Rxtra vol
4I RELIGION OF ISRAEL 641 that had become quite current, had no longer any clear consciousness of its once deeper signification, 4, All the above-described attempts to distin- guish between the real being of Jahweh and His forms of manifestation * did not prevent men from seeking, even during this period, to realize a con- crete presence of the God of Israel by having recourse to images of Jahweh.
A proof of this lies in the Circumstance that presenting oneself at the sanctuary is spoken of as ‘ beholding the face of Jahweh.’+ Although this expression may have come afterwards to be employed in quite a weakened sense (as, for instance, in Is 12%), it certainly referred originally (like the extremely frequent ‘before Jahweh’) to looking upon the image of the Deity.
Exactly in the same way the expression ‘ stroke the face of Jahweh or of God,’ which had at first a literal sense, was afterwards weakened to the general meaning of ‘propitiate God or beg His favour.’ As images of God we must reckon not only the very ancient pesel (dpa) or carved image and the bull-figures (prohibited in Judah), but also the ’éphéd and the téraphtm.
(a) The pesel was a Divine figure, originally carved from wood or hewn in stone, for the most part probably in the form of a man, or at least with a human head. At first distinguished from the molten image (72299 massékhah), the word comes at lasv tu be used also of the latter (Is 40% 441°, etc.) Of course, for our present purpose, we leave out of account all those passages in which pesel [pésilim, with the same meaning, serves as plural] stands for the image of a heathen god (Nah 1 e¢ al.)
There are many passages, however, in which pesel means an image of Jahweh ; and such a carved. Image appears to have been for long regarded as unobjectionable, whereas the molten image (prob- ably with allusion to Israel’s bull worship) is already prohibited in the Jahwistic section of which Ex 34” forms a part.
Even if the prohibi- tion of the pegsel in the Decalogue (Ex 20, Dt 58) extends to images of Jahweh, this would be simply a proof that the Decalogue (or at least the pro- hibition of images) originated later than J—a conclusion which is favoured by the circumstance that there were also other species (see below) of images of Jahweh which, till far into the mon- archical period, continued to be reverenced without opposition, or at least to be employed as a means of obtaining Divine oracles.
No doubt, itis an image of Jahweh that we are to understand by the pesel t of Micah (Jg 17%), seeing that it was procured with a sum of money that had been dedicated to Jahweh. The original narrative is not intended to convey any censure of Micah’s action, but simply to give an account of the origin of the cult of the Jahweh-image at Dan (cf. 18°), (o) The ’éphéd (7\5x) appears exclusively as an image of Jahweh, and more than once is clearly connected with the obtaining of oracles.
The word means primarily ‘something thrown over’ (as applied to a garment it answers to the German Uberwurf * Among these may also be included in a certain sense the ‘spirit of Jahweh or of God’; on which see below, pp. 653, 656 f.
+ It is simply a correction made in dogmatic interests (in view of Ex 3380), when already in the LXX, and consequently in the MT, by means of a pointing which is linguistically hardly con- ceivable, the beholding of the face of God is transformed into an ‘appearing before the face of God.’ In Ex 3423 and Dt 1616 (and hence also Ex 2317, where the Samaritan text still offers correctly the accusative sign “ny instead of ~by) read x7!
(‘let him behold’) for 787 (‘let him appear’); and in Ex 34%, Dé 310, Is 112 read nixq? (‘to behold’) for niny?d (‘to appear ’) Even in Ex 2315 3420, where the passive 3N7! (in the sense of ‘m} face shall not be seen’) might be possible, we should probabl; read the active 3X7! (‘they shall behold’). { The ‘molten image’ named along with the pesel is, in all probability, a mistaken addition, and so is the téraphim coupled with the ’éphéd in y.5 (in the other recension of the narrative) In 1820f.
only a pegel is spoken of. 642 RELIGION OF ISRAEL or Uberzug); coupled with bad, ‘linen,’ it stands for the ‘ waistcoat’ (see vol. i. p. 725) worn by the priests or by people in general on ritual occasions (1S 2% worn by the youthful Samuel, 2S 64 by David before the sacred Ark). In the Priests’ Code, finally, the ’éphéd (without bad) is the ornamental ‘waistcoat’ of the high priest, in which is the pocket with the sacred lots, the Urim and Thum- mim (Ex 25”, and esp. 28*-).
