M 
 
 '.11 
 
 I 
 
 I.  '     ! 
 
 f 
 
 l?*lliiillt^' 
 
 i 
 
 liiiii 
 
^^hp^^^^^ 
 
 .s.  risis 
 
l/lf    ''     J^     zf<t>6r-7/f^'^-^^^-c^^ 
 
DISSERTATIONS 
 
 GENUINENESS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
DISSERTATIONS^ 
 
 GENUINENESS  OF  THE   PENTATEUCH. 
 
 DR  R.  W.  HENGSTENBEHG, 
 
 lessor  o;'Tbeoio4y  m  the  UniTersity  o!' jDor:-itj. 
 
 "  Had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  Movild  liavc  bplieved  me,  fur  lie  wrote  of  niH.      but  if  y^  believe  not  Ins  writiu»*  l<o» 
 shall  ye  believe  my  words. ---Jest's  Chuist.     (John  v.  4f.,  47.) 
 
 IIpos  MtuiicTEa  tov  tT/s  ^toXoyias  wKzavbv  fxeTafiaiuofiiv,  s^  ovirsp,  7^o^)Ti^•a)V  fnrfiv, 
 irdvTi'i  TTOTuiiol  Kfu  TrTKra  SrdXarTa. — Theodoret.  (0pp.  iv.  742.) 
 
 TUA'NSr-.\TEO  IROM   THE  GERMAN    iJY 
 
 J.  E.  RYLAND, 
 
 Editor  of  the  Life  a.nd  Ccrrespcndence  ofJchn  Foster 
 
 vol..  II 
 
 EDINBURGH  : 
 
 T.  ct  T.  CLARK,  88  GEORGF:  STREET, 
 
 LONOOX:  HAMILTON,  ADAMS,  <fe  CO.;  STMPKIN,  MARSHALL,   i    CO. 
 DUBLIN:  .JOHN  ROBERT.'^ON  :  CURRY  &  CO. 
 
 MDCCCXLVIl. 
 
PBIKTED  BY 
 
 M'cOSH,  PAKK,  &  DEWARS, 
 
 DUNDEE. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Dissertation  IV. — The  Pentateuch,  and  the  Time  of  the  Judges. 
 
 Preliminary  Remarks,        •  •  •  •  • 
 
 The  Book  of  Joshua,  ....  •  - 
 
 The  Book  of  Judges, 
 
 Sacrod  Places,  .....••• 
 
 Sacred  Persons,      ...•••••• 
 
 Sacred  Times,    ..••••••• 
 
 Sacred  Rites,  .....•••• 
 
 Relation  of  the  time  of  the  Judges  to  the  Ci^il  Legislation  of  the  Pentateuch 
 State  of  Religion  and  Morals  in  the  time  of  the  Judges, 
 
 1-10 
 
 10-16 
 
 16-32 
 
 32 
 
 46 
 
 65 
 
 70 
 
 ,       82 
 
 91 
 
 Dissertation  V. — Statements  of  the  Pentateuch  respecting  its 
 Author,    ..•••••••• 
 
 Dissertation  VI.— The  Alleged  traces  of  a  Later  Age  in  the 
 Pentateuch. 
 
 Preliminary  Remark, 
 
 The  Canaanites, 
 
 Hebron,        .... 
 
 Dan,        .... 
 
 Moriah,         .... 
 
 Bethel,     .... 
 
 "  Before  there  reigned  any  King  over  the  Children  of  Israe 
 
 "  These  are  that  Aaron  and  Moses 
 
 Exodus  xvi.  33-35, 
 
 The  Omer, 
 
 Sin-Oiferings  and  Trespass-Offering 
 
 Hormah, 
 
 Thf."  Book  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord 
 
 Havoth-Jair, 
 
 Hermon,       .... 
 
 The  Bedstead  of  King  Og,     • 
 
 The  Law  of  the  King  in  Dent  xvii 
 
 122-14J 
 
 146 
 
 150 
 
 152 
 
 157 
 
 159 
 
 163 
 
 el,"   .     .    165 
 
 167 
 
 169 
 
 172 
 
 174 
 
 179 
 
 182 
 
 185 
 
 193 
 
 198 
 
 201 
 
VI  CONTENTS. 
 
 l'ag(i 
 
 Oeographical  Anachronisms,       .....  214 
 
 Numbers  xx.  v.,  •  .  .  •  •  •        215 
 
 Gen(  sis  XV.  18,     .  •  >  •      •  •  •  216 
 
 Exodus  xxiii.  31,         •  •  .  •  •  -217 
 
 Deuteronomy  xi.  22-24,       •  •  .  .  •  218 
 
 Numbers  xxi.  1-'^,         •  •  •  •  •  .         220 
 
 Niuiibers  xxxii.,    ....••  221 
 
 Edom,  .......         222 
 
 Historical  Anachronisms— 
 
 Hadnd,  ......  28--) 
 
 "  This  was  Esau,"  .  .  .  .  .        2.^0 
 
 Prophetical  Anachronisms — 
 
 Numbers  xxiv.  17, 18,  .                .                .                .                .  2:^9 
 
 Genesis  xxvii.  40,            .  .                .                .                .  .241 
 
 Genesis  XXV.  23,  .                .                .                .                .  243 
 
 Araalek,            .                .  .                .                .                .  .247 
 
 "  The  other  side  .Jordan,"'  .....  256 
 
 •     "  Unto  this  day,"            .  .                .                .                .  .264 
 
 The  Threatening  of  Exile,  ....  270 
 
 The  Prophets,                 .  .                .                .                .  .274 
 
 The  alleged  Abstract  Unhistorical  character  of  the  Mosaic  Polity,  276 
 
 Dissertation  VII. — The  Contradictions  of  the  Pentatkuch. 
 
 Preliminaiy  Remarks,  .  .  ,  .  .        28:5 
 
 Chronological  Contradictions,  Gen.xxxv.  26  ;  Gen.  xxix.  30  ;  Gen,  x^vxiv. 
 
 Gen.  xxxviii,  46,  ......         284 
 
 Contradictions  in  reference  to  the  Passover,  .  .  2P4 
 
 The  Time  of  the  Passover,  .....         2P5 
 
 Unleavened  Bread  and  the  T'assover,  .  .  .  303 
 
 Deuteronomy  xvi.  2,  .....        3()0 
 
 Exodus  xvii.  1 ;  Numbers  xx.  1.  &c.,  .  .  .  310 
 
 Exodus  xxiii.  16;  and  xxxiv.  22,  ....        315 
 
 The  two  Tables  of  the  Law,  ....  317 
 
 The  Levites' Age  of  Service,  .  .  .  .  .        .321 
 
 .loshua— Hoshea,  .....  323 
 
 Horeb  and  Sinai,  .  .  .  .  .325 
 
 The  Plains  of  Moab,  and  the  Land  of  Moab,  .  .  .327 
 
 Priests  and  Levites,  .....        329 
 
 Judges,  ......  340 
 
 The  Spies,  .  .  .  .  .  .344 
 
 The  Amorites  and  Amalekites,  ....  346 
 
 Sihon,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .347 
 
 The  Punishment  of  Moses,  .  .  .  .349 
 
 Deuteronomv  x.  6,  .  .  .  .  .  ,  .       350 
 
CONTENTS.  Vii 
 
 Page 
 
 The  Sabbatical  and  Jubilee  Year,                          .                .                .  357 
 
 The  Release  of  Bondsmen,           .....  300 
 
 Cities  of  Refuge,                     .....  86S 
 Administration  of  Justice,              .                .                .                .                .361 
 
 Dissertation  VIII.— The  Theologt  of  the  Pentatkuch  in  Relation  to 
 ITS  Genuineness, 
 
 Prelimiuaiy  Remarks,              .....  866 
 
 The  Anthropomorphisms  of  the  Pentateuch,                .                .                .  366 
 
 The  Repentance  of  God,          .....  372 
 
 The  Jealousy  of  God,                      .....  373 
 
 The  Wrath  of  God,                 .                .                .                .                .  375 
 
 The  Vengeance  of  God,                  .....  377 
 
 The  Hardening  of  Pharaoh's  heart,                        .                .                .  380 
 
 The  Immutability  of  God,  Numb.  xxii.          ....  385 
 
 The  Right  of  the  Israelites  to  Palestine,              .                .                .  387 
 
 The  Alleged  Purloining  of  the  Vessels  of  the  Egyptians,           .                .  417 
 
 The  Unholiness  of  Sacred  Persons,                      .               ,               .  482 
 
 Visiting  the  Sins  of  the  Fathers  on  the  Children,        .                .                .  446 
 
 The  Partiality  of  the  Pentateuch,          ....  452 
 
 The  Silence  of  the  Pentateuch  respecting  the  Doctrine  of  Immortality.  460 
 
 The  Doctrine  of  Retribution,                  ....  473 
 
 The  Alleged  Outwai-dness  of  the  Mosaic  Legislation,                  .                .  487 
 
 The  Ceremonial  Law,              .....  501 
 
 The  Levitical  Bias  of  the  Pentateuch,          ....  534 
 
ERRATA 
 
 Vol.  1. 
 
 Pa«e    61.  line  20, /b.«'«corn,"..«ci"  terror."     ^ 
 92,     ,.    32, /or- sources,"  read  ".ouvce, 
 Qo  33,  dele  mentioned. 
 
 "    m     "       9, /or"  reduced,-  med"  seduced. 
 ;;    415.    ',*     11, /or"  convir,"  read"  conviv." 
 
 Page  172.  line  32, /or  " 
 
 „    186,    „     28, /or  " 
 
 '„    187,    M       6,  for  ' 
 
 „    256,  last  line, /or  ' 
 
 „    257.     „     11.  fo"-  • 
 
 276,     ,,     lO'  /"'■  * 
 
 \\    308,     „      31, /or 
 
 „    325,     „     29, /br 
 
 328,  last  line, /or 
 
 .    329,  last  line, /or 
 
 378, 
 404, 
 416, 
 429, 
 464, 
 
 38,  for 
 7,  /or 
 
 27,  /or 
 5, /or 
 S,/or 
 12, /or 
 
 Vol  II. 
 
 fous,"  read  "  fons." 
 Auzeiger,"  read  "  Anzieger." 
 '  dilto,"  read  "  ditto." 
 '  upon,"  read  "  to." 
 .  terminater,"  read  "  terniinatur. 
 '  as  the,"  read  "  as  in  the." 
 "deci,"  read  "  diei." 
 "accipieti,"  read  "  accipietis." 
 "  fruits,"  read  "  facts." 
 
 '•  iroLwv,"  read  "  ttoiwi/." 
 "  Geagr."  read  "  (ieogr." 
 ..  Polybus,  read  "  Polybiub." 
 "in,"  read  "  for." 
 ••  even,"  read  "  also," 
 "  aifcct,"  read  "effect." 
 
THE  PENTATEUCH 
 
 THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGE.S 
 
 PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 
 
 The  argument  against  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  that 
 its  admission  renders  the  later  development  of  the  people  inexpH- 
 cable,  was  first  broached  by  Nachtigal  in  an  essay  on  the  gi^a- 
 dual  formation  of  the  sacred  writings  of  the  Israelites,  in  Henke's 
 Magazin,  ii.  446.  "  During  a  long  period  of  many  centuries 
 after  Moses,"  he  remarks,  "  we  find  no  trace  that  any  one  had 
 read,  in  their  present  extent,  the  writings  which  we  now  call  Mo- 
 saic, but  numerous  indications  that  the  Israelites  themselves  were 
 unacquainted  with  their  most  important  parts."  The  facts  to  which 
 he  appeals  are  not  numerous — the  neglect  of  circumcision  during 
 the  march  through  the  wilderness — the  idolatry  of  the  Danites — 
 Jepthah's  human  sacrifices — and  Samson's  marriage  with  an  ido- 
 latress. Vater*  trod  in  Nachtigal s  footsteps.  "Many,  and 
 precisely  the  most  important  laws  of  the  Pentateuch,"  he  remarks, 
 *' were  either  unknown,  or  at  least  not  observed.  Hence  the 
 conclusion  may  be  drawn,  that  either  the  Pentateuch  was  not 
 extant,  or  that  it  was  not  yet  in  its  present  extent  that  rehgious 
 code  of  general  obhgation,  which  it  must  have  been  if  we  admit 
 its  Mosaic  authorship."  The  number  of  facts  on  which  this  writer 
 grounds  his  argument  is  also  not  veiy  large.  Of  those  adduced 
 by  Nachtigal,  he  considers  two  (in  accordance  ^^ith  the  counter- 
 
 *  Ahhan(llun(j  iiher  der  Pentateitcli,  §  78. 
 VOL.  IT. 
 
2  THE   PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 Statements  of  Eckermann,  Bcitr.  v.  p.  57 
 
 with  an  idolatress,  and  the  idolatry  of  the  Banites,  as  not  to  the 
 
 pni-ixise. 
 
 The  investigation  received  quite  a  new  form  in  De  Wette's 
 Essay  o)i  the  state  of  the  ritual  of  the  Israelites,  in  reference 
 to  the  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  his  Beitr.  zur  Einl. 
 Th.  i.  223,  "  Moses,"  he  remarks,  *'  would  have  been  in  a  very 
 unfortunate  and  singular  position,  if  he  had  given  all  the  laws 
 that  are  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch.  Instead  of  the  laws  being 
 at  the  time  of  their  promulgation  strictly  and  conscientiously 
 observed,  and  not  till  a  later  period  falhng  into  obhvion,  or  be- 
 coming superseded  by  others,  it  would  have  been  the  reverse  wdth 
 the  Mosaic  legislation  from  the  beginning.  During  the  lifetime 
 of  the  lawgiver,  and  just  after  his  death,  the  most  important  laws 
 were  neglected,  a  total  silence  respecting  his  book  of  the  law  was 
 succeeded  after  a  thousand  years  by  the  most  punctiHous  obser- 
 vance, the  most  conscientious,  even  superstitious  adherence,  and 
 the  most  zealous  study.  The  neglect  of  the  rehgious  laws  is  pe- 
 cuharly  suspicious,  of  which  we  find  repeated  and  most  striking- 
 instances."  Tliese  examples  are  collected  from  the  history,  and 
 the  collective  result  given  in  p.  254.  They  are  as  follows  : — 
 Until  the  times  of  David  and  Solomon  no  national  sanctuary  was 
 thought  of,  where  alone  Jehovah  might  be  w^jrshipped.  An  un- 
 restrained license  of  worship  prevailed.  The  sacrificial  system 
 was  extremely  simple.  Under  David,  the  worship  first  obtained 
 a  fixed  priestly  institution,  and  we  then  begin  to  find  the  Levites 
 with  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant.  Not  till  the  book  of  the  Law  was 
 discovered  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  was  an  end  put  to  the  state  of 
 unbridled  freedom  and  excess.  Accordingly  the  description  of 
 the  Tabernacle  as  the  national  sanctuary  in  Exodus,  is  a  mere 
 sacred  legend.  The  complicated  system  of  sacrifices  in  Leviticus 
 is  to  be  rejected,  as  the  invention  and  composition  of  later  priests. 
 The  election  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  could  not  have  happened  in  the 
 time  of  Moses  ;  the  book  of  the  law  was  not  in  existence  before 
 the  time  of  Josiah. 
 
