind the antithesis between local and universal does not exist. "Primitive cosmology . . . starts from the forms of the familiar landscape; local and universal are one."158 Into this cosmological and eschatological projection is placed the day of Yahweh. This day is fitted into the framework of natural events. It is regarded ''as a thing of today'';159 ''not as a future event."160, 161 The day of Yahweh is characterized by "approaching chaos";162 approaching judgment";163 expressed in such terms as "parching thirst"164 [literally and spiritually], "intolerable thirst and hunger."165 Features are also borrowed "from the winter chaos."166 The descriptions are multiplied.167 Various other figures are indicated,168 not only figures of darkness but also of light. The whole is fitted into a naturalistic framework. The day of Yahweh, with its darkness and light, is regarded as an expression of the duality of nature. Wensinck states "that these cosmological and theological conceptions are drawn from nature itself: which gives them a satisfactory explanation. "169
8. S. H. Hooke (1874-
In 1933 S. H. Hooke, professor in the University of London, edited a volume of essays entitled, Myth and Ritual ("Essays on the Myth and Ritual of the Hebrews in relation to the Culture Pattern of the Ancient East"). The theory propounded was bottomed in a supposed "general pattern of myth and ritual in the Ancient Near East, including Israel."170, 171 The mythical conceptions were mediated from Egypt and Mesopotamia through Canaan to Israel. Emphasis was laid on anthropological and folkloristic methods,172 and upon the priority of cult and rites to myth.l73
Similar studies were being carried on elsewhere.174 Some of the ideas advanced were anticipated by Mowinckel175 and adapted by a number of other Scandinavian scholars.176
Mowinckel, on the ground of this diffusion, would justify the term "school" in connection to this point of view. Cerny177 indicates the danger in the use of the term "school" for designating this group of scholars, but nevertheless adheres to this term.178
Scholars belonging to this school hold protean views; but the basic program of the New Year festival, as envisioned by Hooke, is summed in the following five points:
"(a) The dramatic representation of the death and resurrection of the god.
"(b) The recitation or symbolic representation of the myth of creation.
"(c) The ritual combat, in which the triumph of the god over his enemies was depicted.
"(d) The sacred marriage.
"(e) The triumphal processions, in which the king played the part of the god followed by a train of lesser gods or visiting deities."179
The universality and validity of the alleged pattern is assumed; as is also the king ideology, in which it is taken for granted that the king is " 'identical with' the god, and that in the cult he appeared as the suffering, dying, rising, fighting, victorious and enthroned god."180
Hooke, in his more recently edited volume,181 calls attention to the lapse of twenty-one years since the appearance of Myth and Ritual. The "place of the king in the myth and ritual of the ancient Near East is now the focal point of the discussion"182 which has risen over Myth and Ritual since its publication. This volume had gone out of print, and Hooke felt the need of bringing out a new book. Said new book is regarded by Hooke as illustrative of one "of the elements in the much discussed and much abused 'ritual pattern' namely, the dying and rising god . . ."183 While various views and mutual criticisms are presented in the more recent essays, the same basic pattern is set forth. Widengren admits that the idea of "Yahweh as a dying and rising deity" has not been actually proved.184 On the other hand he maintains thatthe king acts in the ritual as the representative of the god, who is dead, but rises again, is conquered by his enemies, but is at last victorious over them, and returns in triumph to his temple, creating cosmos, fertilizing earth, celebrating his marriage, sitting enthroned in his holy Tabernacle upon the mountains of the gods.185, 186, 187In the oxymoronic "risen God" 1958 volume, Hooke attempts to refute criticisms of the Myth and Ritual pattern; and holds that the position is better evidenced than ever.188
9. William Arthur Heidel (1868-1941)
Heidel, in his work entitled The Day of Yahweh,189 regards the day of Yahweh as being "fixed with reference to a ritual scheme."190 Concisely, some of the relevant emphases of his scheme are as follows:
a) The priority of the ritual. It is regarded as manifest that the significance of the day of Yahweh is determined by its relation to a ritual pattern. " . . . but in seeking to determine its significance [Israel's "tryst with Yahweh"] we must bear in mind the fact, which is beyond question, that the day of a deity is fixed with reference to a ritual scheme."191 Then Heidel goes on to aver, "That this is true of the 'day of Yahweh' is as plain as one could desire.''192, 193
b) The unreliability of the early sources. Heidel refers to the "vexatious problems arising from the stratification and contamination of sources . . . "194 He states that "the very nature of the Biblical record"195 is such that it was not intended to describe the great Hebrew pilgrimages or haggim, with their ritualism; but rather it "is concerned with the regulation of institutions hoary with age when the earliest literary documents were written."196 It is admitted that some historical basis may underlie the narratives, but the point is pressed "that ritual patterns and practices supplied the mold that shaped whatever of fact"197 that might "have been handed down by tradition from the fathers."198
c) Appropriated from paganism. Heidel contends that at least virtually "all the haggim were apparently appropriated by the cultus of Yahweh from pagan neighbors."199 This thesis is minutely and persistently pursued throughout the work, often in horrific fashion.
d) The day of Yahweh and eschatology. The position is taken that "even the most superficial knowledge of the Hebrew tradition"200 is enough to prove "that the day of Yahweh is always and everywhere related to the eschatological expectations of the people";201 and that "the Israelite is no exception to the rule that a people's eschatology takes the form of its past or present ritual pattern. . . "202 Thus, "the 'last things' occur on the Last Day, and the Last Day shares the character and signature of the festal term."203 This, Heidel contends, is "obviously true" and "calls for no argument."204
e) The day of Yahweh in the prophets. There is no certain data with reference to "the forms of the cultus of Yahweh before its introduction into Canaan."205 It is necessary, therefore, to turn to the prophets "to find the thought of the early Israelites regarding the tryst with Yahweh . . . "206 What, then, is found in the prophets? (1) In Amos it is a fast-day. Yahweh will judge in righteousness. "Let not erring Israel hope for that day. . ."207 (2) Amos, Isaiah, Zephaniah, Ezekiel, and Joel agree "that it is a dies irae."208 Some, however, comfort not only themselves but also their fellows with the notion that the day of wrath will be reserved for Israel's enemies. (3) "The day of Yahweh is then the day of battle, like the 'day of Midian.' "209 But the prophet might regard Yahweh not as "the god of Israel alone,"210 but as the "god" of all in every nation "that feareth him and worketh righteousness . . "211 (4) The Minor Prophets are, Heidel says, "especially instructive":The Minor Prophets are especially instructive. The oracles of Amos, for example, are detached fragments, to be sure, but they have been composed in a measure, probably by a late editor. Like most of the other prophecies, the word of Yahweh by the mouth of Amos begins with denunciations and the call to repentance, and ends with a promise of mercy; thus conforming to the scheme of the pilgrimage festivals. Joel clearly indicates a fast before the day of Yahweh. Again, Joel and Amos and Nahum unmistakably associate the great day of Yahweh with the blessings or curse of the god's 'passing over' Israel or withholding the passage of the enemy. Amos in one passage is obviously thinking of the autumnal epoch, connecting the eschatological end (kez) with the vision of the basket of summer fruits, while Habakkuk with obvious intent associates the kez with the mo'ed."212Heidel then goes at great lengths in an attempt to show that these points of view may be matched in pagan literature, and that "there is no reason to suppose that they bore a different signature from those held sacred by some at least of the neighboring peoples . . ."213
Heidel concludes the special section on "The Day of Yahweh"214 by elaborating the notion that the days of Yahweh in Israel were en rapport with heathen ideas and practices; and "we conclude, therefore," he states, "that the day of Yahweh differed in ancient times from the days of the Baalim neither in character nor in signature."215
10. Ladislav Cerny
Ladislav Cerny216 presents and criticizes the theories concerning the day of Yahweh promulged by (1) R. H. Charles; (2) J. M. P. Smith; (3) Hermaun Gunkel and Hugo Gressmann; (4) Sigmund Mowinckel and Julian Morgenstern; and (5) the "Myth-and-ritual" school.217 He rejects the view that eschatological ideas were in the sources as elements of a "clearly defined system"; whether the eschatological system be regarded as "a logically arranged and divided whole" which was subject to "its own further development," or as understood by some as "only fragmentarily preserved" and necessitating a relevant research in order to discover the "original subject matter."218 Cerny contends that eschatology was a development from non-eschatological material. His own view is argued at length under five major headings.219
a) "Sources and content of the conception of the Day of Yahweh."220
(1) The ideological sources of the day of Yahweh conception are sought for in the psychology of "participation," "corporate personality," and the "collective mind." It embraces the idea of "a definite solidarity of a part with the whole and of the whole with each of its parts."221 The divine side is seen to work in the story of Korah's revolt and of David's census. "But the spacial extension is in no wav shortened, when ... human beings are acting as divine agents as in the story of Achan."222
(2) Thus solidarity reaches into the future, as illustrated by the proverb in Jeremiah 31:29 and Ezekiel 18:2. The day of Yahweh concept, then, is said to have a non-eschatological origin.