The attempt made, on the ground of these passages, to explain ’éphdd in every instance as=‘ waistcoat’ or the like, and thus to get over the mention of an image of God, is shattered by a number of ancient passages, about whose true meaning no doubt can arise.
When Gideon, according to Jg 8", expended 1700 shekels of gold on the making of an ’éphéd, and ‘set’ [it is the same word, 337, that is used else- where of the erecting of mazzébéth or monuments] it in Ophrah, it cannot be a ‘ waistcoat’ that is in view ; on the contrary, the writer means to record to the credit of Gideon how, out of the spoil, he had an image of Jahweh constructed. ‘The re- dactor of the Book of Judges, it is true, views his conduct differently (v.
27): ‘All Israel went a whoring after it,’ t.e. practised idolatry with it. But this very expression clearly indicates that the redactor, too, thinks of the “éphéd as a Divine image, only that to him such an image is absolutely forbidden, under any circumstances, by the prin- ciples of the Deuteronomic legislation. Again, in Jg 17° the ’éphéd, being parallel to the pesel of the other recension of the narrative (see above, p. 641°, note +), is nothing other than an image of Jahweh.
The same holds good of 18 21"), where every- thing becomes clear if we think of the sword of Goliath, wrapped in a garment ‘ behind the ephod,’ as hanging upon the wall behind the image of Jahweh standing on a pedestal in the apse of the sanctuary. In like manner the ’éphéd of 18 28 14.
18 (here correcting the text by the LXX] 23° 9 307 is the portable image of Jahweh, which the priest brings forward at the command of Saul or of David, because it was required for the obtaining of an oracle from Jahweh. It is nowhere indicated that the ’éphéd itself contained any mechanism for casting lots.
On the contrary, the lots would appear simply to have been cast in presence of the image, and thus as it were before the face of Jahweh, and the result was accordingly regarded as having His sanction. That such an employment of the image of Jahweh was still viewed as quite unobjectionable, is shown by Hos 34, where the rophet simply means that Israel (in exile) will have to dispense with all the requisites for a normal political and religious life, including ’éphéd and téraphim.
Now, it may naturally be asked how the Divine image and the priestly ‘ waistcoat’ could be desig- nated by one and the same name. The view that éphéd stands properly for the gold or silver over- laying or casing of an image of wood, clay, or even brass, can appeal for support to Is 30”, where the certainly equivalent feminine form ’dphuddah * Th. U.
Foote, in what is in itself a very thorough and in- genious monograph, The Ephod: its Form and Use (Baltimore, 1902), denies that there is any distinction between ’éphéd and ’éphéd bad. The latter expression, since 73 in the sense of ‘linen’ is unproved, he explains as=‘ ’éphéd partis [virilis],’ and the ’éphéd itself as the container of the sacred lots, a kind of pocket which may have been developed from the primitive loin-cloth.
Foote arrives at this result (although he himself recognizes images in the téraphim so often associated with the 'éphdéd) by a quite artificial and untenable exegesis of Jg 827, 1 S 2110, and other passages. Moreover, if the ’éphéd was nothing but a pocket for the sacred lots, whence its sharp con- demnation in Jg 827, and the bold alteration of the text in 18 1418, where, in place of the objectionable ’éphdéd [so still the LXX], the Ark—wholly impossible here—is inserted in the MT?
The only explanation of this is that even at a very late date the true meaning of the 'éphéd in those passages was still well known. and on that account gave offence. RELIGION OF ISKAHL stands parallel with zippii, the metal casing of carved images. Yetit isa question whether ’éphéd did not primarily denote simply the garment used to clothe the Divine image (cf.
Jer 10°, Ezk nie From this, as the most precious part and that whic most struck the eye, the whole image might soon come to take its name. If we might assume that this ephod already had attached to it a pocket with the sacred lots, this would explain very simply how in the Priests’ Code (Ex 28°) the objection- able ’éphdd could be wholly ignored as an image of the Deity, but retained without prejudice in the form of a garment with the oracle-pocket.
* (c) Not only the ’éphéd but also the téraphim (o'.27m) should doubtless be understood as images of the Deity—for the most part (see below), images of Jahweh. With the exception of 2 K 23% and Zec 102, the word ¢éraéphim, in spite of the plural form, should probably be everywhere (quite cer- tainly so in 1S 19!