 De  Wette's  follower  in  the  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  Ber- 
 tholdt,  rejected  this  argument.  He  remarks  {Einleitung,  p. 
 778),  that  the  conclusion  drawn  from  the  non-observance  of  the 
 law  has  no  greater  validity,  than  if  fi'om  all  those  defects  in  the 
 
PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  '} 
 
 administmtic7n  of  justice  wliich  prcvtiilcd  in  the  middle  ages,  and 
 still  later  at  many  epochs,  in  those  countries  where  the  codes  of 
 Tlieodosius  and  Justinian  were  received,  any  one  should  infer  the 
 non-existence  of  those  collections  of  laws.  This  opposition  certainly 
 does  honour  to  his  freedom  from  prejudice,  yet  w^e  cannot  help 
 perceiving  that  it  was  not  well-founded.  Let  a  person  admit,  as 
 he  does,  the  correctness  of  De  Wette's  alleged  facts,  and  confront 
 them  w^ith  no  others,  then  the  force  of  the  argument  must  be  fully 
 acknowledged.  If  Moses  is  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  if  it 
 was  produced  as  a  sacred  hook  at  the  hegiuning  of  the  nation's 
 existeuce,  under  so  illustrious  a  sanction — abuses  might  arise,  or 
 rather  this  would  needs  be  the  case,  considering  the  pecuhar  cha- 
 racter of  this  book  and  its  relation  to  human  nature.  But  there 
 must  be  at  the  same  time  palpable  marks  by  which  these  abuses 
 could  be  recognised  ;  it  could  be  proved  that  the  pious  in  Israel 
 at  all  times  strictly  adhered  to  the  prescriptions  of  the  book  of  the 
 law ;  and,  in  reference  to  the  whole  nation,  it  might  be  shown, 
 that  along  with  partial  violations  of  the  law,  traces  existed  of  its 
 being  followed  in  important  points  ;  that  the  violations  were  only 
 temporary,  and  checked  from  time  to  time  by  reformations.  Only 
 when  these  requisitions  can  be  satisfied,  can  an  appeal  be  made 
 to  the  state  of  the  Church  in  the  middle  ages  as  a  historical  par- 
 allel. As  long  as  De  AVette's  statement  is  accepted  as  correct, 
 persons  have  no  right  to  appeal  to  this  parallel,  nor  to  that  adduced 
 by  Bertholdt. 
 
 The  remaining  opponents  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch 
 are  all  followers  of  De  Wette,  and  lay  great  stress  on  this  argu- 
 ment. They  supply  themselves  very  freely  from  his  stores,  and 
 have  made  scarcely  the  least  addition  of  any  value  to  them. 
 Compare  Gramberg,  i.  106,  c^c,  Bleek,  Beitr.  zu  der  Forsc- 
 hungen  uher  den  Pe)itateuch,  Stud,  und  Crit.  183 J,  p.  501. 
 Von  Bohlen,  Einleitinf/,  p.  91 ;  Vatke,  p.  254,  kc, 
 
 The  defenders  of  the  genuineness  cannot  be  said  to  have  gone 
 to  the  very  bottom  of  the  subject,  and  Hitzig's  assertion  in  the 
 Studieii  und  Kritikeu  is  not  altogether  without  reason,  that  De 
 Wette's  treatise  has  not  yet  been  refuted.  That  De  Wette 
 liimself  has  still  the  feehng  of  victory,  is  shown  by  the  confidence 
 with  which  he  not  merely  repeats  this  argument  in  his  review  of 
 Vatkes  work  iu  the  Siudie?i  7Jiid  Kritihen,  but  places  it  in  the 
 
 a  2 
 
4  THE  I'ENTATEUCll  AND  THE  TIME  UF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 fore-ground.  "Moses,"  lie  remarks,  "  could  not  be  tlie  author 
 of  the  Pentateuch.  Had  this  been  the  case,  the  disordered  state 
 of  things  in  the  succeeding  age  would  be  an  inexphcable  enigma. 
 An  acquaintance  with  these  laws,  and  a  reverence  for  the  autho- 
 rity of  Moses  would  have  rendered  such  a  state  of  things  impos- 
 sible." See  Jahn  ii.  1,  §  5  ;  Herbst,  §  9  ;  and  EoseNxMuller, 
 jiroll.  p.  10  ;  but  much  more  important  matters  will  be  found  in 
 Mover's   Uhcr  die  Chrofiik,  and  HaVernich,  Einleit.  ii.  554. 
 
 It  is  our  purpose,  having  entered  on  this  investigation,  not  to 
 act  merely  on  the  defensive  ;  the  flicts  of  the  post-Mosaic  history 
 will  furnish  us  with  positive  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Pen- 
 tateuch. It  will  appear,  that  the  j^henomena  of  the  later  history 
 are  only  conceivable  on  the  supposition  of  its  Mosaic  authorship. 
 
 It  appears  advisable  to  fix  certain  limits  to  the  investigation, 
 that  we  may  execute  the  task,  according  to  our  abihty,  so  as  to 
 leave  no  part  unexplored.  There  is  no  room  for  hesitation  as  to  what 
 part  we  should  select.  The  time  of  the  Judges  at  once  presents 
 its  claims  on  our  attention.  If  we  have  this  on  our  side,  all  is 
 gained.  That  the  age  of  Joshua,  as  it  appears  in  the  book  of 
 Joshua,  is  conformable  to  the  Pentateuch,  and  presuj^poses  its  ex- 
 istence, is  allowed.  But  it  is  asserted,  that  this  age  could  not 
 have  been  as  there  represented,  because  then  the  age  of  the  Judges 
 must  have  exhibited  quite  a  different  character.  Now,  if  we  can 
 show  that  the  character  attributed  to  the  age  of  the  Judges  is  not 
 that  which  actually  belongs  to  it,  then  the  age  of  Joshua  is  ours 
 with  that  of  the  Judges.  Further,  if  we  can  prove,  that,  in  the 
 age  of  the  Judges,  (some  abuses  excepted,  which  may  be  clearly 
 shown  to  be  such) ,  the  Mosaic  institutions  were  in  existence,  that 
 everything  in  it  presupposes  the  existence  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  will 
 be  settled  henceforth,  that  all  deviations  from  the  Mosaic  law 
 wliich  occur  at  a  later  period,  must  rest  on  other  grounds  than  the 
 non-existence  of  this  law.  The  direct  consideration  of  tliis  later 
 period  we  may  sooner  dispatch,  since,  in  reference  to  our  present 
 undertaking,  we  have  already  treated,  in  the  preceding  volume, 
 the  most  difficult  part  of  it — the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel. 
 
 But,  before  entering  on  the  special  investigation  relating  to  the 
 period  of  the  Judges,  we  would  premise  a  few  general  observations. 
 
 I.  De  Wette  tliinks  that  the  propensity  of  the  Israelites  to  the 
 worship  of  foreign  gods  is  not  conceivable — if  Moses  had  alreadv 
 
rKELlMINAKV  KEMAKKS.  O 
 
 given  to  a  people  devoted  to  objects  of  sense,  a  ritual  adapted  to 
 tlie  senses — and  if,  from  his  time,  a  whole  tribe  had  existed,  that 
 of  Levi,  whose  entire  interests  were  bound  up  with  the  Mosaic 
 ritual.  It  is  an  easy  matter  to  dazzle  a  sensual  people  by  priestly 
 authority,  and  to  bend  them  under  the  yoke  of  a  hierarchy.  Priests 
 of  all  nations  have  practised  this  with  success.  Why  did  it  not 
 succeed  till  so  late  a  period  with  the  Israelites,  for  whom  the  law- 
 giver himself  had  built  the  steps  of  the  hierarchical  throne,  and 
 who,  by  their  number  and  internal  connection  with  one  another, 
 and  sepai^ation  from  the  other  tribes  as  peculiarly  holy,  must  have 
 wielded  a  powerful  influence  over  the  nation  ?  But  as  to  the 
 ritual,  let  it  be  recollected  that  the  accommodation  to  the  sensual 
 tendencies  of  the  people  "was  solely  in  its  form.  In  its  stihstance, 
 nothing  was  conceded  to  them.  The  principle  of  the  Mosaic  re- 
 ligion, "  Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy,"  pervaded  the  wdiole  ri- 
 tual. On  every  side,  there  were  mementos  of  sin — exhortations 
 to  hohness — threatenings  of  judgment  on  the  rebellious — promises 
 of  salvation  only  on  the  condition  of  hohness.  A  mere  descent  in 
 form,  which,  on  all  occasions,  was  manifestly  designed  to  raise  the 
 people  to  what  was  high  and  spiritual,  would  never  satisfy  a  sin- 
 ful sensuahty.  A  very  different  satisfaction  was  offered  by  the 
 religion  of  the  nations  by  whom  Israel  was  surrounded,  the  pro- 
 duct of  the  spirit  of  the  age,  whose  enormous  power  may  be  more 
 vividly  conceived  than  is  commonly  done,  by  comparing  it  with 
 that  wliich  the  spirit  of  the  age  now  exercises.  Israel,  like  the 
 heathen,  loved  '*  wild  grapes;"  Hosea  iii.  1  ;  (Christologie,  iii. 
 120),  and  these  were  not  supphed,  in  the  religion  of  Jehovah, 
 with  all  the  adaptation  to  the  senses  in  its  ritual.  Joshua  under- 
 stood the  subject  better  than  our  modern  critics  when  he  said  to 
 the  people,  "  Ye  cannot  serve  the  Lord ;  for  he  is  a  holy  God ; 
 he  is  a  jealous  God ;  he  will  not  forgive  your  transgressions, 
 nor  your  sins''  The  tribe  of  Levi  were  unable  completely  to 
 check  the  inclination  to  idolatry  that  was  so  deeply  rooted  in  the 
 people.  Where  priests  have  exercised  such  an  absolute  influence, 
 the  rehgion  of  which  they  were  the  representatives,  had  a  character 
 more  suited  to  the  condition  of  the  natural  man,  which  everywhere 
 presents  a  bate  by  which  it  can  allure  the  people.  Beddes,  all 
 the  arts  by  which  the  priests  of  other  nations  aggrandize  them- 
 selves and  their  divinities,  were  forbidden  to  the  Israehtcs  ;  tlicre 
 
0  THE  I'ENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 was  uo  liierarcliy";  the  inHuence  of  the  priestly  order  depended  on 
 the  good  will  of  the  people.  But,  \Yhat  is  of  the  greatest  moment, 
 the  temptations  to  apostacy  to  which  the  people  w^ere  liable,  were 
 also  powerfully  felt  by  the  priests.  '  Daily  experience  shows,  that 
 even  personal  advantage  and  important  interests  cannot  withstand 
 the  spirit  of  the  age.  Only  he  tvho  is  of  the  truth,  ca7i  power- 
 fully advocate  the  truth.  To  accoimt,  therefore,  for  the  propen- 
 sity of  the  people  to  idolatiy,  we  do  not  require  the  admission  of 
 the  non-existence  of  certain  Mosaic  institutions.  We  must  rather 
 protest  against  such  an  explanation  as  crude  and  superficial. 
 Whoever  has  gained  a  knowledge  of  man  by  means  of  self-know- 
 ledge, and,  at  the  same  time,  understands  the  nature  of  the  Is- 
 raelitish  religion,  will  anticipate  that  the  history  of  that  rehgiou 
 w^ould  present  a  succession  of  apostacies  on  the  part  of  the  people, 
 and  he  will  smile  at  such  assertions  as  those  of  Vatke,  p.  200: 
 "  The  principle  of  the  Old  Testament  has  evinced  its  weakness, 
 since  it  could  not  overpower  the  forces  opposed  to  it  in  the  course 
 of  many  centuries  ;  but  this  weakness  would  be  unintelligible  if 
 the  principle  had  been  fully  formed  ever  since  the  time  of  Moses." 
 As  if  the  Saviour  had  never  spoken  of  "  the  servant  who  knew  his 
 Lord's  will,  and  did  it  not !"  Yet  Yatke  had  said  but  a  little  be- 
 fore, "  Moreover,  the  worship  of  Baal  and  Astarte,  the  productive 
 and  receptive  powers  of  nature,  was  connected  with  the  immediate 
 enjoyment  of  sensual  existence,  and  with  sensual  excesses,  while 
 Jehovah  displayed  a  more  severe  character."  But  this  heartless 
 philosophy  thinks  it  must  look  for  the  chief  cause  of  moral  phe- 
 nomena not  in  the  heart,  but  in  the  head.  Yet  De  Wette  ap- 
 pears more  recently  to  have  acknowledged  the  nulhty  of  all  such 
 superficial  explanations  of  the  propensity  of  the  Israehtes  to  ido- 
 latry. He  remarks,  at  the  close  of  the  notice  of  Yatke 's  work, 
 {Stud,  u,  Krit.  1837,  p.  1003),  that  a  sense  of  guilt,  conscious- 
 ness of  departui'e  from  the  known  will  of  God,  was  a  distinguish- 
 ing pecuHaiity  of  the  Hebrew  nation,  which  is  overlooked  by 
 Vatke.  "  But,  if  we  place  at  the  head  of  their  whole  history  a 
 great  positive  act  of  the  will,  a  legislation  by  which  the  natural 
 development  is  forestalled,  and  its  course  prescribed,  we  account 
 for  the  rise  of  that  discrepancy  and  the  peculiar  tone  and  move- 
 ment of  the  national  character  among  the  Hebrews." 
 
