IDIOMATA. See Communicatio Idiomatum.

IDOLATRY: In this article Idolatry means not so much the worship of images (see Images and Image Worship) as the worship Early of other than the national God of

Divine the Hebrews. The oneness of God, Names through which objects of religious and Con- regard outside of himself are conceived ceptions. as idols, is, at the first glance the dis tinguishing characteristic of Old-Tes tament religion: It is this also which binds together the great monotheistic religions of the world and guarantees thelh their place in the science of the spirit over against the natural science of religion. The Old Testament does not regard this as a new idea in Mosaic times, but as then associated with the name of Yahweh, the God who had led Israel out of Egypt. It is this conception of unity which must be kept constantly in the mind in making the demarcation between worship of God and of idols in the New-Testament sense. From this standpoint the old name Elohim was inappropriately kept in use in the Old Testament for Yahweh, and no difficulty was felt by the writer of Gen. ii. 4 sqq. in employing the term Yahweh-Elohim. The "Fear" whom Isaac invoked (Gen. xxxi. 42, 53, RX.) was the forefathers' God whom the children call Yahweh. And while the priestly historian of the past uses with force the name El Shaddai as preceding the use of Yahweh (Ex. vi. 3, of. Gen. xvii. 1), the identification of the Canaanitic El Elyon with Yahweh is explicit in the mouth of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 22). These combinations with the word El express generally the idea of divinity. A similar content is implied in, the other Semitic names for God as Lord (see Baal) or as king (see Moloch), which in the beginning of the Yahweh religion were ethically inapplicable to Yahweh. The protest of Hosea and of Jeremiah are marked against the ideas which were bound up in the application of these names to Yahweh.

But ever stronger appears the revulsion against the worship of other gods which the worship of the one true God caused as their irreconNative cilable opposition to his unity ap-

Conceptions peared and, they were rejected as Dangerous heathenish. That this took its roots to the Idea in the popular religion of Israel appears of Oneness. from the fact that personal -names from the time of Joshua nowhere contain the names of heathen deities, and are for the most part compounded with the name of Yahweh or with what were regarded as equivalents, Adhon, Baal, Melekh, or,Zur. But among the neighboring peoples deity had been split up into a large number of deities, a process which might easily have been accomplished in Israel. Patriarchal narratives knew of an El. of Beth-el, an El-'Olam of Beer-sheba, an El Elyon and an El Shaddai; Mons built an altar to Yahweh Nisri and Gideon one to Yahweh `Olam, Abraham's offering was to Yahweh Yireh, and Absalom had a vow to "Yahweh-in-Hebron." The keen insight of the prophets discerned the danger in this apparent multiplicity, and the formula in Deut. vi. 4 is aimed not so much at any plurality as at the possible splitting of the personality of Yahweh into many gods. With this went the protest in the northern kingdom against the mixing of the names of Baal and Yahweh which might produce a confusion with the Baalim of the heathen, instanced in the substitution of Boshdh, "shame," for Baal (see Baal). Similar in intent was the campaign against the high places (q.v.).

Not less dangerous than this possible dissolution of the unity of Yahweh from within was the obtrusion from without of the survivals

External of nature religion in the form of wor- Dangers ship of stones of various sorts (see Memorials and Sacred Stones) Menacing Unity. which were associated with the worship paid by the patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, and Samuel. How strong a vehicle for an evil syncretism these objects might become- is recognized in such passages as Micah v. 13; Deut. vii. 5; Lev. xxvi. 30. With these must be mentioned the Asherah (q.v.), which, as the usual accompaniment of the Canaanitic altars, had gained entrance into the Hebrew cult, and was found even in the temple (II Kings xxi. 7), and obscene figures (I Kings xv. 13). A similar danger arose from the groves and from the tree-cult (see Groves and Trees, Sacred) so often brought into connection with the patriarchs and with later leaders (e.g., Gen. xiii. 18; Judges iv. 5, vi. 11) and equally with Canaanitic cults (Gen. ail. 6), betraying a community of wor ship in earlier times. Against this such protests were filed as that in Hos. iv. 13. Other indications of syncretism are found in the sacred prostitution of males and females (I Kings xiv. 24), which even entered the temple (II Kings xxiii. 7), in self mutilation (see Mutilations, I Kings xviii. 28), and in the offering of children in sacrifice (II Kings xvi. 3). Indeed, the Old Testament is full of tes timony to the fact that the people of Yahweh, even while recognizing itself as such a people, was at times open to the allurements offered either by the indulgence or the ritualistic abstinence fostered by the native cults about it. This tendency is registered early in the history by such passages as Judges x. 6. Yet that the great number of place names in Palestine derived from the names of heathen deities indicates always Israelitie worship of idols in those places is more than the facts war rant. The Amarna tablets prove that these names are the legacy of a period anterior to that of the Judges in a land already thickly populated. Still, the earlier material in the Book of Judges proves that in ancient times the people indulged in prac tises which were not merely debased forms of Yah weh worship, but were lapses into practise of Car naanitic cults. The effect of the establishment of the kingdom was the realization of a fact known be fore, the national character of the worship of Yah weh.

