161 religious encyclopedia harmoa Harmony of the Gospels


Download 5.36 Mb.
Size5.36 Mb.
1   ...   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   ...   46


For a long time students were uncertainly groping for an answer to the question how to decide con­cerning the origin of the Pentateuch,

5. Early for the right key to the problem had

Theories of not yet been found. For two thousand

Composi  years the Mosaic authorship was main 

tion. tained, the early synagogue following

the books of Ezra and Nehemiah in

this position (except in certain small particulars, cf.

M. Eisenstadt, Ueber Bxbelkritik in der talmudischen

Lilteratur, Frankfort, 1895), and this way of

thinking was followed by the synagogue of the

Middle Ages, except in certain particulars (Isaac

ibn Jasos, cf. JE, vi. 623; Abraham ibn Ezra, cf.

JE, vi. 520 524). The Church Fathers also re­

garded Moses as the author in spite of the quite

common supposition based on IV Ezra xiv., that

Ezra, inspired by God, restored in their entirety

the Holy Scriptures which had been lost during

the Babylonian exile. Andreas Bodenstein, of

Carlstadt (Ln$ellua de canonicis scripturis, Witten­

berg, 1520), regarded the law as Mosaic, but

doubted whether the thread of narration was the

same, because in the narrative of the death and

burial of Moses the method of expression differs not

at all from what precedes. Many after Bodenstein

questioned individual passages, so that in the

eighteenth century there gradually grew up the

interpolation hypothesis." Many objections against Mosaic authorship were disposed of on the hypothesis of retouching or change (such as is sug­gested by the passage Gen. xii. 6, " the Canaanite was then in the land "), but by no means all. The " fragment hypothesis," originated by Alexander Geddes in England, and taken over in Germany by J. S. Vater, did not long maintain itself, for against the disconnection manifest in many places was the fact that numerous and longer passages were mu­tually connected. Through similarity of language and of notions in Genesis, particularly in pas­sages where the name Elohim is employed, there was formed the idea, in the minds of J. J. Stiihelin, F. Bleek, and F. Tuch, of a " sup­plementary hypothesis." An Elohim document, beginning with Gen. i. 1, named the foundation document, was filled out from a later document, the Yahwistic, by the addition of selections and remarks which were not entirely consistent. While this hypothesis seemed to meet many difficulties, the character of the long connected pieces proved that J was once an independent work alongside P, e.g., in the story of the flood, while sometimes J takes rank as the work which is supplemented from the narrative of P.

The French physician Jean Astruc (1684 1766), by a literary analysis of Gen. i. Ex. ii., turned Pen­tateuchal criticism into anew channel.

6. Develop  Using the divine names as a criterion,

ment of the he set the pieces containing the name

Document  Elohim in a column designated A,

ary those containing the name Yahweh in

Hypothesis. a column B, and other pieces also

apart, and regarded A and B as orig­

inally complete and independent narratives. He

thought that Moses had used the arrangement in

columns and that later copyists had brought all

together into one column and so destroyed the order. A was regarded as the work of Levi with the use of an older document, but Ex. i. ii. by Amram, the father of Moses. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was maintained by Astruc. In this way he thought he had solved chronological difficulties and those arising from duplication in Genesis. Astrue's idea was introduced into Ger­many by J. G. Eichhorn and given a better basis by the proof that the two chief documents were further  differentiated by linguistic peculiarities. H. Ewald recognized that P and J were traceable not only as far as the first chapters of Exodus; but also in other books, and F. Tuch showed that they were recognizable even in Joshua. As early as 1822 F. Bleek had remarked upon the original relation­ship of Joshua to the Pentateuchal narrative, of which it formed the conclusion. The special posi­tion of Deuteronomy was recognized as early as 1806 by W. M. L. de Watts. H. Hupfeld followed K. D. Ilgen in proving that Elohim was used by two documents. K. H. Graf showed that Lev. xvii.­xxvi. were to be discriminated by many individual­ities from the priestly document, and indicated a fifth document (to which the name " Holiness Code " was attached by A. Klostermann because the characteristic of this body of laws is the designa­tion of God as holy, and emphasis is laid upon Israel's duty also to be holy). Still later analysis was carried farther by those who were not contented with the five sources, at least three documents were " discovered " in the J sections, two in the E sec­tions, two in D, and four in P (Wellhausen's designation for the chronological thread in P was Q quatuor foxderum later, though only three covenants are mentioned, with Noah, Abraham, and Moses, not one with Adam). And it is as­sumed that these documents had been subjected to recensions before their incorporation into the Hexateuch, though the question of how far this can be recognised is not satisfactorily answered. It is very probable that into the Priest Code, which has special interest for the law of ritual, additions were interjected, and attempts have been made to deter­mine these, though the certainty and value of these attempts is open to question. That the original Deuteronomy up to and during its inclusion in the Hexateuch did not escape change is certainly prob­able; but the attempt to use the employment of the singular anti plural numbers as means of dis­crimination seems unpromising. As an example of the minuteness attempted in analytical investiga­tion, the results of C. 8teuernagel's work may be given. The law book of Josiah was put together from two documents, PI and Sg; PI has three sources, of which one is again resolvable into two originals; similar principal and auxiliary documents are discovered in Sg. Against the discrimination of J into two or more sources, growing mere preva­lent nevertheless, cf. E. Honig's Eisleitvng in das Alte Testament (Bonn, 1893), pp.197 200.

