For the special siib]wt, refer to W. U. Doloirteal works. !•'; Itrliui'm ../ (he ' »<! Siiiltli, In Jmirnal uf PhW'litlU. under Aiiinuil.^. Ihiifiis. uiul Joini: WellSeiiiilai (Index, bausfn.IiiKtf Amliixchcn Ih i<>i iif/iio/is. pp. i;i)i (m ).,litlct »c(/ • ItaudKiln. SluMrn zur Si initiwlu ii liiUuiitiimiii'ch. 1.
with a henthen population. Such a time occurred toward tliv iiid of the Exile, descrilud in Isa. l.w. nixl Ixvi.. wlieii swine and dogs and mice, the most unclean of animals, were eaten by certain Helirews It is more than a living among the Babylonians. coincidence that in th'e Bible ami elsewhere these very animals have specially demoniacal ((Ualities or associations. The thinl cause of the religious veneration of animals is the desire to have acknowledged deities, as distinguished from mere demons, repThird or resented by some visible, tangible obBymbolic ject or image, which may impress the Type of imagination and excite faith and deWorship, votion. This d<us not refer to the deities that may liave been develoiieil
out of the "jinn." or animal demons, and which thus continue<l to image forth, in the form in which they were adored, the original animal whose supposed spiritual essence swayed the credulous fancy of an earlier peoide. but rather to those prominent instances of animal ctdls in which the (lualities of great national or tribal gods are symboli<-ally expressed by the
characteristics of certain animals chosen as their
visible representatives. The tyiiical Biblical instance of northis that of the so-called bull- or calf-worship
ern Israel, with which may be included the worship of the golden calf made" by Aaron before Mouiit This latter is of importance in so far as it Sinai. shows the traditional and inveterate character of the
Ex. xxxii. was probably intended for illustrative purposes and as a projilietic object-lesson. The explanation of this influential cult
cidt. .since
Israel Explana- is wide and comiireheiisive. tionofBuU- was heir to many forms of Semitic be-
er Calf-
lief;
and religious symbolism had
be-
among
peoples to which, both through racial descent and historic association. Israel owed much of its culture. That bull-worship was borrowed from Egypt is still perhaps the popular belief but it has been given tip by scholars, partly on the general ground that
gun
Worship.
ages
in early
was
Israe"l
scarcely atfected in
any
essential religious
matter by the Egyptians, and partly in view of the fact that the Egyptian worship was that of living animals. The cliief direct cause of the cult in Israel
was no doubt the intiuence of the Canaanites, not merely of the iiredecessors of the Hebrews in Canaan, but also of their contemporaries in central Palestine
Many characteristics of the bull in Phenicia. doubtless contributed to the prevalent symbolism. was largely confounded In the popular mind with the Canaanitic Baal and the image of the Baal was a bull, as that of his consort Astarte was a cow. To an agricultural people the choice of such a symbol for the chief deity was almost inevitable, as an image of strength, endurance, animal reproductiveness, and ThiTc was another cardinal feaservice to mankind. The Baal was also the ture in the representation. great Canaanitic sun-god. symbolizing thus the chief source of agricultural prosperity. The horns of the steer were the familiar emblem of the rays of the sun, even embodied in current Hebrew speech to describe A fathe gleaming face of Moses (Ex. xxxiv. 29). vorite ideograph for the Babylonian Merodach-Bel signifies " the bullock of the siin. " This view accords with the fact that bull-worship was unknown to the kingdom of Judah, where Canaanitic influences were slight during the formative period of the later popidar religion. The Brazen Serpent and Azazel were in great part symbolic (see Azazel; Bk.^zex Seu-
and
YHWH
PENT
and Totemism).
BiBi.mGBAPHT I'seful Illustrations oj early forms of Hebrew and Semitic worsbip may be gained from well-known anthro:
600
THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA
Animal Worship Anisimov
"
'
128i ( « •/ .i'tSil w i;. Kur Hal>vl"nlan liellcfi<,ser Jastrow. ReUui>'iiijfUtili,il"iiiii mill -liwwnii, pp. IW) . ( «i;..3U(li( wi^ .1
F.
McC.
ANIMALS, CLEAN AND UNCLEAN. DiKT.Mtv
See
Laws
ANIMALS OF THE BIBLE
To contrast them
with plants and minerals, animals are called in Hebrew- rrn t'EJ (living soul): usedalwayscolleclively in Gen. i. •-'0. 24; ix. 10; or simply An ,y.vij/( (living): as a rulecoilectivelv(Gen.ix. 2i/«9.); rarely as a singular (Gen. XXX vii. 20); or in the plural hayvot, as in Ps. civ. 2.i. Etymologically speaking, this latter Hebrew word corresponds we'll enough with the Latin ((HiHiK^ and still better with theGreek Cuov; it might, therefore, have been used of man as well as of brutes. nor in cerIt is, however, never so used in Hebrew, tain 'other languages, retlecting the popular rather than the.scienlilicmind. Popular.Iewish philosophy accords willuigly to animals all the characteristics man has incoMuiion with them, inclusive of life. The Biblical writers, when speaking of animals, generally look at them either from the standpoint of man's superiority— and thus avoid lessening the distance betweenlhe animals and their godlike and God appointed ruler by uniting the two under a conunon nami or from the point of view of the Creator of all. and then merge man and brutes, together with inanimate beings, and angels as well,
—
into the universal ai)iHllativeof "creature." When exceptionally— as in the narrative of the Delugeman and bn"ites are recorded together, it is done by means of a circumlocution or descriptive clause, somelike "all flesh" (Gen. vi. 12.13; ix. 11, 17), times with the addition, "in which there is breath of life" (Gen. vi. IT), or "all [beings] in whose nos-
the breath of life " (Gen. vii. 22). generally considereed that the Bible divides animals into four groups, according to their mode of moving; (1) qtiadrupeds. or walkClassifica- ers; (2) birds, or fliers; (3) reptiles, or tion into creepers; (4) fishes, or swimmers. In fact, we find the.se four groups enuFour nierated, side by side, throughout the Groups. trils
was
It is
Biblical books; for instance, in Gen. 20; vii. 8; ix. 2; Lev. xi. 46; Dent, This iv. 17. 18; I Kings, v. 13; Ezek. xxxviii. 20. division, however, is but a later and abridged form more cimiplete classification, consisting of six of i
2G. 2.H;
vi. 7.
a
Moredistinct groups as recorded in Gen. i. 20-2.5. over, the mode of living seems to be absolutely foreign to either the primitive classification or its simpler substitute. Birds in the Bible are said to fly. but reptiles are nowhere said to creep, nor fish to swim. Man and ipiadrupeds are said "to go" rather than "to walk." but the same is also said of the serpent In fact, the grouping of Gen. i. 2.") is (Gen. iii. 14). the complex outcome of no less than four different factors. First in order
comes the origin or element from which the animals were produced. The creation one of animals is divided into two distinct acts: the (Gen. for the fishes and birds tjiken from the water the other for the terrestrial animals taken The air evidently i. 24, 25). was not yet recognized as an element. Such, at Septuagmt least, is the interpretation that both the
i
20-23)
from the earth (Gen.
and the Vulgate have given
to tin- original text.
habitat of animals is introduced as a sicond waters, factor. Fishes are the "living things" of the " in the of the sea, of the rivers. Birds, created to fly
The