(3) A conception closely comiected is that of "Yahweh as a furious, fearful and zealous deity," and also "a righteous God."223
4) Finally, the terms used to describe the day of Yahweh are seen as parallels of those employed in Ugaritic texts; also in Babylonian and Assyrian sources, both mythological and historical.
b) "The original form of the Day of Yahweh." Cerny rejects the position, taken by Gunkel and Gressmann, which stresses the content of popular and prophetic ideas of the day of Yahweh.224 He then argues at some length against Mowinckel's stress on form, which is based on the alleged "Thronbesteigungspsalmen" and the New Year Festival. The original form, contends Cerny must have had reference to the days or day which Yahweh decrees or determines. There may have been originally several days of Yahweh, but the idea became increasingly singularized and definitely related to the future.225
c) "The age and further development of the doctrine of the Day of Yahweh." The first appearance, according to Cerny, of the expression "Day of Yahweh," in Amos 5:18, embraced esehatological significance.226 The popular nationalistic conception was changed, beginning with the prophet Amos, to include judgment upon Israel. The "internal dissection of the nation" in the doctrine of Amos was developed by Isaiah into the doctrine of the remnant.227 The nationalistic conception gave way to universalism, which was held by Zephaniah.228 The collectivistic conception was changed, with Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Finally, the day of Yahweh attained cosmic significance,229 and this day would bring the end of the old order and usher in the everlasting Kingdom.230
d) "The historical and social causes of the beginning of eschatology." Together with Mowinckel, the secondary character of eschatology is affirmed.231 Instead, however, of eschatology being dependent on the cult, or as with Gunkel and Gressmann on mythology, Cerny grounds eschatology in the historical reality of the community.232 The "impact of the Hebrew nomadic clans on the culture in Canaan and the social consequences of it";233 the constant threat to their independence because of their "exposed geographical position";234 and "their national ideology"235 constitute the historic ground on which the prophets developed their doctrine of the day of Yahweh. This doctrine was not envisaged as a "transcendent fate," but as "functional."236 It was designed to put an end to the social and religious corruption.237
e) "The ethnological origin of the conception of the Day of Yahweh." Many parallels or analogies of the Biblical doctrine with ethnological sources are affirmed. These, it is contended, cannot account for the uniqueness of Hebrew eschatology. This uniqueness, it is averred, may be found only in that which the popular and the prophetic conceptions have in common.238 This common factor was inherited ideals. The promise aspect of these ideals was emphasized by the people, while the prophets stressed God's commandments. Both people and prophets saw that the contemporary state of things was not adequate to their ideals, and their subjective longing for "this change was then projected into the future."239 This was followed by special expansion, in the prophetic conception, to include the then known world. Political disturbances over half a century prior to Amos produced popular dissatisfaction with the contemporary situation and gave birth to the idea of the necessity of change. The people felt keenly the menace of enemies, but "the prophets replaced this nationalistic fear by their profound criticism of contemporary society and by their positive moral and religious ideals."240 This conviction of the necessity of change in the contemporary world order241 is said to be the reason for the uniqueness of Hebrew eschatology.
11. Henry Alfred Buchanan (1922-
Henry Alfred Buchanan242 deals briefly with the views of the day of Yahweh held respectively by (1) W. Robertson Smith; (2) Hugo Gressmann and Hermann Gunkel; (3) Sigmund Mowinckel; (4) William A. Heidel; (5) S. H. Hooke; and (6) Julian Morgenstern. Buchanan indicates, in his evaluation of these theories, his own view of the origin of the concept of the day of Yahweh.243
a) Origin of the idea of the day of Yahweh. The origin of the concept of the day of Yahweh, according to Buchanan, is lost in the "unrecorded experiences" of the Hebrew people; and scholars can only conjecture as to how the idea took form.244 It is contended, however, that there are hints in the Scriptures that may lead to the assumption that the origin "is embedded in the peculiar experience and genius of the Hebrew people themselves."245 Even prior to the establishment of the theocracy, the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah might have given rise to the idea of the coming of Yahweh in judgment on the wicked and for the redemption of His people. The same argument would hold in reference to the redemption from the Egyptian bondage. Thus it is not necessary to suppose that the idea was mediated through the Canaanites.246 The reflection of the prophets on the fate of Shiloh might give rise to the idea that the wrath of Yahweh might be unleashed against Israel.247, 248
Buchanan ranges both the Old and the New Testament. A concise presentation of his idea of the development of the doctrine of the day of Yahweh in the Old Testament is given here.
b) Summary of the prophetic concept of the Day of Yahweh.249
(1) The popular idea of the day of Yahweh was exploded by the prophets in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. The judgment of captivity will fall on Israel-Judah; but a remnant will be restored to their land, and God will accomplish His purpose through them.250
(2) Yahweh's personal appearance on the day of Yahweh will be "attended by seismic and cosmic disturbances. . . "251
(3) The day of Yahweh is always imminent. This point of view is accounted for by "the national and historical consciousness of the prophets, and the eager expectancy of the apocalyptists."252
(4) Out of the judgment on Israel will come a remnant, and Yahweh's purpose for His people will be realized through them.