Justification of the analysis is attained by a care­ful reading even of a good translation of the follow­ing examples, in which the composition out of at least two sources is recognizable. The history of the flood and of Noah: P is in Gen. vi. 9 22,


vii. 6, 11 viii. 5 (except vii. 12, l6b, 17, 22 23,

viii. 2b), viii. 13a, 14 19, ix. 1 17,28 29; all the

rest is J except that in vii. 7 10 there

7. Analysis are editorial additions. Shechem and

Illustrated Dinah in Gen. xxxiv.: Hamor is the

and chief personage in the narrative of

justified. P verses 1, 2a, 4, 6, 8 10, 14 18,

20 24; Shechem is the principal

personage in the other verses, which belong

to J. The spying out of the promised land,

Num. xiii xiv.: P is in xiii. 1 17a, 21, 25,

26, 32, xiv. la, part of 2, 5 7, 10, 26 29,

34 38. The rebellion of Korah and of Da­

than and Abiram: JE makes Dathan and

Abiram direct their rebellion chiefly against Moses,

and his document is in xvi. lb, 2a, 12 15, 25 34;

P, in which Komh and his 250 followers espoused

the cause of equality of all Israel in priestly rights,

is in xvi. la, 2b 11, 16 24, 35 (and it appears that

Korah had a double part, since in verses 2 7 he

seems to stand at the head of the men of various

tribes, while in verses 8 11 he is the spokesman of

the Levites; Deut. xi. 6 appears to have had a

report in which Dathan and Abiram acted inde­

pendently). The report of Israel's sin in Moab,

Num. xxv. 1 5, is composed from J and E, as the

exchange of the designations " Israel " and " the

people " indicates; the one, in lb, 2, 4a, mentions

the lewdness between Israelites and Moabite women;

the other, in verses 3, 5, denounces only the worship

of Baal peor. Further justification is attained by

the recognition of varied linguistic peculiarities. If

one reads the creation story in Gen. i. ii. 4a, the

genealogies from Adam to Noah (Gen. v., except

verse 29), and from Noah to Abraham (Gen. id.),

the establishment of the covenant of circumcision

(Gen. xvii.), and the purchase of the piece of ground

at Machpelah (Gen. xxiii.), on the one hand, and the

narrative of Paradise and the fall (Gen. ii. 4b iv.),

the visit of the three heavenly beings to Abraham,

and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen.

xviii xix., except xix. 29) and the mission of

Abraham's steward in behalf of Isaac (Gen. xxiv.),

on the other hand, he will be convinced, even in

using a translation, that the two sets of stories can,

not be by the same author, and that the differences

exist in mote than the material, the disposition of

the material, and the purpose. The principal. lin­

guistic differences of the five main documents of

the Hexateuch are given in § 11 of H: L. Strack's

Einleitung (6th ed., Munich, 19061, cf. H. Hol­

zinger's Einleitung in den Hezoteuch (Freiburg,

1896); see also FEASTS AND FESTIVAI$, I., §§ 4 5.

Of the scholars who, at the end of the nineteenth

century, thought the authorship of Moses scien­

tifically tenable, nearly all have died.

8. Modern Some names are K. F. Keil, E. C.

Conserve  Bissell, A. Zahn, W. H. Green. The

tive Bavarian clergyman E. Rupprecht

Writers. fights almost alone in this cause in

Des. RdthBel des Fun fbuehea. Mose and

seine falsche Lfsung (Giltersloh,1894), Des Rdthsers

L6sung (1895 97), and Wissenschaftliehes Hand­

buch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1898).

Roman Catholic and conservative Jewish scholars

are apt to be dogmatically hindered from ac 

cepting critical conclusions. Of Roman Catholics may be mentioned' F. Kaulen, Einleitung in die heilige Schrift Alten and Neuen Testaments (3 parts, 4th ed., Freiburg, 1897 99), §¢ 190 201; and A. Seh6pfer; Geschichte des Alten Testaments (Brixen, 1902), § 27; of Jewish scholars, D. Hoffmann, rector of the Rabbinerseminar in Berlin, in Magazin fur die Wiwensckaft des Judenthums (1876=80); Ab­handlungen fiber die pentateuchiRchen Geaetze (Berlin, 1878); and Die wichtigsten Inatanxen gegen die Graf­Wellhausensche Hypothese (1904).

