[See page image]

Page 364

eclipse); and Isa. xxvii. 1, where the reference is almost certainly to the animal depicted in Baby-

lonian cosmological myths. It is to be z. Mythol- noted that the term " Leviathan "

Job xli.; Ps. lxxiv. 14; and Ezek. xxix. 3 the context points to the crocodile; Ps. civ. 26 refers evidently to some inhabitant of the sea (the whale, G. E. Post, in DB, iii. 102); and the mythical dragon or perhaps the serpent of chaos and of the deep waters, as above (see DRAGON).

Of serpent-worship almost nothing appears in the Old Testament. Reference to the one clear case is given in II. Kings xviii. 4, where in addition to the stereotyped formula by the Deuteronomic editor of

the book, customary as the summing 3. The up of a king's reign, there is added the

it; and he called it Nehushtan." The marginal readings in the English versions attempt an interpretation of " Nehushtan,"while the R. V. margin shows that the subject of the verb "called " is in doubt-whether that subject is Hezekiah, or whether it is impersonal, "one called " (i.e., " it was called "). It is recognized that the verb may be pointed as a plural written defectively, "they called " (so the Septuagint [codex L] kai ekalesan), and may continue in thought the plural of the preceding clause. And this rendering in turn submits to three interpretations which affect the sense of the passage: Nehuahtan might have been the ordinary name applied in honor while it existed by the worshipers (see below); or a name applied to it by worshipers after it was broken and in contempt for it; or by the authorities to wean away respect for it and to prevent sedition or discontent. Besides this, the name " Nehushtan " is also difficult, both as to meaning and as to derivation. It has been taken by many commentators into connection with the nehosheth, "brazen," of the first part of the verse, and this is indicated by the marginal readings in A. V. In this case either of two interpretations would satisfy the meaning: the term might be one of contempt: " a mere bit of brass "-or it might as well be a title of honor: " the work of brass par excellence," the " noted image made of brass." Another derivation has been proposed which lies quite near at hand, viz., from nahnsh, "serpent." The difficulty then is to account for the termination tan for which a South Arabian origin is to be sought, and the entire word is then to be explained as a loan word from the Arabic.

The text does not state when the cult of the object began, although the object itself is asserted to be identical with that the origin and purpose of which are stated in Num. xxi. 4-9. That such a

worship could have begun under the 4. Origin eye of Moses is out of the question, and Signifi- assuming for a moment the identity

Moses. The continuance of the cult till the time of Hezekiah is the one fact clearly expressed. The method of dealing with the nar-

rative in the critical school is that which takes account of the attempts customary in religious history to accredit with a high antiquity practises either already in use or those which it is desired to install. It is then held as a corollary that the account in Numbers is etiological. That is to say, it is held that the attribution of a Mosaic origin to the brazen serpent was to accredit the cult by those who followed or introduced it, and that this in turn gave rise to the (late) narrative in Numbers. Thus Cheyne (e.g., in EB, iii. 333$) holds that Nehushtan was one of the objects introduced into the Temple from the East (Babylonia). This hypothesis, while not impossible, is not susceptible of verification. His question regarding the primitive character ascribed to the object is pertinent, however, especially in view of the fact that the worship could not have arisen in the time of Moses. A serpent deity Z,iru appears to have had a place in the temple of Marduk, where its function was that of a watcher or guardian against foes (Schrader, KAT,, pp, 503505), so that a basis exists for Cheyne's hypothesis. But another explanation exists nearer at hand in direct derivation from the Canaanites, even though ultimate reference to Babylonian usage be asserted. No longer regarded as tenable is the explanation of William Robertson Smith (Journal of Philology, ix. 99), who, assuming the Temple as the locus of the cult, considers the object a totem image belonging to the clan of David. To support this names in the Davidic family are adduced which are related .to rcahash, " serpent,"-Nahshon (Ruth iv. 40), and Abigail daughter of Nahash (II Sam. xvii. 25), as well as the fact that Adonijah sacrificed at " the stone of the serpent " (" of Zoheleth," I Kings i. 9). And no more likely is another hypothesis (Stade's) that it may represent the mythological serpent or dragon in heaven or perhaps an ancestor cult. Much the more likely is the suggestion that the worship was taken up from Cana,anitic sources (K. Marti, Gesckichte der israelitischen Religion, p. 101, Strasburg, 1903). Whether the cult had any more significance than as a " remainder " taken over from the Canaanites or even brought into Canaan by the Hebrews is unknown. The connection with Numbers suggests a relationship with the healing powers ascribed to the serpent, but this is pure hypothesis.

From the fact that in II Kings xviii. 4 it is said that Hezekiah cut down " the Asherah " (in the singular, cf. R. V.; the A. V. plural " groves " is wrong), although it is known that the Asheroth were numerous (see ASHERAH), it is

g. The plausibly argued by commentators that Probable the reference is to the Asherah in the