15) taken as the designation of only one image; that is to say, it is an example of the so-called pluralis majestatis, as happens frequently with such words as ’ddénim, bédlim, and usually ’ééhim. The etymology is still quite obscure. The connexion with the réph@im, or shades, favoured by many, is extremely improb- able.
All that is clear is that the téraphim is related to the ’éphéd in the same way as the image of a household god is to the more official image set up in a ‘god’s house’ and attended to by a priest. That the téraphim is not necessarily an image of Jahweh is proved by the case of the téraphim stolen by Rachel from Laban (Gn 31 #4), which the latter calls ‘my god’ (vv.% 8); and by Ezk 21°6 21), where the king of Babylon consults the téraphim at the crossing of the roads.
In all other passages it is quite possible to understand téraphim to mean an image of Jaliweh. So [probably, in- deed, by a later and mistaken expansion], alon with the ‘éphéd, in Jeg 175 18 0) eS (which passages speak pate in favour of a human-like form), and Hos 34 (again coupled with the ’énhéd; see above). The circumstance that in 1S 15%, 2 K 23", and Zee 10?
(where the téerdphim appear just as in Ezk 21%, as giving oracles) the possession and use of a téraphim is branded as a species of idolatry, proves nothing against its character as an image of Jahweh. From the Prophetic point of view, which is that repre- sented in all the above passages, there is little difference between images of Jahweh and images — of actual idols.
The hypothesis that the téraéphim represented a survival of images of ancestors or stood for former tribal and family gods, would indeed suit well their character as household gods, but lacks all probability. Apart from the fact that no certain evidence can be adduced in favour of the prevalence of Ancestor Worship in Israel (see above, p. 614 ff.), it is hard to suppose that ir the house of so zealous a Jahweh-worshipper as David there should have been found any image but one of Jahweh.
Of the existence of the latter kind of image we have proof, above all, in Ex 21° There we read that the slave who has no desire to go free in the seventh year is to be pinned by the ear to the doorpost before [the image of] God, which is evidently assumed as set up by the en- trance. In view of the whole spirit and standpoint of the Book of the Covenant, this can refer only to y an image of Jahweh as the witness of this sym- bolical transaction.
+ In like manner ‘ God’ in 227 ® — Mention should be made here of the suggestion of Schwally | (Semit. Kriegsaltertiimer, i. 15) that the priest, when givin, oracles, himself put on the ’éphéd, the clothing of the idol, eae the knowledge of the god might thus be transmitted to im.
t That ’élohim in this passage cannot be understood, accord- ing to the usual interpretation, as meaning ‘judges’ (as repre- sentatives of God), ig proved by Dt 1517 where, in the othery™« RELIGION OF ISRAEL might also be understood of a téraphim; but there, as well as in v.®@), the reference is more likely to a Divine image in a public sanctuary.
From the above we conclude, then, that the éphéd and (at least from the monarchical period) the ¢érdphim as well were images of Jahweh, which as such were regarded as quite unobjection- able in the pre-Prophetie period, nay, even as late as Hosea (3), until at last they were involved in the same condemnation as images of idols proper (cf. below, p. 679° ff.) (d) Finally, the golden bulls set up by Jeroboam at Bethel and Dan Weré-intended as images of Jahweh, and not as heathen images.
It might ap- ear otherwise from the language of the Chronicler (2 Ch 138 e¢ al.), but the truth was still quite evident to the Deuteronomic redactor of the Books of Kings (cf. 1K 12). In like manner the narrative of Ex 321*-, which belongs to the older sources of the Pentateuch, is quite aware that Aaron meant to represent Jahweh by the golden calf which had brought Israel out of Egypt, for he makes him in v.° proclaim a feast to Jahweh.
But even here the giving of this form to Jahweh is looked upon as a grievous offence on the part of Aaron ; and the Deuteronomist is never weary in the Books of Kings of denouncing this cult as ‘the sin of Jeroboam,’ and of discovering in it one of the principal causes of the downfall of the Northern kingdom (cf. especially 2 K 1774), The question whether in the pre- Prophetic period all those different kinds of images.
were actually identified with Jahweh, and were thus venerated as fettsbee, cannot be answered right off by a YesoraNo. The aan | of images (so in particular also the ¢wo official bull-figures at Bethel and Dan) would naturally lead of itself to a dis- tinguishing between Jahweh enthroned in heaven or upon Sinai and His numerous pictorial repre- sentations.