Practically all other scholars of the present seek with the aid of the documentary hypothesis to gain

a conception of the construction of the

y. General Hexateuch. Problems of importance Positions of under discussion are : the order in time

Advanced and the absolute age of the individual

Criticism. documents, the shape each of these

documents had up to its union with another or with others of its fellows, the number and character of the editorial efforts at combining the documents. In consequence of the expositions es­pecially of K. H. Graf (1866) and J. Wellhausen (1876 78); whom E. Reuss (since 1833) and W. Vatke (1835) preceded, the predominant major­ity of Old Testament scholars in Germany, England, and North America hold: that D was written immediately before the reformation of Josiah and with a view to using his influence; that the completed central. portion of P, brought together at the earliest in the Babylonian exile, is not historically trustworthy; and that the closing of the Hexateuch is to be placed in the time of Ezra (Wellhausen, B. Stade) or still later (E. Reuss, A. Kayser, A. Kuenen, and many others). But it must be remarked here that the law book which came to light in the eighteenth year of Josiah must have been written earlier; that the Holiness Code is earlier than Ezekiel; that the value of P, the priestly document, is by most scholars rated too low; and that P (Wellhausen's Q) was not taken into the united JED, but that D was taken into the united WE (QJE). The present writer is convinced that in the future neither the old tra­ditional views nor those of the " advanced critics" will hold the field.

The conclusions of E. Konig (in his Einleitung) are: that from Mosaic times come the decalogue,

the book of the covenant (Ex. xx. 22­ro. Position xxiii. 33), Ex. xxxiv. 10 26, the poet, of Koenig, ical pieces in Ex. xv., Num. vi., x,.,

Dill anti, xxi., and at least for substance other Wellhausen, parts; E belongs to the time of the

A. guenen. Judges, J not before David nor after

Solomon; the analysis of JE is in many places no longer possible; the kernel of D is iv. 45 46, v. xxviii. 46, xxxi. 9 13, which has a Mosaic basis, but was worked over in the time of the Judges and immediately after 722 B.c.; P is a collection of oral traditions which grew up in priestly, circles and.was completed hardly before 600 500; the union of JED, with P was probably made by Ezra in Babylon. A. Dillmapn (in his com­mentary on Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua, Ldipsici 1888) places E (which he calls B) in the first half of the ninth century; it used written sources


particularly in Ex. xx. xxiii. and Num. xxi.; J (which he calls C) is a Judaic document not earlier than the middle of the eighth century; D is not much earlier than the eighteenth year of Josiah, and its author used E and J, especially the book of the covenant, and other laws (especially H) which now are embodied in P; Wellhausen's Q (which Dillmann calls A), the kernel of P, is dated e. 800 B.C.; E in its historical parts was constructed from oral sources and from written sources no longer extant, and in its legal parts from a collection of laws having the character of H; QEJ were worked together c. 600 by a redactor who still had J and E before him as independent documents (all other scholars hold that JE was consolidated before a third document was added); not much later, D was united with QEJ, so that D remained really the standard; before the return of Ezra H and some priestly instructions were added; Ezra brought the Pentateuch into recognition in 444, after which nothing essential was added, though editorial work and polishing of the text c ntinued. J. Wellhausen in Prolegomena zur Creechu~bte I.raela (5th ed., Ber­lin, 1899) holds that J beags to the golden age of Hebrew literature, the tits before the separation of the two kingdoms; the later E was worked together with J into the Jehovistic history, but takes in legislative elements only in the case of the giving of the law at Sinai in its historical connection; D (Deut. xii. xxvi.) was written immediately before it was found; next followed the fundamental piece, Lev. xvii. xxvi., later than Ezekiel, but closely related to him; P (of which Q designates the core, which treats history systematically and is found in its pure condition in Genesis) is the result of long­continued literary labors during and after the exile, and was already incorporated in the Pentateuch when the latter was published by Ezra in 444. A. Kuenen in his " Introduction " (3 parts, Leyden, 1861 85) places J in the ninth century or early in the eighth; E, to which J was known, is dated c. 750; both were northern documents, but a Judaic edition of both, somewhat extended, was made for Judah in the second half of the seventh century; these two documents were united into JE at the end of the seventh or beginning of the sixth century, before the Babylonian exile, and Moses' Song was in the possession of the redactor; D' (i.e., Deut. v.­xxvi., xxviii., xxxi. 9 13) was written as a guide for Josiah's reformation; D', drawn from JE, added to Deuteronomy the introduction i. iv. 4A; JE was united with D during the Babylonian exile, and the redactor made alterations only at the end of the history of Moses, in Deut. xxvi., xxxi., xxxiv.; further, in order to win Deuteronomy its place, he placed the Book of the Covenant and Ex. xxxiv. 10 28 in the time of the giving of the law at Sinai; H (Lev. xvii. xxvi., Kuenen's P') is later than Ezekiel; still later and postexilic is the legal his­torical Q (Kuenen's P'); the book read by Ezra and accepted by the people's representative in 444 was Q united with H and other priestly instructions, but whether this union had taken place in Babylon or was made in Judea between 458 and 444 is not determinable; Ezra's law book underwent essential changes and extensions; consequently the redaction

of the Pentateuch is not a work completed all at once by the union of P with JED, probably before 400, but the result of a labor continued for some time as the differences of text in the Hebrew, Sa­maritan, and Septuagint indicate.

A. Klostermann (Der Pentateuch, Leipsie, 1893; Daa chronolooche Syatem des P, in NKZ, 1894;

Die Heilighema  and Lagerordnung, ::. Kloster  1897; Dag devteronomische Gesetsbuch,

mann's 1902 03) complains (Pentateuch, pp.