444

Development in the Regal Period.

Yet this political development opened a new way for the infiltration of worship of other deities. While doubtless the large harem of Solomon was not formed without reference to political contingencies, it was only one of the causes of the erection of sanctuaries to other gods. More significant is the domestication in Israel of the Phenician Ashtoreth (q.v.), the Moabitic Chemosh (q.v.), and the Ammonitic Moloch (q.v.), under whose protection the capital was placed. Thus three motives contributed to the introduction of a syncretistic worship; political motives which in part underlay Solomon's gathering of a harem; the syncretism of calf-worship in the northern kingdom by appropriation of a Baal-cult in Yahweh-worship; and the introduction of new deities under the dynasty of Omri, which passed them on into Judah through Athaliah. In the eighth century, through the development which brought the Mesopotamian powers into the West, a new stream of foreign religious customs began to cut its channel into Israel. New deities, new objects of cultic meaning, were borne on this stream (Jer. xix. 4; Ezek. xxviii. 14), and the worship of the stars was included (II Kings xvii. 16). Amos (v. 26), Isaiah (ii. 5),and the author of the Books of Kings knew of hosts of deities derived from these sources (cf. Jer. xxxix. 3), and in Judah Manasseh opened wide the gates for their entrance. The temple and private houses were made the dwelling-places of these new deities (II Kings xxi. 3-7, xxiii. 4-12; Ezek. viii. 12). The worship of the sun and of the signs of the zodiac came into prominence, as well as that of the "Queen of Heaven." Tammuz, the Babylonian Adonis (Ezek. viii. 14), and Philistine and Egyptian deities found entrance. While the reformation of Josiah removed the emblems of these cults, the cult itself was not destroyed but continued, not merely in Samaria, but in Jerusalem itself, until the Exile, in syncretistic union with the cult of Yahweh. The persistent strength of the religion of Yahweh in the midst of these assaults was manifested in the opposition of prophecy, contending for the unity of that deity. A point of rebuke is found for Israel in the fact of the fidelity of the heathen to their deities. And the prophet rises to the conception of the world-wide rule of the God of Israel.

Exilic and Post-Exilic Development.

While externally the Babylonian exile drew a boundary line between the idolatrous tendencies of the earlier people and the post-exilic iconoclastic type, there are many signs among the exiles of relapse into the old idolatry and of lapses into newer forms (Ezek. xiv. 1-8; Isa. xlii. 17). While it cannot be proved that the Babylonian chief gods Bel, Marduk, Nebo, obtained firm lodgment, a sort of fatalism appeared in the worship of Gad and Meni (qq.v.) as is indicated by Isa. lxv. 11. Traces of adoption of cults from the Persians are hard to discover. The little book of Tobit suggests a mingling from the side of demonology (see Asmodeus). The period immediately before the exit of the religion of the Old Testament shows that intimately connected with the development of a faith is degeneration and rankness of growth. Thus the Maccabean epoch revealed a last mighty flaring-up of the idolatrous inclination as the prelude to a period of martyrdom and victory for Israelitic faith. Greek religion found ready entrance and firm standing-ground among the Jews. The high priest Joshua, who changed his name to Jason, and Alcimus appeared as leaders of the Greek party. Not only was there sent a contribution to the great official feast of the Melkart-Heracles of Tyre, but in Jerusalem a sanctuary was consecrated to Olympian Zeus and on Gerizim one to Zeus Xenios. Not only this, but there arose in the city before the gates altars to Greek deities like Artemis, Apollo, and Hecate. This time it was not the living word of prophecy which armed the opposition to these doings, but for the first time the written word, through which alone not merely the national religion, but the religion of mankind could be established.

(P. Kleinert.)

Bibliography: The literature under Images and Image Worship and the appropriate sections in works on the History of Israel (see under Arab) should be consulted. Also: F. Creuzer, Symbolik and Mythologic, vol. ii., Darmstadt, 1841; E. M. de Vogiici, M~lanpes d'arcVologis orientale, Paris, 1868; A. Kuenen, Godsdienst van Israel, 2 vols., Harlem, 1869-70; R. Smend, Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte, Freiburg, 1893; C. P. Tile, Geschichte der Religion, vol. i., Gotha, 1895; G. B. Gray, Hebrew Proper Names, London, 1896; H. Winckler, ThontaJeln von Tel-Amarna, Berlin, 1896, Eng. transl., ib., 1896; Chantepie de la Saussaye, Religionsgeschichte, i. 384-467, Tübingen, 1905; DB, ii. 445-448; EB, ii. 2152-2158; JE, xii. 568-569.