 IT.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  religious  state  of  the  Israelites 
 
PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  7 
 
 was  more  conformable  to  the  literal  prescriptions  of  the  Pentateuch 
 after  the  captivity,  than  he/ore  it.  This  circumstance  our  oppon- 
 ents have  turned  to  their  own  advantage.  They  maintain  that  an 
 end  being  put  to  the  deviations  from  the  Mosaic  legislation  in  an 
 age  when  the  Pentateuch  was  certainly  in  existence,  proves  that 
 before  that  time  it  was  not  in  existence.  Compare  Vater,  §  78  > 
 De  Wette,  Beitrage,  i.  p.  258 ;  Einleitung,  §  162. 
 
 Our  opponents  proceed  on  the  supposition  that  the  problem  in 
 question  can  be  solved  in  no  other  w^ay  than  in  the  one  which  they 
 prefer ;  if  we  can  solve  the  problem  in  another  way  their  argument 
 loses  all  its  force. 
 
 The  change  in  the  Hebrew  nation  was  effected  by  a  concurrence 
 of  a  variety  of  causes,  (i).  The  proportion  of  the  priests  to  the 
 people  among  those  wdio  retm^ned  from  the  captivity  is  very  remark- 
 able ;  of  42,360  persons  wdio  returned  under  Zerubbabel,  not  less 
 than  4,289  were  priests.  (See  Hess  on  the  governors  ofJudah 
 after  the  capticity,  i.  p.  243) .  The  priests  therefore  formed  a  tenth 
 part  of  the  whole.  This  proportion  can  hardly  be  accounted  for 
 by  supposing  that  those  who  w^ere  indisposed  to  the  theocracy  re- 
 mained in  a  heathen  land,  but  that  among  the  priests  the  theocratic 
 disposition  was  in  proportion  much  stronger.  The  contrary  is 
 indicated  by  the  numerical  proportion  of  those  who  returned  to 
 those  who  w^ere  carried  captive,  which  does  not  allow  us  to  suppose 
 that  in  the  captivity  a  large  remnant  were  left  behind.  The  num- 
 ber of  those  who  returned  is  greater  than  of  those  who  were  carried 
 away.  (See  Hess,  p.  242).  The  preponderance  of  the  priests 
 must  rather  have  existed  among  those  who  w^ere  carried  away. 
 It  also  shews  that  the  heathen  conquerors  acknowledged  in  the 
 theocratic  principle  the  peculiar  constitution  and  permanence  of 
 the  nation,  and  hence  took  special  care  to  remove  the  priests  as 
 the  cliief  representatives  of  this  principle.  If  they  took  away  the 
 priests  for  this  reason,  (that  they  were  designedly  taken  out  of  the 
 mass  of  the  population  appears  also  from  the  othei-wise  inexphcable 
 proportion  of  the  Levites  to  the  priests,  the  priests  were  more  tlian 
 twelve  times  as  many  as  the  Levites,  of  whom  there  were  only 
 841),  we  cannot  but  think  that,  in  the  selection  of  the  rest,  they 
 du'ected  their  attention  peculiarly  to  the  theocratic  principle  on 
 which  the  nationality  of  Israel  rested.  Hence  we  are  not  at  liberty 
 to  compare  the  religious  tendency  among  those  who  returned  with 
 
8       THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 that  of  the  whole  people  before  the  captivity,  hut  only  with  the 
 tendency  of  the  better  disposed  part ;  and  hence  it  will  not  answer 
 the  pui'pose  of  indicating  an  essential  difference  in  their  position 
 relative  to  the  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch,     (ii).  The  priests  in 
 the  new  state  must,  by  their  very  numbers,  have  obtained  an  im- 
 portant prejDonderance.     But  their  influence  must  have  been  ren- 
 dered still  greater  from  the  circumstance  that  the  civil  power  was 
 in  the  hands  of  their  heathen  oppressors.     The  Greeks  here  furnish 
 a  remarkable  parallel.     How  among  them  the  authority  of  religion 
 and  of  the  j)riesthood  gained  the  ascendency  during  the  rule  of 
 the  Osmans  has  been  pointed  out  by  Kanke,  [F'drsten  mid  Volker 
 von  Sudeiirojya,  i.  p.  27).     "The  state,"  he  remarks,  "to  wliich 
 the  j)eople  wished  to  belong  w^as  another  than  theirs — it  was  the 
 hierarchy."     To  the  power  of  the  priests  may  be  ascribed  the  rescue 
 of  the  nation  ah ty.     Under  their  guardianship  the  Greeks  have 
 cherished  and  ripened  their  hatred  of  the  Turks,  and  that  peculiar 
 character  which  now  belongs  to  them.     While  before  the  captivity 
 the  theocracy  existed  among  the  Israehtes  without  a  hierarchy, 
 after  the  captivity,  for  the  reasons  we  have  assigned,  the  hierarchy 
 continually  struck  its  roots  deeper  among  them,  and  in  doing  so 
 promoted  an  outward  estabhshment  of  the  legislation  of  the  Pen- 
 tateuch.    The  alteration  was  so  much  the  mare  important,  since, 
 before  the  captivity,  especially  in  the  times  immediately  preceding 
 it,  the  temporal  power  of  idolatry  had  mightily  increased,  (See 
 Verschuir,  De  origine  et  causis  idolatrice  amoris  in  gente  Isr, 
 in  liis  Dissert,  ed.  Lotze,  p.  1 72).     (iii).  On  those  who  were  more 
 or  less  susceptible,  (and  only  with  these- we  have  any  concern), 
 the  national  catastrophe  which  had  been  repeatedly  foretold  in  the 
 law  must,  at  first,  have  made  an  impression,  (See  Deut.  iv.  30, 
 "  When  thou  art  in  tribulation,  and  all  these  thmgs  are  come  upon 
 thee,  if  thou  tm-n  to  the  Lord  thy  God  and  shalt  be  obedient  unto 
 his  voice"),  and  especially  since,  by  the  ministry  of  the  prophets, 
 it  was  brought  home  to  their  consciences  as  a  punishment  for  the 
 violation  of  the  covenant.     With  the  fear  of  the  Lord  thus  awak- 
 ened, there  was  connected  the  hope  that  by  returning  to  him  their 
 vanished  prosperity  would  be  restored,  and  this  hope  would  be 
 nourished  by  the  promises  of  the  same  prophets  whose  thi^eatenings 
 had  been  so  exactly  fulfilled.     It  increased  by  the  proofs  of  their 
 continued  election,  which  the  people  retained  through  the  capti- 
 
PKELIMINARY  REMARKS. 
 
 vity,  and  by  the  beginning  of  its  fulfilment  in  their  freedom  from 
 exile.     The  sufi'erings  which,  through  irrehgion,  had  been  brought 
 upon  the  people,  awakened  an  abhorrence  of  it ;  hatred  against 
 the  heathen,  as  its  natural  consequence,  produced  hatred  against 
 heathenism— just  as  among  ourselves,  in  the  time  of  the  war  of 
 freedom,  hatred  of  the  French  called  forth  a  hatred  of  French  in- 
 fidehty  and  French  immorahty.     TJie  crowd  of  heathen  nations 
 and  rehgions  with  which  the  Israehtes  had  hitherto  been  in  con- 
 nexion had  made  them  mistrustful  in  general  of  worldly  power 
 and  worldly  rehgions.     (iv).  That  the  deep  impression  thus  made 
 at  least  so  far  maintained  itself  that  the  people  never  returned 
 again  to  gross  idolatry;  that,  in  general,  of  the  two  forms  of  un- 
 godliness wliich  before  the  captivity  were  associated,  idolatry  and 
 hijpocrisrj,  {Christologie,  iii.  376),  only  the  latter  was  cultivated, 
 though  the  great  exception  in  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
 must  not  be  passed  over  unnoticed,  in  which  even  the  priests  served 
 the  heathen  idols,  (on  this  subject  see  Suringar,  de  causis  mutati 
 Hehr.  ingenii  jiost  reditum  e  captivitate  Bah.,  Leyden,  1829), 
 may  be  accounted  for  from  the  gradual  decline  of  heathenism. 
 The  leaning  of  the  heathen,  after  tlie  captivity,  to  Judaism,  was 
 closely  connected  with  the  aversion  of  the  Jews  fi^om  heathen- 
 ism,    (v).   Some  weight,  perhaps,  is  also  due  to  the  circumstance 
 that  heathenism  had  become  divided  against  itself;  that  the  Per- 
 sians were  hostile  to  the  gross  Canaanitish  and  Babylonish  idolatry 
 which  had  hitherto  been  such  a  source  of  temptation  to  the  Israef- 
 ites.     By  this  opposition  the  power  of  the  spirit  of  the  age  was 
 broken.     Still  the  admission  of  such  an  effect  of  Parseism  rests 
 only  on  probabihty.     But,  at  all  events,  we  cannot  go  so  far  as 
 to  suppose  that  the  Jews,  by  the  reception  of  Persian  notions  of 
 religion,  were  freed  fi^om  gross  idolatry,  which  Vatke,  (p.  557) 
 maintains.      On  the  contrary  Jahn  remarks,   {Arch.  iii.   158), 
 "Also   after  Alexander,   when  idolatry    and    gross   superstition 
 formed  again  the  religion  of  the  rulers  of  Asia,  they  persisted 
 steadfastly  in  their  rehgion."     That  Parseism  produced  no  effect 
 on  the  rehgious  practice  of  the  Jews  has  been  already  pointed 
 out  in  the  Introduction  to  Daniel ;  and  since  then  the  subject 
 has  been  more  clearly  understood ;  for,  by  the  investigations  of 
 Stuhr,  Zerdusht,  and  the  rehgious  system  promulgated  by  him, 
 have  been  brought  down  to  the  age  of  Darius  Hystaspes— the 
 
10  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 antiquity  and  genuineness  of  the  written  monuments  of  this  re- 
 ligion have  been  called  in  question,  and  it  has  been  made  probable 
 that  the  doctrines  common  to  the  Persians  and  the  Jews  passed 
 over  to  the  former  from  the  latter. 
 
 We  believe  that  our  task  is  now  performed,  that  we  have  she-^n 
 that  the  alteration  in  the  national  mind  of  the  Israelites  after  the 
 captivity  may  be  satisfactorily  accounted  for  without  making  use 
 of  the  method  of  explanation  preferred  by  our  opponents.  Where, 
 moreover,  we  may  ask,  in  all  history  has  an  alteration  of  the  na- 
 tional mind  been  brought  about  by  a  hterary  forgery  ?  Does  the 
 relation  of  the  times  of  the  Eeformation  to  the  middle  ages  rest 
 upon  such  outward  accidents  ? 
 
 III.  Although,  as  has  been  abeady  remarked,  we  do  not  pro- 
 pose to  present  the  evidence /br  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  legis- 
 lation in  the  time  of  Joshua,  which  the  book  of  Joslma  furnishes, 
 yet  it  appears  necessary  to  examine  the  evidence  which  has  been 
 brought  against  it  from  that  book  as  witnesses  against:  itself, 
 which  might  have  escaped  the  author. 
 
 There  are  two  statements  in  the  book  of  Joshua  which  it  has 
 been  thought  cannot  harmonize  with  the  existence  and  authority 
 of  the  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch — the  account  of  the  last  as- 
 sembhng  of  the  people  under  Joshua  at  the  "  sanctuary  of  the 
 Lord"  at  Shechem,  and  the  notice  respecting  the  neglect  of  cir- 
 cumcision during  the  march  through  the  wilderness. 
 
 i.  "  Already  under  Joshua,"  Bleek  remarks  {Stud.  ti.  Crit. 
 1831,  p.  503.  Compare  De  Wette  p.  228),  ''who  had  indi- 
 cated the  site  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  to  be  Shiloh,  we  find 
 the  city  of  Shechem  treated  by  Joshua  himself  as  a  place  of  the 
 sanctuary  of  Jehovah,"  xxiv.  1,  26.  The  difficulty  occasioned  by 
 this  passage  is  of  ancient  date.  The  LXX.  have  in  Josh.  xxiv.  1, 
 ''  And  Joshua  gathered  all  the  tribes  of  Israel" — instead  of  "to 
 Shechem,''  eh  ^7]\co.  The  difficulty  lies  not  in  the  expression 
 *'  they  presented  themselves  before  God,"  for  we  shall  show  in 
 the  section  on  the  holy  places  in  the  period  of  the  Judges,  that 
 "  before  God"  contained  in  itself  no  reference  to  an  outward  sanc- 
 tuary ;  it  marks  only  the  religious  character  of  the  act  or  transac- 
 tion. The  difficulty  is  simply  in  the  mention  of  the  sanctuary 
 ^:R^,  in  ver.  26.  ''And  Joshua  wrote  these  words  in  the  book  of 
 the  law  of  God,  and  took  a  great  stone,  and  set  it  up  there  under 
 
PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  1 1 
 
 an  oak,  that  was  by  the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah."  Jewish  exposi- 
 tors have  endeavoured  to  solve  it  by  supposing,  that  by  the  sanc- 
 tuary is  to  be  understood  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  or  even  the 
 whole  tabernacle  brought  from  Shiloh  to  Shechem ;  and  to  this 
 supposition  Maurer  has  given  his  assent  (p.  179).  But  it  ap- 
 pears altogether  inadmissible.  It  is  very  suspicious  that  nothing 
 is  said  of  a  temporary  transfer  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  or  the 
 tabernacle  to  Shechem,  which  must  have  taken  place  if  the  author 
 meant  to  refer  to  it  under  the  term  "  sanctuary."  But,  what  is 
 still  more  decisive,  the  author  means  to  give  the  exact  locality  of 
 the  memorial.  But  how  could  the  Ark  of  the  Tabernacle  serve 
 to  indicate  tliis,  which  perhaps  on  the  next  day  might  be  taken 
 away  ?  How  also,  if  we  understand  by  -rnpss  the  ark  or  the  taber- 
 nacle, could  the  oak  be  in  ^  the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah  ?  But 
 this  circumstance  that  the  oak  was  i/i  the  sanctuary  is  decisive 
 against  those  who  by  tonp)2  understand  a  sanctuary  which  stood 
 near  the  tabernacle  ;  it  does  not  allow  us  to  take  taip^  for  a  build- 
 ing, and  thus  leads  us  to  a  solution  of  the  difficulty,  wliich  is 
 principally  occasioned  by  associating  the  idea  of  a  building  with 
 tt;^p^,  an  error  from  which  Masius  kept  himself  free,  who  remarks, 
 "  F(/o  vero  aiiguror  sacrarium  Domini  eum  did  locum,  quern 
 Abraham,  jposita  apiid  istam  arhorem  ara,  et  facta  re  divina, 
 primumin  omnia  Cananoia  consecraverat,  cum  illic  laetissi 
 mum  ilium  a  Deo  nuntium  acceinsset,  prorsus  similiter  atque 
 a  Jacoho  locus  ille  est  Bethel,  domus  Dei  nuncupatus  in  qua 
 ipse primum  divina  visa  vidisset.  On  a  nearer  examination  the 
 matter  stands  thus.  The  place  of  the  Jirst  assembling  which 
 Joshua  convened  in  the  x^rospect  of  his  death,  is  not  specified. 
 For  that  reason  it  must  have  been  Shiloh,  For  this  place  Vvdiich 
 first  came  into  notice,  owing  to  the  sanctuary  (compare  Bachiene 
 ii.  3,  p.  408),  appears  from  that  time  (Josh,  xviii.  1),  to  the 
 death  of  Joshua  as  the  central  point  of  the  nation  (compare  the 
 passages  in  Bachiene,  p.  412).  Moreover,  there  is  probably 
 an  allusion  to  the  name  Shiloh  in  Joshua  xxiii  I,  compared  with 
 xviii.  1.  That  a  second  gathering  should  be  called,  can  hardly 
 be  explained  on  any  other  than  a  local  gi'ound,  that  the  locahty  of 
 the  second  gathering  being  sanctified  by  recollections  of  the  past, 
 would  excite  an  interest  in  the  people  wliich  would  be  wanting  at 
 Shiloh,  a  place  destitute  of  such  associations.    How  slight  a  reason 
 
12  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 there  was  in  the  matter  itself,  appears  from  the  effort  of  many 
 expositors  (to  whom  a  local  reason  never  occurred),  out  of  two 
 gatherings  to  make  only  one,  an  effort  so  strong,  that  they  have 
 not  hesitated  to  do  manifest  violence  to  the  text.  Now  why 
 Shechem  was  chosen  for  this  purpose,  is  evident  from  the  undenia- 
 ble reference  in  Joshua  xxiv.  23,  ("  Now  therefore  put  away  the 
 strange  gods  that  are  among  you  ;"  and  ver.  26,  "  And  he  took 
 a  great  stone  and  set  it  up  there,  under  an  oak  which  was  in  the 
 sanctuary  of  the  Lord")  to  Gen.  xxxv.  2-4.  "  Then  Jacob  said 
 unto  his  household,  and  to  all  that  were  with  him,  put  away  the 
 strange  gods  that  are  among  you,  and  be  clean,  and  change  your 
 garments.  .  .  .  And  they  gave  unto  Jacob  all  tlie  strange 
 gods,  and  Jacob  hid  them  under  the  oak  which  was  by  Shechem." 
 The  exhortation  to  fidelity  towards  the  Lord,  to  purification  from 
 all  idolatrous  practices,  must  have  made  a  peculiarly  deep  impres- 
 sion in  the  place  where  their  venerated  progenitor  had  dojie,  what 
 is  here  enjoined  upon  his  descendants  ;  the  remembrance  of  that 
 event  addressed  them  here  in  more  impressive  tones  than  it  could 
 on  any  other  spot.  Jacob  chose  the  neighbourhood  of  the  oak 
 at  Shechem  for  the  solemn  act,  because  it  had  been  rendered  sacred 
 by  Abraham.  The  passage  in  Gen.  xxxv.  4,  points  to  Gen.  xii. 
 6,  7,  according  to  which  Abraham  under  this  oak  was  honoured 
 with  the  first  appearance  of  God  on  his  arrival  in  Canaan,  and 
 here  he  erected  his  first  altar.  Joshua  chose  the  same  place,  par- 
 ticularly on  account  of  its  consecration  by  what  Jacob  had  there 
 performed,  but  perhaps  equally  with  a  reference  to  its  first  conse- 
 cration by  Abraham  ;  in  the  time  of  the  Judges  we  find  the  cele- 
 brity of  the  place  heightened  by  an  association  connected  with 
 the  memorial  of  this  solemn  gathering  under  Joshua  (Judges  ix. 
 to  be  noticed  in  the  sequel).  Tlie  sanctuary  is  no  other  than  the 
 open  space  under  this  memorable  oak.  There  were  in  Canaan  as 
 many  sanctuaries  of  God  in  this  sense  as  there  were  places,  with 
 wliich  recollections  of  the  patriarchal  age  were  associated.  How 
 little  the  existence  of  sanctuaries  in  this  sense,  infringed  on  the 
 law  respecting  the  unity  of  the  national  sanctuary,  we  shall  shew 
 more  fiilly  in  the  section  on  the  holy  places  in  the  time  of  the 
 Judges.  A  violation  of  that  law  would  have  been  committed  only 
 by  the  offering  of  sacrifices  at  Shechem,  but  nothing  of  the  kind  is 
 here  mentioned. 
 
PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  13 
 
 ii.  But  again  ;  one  of  the  principal  laws,  that  of  circumcisionj 
 it  is  said,  was  not  enforced  during  the  march  through  the  wilder- 
 ness, according  to  Joshua  v.  2-7.  The  uncircumcision  of  some 
 would  occasion  no  difficulty ;  but  since,  in  Joshua  v.  5,  it  is  said, 
 "■  all  the  people  that  were  horn  in  the  wilderness  by  the  way,  as 
 they  came  forth  out  of  Egypt,  them  they  had  not  circumcised" — 
 this  is,  indeed,  a  phiin  proof,  that,  in  the  second  year  of  the  Ex- 
 odus, all  the  laws  could  not  have  been  so  given  and  written  down 
 as  they  are  represented  in  Exodus  and  Leviticus.  Thus  Vater 
 remarks,  following  Nachtigal,  §  78.  This  objection,  hke  so 
 many  others,  has  already  been  suggested  by  the  older  theologians. 
 (See  BuDDEUS,  Hist.  Eccles.  i.  p.  80G.)  Most  of  them  (Cal- 
 vin had  in  vain  not  only  stated  but  proved  the  correct  view), 
 sought  for  the  ground  of  the  omission  of  the  rite  in  the  inconve- 
 niences and  dangers  which  must  have  attended  circumcision  in  the 
 march  through  the  wilderness.  If  Gen.  xvii.  was  in  existence — 
 had  the  view  of  circmncision,  which  is  there  presented,  taken  root 
 among  the  people,  circumcision  could  not  have  been  omitted  on 
 so  slender  a  ground,  which  is  more  plainly  such,  because  the  Is- 
 raehtes  were  by  no  means  always  marching,  but  frequently  re- 
 mained for  a  long  time  at  one  place.  If  the  law  was  in  existence, 
 and  promulged,  in  which  the  punishment  of  excommunication  was 
 annexed  for  the  neglect  of  circumcision,  then  certainly  Calvin's 
 remark  would  hold  good,  "  Ohsignatio  foederis,  qua  recipiehan- 
 tur  in  ecclesiam,  centum  vitis  erat  pretiosior!'  The  inability 
 of  those  who  proceeded  on  the  supposition  of  the  genuineness  of 
 the  Pentateuch,  to  explain  the  facts  under  consideration,  have  oc- 
 casioned others  to  accept  this  inability  as  one  of  the  proofs  against 
 the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch.  But,  by  admitting  that  the 
 obligation  of  circumcision  had,  at  that  time,  taken  no  firm  root 
 among  the  Israelites,  we  ai'e  only  involved  in  fr^esh  and  inextrica- 
 ble difficulties.  For,  (i.)  it  is  said,  in  Joshua  v.  2,  "  Circumcise 
 again  the  children  of  Israel  the  second  time"  which  implies,  that, 
 at  an  earlier  period,  all  the  people  had  been  circumcised.  This  is 
 also  expressly  said  in  ver.  5,  "  All  the  people  that  came  out  were 
 circumcised."  (ii.)  That  the  circumcision  w^as  performed  with 
 stone  knives  shows  the  high  antiquity  of  the  practice.  (See 
 Maurer.)  (iii.)  But  what  is  the  main  point,  the  circumstances 
 under  w^iich  Joshua  undertook  the  performance  of  circumcision, 
 
14     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 show  how  vivid,  at  that  time,  was  the  sense  of  its  sacredness,  how 
 nugatory  that  explanation  which  seeks  the  ground  of  omission  in 
 its  non-sacred  character.  Yet  Bauer  {Geschichte  der  Heh.  ii, 
 10)  makes  the  excessive  opinion  of  its  sacredness  a  reproach  to 
 Joshua,  "  One  might  have  expected,  that  he  would,  have  at  once 
 attacked  the  terrified  inhabitants  of  Canaan ;  instead  of  that,  he 
 occupied  his  host  with  religious  ceremonies,  with  circumcision. 
 All  this  time  the  whole  army  were  incapable  of  using  their  wea- 
 pons, and  warding  off  the  attacks  of  their  enemies.  To  such  dan- 
 ger Joshua  exposed  himself  and  his  people  from  his  sacred  zeal !" 
 
 We  now  present  our  own  view.  Circumcision  was  not  omitted 
 throughout  the  lohole  of  the  march,  but  only  from  the  time  when 
 the  exclusion  of  the  existing  generation  from  the  promised  land 
 was  declared.  It  was  the  external  manifestation  of  the  curse. 
 Where  the  covenant  was  suspended,  there  also  the  signs  and  sa- 
 crament of  the  covenant  could  no  longer  be  administered. 
 
 The  objections  to  this  view  may  be  easily  disposed  of,  (i.)  It  is 
 expressly  said,  that  circumcision  was  omitted  during  the  whole 
 forty  years'  march  through  the  wilderness.  But  "forty  years'' 
 are  elsewhere  used  as  a  round  number  instead  of  the  thirty-eight 
 which,  it  is  generally  reckoned,  passed  from  the  rejection  of  the 
 children  of  Israel  to  their  entrance  into  Canaan,  (ii.)  Other 
 marks  of  the  Divine  favour  were  left  to  the  people,  such  as  the  pre- 
 sence of  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  of  fire,  the  manna,  &c.  To  this 
 objection,  Calvin  has  admirably  replied  :  Ita  in  una  parte  ex- 
 communicatus  fait  populus  ;  adminiciclis  tamen  idoneis  inter ea 
 suhtevatus  est,  ne  desperaret.  Quern  ad  modiun  si  pater  jilio 
 infensus  piKjnam  attollat,  acsi  vellet  procul  ahigere,  et  tamen 
 altera  manii  donii  eum  retineat ;  minis  terreat  ac  verherihus, 
 nolet  tamen  a  se  discedere.  (iii).  This  punishment  would  not 
 affect  the  fathers,  whom  God  sentenced  to  perish,  but  the  sons  to 
 whom  he  had  promised  his  favour.  But  every  thing  depended 
 on  this,  that  the  administration  of  the  sacrament  of  the  covenant 
 ceased  among  the  people.  By  this  means,  those  who  outwardly 
 professed  the  sign  were  reminded  that  their  Treptro/jbri,  on  which 
 they  might  otherwise  pride  themselves,  was  become  aKpo/Svo-rla. 
 Could  the  outward  sign  of  the  covenant  have  been  taken  away 
 from  the  fathers,  this  also  would  have  been  done.  We  say,  this 
 also ;  for  then  also,  the  sons  probably  would  not  have  been  cir- 
 
PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  15 
 
 cumcised.  God  would  not  allow  any  thing  of  covenant-relation 
 to  be  enjoyed  by  them,  since  he  had  excluded  the  fathers  from  it, 
 but  he  promises  his  return  for  the  future.  As  long  as  the  new 
 generation  were  yet  outwardly  connected  with  the  old,  they  were 
 also  inwardly  connected  with  it ;  they  were  not  yet  fitted  and  ripe 
 for  the  covenant,  therefore  not  fitted  and  ripe  to  receive  the  sign 
 of  the  covenant. 
 
 On  the  other  hand  there  are  very  w^eighty  reasons  in  favour  of 
 our  view,  (i.)  The  reason  why  Joshua  now  undertook  the  cir- 
 cumcision is  expressly  given  in  ver.  4-7 ;  the  rebelhous  and  re- 
 jected generation,  during  whose  continuance  circumcision  could 
 not  be  practised,  were  dead,  so  that  now  the  Lord  could  enter 
 into  a  new  covenant-relation  with  the  new  generation.  Herein 
 we  have  at  the  same  time  the  ground  of  the  omission  of  the  rite 
 hitherto.  But  as  such,  it  reaches  not  as  far  back  as  the  departure 
 from  Egypt,  but  only  to  the  Divine  decree  of  rejection,  (ii.) 
 Only  by  this  view  can  we  explain  the  parallel  omission  of  the 
 Feast  of  the  Passover,  which  equally  lasted  from  the  second  year 
 of  their  march  till  the  entrance  into  Canaan,  (iii.)  Only  by  this 
 view  can  the  language  of  Jehovah  in  Josh.  v.  9,  be  explained, 
 "  Tins  day  have  I  rolled  away  the  reproach  of  Egypt  from  off 
 you."  What  we  are  to  understand  by  the  reproach  of  Egypt," 
 s'^fj^  !ns;^h  ig  clear  from  such  passages  as  Exod.  xxxii.  12, 
 "  Wherefore  should  the  Egyptians  speak  and  say,  for  mischief 
 did  he  bring  them  out,  to  slay  them  in  the  mountains,  and  to  con- 
 sume them  from  the  face  of  the  earth."  Num.  xiv.  13  ;  ix.  28. 
 Accordingly,  the  reproach  of  Egypt  is  tantamount  to,  the  reproach 
 wliich  is  cast  upon  you  by  the  Egyptians  ;  na^h  with  a  genitive  fol- 
 lowing of  the  persons  from  whom  the  reproach  proceeds,  is  found 
 in  Zeph.  ii.  8,  ^t^  ^^ ;  Neh.  v.  9,  ^T^^.  J^?^^ ;  Is.  li.  7  ;  Lam.  iii. 
 61,  &c.  Compare  the  circumlocution  of  the  Stat,  constr.  in 
 Ps.  Ixxiv.  22,  K^r^.'^  ^r^.  The  matter  of  their  scoffing  is  the 
 rejection  which  is  indicated  by  God's  command  to  omit  the  cir- 
 cumcision. The  renewed  practice  of  circumcision  is  regarded  as 
 a  practical  declaration  of  the  restoration  of  the  covenant,  and  thus 
 putting  a  stop  to  the  scoffing  of  the  heathen  which  was  based  on 
 its  cessation.  If  the  circumcision  had  been  omitted  for  merely 
 external  and  circumstantial  reasons,  and  because  much  stress  was 
 not  laid  upon  it,  it  could  not  have  been  q"^^^^  rs*h. 
 