Recent 1 76) that modern Pentateuchal crit 

Work. icism founded upon the document 

ary hypothesis lacks basis. It con­ceives that the synagogue text, by the side of which there are other and older ones, and which is regarded as a book often edited, is identical with that of the composer of the Pentateuch, and that all linguistic diversities, especially in the most vari­able element of divine names, originate not in differences of manuscripts which underlie our late edition, but in the diversity of historiographic sources which the author combined and thereby recognized as older. It ignores the fact, says Klostermann, that the Pentateuch was a book for the edification of the community, in the trans­mission of which the emphasis must hays fallen upon its edifying quality, upon its lucidity, and not upon the purity and age of the text. The work should, therefore, not be carried from above downward and begin with assumed authors J and E, but should first investigate when the author  or, if you will, the redactor wrote, that is, he to whom we owe the unified but materially multicolored Pentateuch. The starting point of the investigation is the report in II Kings xxii. of Hilkiah's discovery (Pentateuch, pp. 77 114). Deut. iv. 44 xxvii. 69 is the recension with intro­duction of homiletic addresses directed by Josiah to be made of the work found in the temple, which is to be understood not as the law itself, but as the elucidation by the teacher of the law. In this way only is the character of Deuteronomy explained, and the supposition that Deuteronomy is a counter­feited program for a reformation is shown to be unreasonable (Pentateuch, ii. 154 428). In order  to make possible the fitting of this document into the pre Josianic Hexateuch, also in the time of Josiah, speeches of Moses and historical notes were inter­woven, and so in the manner of a harmony attempts were made at smoothing away the difficulties which the reader discovers between Num. x. 11 xxxvi. and Dent. xxxi. 14 aqq., on the one side, and Deut. iv. 44 xxviii. 68, on the other. It results, therefore, that the report in Num. x. xxxvi. and Deut. xxxi. 14 sqq. held its place as an authoritative account of the Mosaic times from the departure from Sinai to the death of Moses, and so is an old document; indeed, it must be older than Isaiah and Micah (Pentateuch, i. 115 152). Klostermann then takes up the Pentateuch of the times before Josiah (Pen­tateuch, i. 153 187), in which statistical details and independent documents with legal ordinances were combined, to which Genesis belonged. In con­sequence of the loose union of material of varied character, this book suffered damage and disar­rangement and also experienced augmentation.


Examples of the latter are Num. xxviii: xxxvi.;

Deut. xxxi. 14 23, xxxii. 1 44, 48 52. The forma­

tion of the original work lay far back of Micah, who

knew this enlarged book. The limit a quo Klos­

termann seeks to find in a discussion of the chron­

ological system of the author who deals with the

consecration of the temple in the twentieth year of

Solomon as epoch making. Three divine cycles

(one is 12 x 49 years) or 1,764 years to the flood,

two cycles or 1,176 years to the birth of Abraham,

and two cycles to the consecration of the temple

are discovered (concerning the Jubilee period as

49 years cf. Pentateuch, i. 419 447). The section

concerning the tabernacle and the plan of the camp

shows that the author used two sources marked by

the distinctive use of separate terms for the taber­

nacle, ohel mo'ed and mishkan ha `eduth. This work

can have originated only in a time when the sanc­

tuary at Shiloh was still in the memory, and when

there was interest in preserving for posterity what

had been replaced by the temple and so had fallen

out of actual experience. The Sinaitic book of

the covenant is discussed in Pentateuch, ii. 429­

579. In later studies Mostermann purposes to

investigate the older type of narration, and so

the fragments designated by the symbols J, E,

and Q, which then first come properly under

consideration. Klostermann's method, as indicated

by his keen investigations, is theoretically good.

He rightly considers that the confidence of most Old

Testament scholars in the security of the results

of analytical work is too strong. On the other hand,

he overvalues the meaning of the changes which the

text of the Pentateuch has suffered in the course

of time. (H. L. STRACg.)

Of critics who accept the traditional account of the origin and development of the religion of Israel not a few accept the current analysis

a. Limits  (§1 6 and 7 above) in its bolder out­tions of lines (J. Robertson, C. H. H. Wright, Literary J. Orr); while others, after minute in­Analysis. vestigation, find the analysis illusory and reject it altogether (W. H. Green, E. C. Bissell). These critics are one in the convic­tion that the method of argument is " in very many respects precarious; the criteria alleged are often fallacious to the last degree; and the resulting par­tition is extremely dubious." The reasons which call for caution are such as these: (1) The divine names are evidently used at times with discrimina­tion. The particular aspect of God which was at the moment prominent in the thought of the speaker or narrator determined the choice of the title, whether it should be Elobim or Yahweh or the Almighty or the Most High God or the Ever­lasting God. " The original distinction between Jahweh and Elohim very often accounts for the use of one of these appellations in preference to the other " (Kuenen, Hexateuch, p. 56). According to the current analysis J at least uses each name as he has occasion; and Yahweh is found in pass­ages of Genesis which are ascribed to the Elohist writer (Green, Unity of Genesis, pp. 539 sqq.; Higher Criticism, pp. 91 sqq.; E. Riehm, Einleit­ung, i. 126, Halle, 1889; P. J. Hoedemaker, Mo­aaischer Ursprung den Gesetze, p. 110 eqq., Gilters.