(5) Even in Malachi's time the day of Israel's blessedness had not come. Why? Israel had sinned. When she repents, the promises will be fulfilled. But judgment must first come.253
(6) The day of Israel's blessed felicity will come, and wrath will be visited on the nations.254 The idea of destruction enfolds popular mythology with reference to "the destruction of monsters in the struggle between good and evil . . "255 This concept is developed in "Ezekiel, Daniel, and Deutero-Zechariah . . ."256
(7) This earth is the ground of "both the judgment and the restoration."257 The earth, however, is sometimes conceived of as transformed and designated as the "new heaven and new earth." The problem of "rewards and punishments in the earthly kingdom of Yahweh" is solved by "the doctrine of a physical resurrection of the body. . ."258
(8) The prophets are said to differ with reference to the heathen nations: some look forward to their complete destruction; others look forward to their evangelization and consequent inclusion in the kingdom to be established.259
B. Succinct Summarization
(1) The incipience of the doctrine of the day of Yahweh, for W. Robertson Smith, was the idea of the "day of battle." Fanatical faith gave birth to confident expectation of national victory over their enemies. Amos turned upside down the popular idea, and there gradually developed the idea of a day of general judgment.
(2) R. H. Charles attempted to trace the development of the idea of the day of Yahweh along naturalistic lines, from the popular pre-Amos days to the synthesis of individual and national eschatology and on to the idea of the "righteous individual and the righteous nation" in the "supernaturally" blessed mundane Messianic kingdom.
(3) The day of Yahweh, for John M. P. Smith, was the development of multiple ideas mediated in successive stages through the instrumentality of the historical experiences of the nation of Israel.
(4) Hermann Gunkel, emphasizing the comparative religion and category-criticism approach, held "that myth was younger than folklore";260 and that Hebrew eschatology was a projection of primeval history as seen originally in Babylonian mythology. Hugo Gressmann followed Gunkel, and emphasized comparative mythology. The "woe" and the "weal" aspects of the day of Yahweh had their roots allegedly in prehistoric myth.
(5) Sigmund Mowinckel regarded Hebrew eschatology, in contradistinction from the view of Gunkel and Gressmann, as unique. Eschatology, for Mowinckel, is secondary; while of primary signification is the cult. Instead of deriving the day of Yahweh from eschatology, he regarded eschatology as being rooted in the day. Mowinckel laid great stress on the cultic interpretation of various psalms as providing a key to the day of Yahweh. In fact, the intricate drama of the supposed New Year Festival was the day of Yahweh's manifestation, which at first had no eschatological significance. From the "Thronbesteigung Jahwes" an eschatology was developed.
(6) Julian Morgenstern theorized that the day of Yahweh was rooted in the ritual of the New Year's Day, which involved the drama of "the solar cult." The ultimate origin is said to reach back to the mythology of early Semitic agricultural peoples, with its basic idea of victorious struggle of good over evil.
(7) The intricate system of Arent Jan Wensinck is grounded in the idea that the day of Yahweh was a development from mythology mediated through the New Year festival of creation. Eschatology was a projection of the phenomena experienced at the changes of the season. Into this cosmological and eschatological projection is placed the day of Yahweh.
(8) The theory advanced by the so-called "Myth and Ritual" school is bottomed in a supposed myth and ritual pattern in general vogue in the Near East, mediated from Egypt and pan-Babylonia through Canaanite religion to Israel. Emphasis was laid on the priority of cult and rites to myth. Here, too, the alleged drama of the New Year Festival is pre-eminent.
(9) The significance of the day of Yahweh, according to William Arthur Heidel, was determined by the ritual scheme. This pattern was appropriated from paganism, and in basic character the day of Yahweh did not differ from the days of Baalim.
(10) Ladislav Cerny contended that Hebrew eschatology, while unique, was a long and gradual development from non-eschatological material. Cerny, in opposition to Gunkel and Gressmann and Mowinckel, presses the point that the original form of "the Day of Yahweh" had reference to the days or day which Yahweh decreed. He, with Mowinckel, regards eschatology as secondary and traces the development from ideological, historical, and social sources. The key to the uniqueness of Hebrew eschatology is the idea of necessary change in the existing world order.
(11) The origin of the day of Yahweh idea, according to Henry Alfred Buchanan, is lost somewhere in the unrecorded experiences of the Hebrew people; and scholars can only conjecture as to how the idea took form. It is argued that hints of origin may be found in such accounts as that of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah or the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt; hence it is not necessary to suppose the idea to have been mediated through the Canaanites. Buchanan attempts to trace the development of the concept of the day of Yahweh, involving conflicting views, through the Scriptures. The prophetic idea is climaxed by the idea of judgment and restoration which has this earth as its milieu.
C. Suggestive Observations
1. Negative Critical Presuppositions
a) A common factor. Each of the eleven views of the day of Yahweh which have been considered is based on the negative critical approach to Biblical doctrine. Variegated presuppositions are espoused, but each of these representative views negates the Bible's own view of itself with reference to revelation and inspiration.
b) Christian evidence prior to Biblical theology. The work of Christian evidences is primary. The task of the Biblical apologist precedes that of the Biblical theologian. This, of course, is not to minimize the evidential value of Biblical doctrine; but the doctrinal conclusions based on naturalistic or mediating views of the Bible will often be at variance with those which are relevant to the view that the Bible enjoys plenary inspiration.
c) A basic assumption. One of the basic assumptions indicated in the Overview is that "the autographa of Old Testament writings were inspired by God and free from error." It was deemed necessary, however, in the interest of this study and relevant requirements of the Overview, to present some of the representative views with reference to the concept of the day of Yahweh. Even though this study presupposes the evidential work and proceeds on the basis that the Bible is the word of God, written by men as they were borne along by the Holy Spirit, it is hoped that these considerations will help to elucidate the sections which folow.
2. The Divine Origin and Authority of the Old Testament Prophetic Order
a) Variations within a naturalistic framework. David Capell Simpson261,262 indicates that the Myth and Ritual approach rejects the classic view of the older modernism with reference to the alleged clash between the "priestly" and the "prophetic." The Myth and Ritual emphasis on the myth and legend as concomitantly involved in the naturalistic development of the Old Testament263 place both priest and prophet, without necessary antagonism, in the stream of evolutionary emergence. Mowinckel elaborated the idea of cultic prophets, and that some of the canonical prophets were members of these guilds.264, 265 H. H. Rowley266 discusses multiple views with reference to the prophets. They are numerous, and often of a Procrustean nature; but the point here is that the day of Yahweh theories under consideration unite in rejecting the supernatural authority of the prophets, placing them in one way or another on a lower level.267
b) The divine origin and authority of the Old Testament prophetic order. Over against this evaluation stands the whole polemic for the divine origin of the Old Testament prophetic order. Numerous phases of the gamut of criteria of divine revelation are involved in any full polemic.268 The prophet of Yahweh, whether his message concerned the past, present, or future, was borne along by the Holy Spirit in delivering the divinely authoritative message entrusted to him. Warfield makes the following statement with reference to the Biblical religion as a whole:The religion of the Bible thus announces itself, not as the product of men's search after God, if haply they may feel after Him and find Him, but as the [revelation to] man of the gracious God . . . In other words, the religion of the Bible presents itself as distinctly a revealed religion. Or rather to speak more exactly, it announces itself as the revealed religion, as the only revealed religion; and sets itself as such over against all other religions, which are represented as all products, in a sense in which it is not, of the art and device of man.269, 2703. Notes Concerning Alleged Ethnic Similarities
Coursing through most of the theories presented is the idea that because of the similarities involved much of the Hebrew concept of the day of Yahweh was mediated through the ethnic religions in the Near East. Even a glimpse of some of the problems will help prepare the way for further examination of the doctrine of the day of Yahweh.
a) The identification of the religion of Israel. S. H. Hooke,271 in attempting to answer the charge that Myth and Ritual has super-imposed on ethnic ritual-pattern in the religion of Israel, rejects the idea that a clear line of demarcation can be drawn between "the genuine Yahwism," or "the official religion of Israel," and apostate practices. He calls attention, for example, to the Ezekiel 20:13 ff.; the wicked idolatries recorded in the book of Judges; the ritual genuine Yahwism," or "the official religion of Israel," and apostate prohibitions as recorded in Leviticus and Deuteronomy; "the women weeping for Tammuz" (Ezekiel 8: 14), as examples which indicate Canaanite, Assyrio-Bablyonian, and perhaps Egyptian elements in the religion of the Hebrews as it is seen in the Old Testament.