But only too frequently, at least amongst the lower orders, there would be a ten- dency to fall into the error of confounding the Deity with His image, just as in the Roman Catholic Church distinctions are made by the eople between different images of the Mother of God. in regard to their miraculous virtues, although all these images are meant to represent one and the same person.
The reproach so frequently addressed by the pre-exilic Prophets to their con- temporaries, that they ‘ bowed down to the work of their hands,’ must have been no less applicable in the pre-Prophetic period. Half unconsciously men changed, ice the heathen (Ro 1%), the glory of the immortal God into the image of perishable men and beasts. 5.
Before closing our discussion of the con- ception of God, it may be fitting here to touch briefly upon the few passages that speak of angels as intermediate beings betwixt God and man, and of certain half-mythological figures which had already taken their place in Jahwism in the pre- Prophetic period.* (a) The belief in supramundane and at the same time almost independent powers shows itself in the most surprising fashion in Gn 6!
4, a passage with a strong mythological colouring, which be- longs to the older stratum of J. The béné ’élohim [lit. ‘sons of the gods,’ but really a designation of those who belong to the category of ’éléhim or numina (just as béné nébi’im does not mean ‘sons almost identical text, the reference to ’éléhim is omitted. The Deuteronomist, in fact, quite correctly understood the reference to be to an image of Jahweh, and suppressed it on that account. Again, in Ex 228. 97 (9.
28) and 18 225 ’é/ohim has no other sense than that of ‘ Deity.’ * Cf. Kosters, art. ‘Het onstaan en de entwikkeling der angelologie onder Israel’ in Theol. Tijdschr. 1876, pp. 34ff., 118 ff.; A. Aeberhard, art. ‘Gottes Umgebung nach den vorexi- a Schriften’ in Schweizer Theol. Zeitschrift, 1902, p. RELIGION OF ISRAEL 643 of the prophets,’ but members of the guild of néb?
’im)] appear here, if not as full-blooded popular gods in the sense of polytheism, yet as standing outside the realm of Jahwism as a kind of demi- gods. In all probability the original text meant simply to record that from their union with the daughters of men there sprang up on earth a hybrid race similar to the Titans and giants of Greek mythology. But it must be added that Gn 6 is the only passage of this kind. The déné *élohim are mentioned elsewhere only in Job 18 2!
38’, where they are simply angelic beings in the service and train of-God. A more frequent designation of these inter- mediate beings is mal’akh, ‘messenger,’ ‘ angel.’ Of course we here leave out of account the above (Pp. 638 f.) described theologumenon of the ‘ angel of ahweh or of God.’ To the category of creature angels serving or surrounding Jahweh may have belonged, according to the pre-Prophetic popular belief, the ‘men’ who accompan Jahweh on His visit to Abraham [in Gn 19!
4, altar arting from Jahweh, they are first called angela] and are entertained by the latter.
* So also the guardian- angel sent by Jahweh in Gn 247 Nu 2016 (although in these passages the idea of the mavakh Jahweh is not remote), and 1K 19°; further, the angels of Gn 282 (E) whom Jacob in a dream sees ascending and descending a ladder (namely, in order to facilitate communication be- tween heaven and earth at Bethel, a principal centre of revelation [the mention of the ladder in this passage shows that angels are still thought of as unwinged]); and the troop of angels of God (Gn 32% @) [E]) whose appearance led Jacob to give the city of Mahanaim (‘camp’)its name.
In the very doubtful text, Dt 33%, the ‘holy myriads’ may probably refer originally to the attendants of God at theophanies. In addition to these few passages from the Pentateuch there are in the older strata of the Historical books: Jos 5! (J ?), where the leader of the [heavenly] army of Jahweh meets Joshua ; and 2 K 6'’, where the fiery horses and chariots are to be thought of as driven b angels.
The ‘destroying angel’ of 2S 2416 who at the command of Jahweh smites the people with pestilence, is evidently thought of, not as a pro- fessional ‘ executioner angel,’ but as one appointed by God to carry out His judgment in this par- ticular instance. In 1 K 22", again, in the vision of the prophet Micaiah the whole host of heaven on the right and the left of Jahweh represents a celestial deliberative assembly.