loh, 1897). The use of a particular divine name, therefore, can not in and of itself alone be conclu­sive evidence of authorship (cf. Gen. xv. 1, xx. 1, xaa. 2, 6, 8). (2) The diction, style, and religious conceptions of J and E are confessedly so similar that as evidences of authorship they are often " far from conclusive " and yield " nothing but conjec­tures as to the separation of the sources " (H. Gunkel, Legends of Genesis, p. 126, 134, Chicago, 1901; Strack, Commentary, p. xviii.; Driver, In­troduction, 10th ed., pp. 116, 126). The same facts hold with regard to passages that are assigned to P, but not to the same extent (Green, Unity, p. 552; and on the scraps given to P in Gen. xii.­xviii., p. 215; cf. also Ruenen, on Gen. vii., viii.). Occasionally D and JE are not readily distinguish­able (Kent, Students 0. T., vol. i., on Gen. xiii.14­17; Driver, Introduction, pp. 35, 66, and 99). (3) The difference of style between passages, more­over, where such difference actually exists, is largely one of mood and subject matter and purpose; calm or emotional, plain or graphic, rigid or easy, brief or descriptive or diffuse, stately or lively or for­mal, prosaic or poetic, declarative or hortatory. Unless other marks are present, stylistic differ­ences of this general nature are at best an uncer­tain guide when the question concerns the analysis of a verse and the distribution of its clauses; for the style of a sympathetic author changes along these very lines and. adjusts itself to his moods and the varying aspects of his subject (Green, Unity, p. 552; idem, Feasts, p. 14; Dillmann; Commen­tary on Exodus and Leviticus, p. 676, 1897). (4) The analysis is being based more and more on asserted divergences or contradictions, the existence of which is quite unnecessarily assumed (see below). In view of these facts, caution is demanded, espe­cially when the attempt is made to disintegrate a small bit of connected story. Before leaving the subject of the literary analysis a remark is in place regarding " contradictions." Many doublets and divergences are said to exist in the Hebrew records. There may be some. No textual critic would think for a moment of denying that possibility. But such as have been pointed out are not always, nor even generally, " contradictions " (Green, Higher Criticism, pp. 109 113; C. H. H. Wright, Introduc­tion, p. 100, London, 1891; J. Orr, Problem of the Old Testament, pp. 236, 361). They are diversi­ties, indeed; but it is contrary to the canons of historical criticism constantly to pit sources against each other. Rather the historian regards variants as different aspects or incidents of the event.

The narrative of Israel's history contains an ac­count of the organization of the people into a na­tion by Moses under the direction of God. Yah­weh was acknowledged as the supreme head of the state; he was the sole object of worship and the ultimate source of all authority, legislative, execu­tive, and judicial. The Ten Commandments with the prologue (Ex. xa. 2 17) were made the funda­mental law. They were the constitution of the nation. The body of laws contained in Ex. xxi.­xxiii. 19, with the introduction and conclusion in xx. 22 26 and xgiii. 20 33, formed the statutes. The Ten Commandments were often called the


covenant (Dent. iv. 13); and the combined legis­lation, or at any rate the statutes, were entitled the book of the covenant, since it was

13. The upon the basis of the solemn agree­Conatitution ment of the people to obey these laws

and the that God made the covenant with Is­

Statutes. rael at Sinai (Ex. xxiv. 4 8). The

articles of the constitution and the

statutes are codified, the related injunctions being

grouped together. The sections generally con­

tain five or ten laws each, perhaps they all con­

tained ten originally (Dillmann, Commentary on

Exodus, pp. 242 245; Briggs, Higher Criticism of

the Hexateuch, pp. 212 231; Paton, in JBL, 1893,

pp. 79 83); and they relate to: (1) Forms of wor­

ship (xx: 23 26); (2) The protection of 'the rights

of man; (a) in respect to liberty, (xxi. 2 11);

(b) concerning injury of person (xxi. 12 36);

(c) concerning property rights (xxii. 1 17). (3)

Regulation of personal conduct (xxii. 18 xxiii. 9).

(4) Sacred seasons and sacrifice (xxiii. 10 19).

(5) The promise annexed (xxiii. 20 33). The con­

stitution was, of course, unchangeable without the

consent of both parties. The statutes have the

characteristics of such laws; they are constitu­

tional, involving no principle contrary to the or­

ganic law of the State; they are expository, being

the, application of the doctrines of the constitution

to the social life and religious observances of the

people; and they were temporary in their nature

and liable to amendment, abrogation, and increase

in order to meet the new conditions and peculiar

needs of each age. According to the narrative this

process of modification began in the days of Moses

and under his authority (ef. Ex. xii. 6, 18, xxiii. 15

with Num. ix. 9 14; also Num. xxvii. 1 11, xxxvi.