(1) The Bible contains a Holy Spirit inspired account of many uninspired words and practices. An accurate account is given in Genesis of the Fall, but neither the sin of Eve and Adam nor Satan's devilishness is sanctioned.
(2) It need not be definitely argued here that the apostasies recorded in Judges and Ezekiel, as elsewhere in the Scriptures, are denounced in the recording; and with the condemnation there is the concomitant recognition of the revealed religion. The prohibitions in Deuteronomy, for example, together with the relevant preceptory law, constitute a cul-de-sac for the idea of the ethnic origin, at least in large measure, of the revealed religion of Israel.272, 273, 274
(3) The Scriptures are often used fantastically to prove the ethnic origination of various phases of the religion of Israel. Only a few examples will be given here; others will follow in the course of discussion.
(a) Psalms 93 and Habakkuk 3 are alleged to have as their subject "the conquest of Tiamat by Marduk, and the subjugation of the waters by Jahveh . ."275
(b) The account of the Passover as given in Exodus 12 is not regarded as historical, but rather as an ancient festival mediated through Mesopotamia and Canaan, transformed to some degree by Yahwism.276 The Passover is tied in with the Babylonian New Year Festival, which figures so prominently in day of Yahweh theories.277
(c) "And Yahweh visited Sarah ... " (Genesis 21: 1-3) is suggested as possibly implying sexual intercourse with Sarah by a visiting deity. This, then, would imply an adaptation by Israel of the ethnic "sacred marriage" of the Myth and Ritual pattern.278
(d) Enthronement Psalms. Mowinckel's departure from Gunkel's view has already been indicated.279 The New Year Festival concept will be dealt with further in connection with the idea of a ritual-pattern.280 A few observations are made here with reference to the contention of Mowinckel281 that the day of Yahweh had its origin in the autumnal New Year festival of the ascension of Yahweh to His kingly throne (Thronbesteigung Jahwes), fashioned after the Babylonian akitu festival.282
(1) This theory is grounded in the idea that all religions, including the Biblical, are anthropologically based, and that to understand the religion of Israel one must work "inwards from the wide circle of a primitive and general Semitic Umwelt,"283 rather than from the standpoint of divine revelation. The very method employed is in diametric opposition to the Bible's own view of itself.
(2) That any Jerusalem festival as envisioned by Mowinckel ever existed even in the context of apostasy is wholly gratuitous. Even Cerny regards the very idea itself as "an hypothetical recon struction pure and simple,"284 or compilation of conjectures and mistakes . . . a mere unsupported conjecture. . ."285, 286, 287, 288
(3) Moses Buttenwieser calls attention to the fact that even Gunkel "willy-nilly admits" that the theory of a Jerusalem New Year festival copied after the Babylonian "proves itself a web of fancy, without basis in fact."289 He cites Gunkel as follows:To be sure, it remains a decided disadvantage that anything that we are able to say about this celebration we get only through conjecture. Whatever allusions there are in the poems pertaining to the celebration are very indefinite.290Gunkel, in spite of such admissions, goes on to reconstruct, for his own purposes, "such songs in detail. . ."293 After indicating that Gunkel refutes his theory when he discusses the essence of these psalms, Buttenwieser goes on to pose the following question:
Again Gunkel remarks:
Royal poems, which were sung on the day the new king was anointed and tell about the coronation ceremonies, have not come down to us.291 ... there is nowhere in either the historical records or law books any allusions to such a festival of Yahweh's accession to his throne . . . we are very badly informed even about the New Year celebration.292This brings us to the heart of the matter. How should all the mythological rubbish which Gunkel, Mowinckel and Schmidt have read into them, be compatible with such luminous faith, such profound spirituality as is revealed in Psalms 93 and 96-98?294(4) The expression "day of Yahweh" does not appear in Mowinckel's psalmic material. He "presupposes an original coherent system, which he tries to reconstruct."295 And Cerny raises the question as to why it would be easier to reconstruct the supposed New Year's festival from the Psalms than to do it with the esehatological material found in the prophetic books.296 Would not the prophet be "aware of the original unity of this picture, which Mowinckel so ingeniously reconstructs"?297, 298 Edward J. Young, commenting on Aage Bentzen's new interpretation of the old royal Psalms,299 in which it is assumed "that there was a Thronbesteigungfest in ancient Israel," remarks that "not in this manner is the eschatological hope of Israel to be explained, but rather as the result of a special, unique, divine revelation."300, 301
c) Patternism. Mowinckel, along with other scholars both Scandinavian and British, anticipated Myth and Ritual.302 A good share of the observations already made with reference to the so-called Enthronement or Royal Psalms303 apply to these remarks concerning the Myth and Ritual, allegedly grounded in a myth and ritual pattern supposed to be general in the Ancient Near East. Only a few observations can be made here.
(1) Ideas connected by such terms as "dying and rising god," "the myth of creation and the ntual combat" "the sacred marriage," and "the triumphal procession" have become commonplace in denoting a general New Year festival pattern in the ancient Near East, including Israel. The complex is assumed as fact in many quarters, but the factuality is also called in question.
(a) Frankfort ,305 in the Frazer lecture, 1950, shows that the belief "that differences are specific and similarities generic vitiates one's very approach to the evidence."306 The Myth and Ritual school has hardened contingent similarities into alleged essential similarities, and then imposed the presupposed pattern "upon our evidence on the slightest pretext because its validity for the whole of the Near East is taken for granted."307 Frankfort maintains his thesis by a definitive examination of the differences between the myth of creation and the rite of New Year as seen in Egyptian and Babylonian accounts.308, 309 The differences negate the factuality of essential similarities.310
(b) There is fairly frequent admission of a lack of actual factual evidence; e.g. (i) It is supposed that "the dedication of Solomon's temple may have presented features, now obliterated by the editorial process, borrowed from the Canaanite archetype."311 (ii) It is admitted that nowhere is there mentioned in the records the "ritual combat" in the supposed Hebrew festval.312 (iii) The idea of a Jerusalem celebration patterned after the Babylonian New Year festival is acknowledged to rest upon conjecture.313
(c) Porteous states that the evidence is not treated fairly "if we substitute for Israel's historical faith a nature-religion with its cyclic movement and its preoccupation with material well-being."314 He contends that the only satisfactory explanation of the uniqueness of the religion of Israel is the fact of "a divine intervention in history which became the presupposition of Israel's faith . . ."315
(2) The basic concepts in the alleged pattern are inimical to Biblical revelation. There is a basic incompatibility between said revelation and the idea (a) that a basic motif of the Jerusalem festival was that of the "dying-rising god";316 (b) that there was in the ritual a reflection of the Babylonian Creation Epic, Enuma elish, in which Marduk triumphs over Tiamat;317, 318 (c) that the Hebrew cultic ritual was an adaptation and spiritualization, for example, of "the myth of Cinyras and Aphrodite-Astarte";319 and in this myth "the ritual is also implied by the persistence of the institution of sacred prostitution";320, 321 (d) that the kingship of Yahweh is to be regarded as "a mythic trait, taken over by the Israelite population from the Canaanites and ultimately"322 from the presupposed Near East myth and ritual pattern; and (e) that in the triumphal procession of the ritual, the king is supposed to have played the part of the god,323 who is finally victorious.324 "The myth and ritual school are fain to admit that the prophets, beginning with Moses himself, were hostile to all that the ritual pattern stood for."325
(c) Attention has been called326 to the tragic fact of Israel's repeated apostasies. Their falling away into unspeakable abominations of heathenism is one of the tragedies of history. But such devolutions from the divinely revealed religion are repeatedly and emphatically denounced by Moses and the prophets. The very nature of the religion of the Canaanites, which brought the divine penalty of extermination,327 indicates that the myth-ritual and similar theories are nothing more than a friable facade.