1(3  THE  VENTATEUCH   AND  l^iE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 Vi'om  tlie  preceding  reasoning,  it  appears  that  the  oniissiou  of 
 eireimieision  during  the  march  tlirough  the  wilderness,  so  far  from 
 heing  an  evidence  against  the  existence  of  the  view  presented  of 
 it  in  the  Pentateuch,  rather  necessarily  presupposes  it.  It  shows 
 that  circumcision  was  already,  at  that  time,  the  liighest  dignity ; 
 that  it  had  from  the  first,  theocratically,  the  meaning  given  it  in 
 the  law,  not  some  kind  of  use  belonging  to  natural  rehgion,  but 
 was  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant.  But  with  circumcision, 
 the  history  also  ceases  of  which  Israel  w^as  the  subject ;  not  as  a 
 people  generally,  but  only  as  the  people  of  God ;  a  dignity  of 
 which  the  loss  was  signified  by  the  cessation  of  circumcision. 
 Thus  as  according  to  Gen.  xvii.  14,  the  cutting  off  from  the  cove- 
 nant was  a  consequence  of  the  omission  of  circumcision,  so  w^as 
 the  omission  of  circumcision  a  necessary  consequence  of  being 
 cut  off  from  the  covenant,  or  of  the  Divine  sentence  of  rejection. 
 
 After  these  preliminary  observations,  we  turn  to  our  special 
 task,  namely,  to  determine  the  relation  of  the  time  of  the  Judges 
 to  the  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch. 
 
 It  is  here,  above  all  things,  necessary  that  we  should  cleaiiy 
 discrimiriate  the  general  character  of  the  chief  historical  authority 
 for  the  period  in  question — the  Book  of  Judges;  more  especially 
 since,  in  this  respect,  our  opponents  have  shown  themselves  very 
 negligent ;  even  at  an  earlier  period,  wiien  this  book  was  treated 
 with  external  respect,  the  character  of  the  period  of  the  Judges 
 was,  in  a  religious  point  of  view,  partly  falsified ;  and  thus  a 
 foundation  was  laid  for  the  attacks  on  the  Pentateuch  from  this 
 quarter. 
 
 The  Book  of  Judges  is  not  a  complete  representation  of  the 
 history  of  the  times  with  which  it  is  occupied.  Such  a  represen- 
 tation would  not  find  a  place  in  the  collection  of  sacred  writings. 
 The  times  of  the  Judges  formed  no  new  sera  in  the  development 
 of  the  people  of  God*  —at  their  close  a  new  one  did  appear  un- 
 
 *  It  presents,  in  many  respects,  a  similai'ity  to  tlie  forty  years'  march  tbrougli  the 
 wilderness.  It  also  is  to  be  considered  as  a  time  of  trial.  The  evident  signs  of  the 
 Divine  favour,  such  as  were  shown  in  Joshua's  time,  were  gradually  withdrawn — the 
 people  were  left  more  to  their  own  natural  development,  that  they  might  leoi-n  to  know 
 themselves  more  thoroughly. 
 
PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  17 
 
 under  David  and  Sulomon.  We  have  here  merely  to  do  with  an 
 interval,  Avhich  is  only  of  importance  for  sacred  history  considered 
 under  one  certain  aspect.  This  aspect  the  author  steadily  con- 
 templates, and  communicates  only  those  facts  which  servo  to 
 illustrate  it.  As  to  whatever  does  not  strictly  helong  to  it,  we 
 must  not  desire  or  expect  from  him  more  than  incidental  dis- 
 closures ;  and  so  the  aryumeyitum  a  silentio  is  hereft  of  all  its 
 value.  The  most  important  lesson,  ever  present  to  the  Author's 
 mind,  is  one  which  makes  this  period  peculiarly  instructive  to 
 all  succeeding  ages — the  intimate  connection  hctween  departure 
 from  the  Lord  and  miseiy,  and  between  return  to  the  Lord  and 
 well-being.  What  Rothe  says  of  the  history  of  Christianity  ap- 
 plies also  to  the  Israelidsh  history.  ""  In  the  course  of  history, 
 we  observe  Christianity  in  a  twofold  form  ;  as  a  principle  belong- 
 ing to  the  general  history  of  the  w^orld,  and  as  an  ecclesiastical, 
 religious  principle  ;  and  hence,  in  the  history  after  Christ,  a  two- 
 fold course  of  development  arises — one  of  general  history,  and 
 another  of  the  Church  as  a  religious  community.  Both  courses 
 run  parallel  to  one  another,  so  that  history  divides  itself  into  two 
 branches — the  history  of  the  world  as  affected  by  Christianity, 
 and  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church."  Of  these  two  streams, 
 the  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges  traces  in  preference  the  na- 
 tional history  of  Israel,  as  the  author  of  the  Chronicles,  who,  in 
 this  respect,  forms  a  direct  contrast  to  him,  traces  the  religious  or 
 Church  liistory.  The  position  of  the  Israehtish  State  to  the 
 Lord,  and  of  the  Lord  to  the  State,  is  the  object  on  which  his  at- 
 tention is  fixed. 
 
 That  this  is  really  the  character  and  tendency  of  the  Book  of 
 Judges,  may  be  argued  on  the  following  gi'ounds.  (I.)  The  au- 
 thor liimself,  in  the  Introduction  (ch.  i.  and  ii.),  professes  to  de- 
 scribe the  history  of  the  times  of  the  Judges  only  from  one  point 
 of  view.  He  aims  to  point  out  the  working  of  the  law  of  re- 
 tribution during  this  period.  The  poles  on  which  his  narrative 
 turns  are,  apostacy  and  punishment,  repentance  and  deliver- 
 ance— the  same  on  which  prophecy  revolves.  With  this  announce- 
 ment, the  sequel  in  the  main  body  of  the  work  agrees,  ch.  iii.  l^. 
 The  same  circle  regularly  returns,  and  in  part  with  the  same 
 phraseology.  Here  and  there  only  the  representation  widens,  and 
 the  main  object  is  rendered  less  prominent ;  as,  for  instance,  in 
 
 VOL.    II.  B 
 
18     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 ch.  ix.  and  the  history  of  Samson.  But  there,  also,  the  prophe- 
 tic tendency  is  always  discernihle ;  there,  likewise,  the  attention 
 of  the  writer  is  chiefly  directed  to  the  operation  of  the  law  of  re- 
 tribution, though  not  as  elsewhere  in  the  general  history  of  the 
 people,  but  as  exemplified  in  remarkable  individuals.  (2.)  The  size 
 of  the  Book  of  Judges,  in  relation  to  the  time  it  occupies,  and 
 compared,  for  instance,  with  the  Books  of  Samuel,  shows  how 
 little  it  was  the  author's  design  to  write  a  complete  history  of  the 
 times.  (3.)  That  the  author  only  intended  to  illustrate  a  histo- 
 rical principle,  appears  from  a  comparison  of  the  two  Appendices 
 with  the  main  substance  of  the  book.  If  the  author  pursued  in 
 this  a  general  historical  object,  why  did  he  not  insert  the  Appen- 
 dices where  the  events  they  narrated  would  chronologically  be- 
 long ?  The  Appendices,  at  the  same  time,  show  that  the  scanti- 
 ness of  the  narrative  in  the  other  portions  proceeded,  not  from 
 want  of  materials,  but  from  an  intentional  self-hmitation  on  the 
 part  of  the  historian.  Here,  where  that  intention  does  not  inter- 
 fere, we  find  events  which  belong  to  the  first  period  of  the  Judges, 
 the  recollection  of  which  would  therefore  be  the  first  to  decay, 
 with  a  fulness,  an  exactness,  that  descends  to  the  minutest  de- 
 tails ;  this  proves  what  the  author  could  have  done  for  the  whole 
 period,  if  he  had  been  disposed  to  have  communicated  more  than 
 he  has;  and  in  applying  to  him  the  argiimenUim  a  silentio,  the 
 greatest  circumspection  is  requisite.  This  argument,  drawn  from 
 the  Appendices,  will  indeed  lose  something  of  its  weight,  if,  ac- 
 cording to  the  opinion  of  some  modern  critics,  the  Appendices  did 
 not  proceed  from  the  author  of  the  book  itself.  But  here  the 
 passion  for  fragment-making  has  done  violence  to  the  manifest 
 connexion  of  the  parts.  The  Appendices  are  joined  to  the  body 
 of  the  work  by  an  "  And  it  came  to  pass,"  and  the  identity  of  the 
 author  is  indicated  by  the  almost  verbal  agreement  of  ch.  xx.  18 
 ("  And  the  children  of  Israel  arose  and  went  up  to  the  house  of 
 God,  and  asked  counsel  of  God,  and  said,  wdiich  of  us  shall 
 go  up  first  to  the  battle  against  the  children  of  Benjamin  ? 
 And  the  Lord  said,  Judah  shall  go  up  first")  with  ch.  i.  1,  2 
 (  "  And  the  children  of  Israel  asked  the  Lord,  saying,  who  shall 
 go  up  for  us  against  the  Canaanites  first,  to  fight  against  them  ? 
 And  the  Lord  said,  Judah  shall  go  up " ) ;  the  word  py"  is 
 common  to  both  (that  is,   to  the  Appendices  and  to  the  work 
 
PRELIMINARY  RKiMARKS.  10 
 
 itself)  in  the  sense  oi  (fathering  together ;  also  the  phrase  a^^a^^ 
 ->3^»^  (xi.  40,  xsi.  19),  on  which  we  shall  remark  in  the  sequel ; 
 and  which  only  occurs,  besides,  once  in  Exodus  (xiii.  10),  and 
 twice  in  1  Samuel  (i.  3,  ii.  19).  As  to  the  internal  pecuharities, 
 we  find  in  the  Appendices  the  same  tendency  to  refer  to  the  ope- 
 ration of  the  Divine  retribution — a  similar  turning  to  the  dark 
 side— the  same  indifference  to  chronological  exactness. 
 
 4.  An  instance  of  a  very  important  fact,  wliich  the  author  must 
 necessarily  mention,  if  he  designed  to  give  a  general  history, 
 meets  us  in  1  Sam.  ii.  30,  where,  in  the  address  of  the  man  of  God 
 to  Eh,  the  transference  of  the  higii-priesthood  from  the  family  of 
 Eleazar  to  that  of  Ithamar  is  touched  upon,  which,  according  to 
 that  passage,  would  take  place  under  very  remarkable  circum- 
 stances, and  is  moreover  supposed  to  be  universally  known  ;  yet 
 of  all  this  not  a  word  is  said  in  the  Book  of  Judges. 
 
 5.  Great  hght  is  tlu'own  on  the  character  of  the  Book  of 
 Judges,  by  the  correct  determination  of  the  chronology  of  this 
 period,  as  Keil  has  laid  it  down,  after  earher  labourers  (among 
 whom  ViTRiNGA,  in  his  hijpotyposis  hist,  sacrae,  p.  29,  sqq.,  is 
 the  most  distinguished),  in  his  Essay,  Chronologische  Untersu- 
 chung  iiher  die  Jahre,  welche  vom  Auszuge  de  Israeliten  au^ 
 Mgypten  his  zur  Erhauimg  des  Tempels  verflossen  sind,  in  the 
 Dorpat  Beitrdgen  zu  d.  theolog.  Wiss.  ii.  Hamburg,  1843,  p. 
 303.  The  results  obtained  are  the  following.  The  oppression  of 
 the  Philistines,  spoken  of  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  was  contempo- 
 rary with  that  of  the  Ammonites.  Its  duration  is  Hmited  to  forty 
 years  in  the  Book  of  Judges.  But  these  forty  years  must  extend 
 beyond  the  events  which  are  recorded  in  tliis  book.  For  Samson, 
 with  whose  death  the  book  closes,  could  only  have  begun  to  re- 
 deem Israel,  ch.  xiii.  5  ("  And  he  shall  begin  to  deliver  Israel 
 out  of  the  hand  of  the  Phihstines"),  compared  with  1  Sam.  iv.  3, 
 "  he  judged  Israel,  in  the  days  of  the  Phihstines,  twenty  years," 
 Judges  XV.  20.  When  he  died,  the  power  of  the  Phihstines  was 
 still  unbroken  ;  his  deeds  were  rather  proofs  that  God  was  able 
 to  redeem  his  people  Israel — prophecies  of  future  salvation — than 
 the  means  of  actually  effecting  this  deliverance.  In  the  Books  of 
 Samuel  we. find  ourselves  again  on  the  same  ground  where  we 
 were  left  by  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges.  In  ch.  iv.  we  find 
 the  Philistines   at  war  with  the  Israelites,  and  the  misfortunes  of 
 