1 9). The laws were not new (Dillmann, Com­

mentary on Exodus, p. 226). The Ten command­

ments, or most of them, had long been authorita­

tive among the children of Israel (Gen. iv. 9 15,

ix. 6, xx. 3, 5. 6, xxxi. 32, 37, xxxiv. 7, xxsv. 2,

xliv. 9); and the laws of the second table, with the

probable exception of the tenth, were in force among

other nations. The significance of the decalogue

lay in the fact that God made recognized moral

obligations the fundamental law of his kingdom

and, by the tenth commandment, probed back of

the outward act into the inner nature of man and

located the source of sin in the evil desires of the

heart. The statutes also were not new. They

were .a hereditary body of usages, as is proven

among other evidence by the laws of Hammurabi

(see HAMIIURABI AND His CODE). The discovery

of this ancient codex enables the student of the

Bible to trace more of these ordinances back into

the period before Moses than he had heretofore

been able to do. It is remarkable that in so many

instances the same classes of people, particularly

the less fortunate members of society, were re­

garded by both Babylonians and Israeli" as pos­

sessing rights that could be. recognized by the State.

It is perhaps more remarkable that the Babylonian

and Hebrew law often imposes the same, or prao­

tically the same, penalty for the same offense. To

a remarkable degree the two peoples shared the

same conception of justice. It is not necessary to

assume, nor is it probable, that the Hebrew legis­lator had the laws of Hammurabi before him; but it is certain that Israel inherited from some source the conceptions of justice and the judicial customs which existed among the Babylonians in the days of Hammurabi. Moses was inspired in the prepa­ration of this book of the covenant; but a body of laws hidden from the foundation of the world was not revealed to him. Moses was a prophet (Dent. xviii. 15), and inspired as the prophets were. He was under the influence of the Holy Spirit, whereby he was made an infallible communicator of God's will to his fellow men. His mind was enlightened concerning the nature of the kingdom; he was led infallibly to choose the laws appropriate to the condition of the people and adapted to discipline them in the spirit of the kingdom; and he was prompted and controlled and enabled to frame a system, more or less out of old materials, yet dis­tinguished from all known legislation of contem­porary peoples by its humanity, by its amelioration of the hard lot of the unfortunate, by its extrica­tion of the conduct of man from civil relations merely and the exhibition of that conduct in its relation to God also, and by its power to lift the secular life into the true service of God.

The architect's specifications for the tabernacle are contained in Exodus xxv. xxsi. They were obtained or completed from the study of a model seen in a vision (Ex. xxv. 9, 40); for

:4. The which Moses was psychologically pre­

Tabernacle. pared by the need that was pressing

upon him of organizing the religious

life of the people as he had regulated their civil

life, by hours spent on the mountain in calm and

earnest and prayerful meditation on the subject,

and by his acquaintance with the impressive tem­

ples and symbolical ritual of Egypt. The sig­

nificance of the tabernacle centered in the ark

of the covenant, where Yahweh dwelt between the

cherubim; and the description accordingly begins

with the ark as the chief object and proceeds out­

ward an order of recital followed only in these

formal specifications and for symbolic reasons.

(1) The constant and essential features, patterns of

the heavenly: ark, table of ahewbread, and candle­

stick (xxv. 10 39); and then their housing (xxvi.

1 37). The altar of burnt offering (xxvii. 1 8),

and then the court in which it should stand (xxvii.

9 19). Directions concerning the materials to be

used in connection with the permanent features:

(the ahewbread consisted of twelve loaves of ordi­

nary bread, and hence specific directions for the

making of it were not required), specifications con­

cerning the oil for the continual light (xxvii. 20,

21). (2) Provision for man's approach to Jehovah:

priests (xxviii. 1); their garments (xxviii. 2 43)