Quite a peculiar position is occupied here by ‘the spirit,’ who, in the light of the whole context, can be only the personified spirit of prophecy. Nothing is said in any of these passages about the moral quality of the angels, for even in Dt 33? [if the text be correct] ‘holiness’ refers not to their moral per- fection, but only to their exaltation above this world and their belonging to God.
So also the comparison of David to an angel of God (1 S 29°) has in view only the trust and reverence due to angels.—Our whole survey shows, however, that in early Israel statements about angels play only a subordinate part, and belong rather to the popular beliefs than to Jahwism proper. It is to be noted, moreover, that the most characteristic expressions are connected either with a dream (Gn 282) or a vision (1 K 22 2K 6” may also be included in this category).
(6) To the realm of angels belong, beyond doubt, the séraphim (ost). Although mentioned only in * According to the oldest form of this narrative, as comes out plainly in 181-3.10-15, Jahweh alone appears to Abraham, Offence is naturally taken at this by a later recension, which is now skilfully interwoven with the earlier one, and which introduces three men or angels in place of Jahweh.
644 RELIGION OF ISRAEL RELIGION OF ISRAEL the vision of Isaiah (67), they appear there as well- known beings, so that the belief in them yk certainly be assumed for the pre-Prophetic period. Furnished with six wings, they offer around God’s throne antiphonal praise in the Trisagion; one of them purges the lips of the prophet, and announces to him the forgiveness of his sins. They are thus, in fact, intelligent beings, angels.
Of the numerous explanations of the name, the only one that can be taken in earnest is that which traces it back to the singular sdrdph. This word means properly ‘serpent’ (Nu 21°, Dt 8), and the seraphim must accordingly have been origin- ally serpent, formed creatures — embodiments, in- deed, of the serpent -like lightning, flashes that play around Jahweh. But, in the case of the seraphim of Isaiah, the six wings may be regarded as all that has survived of this somewhat mytho- logical form.
Moreover (probably long before the time of Isaiah), they have assumed human form, as is evident not only from the song of praise (v.°), which would be inconceivable in a serpent’s mouth, but from the hand (v.’) and the speech of the sairdph (v.") It may be noted, finally, that here again in Is 6 it is a vision that is recorded. (c) Even more clearly than the seraphim, the cherubim (kéribim, 272 or 03:93, sing. kérib) belong originally to the realm of mythology.
* The etymology of the word is still disputed. According to some, kér#b is from the same root (Sanskrit gribh, ‘ grip’) as the Greek ypdy, ‘ eriffin’; according to others, it is due to a transposition of the consonants of rékdb, ‘chariot’ (cf. Ps 104°), from the root rdkab, ‘ride’ or ‘drive’ (see below). The most probable derivation would be from the Assyr. kuriibu (plur.
kuribi), ‘ great,’ ‘strong,’ if it could be proved with certainty that the winged bull-colossi with human heads, found at the entrance of Assyrian palaces, bore the name kuriibi. All the various references to the cherubim have this in common, that they always imply the near- ness of God, or at least indicate a sacred spot.
But there are evidently two quite distinct under- lying conceptions, which were only at a late period combined into one [hence even the name kérib might have a double etymology]. According to Ps 18" (cf. also Is 191) the cherub is a pale form of the wind-driven storm-cloud which serves Jahweh as His chariot [or which, originally, He rides as a horse ?]t The other sense of the word /:éri#b is that of a guardian of sacred spots.
To this cate- gory belong the cherubim of Gn 3%4, who, after the expulsion of our first parents, guard the entrance to the Garden of Eden [t.e. according to the original intention of the narrative, the dwelling- * Cf., for the special literature, Kosters, art. ‘De Cherubim’ in Theol. Tijdschr. 1879, p. 445 ff.; Triebs, Veteris Testamenti de Cherubim doctrina, Berlin, 1888; J.
Nikel, Die Lehre des AT diber die Cherubim und Seraphim (Wurzburg dissertation ; full of dogmatic prejudices], Breslau, 1890; J. Petersen, Cherwbhim, Giitersloh, 1898 [account of the various interpretations from the time of Luther downwards]. t Instead of one cherub, a number of cherubim appear in 1S 44, 2 S 62, 2K 1915 as bearers of God or of the Divine throne.
Of these passages the last cited can scarcely have any other Meaning, especially as there Hezekiah prays for a judicial intervention of Jahweh against Assyria, and thus, as it were, for an appearance of Jahweh.