 B  2 
 
20  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 the  latter  readied  tlieir  extreme  point,  by  the  capture  of  the  Ark 
 of  the  Covenant — a  catastrophe  that  caused  the  death  of  Eli. 
 That  the  oppressions  of  the  Philistines,  of  which  this  conflict 
 made  a  part,  was  the  same  that  is  noticed  in  the  Book  of  Judges, 
 there  can  he  no  doubt.  If  it  were  not  so,  in  the  one  case  the  end, 
 in  the  other  the  beginning,  w^ould  be  wanting.  But  the  oppres- 
 sion of  the  PhiUstines,  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Samuel,  con- 
 tinued about  twenty  years  after  that  catastrophe.  It  was  brought 
 to  a  close  by  that  great  victory  which  the  Lord  granted  to  Israel, 
 after  the  nation,  under  the  influence  of  Samuel,  had  returned  to 
 him  in  sincerity,  1  Sam.  vii.  14.  According  to  this  calculation, 
 of  the  forty  years  of  Eli's  priesthood,  the  last  twenty  fell  within 
 the  period  of  the  Philistines'  oppression.  The  last  twenty  years 
 of  the  Philistines'  oppression,  of  which  no  particulars  are  given 
 in  the  Books  of  Samuel,  w^ere  occupied  by  Samson's  achievements, 
 as  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Judges.  According  to  ch.  xiii.  5,  the 
 Phihstines  domineered  over  Israel  at  the  time  of  Samson's  birth. 
 While  yet  a  youth,  according  to  ch.  xiv.  4,  he  began  his  heroic 
 career.  Assuming  him  to  have  been  at  this  time  twenty  years 
 old,  the  end  of  his  judgeship  bordered  on  the  beginning  of 
 Samuel's  judgeship,  which  was  founded  on  the  decisive  victory  over 
 the  Phihstines.  Thus  all  the  events  are  harmoniously  aiTanged. 
 Through  the  space  of  twenty  years,  the  second  half  of  Eli's  pon- 
 tificate, Israel  was  oppressed ;  at  the  end  of  this  period,  their  for- 
 tunes were  sunk  to  the  lowest  ebb,  by  the  capture  of  the  Ark  of  the 
 Covenant.  Erom  that  point  they  began  to  rise  again.  Eor  twenty 
 years  Samson  caused  the  PhiUstines  to  feel  the  superior  power  of 
 the  God  of  Israel ;  this  w^as  closely  followed  by  the  reforming 
 ministry  of  Samuel,  as  the  precursor  of  a  lasting  and  complete 
 victory,  which  took  place  soon  after  Samson's  death.  The  hope 
 of  Israel,  which  seemed  entombed  at  Samson  s  decease,  gloriously 
 revived  wdth  Samuel.  The  Eirst  Book  of  Samuel  resumes  the 
 narrative  where  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges  had  di'opped  it, 
 towards  the  end  of  the  forty  yeai's  of  the  Philistines'  oppression  in 
 1  Sam.  vii.  ^ut  the  author  could  not  attain  his  object — to  de- 
 scribe the  new  state  of  things  as  brought  about  by  Samuel's 
 agency — without  narrating  certain  preparatory  facts  which  the 
 author  of  the  Book  of  Judges  had  passed  over.  Before  he  gave 
 an  account  of  Samuel's  entrance  on  public  life,  it  seemed  proper 
 
PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  21 
 
 to  mention  some  particulars  of  his  personal  character,  and  the  cir- 
 cumstances under  which  he  made  his  appearance.  That  the  au- 
 thor speaks  of  Eh  only  in  reference  to  Samuel,  results  evidently 
 from  the  general  plan  of  his  representation.  He  passes  over  in 
 complete  silence  most  important  facts ;  for  example,  in  what  man- 
 ner the  transference  of  the  high-priesthood  from  the  family  of 
 Eleazar  to  that  of  Ithamar  took  place.  These  fixed  points  are 
 connected  with  the  most  important  results  for  the  prohlem  we 
 have  undertaken  to  solve.  If  Eh's  priesthood  fell  entirely  within 
 the  time  of  the  Judges,  the  period  which  the  Book  of  Judges 
 emhraces,  the  silence  of  that  book  respecting  it  can  only  he  ex- 
 plained on  the  ground  that  the  author  followed  solely  the  current 
 of  political  aftairs — occupied  himself  with  the  deeds  of  the  Judges 
 in  a  narrower  sense — those  individuals  whose  authority  among  the 
 people  had  its  foundation  in  the  outward  deliverances  which  the 
 Lord,  tlirough  their  .  agency,  had  vouchsafed  to  his  people.  In 
 this  sense  Eli  was  not  a  judge.  If  the  first  chapters  of  1  Sam. 
 relate  to  nearly  the  same  period  as  Judges  xi.-xvi.,  it  will  appear 
 that  the  want  of  references  to  the  ritual  commanded  in  the  Pen- 
 tateuch is  not  owing  to  the  non-existence  of  the  ritual  at  that 
 time,  but  because  the  special  design  of  the  author  of  the  Book  of 
 Judges  did  not  admit  of  his  taking  notice  of  it. 
 
 To  assist  us  making  use  of  the  Book  of  Judges  as  a  source  of 
 historical  information,  the  following  remarks  maybe  useful,  (i). 
 The  author  assumes  throughout  a  prophetical  position.  He 
 makes  high  requirements  of  the  people  of  God;  present  good  does 
 not  satisf}^  his  expectations  ;  and  on  evil  he  passes  a  very  severe 
 judgment  Since  he  considers  the  good  as  a  matter  of  course,  as 
 that  which  Israel  was  bound  to  do,  and  for  which  no  praise  can 
 be  awarded,  he  specially  directs  his  scrutiny  to  deviations  from  it, 
 which  he  depicts  in  the  darkest  colours.  If  for  want  of  close 
 attention  this  peculiar  position  of  the  author  is  unobserved,  gross 
 misunderstandings  of  the  character  of  this  period  will  arise — as  in 
 general  the  judgment  formed  of  the  history  of  Israel  is  erroneous, 
 when  the  prophetic  point  of  view  is  neglected.  Analogous  to  this 
 is  the  current  error  in  judging  of  the  religious  characters  of  the 
 seventeenth  century,  arising  from  the  meaning  affixed  without 
 hesitation  to  the  language  of  such  men  as  Andrea,  Ardnt,  Mul- 
 LER,  and  Spener,  which  can  be  correctly  understood  only  from 
 
2'Z  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 their  own  point-of-view.  (ii.)  The  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges 
 ^vrote  at  the  heginning  of  the  regal  period ;  this  is  evident  from 
 the  remark  often  repeated  in  the  Appendices — "  In  those  days 
 there  icas  no  king  in  Israel ;  every  man  did  that  wJuch  icas 
 right  in  his  oivn  eyes,''  and  which  is  made  especially  in  reference 
 to  rehgious  ahuses  ;  compare  xvii.  6.  In  the  later  regal  period 
 this  remark  would  not  have  been  suitable.  The  author  could  not 
 have  witnessed  the  degeneracy  of  the  kingdom.  If  he  wrote  dur- 
 ing the  period  when  the  theocracy  was  in  a  flourishing  state,  it  was 
 natural  that  in  his  joy  for  what  the  Lord  had  then  granted  to  his 
 people,  he  should  allow  the  dark  parts  of  the  preceding  period  to 
 stand  forth  somewhat  prominently.  The  superiority  of  the  pre- 
 sent to  the  past,  in  his  judgment,  is  strikingly  shown  in  that  for- 
 mula just  quoted,  with  which  he  closes  the  whole  hook.  The 
 nan-ative  of  the  Book  of  Judges  is  similar  to  the  description  of 
 the  corruption  of  the  Church  in  the  middle  ages,  which  are  given 
 in  histories  of  the  Eeformation.  (iii.)  We  must  also  guard  against 
 supposing  that  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges  approved  of 
 what  he  does  not  expressly  disapprove — an  assumption  which  has 
 frequently  led  our  opponents  astray.  The  author  so  closely  stu- 
 died objectivity,  that,  in  only  very  rare  instances,  he  indulges  in 
 the  avow^al  of  his  own  judgments  and  reflexions ;  as  in  ch.  ix. 
 24,  where  he  remarks  that  God  sent  an  evil  spirit  between  Abime- 
 lech  and  the  men  of  Shechem,  "  that  the  cruelty  done  to  the 
 threescore  and  ten  sons  of  Jeroboam  might  come,  and  their 
 blood  be  laid  upon  Abimelech  their  brother,  which  slew  them,  and 
 upon  the  men  of  Shechem,  which  aided  him  in  the  killing  of  his 
 brethren  ;""  also  in  ch.  viii.  27,  the  '^t'^),  and  the  formula,  "  In 
 those  days,"  &c.  In  general  he  intimates  his  opinion  in  a  delicate 
 and  ingenious  manner,  as  by  the  arrangement  of  the  facts,  or  by 
 a  verbal  reference  to  expressions  in  the  Pentateuch.  If  these 
 indications  are  properly  understood,  it  will  appear  that  the  asser- 
 tion of  Bleek  and  others,  that  the  author  regarded  the  deviations 
 from  the  law  not  in  the  most  distant  manner  as  displeasing  to 
 Jehovah,  is  totally  unfounded. 
 
 After  these  remarks  on  the  character  of  the  Book  of  Judges  in 
 general,  it  remains  that  we  examine  it  on  particular  points. 
 As  to  the  relation  which  the  Book  of  Judges  bears  to  the  Pen- 
 
PKELlMINAllY  REMARKS.  23 
 
 tateiich,  a  difference  of  opinion  exists  among  the  opponents  of 
 the  genuineness  of  the  latter.  De  Wette  {Beitriiye  i.  152), 
 Bertholdt  (p.  762),  and  Von  Bohlen  (p.  150),  deny  every, 
 even  the  least  reference  to  the  Pentateuch  in  the  Book  of  Judges. 
 On  the  other  hand  Vater  remarks  (p.  579),  that  in  Judges  xi. 
 IG,  there  is  certainly  a  special  reference  to  Num.  xx.  21,  and  (p. 
 582)  that  in  Judges  ii.  2,  the  reference  to  Deut.  vii.  2,  5,  10,  is 
 tolerahly  plain,  and  even  an  agreement  in  some  expressions  may 
 be  noticed.  Hartmann  expresses  himself  still  more  decidedly 
 (p.  559).  In  the  Book  of  Judges  "we  find  indeed  Moses'  book 
 of  the  law  and  a  written  Torah  not  expressly  mentioned,  but  we 
 cannot  deny  allusions  to  the  narratives  and  commands  of  Moses ; 
 we  must  candidly  allow  that  the  compiler  of  the  Book  of  Judges 
 must  have  been  acquainted  with  the  Pentateuch  in  all  its  ex- 
 tent, of  which  any  one  may  satisfy  himself  who  will  compare  ch. 
 i.  20,  with  Num.  xiv.  30  ;  v.  4,  with  Deut.  xxxii.  2  ;  v.  14-18, 
 with  Gen.  xlix.  13  ;  vi.  37-39  with  Gen.  xviii.  18  ;  vi.  23,  with 
 Gen.  xxxii.  31;  and  x.  4,  with  Num.  xxxii.  41." 
 
 In  this  section  we  have  only  to  do  with  the  relation  of  the 
 time  of  the  Judges  to  the  Pentateuch  ;  the  enquiry  respecting 
 the  Book  of  Judges  belongs  elsewhere.  Yet  the  latter  is  of  great 
 importance  for  ascertaining  the  former,  so  that  we  cannot  attain 
 our  object  without  touching  upon  it.  Let  it,  on  the  other  hand, 
 appear  that  the  author  knew  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  it  was  a 
 work  of  Moses,  it  will  be  equally  certain  that,  according  to  his 
 own  conviction,  the  time  of  the  Judges  stood  in  a  certain  relation 
 to  the  Pentateuch.  Those  who  deny  this,  have  then  Jiis  autho- 
 rity (acknowledged  by  themselves  to  be  of  weight)  against  them; 
 we  are  then  justified  in  availing  ourselves  of  the  slighter  practical 
 references  to  the  Pentateuch. 
 
 We  consider  it  unnecessary  to  go  through  the  whole  Book  of 
 Judges  with  this  reference.  The  careful  examination  of  a  hmited 
 number  of  passages  will  ensure  for  us  a  firm  and  incontrovertible 
 result.  We  shall  attempt  to  find,  what  has  been  commonly  ne- 
 glected (for  instance  by  Hartmann  and  Von  Bohlen),  the  refer- 
 ences of  the  Book  of  Judges  to  the  Pentateuch,  from  which  the 
 time  of  the  Judges  may,  as  much  as  possible,  be  separated ;  so 
 that  in  doubtful  cases  we  would  rather  assign  too  much  to  the 
 former  than  to  the  latter. 
 
24  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OE  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 The  introduction*  inch.  i.  ii.  presents  us  with  considerable 
 materials;  ch.  i.  20,  "And  they  gave  Hebron  unto  Caleb,  as 
 Moses  said,"  alludes  to  Num.  xiv.  24,  "  But  my  servant  Caleb, 
 because  he  had  another  spirit  with  him,  and  hath  followed  me 
 fully,  him  will  I  bring  unto  the  land  whereunto  he  went,  and  his 
 seed  shall  possess  it."  These  last  words  shew^  that  by  the  land 
 not  merely  Canaan  but  a  particular  district  is  to  be  understood ; 
 compare  Josh.  xiv.  9,  ("And  Moses  sware  on  that  day,  saying, 
 surely  the  land  whereon  thy  feet  have  trodden  shall  be  thine  inhe- 
 ritance and  thy  children's  for  ever,  because  thou  hast  wholly  fol- 
 lowed the  Lord  my  God.")  Also  the  ^T^  in  Judges  i.  20,  is 
 taken  from  the  Pentateuch;  compare  Joshua  xiv.  12,  "Then  I 
 shall  be  able  to  drive  them  out  OT"f-^"^.  as  Jehovah  said." 
 