and their consecration (xxix. 1 35); consecration

of the altar of burnt offerings (xxix. 36, 37), and

the daily morning and evening offering upon it for

the nation (xxix. 38 46). After the mediating

priesthood and the daily sacrifice have been pro­

vided, the offering of incense, symbolical of the

prayers of God's people as being well pleasing to

Jehovah, is fitting; hence there follows the altar

of incense (xxx. 1 10). (3) Provision for the


things needed in this approach of man to God: for defraying the expenses (xxx. 11 16); for priestly functions, viz., the lever (xxa. 17 21), oil for anointing the vessels (xsx. 22 33), and incense (xxx. 34 38); for the work of building the taber­nacle, skilled artificers (xxxi. 1 11). In this de­scription the altar of incense, which symbolized the obligatory and acceptable adoration of God by his people, is not mentioned until provision has been made for sinful man to approach Jehovah. The place given to it in the specifications has its reason in the symbolism. Other considerations determine the order of narration afterward; other laws of association prevail, and the altar of incense is grouped with the furniture of the tabernacle (xxxv. 15, xxsvii. 25), or is mentioned at the proper place locally (xl. 5). It belonged to the holy of holies, before the mercy seat (I Kings vi. 22 R.V.; Heb. ix. 4); but, since none might enter the most holy place save the high priest and he but once in the year, the altar of incense was set in the holy place, in front of the veil that separated the holy from the most holy place, in order that the priest might officiate at it daily. Wealth was lavished on this movable and evidently temporary sanctuary. The gold alone amounted to twenty nine talents or nearly nine hundred thousand dollars, and the sil­ver raised by taxation to two hundred thousand dollars (xxxviii. 24 31), and this in addition to the silver, bronze, and precious stones given voluntar­ily (xsxv. 5 8, 21 29). But the riches were not wasted. The journey to the promised land might be accomplished in a few days (Dent. i. 2), but the tabernacle must serve during the expected ware of conquest and during the confusion of settlement and home making. And, moreover, costly stuff was not used for things of a temporary nature. The housing was comparatively inexpensive, ant) the materials for it were at hand. The acacia wood might be had in the wilderness for the cutting, and the skins for the outer covering of the tent from the aquatic animals in the neighboring sea; while from their own flocks the rams' skins and goats' hair were obtainable. The precious metals went into the costly furniture of the sanctuary, which might be used for centuries, and into the gold plating and silver sockets of the boards. They would not be lost to the treasury of the Lord, even though a more substantial temple might ultimately be erected.

The priests officiated at the altar; hence they were provided with (1) a directory of procedure to be observed by the worshiper and the priest at the offering of the various kinds of sacrifice (Lev. i.­vi. 7), and a book on the disposal of the sacrifice (Lev. vi. 8 vii.). The priests required authoriza­tion; hence they had (2) the record

:5. The of .Aaron's consecration to the priest 

Manual for hood, an official act that established

the the order and placed it on a legal

Priests. basis, and the precedent for future in­

ductions into the priestly office; to.

gether with laws enacted to meet the deficiencies

in the legislation which were revealed on that occa­

sion (viii a.). Approach to Yahweh was condi­

tioned upon holiness of life, both ceremonial and

moral; hence there was furnished for Israel and given to the priests as the teachers of the laws and guardians of the worship and overseers of the ritual: (3) a directory of ceremonial purity anc' a law of holiness, containing (a) laws concerning foods that defile, diseases or natural functions that render un­clean, and an annual day of national ceremonial purification (x. avi.), and (b) laws concerning holiness of life (avii. xxvi.), followed by an ap­pendix on vows, tithes, and things devoted .(xxvii.). These small collections of laws and precedent, all of which relate particularly to subjects of profes­sional importance to the priests, form a distinct section of the Pentateuch the book of Leviticus  and, as thus segregated, constituted a manual for the use of the priests. The laws contained in each of three divisions of the handbook, as it may be termed, were enacted at Sinai, according to ex­press declaration. The directions for the conse­cration of Aaron and his sons were prepared during Moses' first sojourn of forty days in Mount Sinai (Ex. xxis.), and the instructions were carried out immediately after the erection of the tabernacle. The function occupied a week. At its end the punitory death of Nabad and Abihu was the occa. sion of new legislation (trey. a. 6 20). The direc­tory of procedure to be observed at the sacrificial services is dated after the erection of the tabernacle (i. 1); and the book on the disposal of the sacrifice was elaborated at the same general time, when " he commanded the children of Israel to offer their obligations to Jehovah " (cf. vii. 38 with i. 2). The appointment of an annual day of atonement was made sometime after the death of Aaron's older sons (xvi. 1), and met a requirement of the taber­nacle law (Ex. xxx. 10). The regulations concern­ing ceremonial purity and holiness of life are throughout attributed to Moses, the representative of Yahweh (Lev. xvii. 1, xviii. 1 et passim), when he was in or, as the preposition may be translated, at Mount Sinai (xxvi. 1, xsvi. 46; for the usage of the preposition, cf. Num. xx. 23 with 25, xxxiii. 37 with 38; Deut. i. 6, ix. 8; and for the fact that some of the legislation was enacted in the camp, (cf. Lev. xxiv. 10 23). Possibly some laws, but certainly not all, that were enacted after the de­parture from Sinai were inserted for the sake of convenience in their proper place in the manual (cf. perhaps xxv. 32 34 with Num. sxxv.). And it may be added, though no importance is attached to the matter, that if changes took place in the priestly praxis at a later time, there could scarcely have been serious objection to the introduction of the necessary verbal modification into the text of the law as contained in the handbook.

Many orders were issued while the Israelites were still at Mount Sinai and during the march to Canaan which were recorded in the annals of the State, but did not belong in a law book. But there was also legislation of a permanent character upon civil, religious, and ecclesiastical matters enacted while the people were yet at the Mount and after their departure. The documents to which these laws bore relation were the book of the covenant, the specifications for the tabernacle, and the collections relating to the priests. Only


the third was, for the present, liable to receive additions or modification; for the specifications for the building of the sanctuary had