Endnotes1. M. A. Cooper, "The Day of Jehovah" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, 1928).
2. Kenneth H. Umenhofer, "The Day of the Lord in the Old Testament" (unpublished B. D. thesis, Gordon Divinity School, Beverly Farms, Massachusetts, 1958).
3. Charles Henry Murphy, "The Day of the Lord" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas, 1955).
4. Murphy's thesis is written from the standpoint of Dispensationalism, and certain millennial views are discussed.
5. Henry Alfred Buchanan, "The Day of the Lord: A Study of Judgment and Redemption in Biblical Teachings" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, 1951).
6. Ladislav Cerny, The Day of Yahweh and Some Relevant Problems (V. Praze: Na'kladem Filosoficke' Fakulty University Karlovy, 1948).
7. W. Robertson Smith, The Prophets of Israel and Their Place in History (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1897 ["Published April 1882. Reprinted November 1895, with Introduction and Additional Notes by Prof. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D. Reprinted May 1897"]), pp. 397-98.
8. Ibid., p. 131.
9. Ibid., p.132.
10. See ibid., p. 131.
11. Ibid., p.398.
12. The position of W. Robertson Smith is appraised, in the light of various other views, in H. Wheeler Robinson, Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament (Oxford; at the Clarendon Press, 1946), pp. 138-43. Robinson holds that the older view of W. Robertson Smith as to the origin of the day of Yahweh is best as over against those, e.g., of Gressmann, Mowinckel, and Morgenstern.
13. R. H. Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life: In Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity (second edition, revised and enlarged; London: Adam and Charles Black, 1913), p. 130. See pp. 82-130.
14. See ibid., pp. 82-83.
15. Ibid., pp.83-87.
16. Ibid., p.87.
17. Ibid., p.83.
18. See ibid., p.92, on Isaiah 1:24-26. A large portion of Isaiah is denied to Isaiah.
19. Ibid., p.88.
20. Ibid., pp.87, 98.
21. Ibid., pp.91, 94-95.
22. Ibid., p.96.
23. Ibid., p.96.
24. See loc. cit.
25. See ibid., p.97.
26. Ibid., p.97.
27. Ibid., p.102.
28. Ibid., pp.104-8.
29. Charles deals at some length with supposed variances between Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
30. Ibid., p.130.
31. See ibid., p.118.
32. Ibid., p. 127.
33. Ibid., pp.130-31.
34. The position of R. H. Charles is also set forth in his article, "Eschatology," Encyclopedia Biblica, Part II, eds. T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1901), pp. 1347-54.
35. John M. P. Smith, "The Day of Yahweh," The American Journal of Theology, V (July, 1901), p.505.
37. Ibid., pp.505-8.
38. See ibid., p.508: "Cf. I Kings 20:13, 28; 22:6, 11, 12 [Attention is called to false prophets, but the prophecy of Micaiah is ignored.]; 2 Kings 2:13-19; 14:25."
39. Ibid., pp.508 ff.
40. Smith rejects in this connection the idea that "the popular conception of the Day of Yahweh was looked upon as a feast day . . . " (ibid., p.511).
41. Ibid.; pp.513-16.
42. Ibid., p.515.
43. Ibid., p.513.
45. Ibid., p.515.
46. See ibid., p.516.
47. Ibid., p.516.
49. See ibid., pp.518-19.
50. Smith regards such passages as the following as late: Isaiah 42:13-17; Amos 9:8b-15; Isaiah 2:2-4; Micab 4:1-4; Isaiah 61:2; 63:1-6; 65:1-66:24; 24-27; 19:16-25. Obadiab is put in the period of the exile; Joel after Ezra; Zechariah 9-14 in the Greek period.
51. Ibid., p.52l
52. See ibid., p. 522.
53. See ibid., p.521.
54. Ibid., p 528.
55. See ibid., pp. 531-33.
56. Ibid., p.533.
58. See J. Coppens, The Old Testament and the Critics, trans. Edward A. Ryan and Edward W. Tribbe (Paterson, New Jersey: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1942), pp.50 ff.
59. See Laurence J. McGinley, Form-Criticism of the Synoptic Healing Narratives (Woodstock, Maryland: Woodstock College Press, 1944), p.2.
60. See Coppens, op. cit., p.51.
61. See Coppens, op. cit., pp. 77-78.
62. See McGinley, op. cit., p. 3.
63. Troeltsch states that "the German word religionsgeschichtliche has no exact English equivalent. The method of investigation indicated by the term is, of course, well known to English-speaking scholars, and it has been variously employed. The nearest approach to the German term is the current expression 'comparative religion' " (Ernst Troeltsch, "The Dogmatics of the 'Religionsgeschichtliche Schule,' " The American Journal of Theology, XVII (January, 1913), p. 1. Troeltsch also says " .. nor does the movement rest upon any simple and unitary foundation so that 'school' might properly be said to be built upon this foundation" (loc. cit.). He goes on to explain that "in this religious development it is impossible to make the older dogmatic distinction between a natural and a supernatural revelation" (ibid., p. 2). All religions, in other words, including the Biblical, are anthropologically based.
64. C. H. North, The Old Testament Interpretation of History (London: The Epworth Press, 1946), p.121.
65. For a brief presentation of the mythological phenomenalism of Ignaz Goldziher as precursive of Gunkel's "so-called culture-myths," see Geo. Widengren, "Early Hebrew Myths and Their Interpretations," Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, ed. S. H. Hooke (Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1958), pp. 149-50.
66. John Merlin Powis Smith, "The Religion and Mythology in the Old Testament," The American Journal of Theology, XI (April, 1907), p.320.
67. Richard S. Crips, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos (London: Society for the Promoting of Christian Knowledge, 1929), p.55.
68. Cripps, p.56, states that "the Unheil and Heil scheme he attributed chiefly to Egypt; but not Egypt alone, for he believed such eschatology to have been current in the Near East generally."
69. See John M. P. Smith, "The Religion and Mythology in the Old Testament," ibid.
70. Cripps, loc. cit.
71. Ladislav Cerny, The Day of Yahweh and Some Relevant Problems (V Praze: Nakiadem Filosoficke' Fakulty University Karlovy, 1948), p.36.