 The  address  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  in  ch.  ii.  1,  &c.,  is  alto- 
 gether composed  of  passages  from  the  Pentateuch.  The  two 
 clauses  in  ver.  2,  "  And  ye  shall  make  no  league  with  the  inhabi- 
 tants of  the  land,  you  shall  throw  down  their  altars,"  are  found 
 separately,  one  in  Exod.  xxiii.  32,  "  Thou  shalt  make  no  covenant 
 wdth  them,"  >="',  the  other  in  Deut.  xii.  3,  "  And  you  shall  over- 
 throw their  altars,"  ^'"r^  as  here  ;  indeed  both  may  be  found 
 together  in  Exod.  xxxiv.  12,  13,  "Take  heed  to  thyself  lest  thou 
 make  a  covenant  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  land.  .  .  but  ye 
 shall  destroy  their  altars,"  and  Deut.  vii.  2,  5.  The  reference  to 
 the  Pentateuch  is  so  much  more  undeniable  since  the  angel  only 
 refers  to  what  he  had  said  in  past  time.  So  the  following  words  of 
 the  same  verse,  "  but  ye  have  not  obeyed  my  voice,"  allude  to 
 Exod.  xxiii.  21,  where  it  is  said,  in  reference  to  the  angel  of  the 
 
 *  Ch.  i.  contains  a  review  of  the  events  as  they  occiuTed  from  the  division  of  the 
 land  to  the  death  of  Joshna.  Ch.  ii.  1  3,  6,  a  review  of  what  happened  afterwards; 
 from  1-5  contains  the  prelude,  ver.  6,  &c.  the  completion.  That  the  contents  of  ch.  i. 
 helong  still  to  the  times  of  .Joshua,  and  that  the  words  "  after  the  death  of  Joshua  it 
 came  to  pass,"  by  which  this  hook  is  connected  with  the  Book  of  Joshua,  refers  not  to 
 what  immediately  follows,  hut  to  the  principal  contents  of  the  whole  hook,  is  evident 
 not  only  from  compai'iug  it  with  the  Book  of  Joshua,  hut  from  the  Book  of  Judges 
 itself.  Ch.  ii.  21,  "  I  will  also  not  henceforth  drive  out  any  from  before  them,  of  the 
 nations  which  Joshua  left  when  he  died,"  shows  plainly  that,  in  the  author's  opinion, 
 the  expeditions  in  ch.  i.  happened  before  the  death  of  Joshua.  Also  ver.  23,  "  There- 
 fore the  Lord  left  those  nations,  without  driving  them  out  hastily,  neither  delivered 
 he  them  into  the  hand  of  Joshua,"  implies  that  the  conquests  ceased  with  the  death 
 of  Jo.shua. 
 
PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  25 
 
 Lord  who  is  here  speaking,  "beware  of  him  and  oley  his  voice, 
 provoke  him  not,  for  he  will  not  pardon  your  transgressions,  for 
 my  name  is  in  him."  In  ver.  3  it  is  said,  '^Wherefore  I  also 
 said  I  will  not  drive  them  out  from  before  you,  but  they  shall  be 
 unto  you  for  sides,  s^t^^^,  and  their  gods  shall  be  a  snare  unto 
 you,"  "^fy^ .  The  latter  words  allude  to  Exod  xxiii.  33,  "  if  thou 
 serve  their  gods  it  will  surely  be  a  snare  unto  thee,"  compare  x. 
 7,  Deut.  vii.  10.  The  expression,  ''  they  shall  be  to  you  for  sides," 
 is  equivalent  to  saying,  ye  shall  have  to  do  with  their  sides  (so 
 that  they  shall  press  and  push  you),  not  as  in  the  event  of  keep- 
 ing the  Covenant,  with  their  hacks,  (compare  Exod.  xxiii.  27, 
 "  I  will  make  all  thy  enemies  turn  their  backs  unto  thee"),  and 
 by  its  singulaiity  points  to  the  original  passage  from  which  this 
 abrupt  and  in  itself  difficult  expression  must  receive  elucidation. 
 Another  similar  expression  occurs  in  Numb,  xxxiii.  55,  ''But  if 
 ye  will  not  drive  out  the  inhabitants  of  the  land  from  before  you, 
 then  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  those  which  ye  let  remain  of  them 
 shall  be  pricks  in  your  eyes,  and  thorns  on  your  sides,''  aT?^> 
 ==r^^2.  How  indispensable  the  elucidation  afforded  by  the  origi- 
 nal passage  is,  which  is  confirmed  by  Joshua  xxiii.  13,  is  shown 
 by  the  unfortunate  efforts  of  those  who  do  not  perceive  this  re- 
 ference. Generally,  according  to  the  example  of  Schultens, 
 =="'!'^  is  taken  in  the  sense  of  enemies.  But  this  sense  is  opposed 
 by  the  frequent  recurrence  of  -^i  uniformly  in  the  sense  of  a  side. 
 Studer  proposes  to  change  a"^^^  into  'a^-^^i.  But  againt  this  there 
 are  several  reasons.  1 .  The  formation  of  the  more  difficult  reading 
 in  a^T.:  from  the  very  easy  a^^s  is  against  all  probability.  2.  In 
 connection  with  tcp^  a  figurative  expression  must  be  excepted.  3. 
 The  whole  address  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  has  a  verbal  reference 
 to  the  Pentateuch.  4.  It  would  be  a  singular  coincidence  if  the 
 passage,  by  a  mere  mistake  of  the  transcriber,  contained  a  refer- 
 ence to  the  original  and  parallel  passage,  without  any  intention  on 
 the  part  of  the  author. 
 
 Ch.  ii,  10,  ''And  there  arose  another  generation  after  them 
 which  knew  not  the  Lord,"  compare  with  Exod.  i.  8,  "  There 
 arose  up  a  new  king  over  Egypt  which  knew  not  Joseph."  How 
 could  the  ingratitude  of  Israel  be  more  vividly  depicted  than  by 
 this  shght  and  yet  evident  allusion  ?  With  ver.  1 1  compare  Deut. 
 vi.  18;  with  ver.  15  compare  Lev  xxvi.  15,  Deut.  xxviii.  25; 
 
20  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 with  ver.  17,  Exod.  xxxvi.  15.  The  second  part,  "  They  turned 
 quickly  out  of  the  Wcay  which  their  fathers  walked  in,  obeying  the 
 commandments  of  the  Lord,"  exactly  accords  with  Exod.  xxxii. 
 8,  "  They  have  turned  aside  quickly  out  of  the  way  which  I  com- 
 manded them."  That  the  language  is  borrowed  from  this  passage 
 is  very  apparent  from  the  word  "^t?^  quickly,  which  better  suits  the 
 worship  of  the  calf  that  immediately  followed  the  giving  of  the 
 law,  to  which  the  words  refer  in  the  Pentateuch,  than  to  the  new 
 outbreak  of  the  same  sinful  corruption  to  which  the  words  are 
 here  transferred  in  order  to  indicate  that  the  som'ce  was  an  ancient 
 one.  In  ch.  iv.  15  we  read,  ''And  the  Lord  discomfitted  (°1^!!) 
 Sisera,  and  all  his  chariots,  and  all  his  host,  with  an  evident  re- 
 ference to  Exod.  xiv.  24,  "  And  the  Lord  troubled  (*=;C-)  the  host 
 of  the  Eg}^tians."  The  author,  by  the  use  of  this  word,  plainly 
 indicates  that  this  discomfiture,  wliich  was  accomphshed  by  the 
 sword  of  the  Israelites,  had  its  origin  no  less  in  God  than  when  he 
 more  visibly  interposed.  He  points  to  the  common  som'ce  of 
 both  events,  to  show  that  God,  by  the  second,  fulfilled  the  prac- 
 tical promise  which  he  had  given  by  the  first  for  the  future.  The 
 expression,  if  the  reference  to  the  Pentateuch  is  not  perceived, 
 where  it  appears  to  be  perfectly  suitable,  would  strike  as  rather 
 awkward,  particularly  on  account  of  the  addition  =^^r""^?V  Tliis  is 
 shown  by  the  attempts  of  several  critics  who  have  not  perceived 
 the  reference,  to  impose  a  different  meaning  on  the  words.  See  for 
 instance  Studer  on  the  passage.  Likewise  in  other  places  where 
 o'on  occurs,  the  reference  to  the  Pentateuch  is  undeniable  ;  compare 
 1  Sam.  vii.  10 ;  2  Sam.  xxii.  15 ;  Josh.  x.  10  ;  Ps   cxhv.  6. 
 
 The  address  of  the  ^^rl  in  ch.  vi.  8,  is  based  throughout  on  the 
 Pentateuch.  He  begins  at  once  with  the  introduction  to  the 
 Decalogue. 
 
 When  Gideon  wished,  by  an  appeal  to  his  weakness,  to  decline 
 the  commission  to  rescue  Israel,  the  angel  of  the  Lord  repeated 
 to  him,  in  ch.  vi.  16,  the  great  promise  uttered  to  Moses,  ^"^.H^.  "'^ 
 ^^^^  "  certainly  I  will  be  with  thee,"  Exod.  iii.  12,  a  coincidence 
 which,  on  account  of  the  peculiar  use  of  "^s  could  not  be  accidental, 
 and  thus  points  to  the  earlier,  glorious  fulfilment  of  this  promise, 
 to  the  great  practical  contradiction  of  the  prejudice,  that  a  man 
 must  be  of  an  illustrious  origin  in  order  to  do  great  things.  In 
 ver.  39,  *'  Let  not  thy  anger  be  hot  against  me,  and  I  will  speak 
 
PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  27 
 
 but  this  once,"  Gideon  borrows  the  literal  expression  fi-om  Gen. 
 xviii.  32,  and  excuses  his  boldness  in  the  same  terms  as  those  used 
 by  Abraham,  which  were  graciously  received  by  God. 
 
 But  of  peculiar  importance  is  the  message  of  Jephthah  to  the 
 king  of  the  Ammonites  in  ch.  xi.  15.  That  either  Jephthah  him- 
 self, or  the  author  of  this  book,  had  access  to  the  Pentateuch,  may 
 be  proved  with  overpowering  evidence,  and  if  only  the  latter  be 
 admitted,  yet  it  will  be  equally  certain  that  the  author  proceeded 
 on  the  supposition  that  Jephthah  obeyed  the  laws  of  the  Penta- 
 teuch. Let  the  three  following  points  be  considered,  (i).  The 
 historical  abstract  given  in  Jephthah's  message  is,  v/ith  the  exception 
 of  a  single  particular,  entirely,  and  almost  word  for  word,  taken 
 from  the  narrative  in  the  Book  of  Numbers,  (ii).  He  makes  use 
 of  everything  in  the  relation  given  in  the  Pentateuch  which  may 
 be  of  service  to  his  object,  (iii).  He  follows  this  relation  step  by 
 step.  If  ever  an  extract  was  made,  bearing  evident  marks  of  the 
 source  from  which  it  was  taken,  it  is  this ;  and  assertions  hke  those 
 of  Gramberg,  ii.  131,  that  the  relation  in  the  Pentateuch  was 
 taken  from  this  abstract,  are  self- condemned;  compare  ver.  IG,  the 
 arrival  at  Kadesh,  with  Num.  xx.  1-13;  ver.  17  (the  fruitless 
 embassy  to  the  king  of  Edom)  is  almost  a  Hteral  quotation  from 
 Num.  V.  14-21,  with  an  addition  of  a  notice  indifferent  for  the 
 object  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  important  for  Jephthah — "in  like 
 manner  they  sent  unto  the  king  of  Moab,  but  he  would  not  con- 
 sent." Compare  ver,  18  (the  march  through  the  wilderness  by 
 the  borders  of  Moab)  with  Num.  xx.  21  ;  xxi.  20,  particularly 
 xxi.  4,  11,  13,  from  which  the  passage  before  us  is  almost 
 literally  collected.  Compare  ver.  19  (the  embassy  to  Sihon, 
 king  of  the  Amorites)  with  Num.  xxi.  21,  22,  of  which 
 this  verse  is  almost  a  verbal  extract.  Ver.  20  (Sihon's  re- 
 fusal and  battle  with  Israel)  is  a  hteral  quotation  from  Num. 
 XXI.  23,  only  that  for  one  expression  an  equivalent  phrase  is 
 given.  Compare  ver.  20,  21  (the  conquest  of  Sihon's  territories) 
 with  Num.  xxi.  24,  25.  In  ver.  25,  the  conduct  of  Balak  the 
 son  of  Zippor  is  recorded.  His  relations  to  Israel  are  described 
 exactly  as  in  the  Book  of  Numbers  xxii.  2.  In  ver.  26,  Jephthah 
 speaks  of  Heshbon  and  her  daughters,  ^^'^p^-.  {towtis,  Eng.  Vers.), 
 as  in  Num.  xxi.  20  {villages,  Eng.  Vers.)  Let  it  be  observed, 
 that  the  abstract  at  first  contains,  in  a  single,  verse,  the  contents 
 
28  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 of  a  whole  section  in  the  narrative  of  Numbers,  but  afterwards, 
 Tvhen  it  comes  to  the  matter  in  hand,  it  is  more  copious,  and  cor- 
 responds almost  verse  for  verse ;  and  let  it  be  attempted  to  ex- 
 plain this  on  Geamberg's  hypothesis.  Studer  is  quite  at  fault 
 in  the  business.  The  "'  almost  literal  agreement"  with  the  rela- 
 tion of  the  Pentateuch  occasions  him  great  perplexity.  He  tries 
 to  throw  suspicion  on  Jephthah's  message  in  a  different  way,  in  or- 
 der to  get  rid  of  all  conclusions  that  might  be  drawn  from  it  in 
 favour  of  the  Pentateuch.  He  thinks  it  strange  fp.  288)  that  in 
 the  greater  part  of  this  address,  regard  is  had  merely  to  the  Moab- 
 ites,  and  especially  that  Jephthah  s  answer  is  so  framed,  as  if  he 
 negotiated  in  person  with  the  king  of  the  Moabites,  and  not 
 merely  with  a  partizan  of  his.  He  is  disposed,  therefore,  to 
 admit,  that  either  the  compiler  of  the  book  himself,  or  a  later  reader 
 of  it,  had  collected  from  the  Pentateuch  this  juridical  argument  on 
 the  lawfulness  of  Israel's  claims  to  the  possession  of  Gilead.  We 
 have  already  remarked,  that  our  object  at  present  is  to  determine 
 from  the  address,  only  the  relation  in  wdiich,  not  Jephthah,  but  the 
 author  of  the  Book  of  Judges,  stands  to  the  Pentateuch — it  must 
 be  regarded  only  as  sheer  wilfulness,  proceeding  from  despair,  if, 
 for  the  author  of  the  book,  is  substituted  a  mere  compiler,  of  whose 
 existence  the  book  wears  not  the  slightest  trace — or  a  later  reader. 
 The  reason  alleged  is  not  suited  to  throw  any  suspicion  on  the 
 narrative  ;  the  fact  on  which  it  supports  itself  presents  no  ob- 
 stacle to  our  believing  that  the  address  proceeded  from  Jephthah 
 literally  as  it  stands.  Studer's  suspicion  proceeds  on  the  as- 
 sumption that  the  Israelites  gained  possession  of  the  Ammonitish 
 territory  at  an  earher  period.  He  is  surprised  "  that  in  ver.  18, 
 mention  is  merely  made  of  no  injury  being  done  to  the  Moabitish 
 country  by  the  Israelites,  while  not  a  w^ord  is  said,  with  a  similar 
 reference,  of  the  Ammonitish  country,  which,  at  least  equally,  if 
 not  first  of  all,  deserv^ed  to  be  noticed."  It  was  his  first  business 
 to  have  examined  whether  this  assumption  was  correct.  The  re- 
 sult would  have  been,  that  there  is  nothing  in  its  favour.  In  the 
 Pentateuch,  it  is  expressly  said  that  the  Israelites  took  nothing 
 directly  of  the  Ammonites  ;  it  is  also  expressly  said  in  the  narra- 
 tive itself,  and  in  the  ancient  song,  that  only  the  Amorites  had 
 to  do  with  the  Moabites,  so  that  even  indirectly  no  part  of  the 
 Ammonitish  country  came  into  the  possession  of  the  Israelites. 
 