16. Legis  been carried out, and in regard to the lation not book of the covenant there was doubt­in the less a natural feeling at the time that Law Books. the document to which the people had sworn obedience should not be tam­pered with or touched. The priests' manual, how­ever, might well have been enlarged by the intro­duction of pertinent material. The laws in Num. xv. relating to the constituents of the meal offer­ings, to the loaf of the first fruits, and to the burnt sacrifices for certain sins (probably sins of omission and thus a supplement to Lev. iv. v. 13), and the festival calendar of Num. xxviii. and xxix., enu­merating the public sacrifices proper for each sea­son, might fittingly have been given a place. in the manual. The reason why they were not inserted in the priests' handbook is not apparent. The amendment to the passover law, providing for its celebration at another date by those who were dis­qualified from partaking of it on the regular day (Num. ix. 1 14), might have been introduced after Lev. xxiii. 8; but to have done so would have marred the symmetry of the section. A logical place is not readily found in the priests' manual for the law of jealousy (Num. v. 1 31), a civil judicial matter in which the test was applied by the priest, or for the law of the Nazirite (Num. vi. 1 21), which included the presentation of the Nazirite before the priest and the offering of sacrifice; and, of course, there was no call to put in the priests' handbook the conditions which determined the validity of vows taken by women (Num. xxx.).

The theocracy was based on the conception of Israel as a community, and its success at any period was conditioned by the attitude of the people toward God and toward the provisions of the cove­nant. Obedience to God and reliance

:7. The upon him were essential. During the Legislation thirty eight years since the covenant

and Spe  was concluded at Sinai the weakness

cific Needs. of the communal bands that held the

tribes in union, and the tendency of

the people to violate the terms of the covenant,

had been frequently in evidence. Moses had often

heard murmuring against God, a questioning of his

goodness and his power, and he had been witness

of their lack of faith at critical moments (Ex. xv.

24 etc.; Num. xiv. 4 12). He had seen the prone­

ness of the people to fall away from the spiritual

worship of Yahweh and bow down before images,

contrary to the second article of the constitution;

and worse yet, to turn aside from the pure and en­

nobling worship of the holy God to the abominable,

licentious rites of heathenism (Ex. xxxii.; Num.

xxv.). He had seen will worship on the part of

the priests and the indifference of these ministers

at the tabernacle to the law of the sanctuary (Lev.

x. 1). He had found personal ambition and tribal

jealousy growing into conspiracy and open rebellion

against both the civil ruler and the ecclesiastical

authorities (Num. xvi.); and the prospect of mate­

rial good leading to contentment with present con­

ditions, to selfish choice, and for a time perhaps to

forgetfulness of duty (Num. xxxii.). Moses knew, and all knew, that he had been the main force that had inspired the people for the great undertaking, that he was the most potent influence that was making for righteousness, and that he was the greatest representative of Yahweh among them. It was natural that the old man, the father of his people, should be unwilling to release the reins of government to other hands without making a final effort to save his children from disaster and to se­cure the permanence of the institutions which in the providence of God he had founded. It was natural that the aged leader should wish to speak a farewell word to his people, and that he who bad so long borne the nation on his heart should desire to tell them how to act in the new circumstances. And God bade him speak.

His valedictory reflects the experiences of forty years with the Israelites, and the hopes and fears which these events had begotten. The words are the utterance of a wise statesman and

18. Deute  man of God. The address was deliv 

ronomy. ered in three instalments. (1) Re­

hearsal of the history of the people

since the covenant was made with the preceding

generation at Sinai, for the sake of the evidence af­

forded of both the goodness and the severity of Yah­

weh to Israel, and as a motive for obedience to

Yahweh's laws (Deut. i. 6 iv. 40, with supplemen­

tary statement, 41 49). (2) Rehearsal of statutes

which concerned the people, with emphasis on the

spirituality of the laws and urgent insistence upon

their observance (v. xxvi.). (3) Conclusion: di­

rections for building an altar on Mount Ebal and

writing the law there on plastered stones; and

blessings and curses annexed to obedience and dis­

obedience respectively (xgvii. xxviii.). This great

address is closely followed by a brief speech at the

ratification by the new generation of the covenant

as thus proclaimed (xxix. xxx.). This covenant,

like the former one at Sinai, was recorded in a'

book (xxix. 20, 21, 27, xxx. 10; of. Ex. xxiv. 4­

8). The address is dated in the fortieth year,

eleventh month, and first day; and the place is

" beyond Jordan " or " on the oth6r side of Jor­

dan " (i. 1, 3). The designation was an old gee­

graphical term, inherited from their ance stors. To

Abraham and the Canaanites it meant the region

east of the river; and the rugged bluffs that rose

behind the camp were known as Abarim, that is,

the mountains of the other side. And the Jordan

still separated them from the country of Abraham,

Isaac, and Jacob. They were in the country " on

the other side." Naturally enough under these cir­

cumstances the distinctive feature of the address

is preparation for the settlement in Canaan. (1) It

affects the language. With the occupation of the

land imminent, and with a part of it in actual pos­

session, the wilderness is a memory of the past and

the thought is now of the new home. The speaker

talks much about houses, towns, and city gates,

about the cultivation of the soil and the fruits of

the orchard and vineyard. (2) It leads to the ad­

justment of the laws to the new conditions, and to

the reciting of so much only of an ordinance as ap­

plies to the new life. In reminding the people of

1   ...   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   ...   46

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page