72. See Hermann Gunkel, Schofung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (Gothengen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1895), p. 14a; translated in Henry Alfred Buchanan, "The Day of the Lord: A Study of Judgment and Redemption in Biblical Teaching" (unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, 1951), p.9.
73. Cripps, op. cit., p.56.
75. Buchanan, op. cit., p.8.
76. Cripps op. cit., p.60.
78. Cripps, ibid.
79. See ibid., p.56.
80. John M. P. Smith, "Religion and Mythology in the Old Testament," ibid. p.319.
81. See Hugo Gressmann, The Tower of Babel (New York's Jewish Institute of Religion Press, 1928), p.49. Gressmann states here that "the most difficult question is whether we should seek this root on Babylonian or Egyptian soil." The Babylonian origin is regarded by Gressmann's view that "the evolution of eschatology probably consists merely in this; that mythological views are translated into history" (p.41); the thesis that foreign ideas in Israelite prophecy were derived from Babylonian mythological conceptions of the primeval time, and that "the prophecy of Israel is heavily dependent upon" this "Babylonian heritage" (p. 55); and the contention that the eschatological and primeval ages "belong together and correspond to each other as original and replica" (p.48).
82. Ibid., p.54.
83. John M. P. Smith, op. cit., p.319.
84. Gressmann, op. cit., p. 11.
85. Smith, loc. cit.
87. Ibid. See also Gressmann, op. cit., p.48.
88. See Gressmann, op. cit., p.72: "And all of the conceptions of other-worldly religions, such as the Kingdom of God, the Son of Man, resurrection and judgment are for Jesus self-evident and current ideas, appropriated from the tradition of his time and yet not originated in the Old Testament."
89. A. R. Johnson, "The Psalms," The Old Testament and Modern Study. ed. H. H. Rowley (Oxford: at the Claredon Press, 1951), p.165.
90. Ibid., p. 167.
91. Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), vol. I, p.47.
92. See Johnson, "The Psalms," op. cit., p. 167.
94. See C. H. North, The Old Testament Interpretation of History (London: The Epworth Press, 1946), p.121.
95. See Johnson, "The Psalms," op. cit., p.189.
96. Mowinckel, op. cit., vol.11, p.228.
97. See ibid., pp.218 ff., for Mowinckel's discussion of various views with reference to the Psalms, and also his treatment of Gunkel's modification of "his origional eschatological interpretation in the direction of a cultic one" (ibid., p.231).
98. For further elaboration of differences in this connection between Gunkel and Mowinckel, see A. H. Johnson, "Living Issues in Biblical Scholarship," The Expository Times, LXII (1950-51), pp.36-39.
99. See Psalms 47, 93, 95-100.
100. North, op. cit., p. 122.
101. The expression, Yahweh malak, is correctly translated, "Yahweh reigns." See Buttenwieser's reference to Eissfeldt's statement in Moses Buttenwieser, The Psalms (Chicago: The University Press, 1938), p.323.
102. See Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship, vol. I, pp.47 ff., with reference to other psalms regarded as belonging to this type.
103. North, op. cit., p. 122.
104. See ibid., p. 121.
105. A. R. Johnson, "Living Issues in Biblical Scholarship," The Expository Times, LXII (1950-51), p.37.
106. Mowinckel regards as similar to the alleged Jerusalem festival (1) "Marduk's triumph over the dragon of the primeval ocean in Babylon"; (2) the Assyrian "Assur's fight and victory"; (3) The Egyptian Osiris-Horus drama, and (4) the Canaanite Baal-Mot conflict (see Mowinckel. The Psalms in Israel's Worship, vol.1, pp.20, 52, 134).
107. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship, vol.11, pp.232, 240-41.
108. See Mowinckel, He That Cometh, trans. G. W. Anderson (New York: Abingdon Press, n.d.), p.132.
l09. See infra, p.50, with reference to the elements of this drama.
110. Mowinckel, loc. cit.
111. Mowinckel, op. cit., p.132.
113. Ibid., pp.132-33.
114. Ibid., pp. 132 ff.
115. Ibid., p.142.
116. Ibid., p. 143.
118. Ibid., p.145.
118. Ibid., p.148.
120. See ibid., pp.134-49, for a description of the content of this hope.
121. Ibid., p. 149.
122. See ibid., pp.151-54.
123. Ibid., p. 154.
124. Julian Morgenstern, "The Historical Antecedents of Amos' Prophecy," The Hebrew Union College Annual, vol. XV, 1940, p.285.
125. Ibid., p.280.
126. Ibid., pp.286-87.
127. Ibid., p.287.
128. See ibid., p.288.
129. See ibid., p.289.
130. See ibid., p.290.
132. See ibid.
133. See ibid.
134. Morgenstern, op. cit., 1949, vol. XXII, p.426.
135. The "indispensable conditions": (1) "the transformation from active, militant, self-reliant nationalism to religious universalism, the repudiation of the ideal nationalistic independence and political world-leadership, and the establishment of the Jewish community of Palestine as a theocracy, with Yahweh, the world-God, even as Deutero-Isaiah had conceived and proclaimed Him less than thirty years earlier, as its true and eternal King, and with the chief priest of the New Temple, now bearing the significant title, 'the anointed priest,' supplanting the pre-exilic kings of Judah, those of the dynasty of David, functioning as God's representative and vice-regent on earth, arid therefore the titular head of this new theocracy" (ibid., p.425).
136. Ibid., p.426.
137. See Geo Widengren, "Early Hebrew Myths and Their Interpretations," Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, ed. S. H. Hooke (Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1958), p.195.
138. Patternism will be considered infra.
139. See Arent Jan Wensinek, "The Semitic New Year and the Origin of Eschatology," Acta Orientalia I (1923), pp.158-99.
140. Ibid., p. 158.
142. Ibid., p.170.
143. See ibid., p. 175.
144. Ibid., p.169.
145. Ibid., p.184; see also p. 170.
146. Ibid., p. 185.
148. Ibid., p.179.
149. Ibid., p.177.
151. Ibid., p. 187.
153. See ibid., p.170.
155. See ibid., p.188.
156. Ibid., p. 198.
157. See ibid.
158. Ibid., p. 199.
159. Ibid., p.189.
161. See ibid., where even in Joel no distinction is allowed between the then current locust plague and the future day of Yahweh.
162. Ibid., pp.189, 190.
165. Ibid., p. 191; see also, Isaiah 7:18; 34:4, 9-11; 33:4, 9.
166. Ibid., p. 192. Wensinck cites Isaiah 28:2.
167. See Amos 5:20; Joel 2:2; Zephaniah 1:15; Jeremiah 4:23; Acts 2:17.
168. See Wensinck, op. cit., pp. 193-97.
169. Ibid., p. 198.
170. Widengren, op. cit., p. 153.
171. See S. H. Hooke (ed.), Myth and Ritual (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), pp. 1 ff.
172. Gunkel emphasized "folk-stories"; Hooke, "popular customs" (see Widengren, loc. cit.).
173. See Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship, vol.11, op. cit., p.240.
174. See Hooke, Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, op. cit., pp.229, 236, ff.
175. See ibid., p.237.
176. See Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship, vol.11, op. cit., p.240.
177. See Cerny, op. cit., p.49.
178. For further discussion of terminology see Widengren, op. cit., pp. 152-53.
179. S. H. Hooke, "The Myth and Ritual Pattern of the Ancient East," Myth and Ritual, ed. S. H. Hooke (Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1958), p.8.