Ina similar connexion ‘He that sitteth upon the cherubim’ is still mentioned in such late passages as Ps 802 (1) 991, On the other hand, it is scarcely to be doubted that in 1 8 44 and in 2S 62 the same expression is due to a subsequent interpolation, and is intended of the golden cherubim upon the lid of the sacred Ark, which are first men- tioned in the Priests’ Code (Ex 2518f), According to the latter (Nu 789), Jahweh speaks to Moses from this lid, ‘from between the two cherubim,’ t.e.
He has His proper dwelling- place there. The above interpolation was very natural on the part of a late redactor of 18 44 and 28 62, because in both these passages there is express mention of Jahweh’s relation to the sacred Ark. It is impossible that any of the above passages can refer to the two great cherubim which Solomon (see text above) set up beside the sacred Ark.
place of God]; and also the huge cherub forms, carved in olive wood, which Solomon set up in the temple to the right and the left of the sacred Ark, in such a way that with their outstretched wings they filled the whole space (1 K 67: 85), So also the carved figures of cherubim on the walls and doors (1 K 6” 2-%) and vessels (72 5) of the temple indicate the near presence of God.
Hence they appear also in the visionary temple of Ezekiel (Ezk 4118#-), as well as in the sanctuary which the Priests’ Code assumes for the period of the wilder- ness wanderings. In the latter they present them- selves, partly as worked on the curtains and the veil (Ex 267: #1), partly as two golden figures, with their faces turned towards each other, placed on the lid of the sacred Ark (251 ; cf. preced. col., note ).
It is hard to say what form we ought to attri- bute to the cherubim with which we are dealing. In Ex 25” they have only one face each, whereas in Ezk 4118? each has a man’s and also a lion’s face. Still more complicated is the description of them in the first vision of Ezekiel (15). Here each of the four cherubim has four faces (a man’s, a lion’s, an ox’s, and an eagle’s) and four wings, besides human hands.
Besides this, they are, according to 10", quite covered with eyes, symbols of the Divine omniscience. That they are creatures endowed with reason might be inferred at least from 107, if the cherub there belongs to the original text; but not from 3%, where for 373 we should read ova (‘ when the glo of Jahweh lifted itself up’).
A comparison of a the above data leads to the conclusion that the cherub was indeed thought of all along as a hybrid being, but originally as probably composed of only ¢wo different bodies.* At the same time it can hardly be doubted that the Biblical cherubim are of Babylono-Assyrian origin, although they need not have been first borrowed in the age of Solomon.
But it is impossible to decide whether the ordinary cherub form corresponded to the Assyrian winged bulls or lions with a human head or the human forms with a bird’s head, All that appears to be certain is that the complicated cherub forms in Ezk 1 and 10 (with all their additions) owed their initiation to the imagination of this prophet, only that he has perhaps united in one what the popular belief attributed to a number of hybrid beings.
The most important point to notice is that Ezekiel, in his escription, is the first to unite the conception of a griffin form with the other in which we found a pale form of the storm-cloud as the bearer of Jahweh.
For the cherubim of Ezekiel, as is plain from 1% %% 9° (where the whole appearance is included in the singular ‘ cherub’) 10% 18, are the bearers of the erystal plane on which the throne of Jahweh rests; by means of the wheels, which are inseparable from them, they move the chariot-throne of Jahweh. Of quite a different kind is the cherub of Ezk 2844, who, all covered with precious stones, walks upon the sacred mount of the gods amongst stones of fire.
Here a direct borrowing from a mytholo- gumenon of the East, as well as a partial affinity with Gn 3%, is unmistakable. It should be re- marked, however, that this cherub serves only the purpose of comparison (with the king of e), while the cherubim of chapters 1 and 10 belon; simply to a vision, and those of the temple an the tabernacle are merely symbolical ornaments. Hence they can in no case be reckoned amongst the necessary elements of Jahwism. jill.
SYNCRETISM BETWEEN JAHWEH AND THE CANAANITE BAAL, DEFEAT OF BAAL THROUGH JAHWEH’S BEING FINALLY LOCALIZED IN * This conclusion is fayoured also by the circumstance that they are compared by Philo and Josephus with the sphinxes, Pye Te! es { RELIGION OF ISRAEL CANAAN AND CONING TO BE CONCEIVED OF AS