180. See Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship, vol.11, p.241; and infra, p.
181. Hooke, Myth, Ritual and Kingship, op. cit., p.1.
184. See Widengren, op. cit., p. 191.
185. Ibid., p. 199. See footnote 1, on page 199, for reference concerning the elaboration of these motifs.
186. See Hooke, Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, op. cit., pp. 12-13, for Hooke's remarks concerning Mowinckel's answer to the notion "that Yahweh was ever thought of in Israel as a dying and rising god . . ." Hooke contends that he personally had never gone beyond that which Mowinckel admits.
187. See ibid., p. 191, for reference to attempts in recent research to show that Yahweh was worshiped as "a dying and rising deity . ."
188. See H. H. Rowley, From Moses to Qumran (New York: Association Press, 1963), pp 111-38. Rowley's approach in this typically well documented chapter, "Ritual and the Hebrew Prophets," is quite liberal. He indicates, however, some effective structures with reference to the myth and ritual "patternism" of English and Scandinavian scholars.
189. William Arthur Heidel, The Day of Yahweh (New York: The Century Company, 1929).
190. Ibid., p.356.
191. Ibid., p.356.
193. See also the section that follows in this thesis.
194. Heidel, op. cit., p. 53.
196. Ibid., pp.53-54.
197. Ibid., p 79.
199. Ibid., p.355.
200. Ibid., p.356.
209. Ibid., p.357.
212. Ibid. The Minor Prophets references given in the relative footnotes are as follows: Joel I. 8 sq.; II. 12 sq.; Joel III. 17; Amos V. 17; VII. 8; VIII. 2; Nah. 1:15 (Hab. II. 1); Amos VIII. 1 sq.; Habakkuk 11.2-3 (Cf. Ps. CII. 13).
213. Ibid., p.393.
214. Ibid., pp.442 ff.
215. Ibid., p.396.
216. Ladislav Cerny', The Day of Yahweh and Some Relevant Problems (V Praze: Na' kladem Filosoficke Fakulty University Karlovy, 1948).
217. Ibid., pp. 27-52.
218. Ibid., p. 51.
219. Ibid., pp.53-98.
220. Italics are not employed in the original five headings.
221. Cerny', ibid., p.65.
222. See ibid., p.65.
224. See ibid., p. 67.
225. See ibid., p.79.
226. See ibid., p.80.
227. See ibid., p. 84.
228. See ibid.
229. See ibid.
230. See ibid.
231. See ibid., p.85.
232. See ibid.
233. Ibid., p.93.
234. Ibid., p.87; see also p.93.
235. Ibid., p.93; see also p.87 ff.
236. Ibid., p.91.
237. See ibid., p.92.
238. See ibid., p.97.
240. Ibid., p.98.
241. See ibid.
242. Henry Alfred Buchanan, "The Day of the Lord: A Study of Judgment and Redemption in Biblical Teachings" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, 1951).
243. Buchanan, even in the Scriptural citations, substitutes the name "Yahweh" for what he styles "the relatively colorless 'Jehovah' " (ibid., p. 1).
244. See ibid., p. 15.
246. See ibid., pp. 15-16.
247. See ibid., p. 16.
248. Nahum 1:11; Ezekiel 29:3; Isaiah 51:9; and Amos 9:3 are regarded by Buchanan as "the strongest evidenes for Babylonian influence upon the Israelite mind in the formulation of the day of Yahweh concept" (ibid., p. 17). He does not exegete the passages, but suggests that they could be "later addenda to an already well established idea" (ibid.), and hence not involved in the origination of the concept.
249. According to Buchanan's chronology, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah belong to the eighth century; although most of the relevant Isaianic passages are regarded as later. Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Jeremiah are placed in the seventh century; and Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah and other unknown prophets, and Obadiah are regarded as exilic. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi belong to the postexilic. The following are classified as postexilic apocalyptists: (1) Joel; (2) Deutero-Zechariab, chapters 9-14, dated between 333 B.C. and 217 B.C; (3) The Apocalypse of Isaiah 24-27; and (4) Daniel.
250. See ibid., pp.54, 148.
251. Ibid., p. 148.
252. Ibid., p.148.
253. See ibid., p. 124.
254. See ibid., pp 134-35, 149.
255. Ibid., p. 149.
259. See ibid., p- 150.
260. S. H. Hooke, Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, ibid., p.151.
261. David Capell Simpson, "Foreward," Myth and Ritual, ed. S. H. Hooke, op. cit., pp. ix ff.
262. See also Aubrey R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Mall (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1921), pp. 1 ff.
263. See ibid., p. xii.
264. See Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), vol. I, p. 154; vol. II, pp.24, 93, passim.
265. Johnson has recently restated his case for the cultic prophet in Aubrey R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Israel (second edition; Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1962). He states that unwarrantedly there has been attributed to him "the view that all the canonical prophets were cultic prophets" (ibid., p. v.). From his point of view the subject of prophecy is so complex that it cannot now be discussed satisfactorily.
266. H. H. Rowley, "Ritual and the Hebrew Prophets." Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, op. cit., pp.236-60.
267. Views with reference to the way in which the day of Yahweh concept developed are legion. A few relevant sources are added here to those already given: A. B. Davidson, "Eschatology," A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898), vol. I, pp.736-38; Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1960), pp.374 ff., 470 ff., et passim; George W. Gilmore, "Day of the Lord," The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. in chief, Samuel Macauley Johnson (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1950), vol. III, pp.368-69; Emil G. Hirsch, "Day of the Lord," The Jewish Encyclopedia, chairman of ed. board, Isaac K. Funk (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1903), vol. IV, pp. 476-77; J. A. MacCulloch, "Eschatology," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings (New York: Charles Schibner's Sons, 1914), vol.5, pp.378-81; G. Pidoux, "Judgment," A companion to the Bible, ed. J.-J. Von AlImen (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958), pp.209-1l.
268. See G. M. Elliott, Syllabus, "Summary Outline: Biblical Revelation and Inspiration," 1962-63, The Cincinnati Bible Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio; W. Kay, "Introduction to the Book of Isaiah," Isaiah-Jeremiah-Lamentations, The BibleCommentary, ed. F. C. Cook (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1899), vol. V, pp.2-4; C. von Orelli, "Analogous Phenomena among Gentiles," in "Prophecy ... Prophets, " The International Bible Encyclopedia, general ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1939), vol. IV, p.2466; R. Payne Smith, Prophecy a Preparation for Christ (London: Macmillan and Company, 1869); Edward J. Young, My Servants the Prophets (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1932), pp. 13-37, et passim.
269. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration (New York: Oxford University Press, 1927), p.4.
270. See also Edward J. Young, "The Prophets as Recipients of Revelation," ibid., pp.161-90.
271. See S. H. Hooke, "Myth and Ritual: Past and Present," Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, op. cit., pp. 1-21.
272. See Edward J. Young, "The Divine Origin of the Prophetic Institution," My Servants the Prophets, op. cit., pp.13-37.
273. See Paul Heinisch, Theology of the Old Testament (English ed. by William Heidt; Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1950, PP: 21-23.)
274. Hooke does not argue that all of the evils practiced by the Hebrews were sanctioned, but he fails to distinguish between the History of Israel and what inight properly be called Old Testament theology.
275. S. H. Hooke, The Origins of Early Semitic Ritual (London: Oxford University Press, 1938), p.37.
276. Ibid., pp.46-50.
277. See ibid., pp.52 ff., for discussion of the dual forms of the Hebrew New Year Festival, and the alleged parallelism with Mesopotamian and Canaanite usages.
278. See Geo Widengren, "Early Hebrew Myths and Their Interpretation," Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, ibid., pp.184-85.
279. See supra, p.43.
280. See infra, pp. 62ff.
281. See supra, pp.43 ff.
282. See supra, n. 106, p.68, for reference to other associations.
283. C. R. North, "The Religious Aspects of Hebrew Kingship," Zeitschrift fus die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, I (1932), p.35, cited in A. R. Johnson, "Hebrew Conceptions of Kingship," Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, ibid., p.224.
284. Cerny', op. cit., p.45.
285. Ibid., p.68.
286. See ibid., pp. 68 ff., for Cerny's definitive rejection of Mowirickel's thesis impossible.
287. Further critical consideration of Mowinckel's position will be found in Norman Henry Snaith, The Jewish New YearFestival (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1947), pp. 195-203, passim. While Snaith himself is enamored of psalmic-mythological background ideas, and incorrectly argues against Mowinckel on the basis of alleged Deutero-Isaianic elements in Psalms xciii, xcvi-xcviii; he does reveal basic weaknesses in Mowinckel's position.
288. Some very helpful material will be found in W. W. Porteous, " 'The Kingship of God' in Pre-Exilic Hebrew Religion," Studies in Old Testament and Jewish Subjects (New series, lectio, no. 108, London: Shapiro Vallentine and Company, 1939).
289. Moses Buttenwieser, The Psalms (Chicago: The University Press, 1938), p.322.
290. Hermann Gunkel, Enleitung in die Psalmen (Guttingen, 1928), pp.105-6, cited in Buttenwieser, op. cit., p.322.
291. Gunkel, op. cit.
292. Gunkel, op. cit., pp.95 ff., cited in Buttenwieser, op. cit.
293. Buttenwieser, ibid., p.322.
294. Buttenwieser, p.324.
295. Cerny, op. cit., p.46.
298. The prophetic view will be discussed in the next chapter.
299. As set forth in Aage Bentzen, Messias Moses redivinus Menschensohn (Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1948).
300. Edward J. Young, "Reviews, Westminster Theological Journal, XI (May, 1949), p. 190.
301. Young, ibid., p. 188, calls attention to the work of A. H. Edelkoort, De Christusuerwaching in het Oude Testament (Wageningen: H. Veeman Zonen, 1941). Young states that Edelkoort "considered the so-called Thronbesteigungfest Jahwen and its supposed relation to the New Year's feast in Babylon." Young regards Edelkoort's remarks concerning this matter as "impressive and convincing" and adds: "In fact, he has given about as good a brief discussion of the subject, particularly of Mowinekel's views, as can be found. He rightly rejects the idea that such a festival was ever celebrated in Israel."
302. See supra, pp.12 ff.;. H. H. Rowley, "Ritual and the Hebrew Prophets," Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, ed. S. H. Hooke, op. cit., pp.236 ff.
303. See supra, pp.36 ff.
304. The alleged pattern as detailed by S. H. Hooke is given supra, pp. 19-20.
305. H. Frankfort, The Problem of Similarity in Ancient Near Eastern Religions (Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1951), pp.3 ff.
306. Ibid., p.6.
307. Ibid., p.8.
308. Ibid., pp.9 ff. Other objections are presented, but the concentration is on this myth and rite.
309. See supra, pp. 48 f., with reference to Hooke's reply to this line of thought.
310. Considerable detailed and documented criticism of "patternism"will be found in S. G. F. Brandon, "The Myth and Ritual Position Critically Considered," Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, ed. S. H. Hooke, op. cit., pp.261-91; Porteous, loc. cit. This monograph by Professor Porteous "was originally a paper read before the Society for Old Testament Study in 1938," under the caption, "The Kingship of Adonai in Pre-exilic Hebrew Religion." Snaith, The Jewish New Year Festival, op. cit., pp.218 ff., details differences between the Mesopotamian and the Palestinian practice.
311. Hooke, The Origins of Early Semitic Ritual, op. cit., p.61.
312. W. 0. E. Oesterley, "Early Hebrew Festival Rituals," Myth and Ritual, ed. Hooke, op. cit., p.128.
313. See Buttenwieser, op. cit., p.322.
314. Porteous, op. cit., p.7.
315. Ibid., pp.7-8.
316. Opinions vary as to whether or not Yahweh Himself was regarded as a dying and rising god (see Geo Widengren, op. cit., pp.191 ff.; A. R. Johnson, "Hebrew Conceptions of Kingship," Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, ed. S. H. Hooke, op. cit., p. 233); but there was an attempt to answer the questions: "Why does the vegetation die; how can it be revived?" (W. 0. E. Oesterley, "Early Hebrew Festival Rituals," Myth and Ritual, ed. S. H. Hooke, op. cit., p. 146). Following are some of the Scriptures used to reinforce the idea: Psalms 7:7, 8; 18:47; 35:23; 44:24, 25; 59:4; 78:65, 66; Malachi 3:1; Nahum 1:15; Isaiah 52. See Frankfort, loc. cit., for a precise account of and a differentiation between the Egyptian and Babylonian conceptions.
317. Support for the notion is urged on the basis of such passages' as Job 9:13; Psalms 74:12-15; 104:7; 106:9; Isaiah 17:13; Nahum 1:4; Habakkuk 3:8.
318. See Frankfort, op. cit., pp.9 ff., for a differential sketch of the Egyptian and the Mesopotamian myths.
319. S. H. Hooke, "Traces of the Myth and Ritual Pattern in Canaan," Myth and Ritual, ed. S. H. Hooke, op. cit., p. 85.
321. The sacred marriage myth-ritual pattern, is alleged to be reflected quite widely in the Old Testament (see Geo Widengren, op. cit., pp.180 ff.).
322. Widengren, ibid., p.195.
323. See Hooke, Myth and Ritual, op. cit., p.8.
324. See Widengren, op. cit., p. 199.
325. C. H. North, The Old Testament Interpretation of History (London: The Epworth Press, 1946), p. 125. See S. H. Hooke, "The Myth and Ritual Pattern of the Ancient East," Myth and Ritual, ed S. H. Hooke, op. cit., pp.10 if.
326. See supra, p.60.
327. See Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament (second edition; Grand Rapids, Michigan: zondervan Publishing House, 1954), pp. 167-78; Theodore Herzl Gaster, "The Religion of the Canaanites," Forgotten Religions, ed. V. Ferm (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1950), pp. 111-43; Arvid S. Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts (Copenhagen: G.E. C. Gad, Publisher, 1952). While Kapelrud may not interpret correctly the character of the texts (see R. De Langhe, "Myth, Ritual, and Kingship in the Ras Shamra Tablets," Myth, and Ritual and Kingship, ed. S. H. Hooke, op. cit., pp.140 if.), this work is valuable in evidencing the character of Canaanite religion.
Scanned: Michael Riggs
Edited: Shelley Wozniak