PRELIxMINARY  REMARKS.  20 
 
 The  apparent  transfer  of  the  Ammonitish  possessions,  which  is 
 presented  in  Joshua  xiii.  25,  where,  along  with  all  the  cities  of 
 Gilead,  half  the  land  of  the  children  of  Ammon  appears  to  be  al- 
 lotted to  the  tribe  of  Gad,  has  been  well  explained  by  Masius  : 
 Quia  omnes  iirhes  Galaaditidis  non pertinent  ad  istam  tribtim 
 fdabitiir  enim  7nox  dimidiata  Gal.  trihui  Manassitanini)  : 
 illico  praeciditur  ilia  tiniversitas.  His  additis  verbis  :  dimi 
 diaque  terra  Ammon.  Est  enim  istorum  sensi/s  :  eatenus  modo 
 stir  sum  in  Gal.  exporrectam  jacuisse  Gaditarum  haereditatem , 
 quatenus  dimidia  Amm.  ditio  Gal.  ab  oriente  ambiebat.  See 
 also  Eeland,  p.  105.  A  second  false  assumption  on  which  the 
 suspicion  rests  is,  that  the  king  of  the  Ammonites  was  the  mere 
 advocate  of  the  king  of  the  Moabites,  and  stood  in  no  nearer  re- 
 lation to  him.  The  correct  statement  would  be,  that  the  Ammon- 
 ites and  Moabites  were  outwardly  one,  as  closely  connected  with 
 one  another,  as  the  Twelve  Tribes  of  Israel.  As  Jephthah  pre- 
 sented himself  as '  the  representative  of  Israel,  so  the  king  of  the 
 Ammonites  was  the  representative  of  the  children  of  Lot.  It  con- 
 sisted entirely  with  his  own  interest  to  assert  their  unity,  and  to 
 keep  their  duality  in  the  back-ground. 
 
 In  ch.  xiii.  5  (compare  ver.  7),  the  angel  of  the  Lord  said  to 
 Manoah's  wife  1^.  ^~^^\  ^^^C'  ^'^ '? ;  the  exact  words  of  the  angel  of 
 the  Lord  to  Hagar  in  Gen.  xvi.  1 1 .  This  coincidence  cannot 
 be  accidental,  on  account  of  the  unusual  form  ^"^^  for  ^i?\^  The 
 existence  of  an  original  passage  is  rendered  also  probable  from  the 
 fact^  that  a  third  passage,  almost  hterally  the  same,  is  found  in  Is. 
 vii.  14,  which  agrees  with  Gen.  xvi.  11,  as  follows  :  ''Behold,  thou 
 art  with  child,  and  shalt  bare  a  son,  and  shall  call  his  name  Ish- 
 mael." — Gen.  "  Behold,  a  virgin  shall  conceive,  and  bear  a  son, 
 and  thou  shalt  call  his  name  Immanuel." — Is.  If  now  we  ask  which 
 of  the  three  passages  is  the  original  one,  that  in  Judges  cannot  be 
 thought  of,  because  it  wants  the  clause  on  the  giving  of  the  name. 
 
 *  EwALD,  Sm.  Grammar,  §  389,  (Nicholson's  Transl.  p.  249),  thinks,  "  that  as 
 this  form  is  only  found  where  the  second  person  is  spoken  of,  the  Masoretes  pointed 
 it  in  that  manner  prohably,  merely  on  account  of  its  resemblance  to  the  second  person, 
 fern,  sq."  But  that  this  form  is  only  found  where  the  second  person  is  spoken  of,  may  be 
 simply  explained  from  the  dependence  of  one  of  the  two  passages,  where  it  occurs,  on 
 the  other;  hence  it  is  accidental,  and  does  not  authorize  the  conclusion  that  has  been 
 drawn  from  it. 
 
30  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 in  which  the  two  others  agree.  Moreover,  the  general  relation  of 
 the  narrative  in  the  Book  of  Judges  to  that  in  Genesis,  is  evidently 
 throughout  that  of  dependence  on  the  latter.  Compare  with  ver. 
 2,  Gen.  xi.  20  ;  with  ver.  8,  Gen,  xxv.  21  ;  with  ver.  15,  com- 
 pare Gen.  xviii.  5;  with  ver.  17,  18,  Gen.  xxxii.  80.  For  the 
 priority  of  Genesis  in  all  these  coincidences,  the  circumstance  is 
 decisive,  that  there  the  representations  appear  complete  in  them- 
 selves, while  here  separate  features  are  taken  from  various  parts 
 and  grouped  together,  exactly  as  in  the  New  Testament  in  rela- 
 tion to  the  Old.  The  wife  of  Manoah,  for  instance,  represents  in 
 general  Sarah  ;  compai'e  ver.  2  with  Gen.  xi.  30  ;  and  yet,  in  ver. 
 5,  we  find  transferred  to  her  wdiat  belonged  originally  to  Hagai\ 
 The  meeting  of  Manoah  and  the  angel  of  the  Lord  is  in  general 
 a  copy  of  Gen.  xviii.,  and  yet  we  find  in  the  midst  of  it  a  refer- 
 ence to  Jacob's  conflict.  Hitzig  (who  remarks  "  the  phrase 
 occurs  in  the  address,  Judges  xiii.  5,  and  increased 
 with  the  addition  of  the  name-giving  in  our  passage,  Gen.  xvi. 
 11,"  Jes.  p.  85),  seems  to  give  Is.  vii.  14  the  honour  of  being  the 
 original  passage.  But  this  is  inadmissible,  because  the  original 
 passage  must  necessarily  have  the  form  ^ir,  not,  as  Isaiah,  the 
 form  '^ir.  For  if  the  authors  of  the  Book  of  Judges,  and  of  Ge- 
 nesis, both  copied  from  Isaiah,  how  came  both  of  them  to  adopt 
 an  unusual  form  that  occurs  nowhere  else  ?  There  is  also  an- 
 other circumstance  which,  merely  taking  our  passage  into  account 
 (for  we  abstain  from  all  general  grounds ;  if  we  wished  to  avail 
 ourselves  of  them,  every  notion  of  the  possibihty  of  Isaiah's  be- 
 ing made  use  of  by  the  author  of  Genesis  would  vanish,  since  there 
 is  not  a  chapter  of  Isaiah  without  verbal  references  to  the  Penta- 
 teuch), shows  that  Isaiah  must  have  borrowed  from  Genesis;  we 
 mean,  the  use  of  the  second  person,  thou  shalt  call,  wliich  is 
 strange  in  Isaiah,  since  he  had  been  speaking  in  the  foregoing 
 clause  not  to,  but  of  a  virgin ;  but,  in  the  Pentateuch,  quite  in 
 place,  as  it  occurs  in  the  address  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  to  Ha- 
 gar.  How  striking  tliis  reason  is — how  much  the  sudden  transi- 
 tion to  the  second  person  in  Isaiah  needs  an  explanation — how  it 
 shows  the  endeavour  to  be  conformed  as  nearly  as  possible  to  the 
 original  passage  in  Genesis  exactly  by  w^hat  is  foreign  to  itself — 
 we  see  from  the  attempts  of  modern  expositors  down  to  Hitzig 
 to  set   aside  the  second  person,   and  to  substitute  the   third — 
 
PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  3  1 
 
 attempts  which  are  manifestly  failures,  since,  in  the  undeniable 
 dependence  of  one  of  the  two  passages  on  the  other,  it  is  unnatural 
 to  assume,  that  the  fully  written  form  at  one  time  would  denote 
 the  second,  at  another  time,  the  third  person,  especially  since 
 ^^X  regularly  belongs  only  to  the  second  person. 
 
 Persons  must  be  bhnd,  indeed,  who  can  fail  to  perceive  that  the 
 author,  in  depicting  the  atrocious  conduct  of  the  men  of  Gibeah 
 to  the  Levite's  concubine,  in  Judges  xix.  22,  has  borrowed  the 
 language  from  Gen.  xix.  4.  By  this  reference,  he  expresses  his 
 judgment  on  the  transaction.  Adeo  ut  Gihea,  civitas  Israelis, 
 aeque  sit  facta  ahominaUlis,  ac  Sodoma.     Lighteoot. 
 
 The  expression,  "  that  ive  mmj  imt  away  evil  from  Israel^' 
 V5?^=^^taTO^n^_^n3  used  by  the  other  tribes  to  the  Beujamites,  xx.  13, 
 \^  ^ phrasis  deuteronomica ;  compare  Deut.  xvii.  12.  ^^^p  ^"^^^i 
 "^rt^:"?  xiii.  6  ;  xxvii.  7  ;  xix.  1  9  ;  xxi.  21  ;  xxii.  21.  They^say, 
 that  they  wish  to  obey  the  Lord's  injunction.  "  That  we  may 
 jnit  away  evil,"  is  the  answer  of  the  congregation  to  the  Lord's 
 command,  "  Thou  shall  j) at  away  the  evil."  By  tliis  verbal  al- 
 lusion to  the  law,  the  express  quotation  of  it  is  rendered  needless. 
 
 In  ch.  XX.  C,  the  Levite  says  to  the  assembled  Israehtes,  ''for 
 they  have  committed,  ->?f  ^^V^!  (Zimmahim^Nevalah)  inlsrael." 
 Even  Studer  remarks  on  ver.  13  :  ''In  ver.  G,  we  are  reminded 
 of  the  legislatorial  language  of  the  Pentateuch  by  the  words, 
 !:s^'a^3  r7^z:i  ritoT^  which  were  used  to  denote  a  capital  offence,  espe- 
 cially unchastity."  (On  the  peculiar  use  of  n^t,  wliich  occur  here, 
 see  vol.  i.  p.  110.)  The  phrase  ^^^.7f:f  J^>?3  ^-^J^  is  used  especially  of 
 acts  of  unchastity  in  Gen.  xxxiv.  1,  and  Deut.  xxii.  21,  and  in 
 the  latter  passage  with  the  clause,  "  so  shalt  thou  put  evil  away 
 from  among  you." 
 
 The  unusual  expression  ^T^  '^'3?  in  ch.  xx.  48,  may  be  referred 
 more  confidently  to  Deut.  ii.  34  ;  iii.  6,  because  there,  as  well  as 
 here,  it  stands  in  connection  with  the  s^^^. 
 
 In  ch.  xxi.  17,  the  expression  ^??7fr^  t:a^  nh^s-^-sVi  used  by  the 
 elders  is  founded  upon  Deut.  xxv.  G,  where  the.  reason  given  for 
 the  injunction,  that  the  eldest  son,  under  the  Levirate  law,  should 
 bear  the  name  of  the  deceased  husband,  is  ^^""fr^  '"^^  '^^^'l  ^\  We 
 have  here  a  sample  of  a  spiritual  exposition  of  the  law.  The  el- 
 ders carried  back  the  letter  of  the  law  to  its  idea,  and  then  applied 
 this  to  existing  circumstances.     They  reasoned  a  minori  ad  ma- 
 
32  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 jus.  If  the  Lord  cared  for  tlie  individual,  how  much  more  should 
 we  be  concerned  for  the  preservation  of  a  whole  tribe  to  do  all  that 
 may  be  required  for  it.  As  a  proof  that  the  author  was  acquainted 
 with  the  Pentateuch,  this  passage  must  at  all  events  be  allowed  to 
 be  in  point.  But  if  we  notice  how  the  proceedings  of  the  persons 
 in  power  were,  in  all  other  things  relative  to  this  affair,  determined 
 by  the  law  (as  for  instance  in  denouncing  the  curse  on  the  Benja- 
 mites  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jabesh),  there  can  scarcely  remain  a 
 doubt  that  the  language  of  the  elders  has  been  faithfully  reported 
 to  us. 
 
 We  beheve  that  the  preceding  observations  have  been  fully  suf- 
 ficient for  the  attainment  of  our  object ;  that  the  use  of  the  Pen- 
 tateuch, in  all  its  portions,  by  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges, 
 has  been  fully  proved.  The  positive  proof  to  the  contrary,  or  ra- 
 ther for  the  non-existence  of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  period  of  the 
 Judges,  which  Bohlen  (p.  148)  would  infer  from  Judges  vi.  13, 
 where  Gideon  speaks  of  the  miracles  of  the  Lord  which  ''  our  Fa- 
 thers told  us  of,"  on  closer  consideration  loses  all  its  force.  How 
 httle  oral  tradition  excludes  that  which  is  written  is  shown  by 
 Exod.  xviii.  14.  (Compare  vol.  i.  p.  435).  And  what  is  the 
 principal  point  ?  The  fathers  here,  as  we  shall  prove  in  the  sequel, 
 are  not  ancestors,  but  fathers  in  the  strict  sense,  and  the  words 
 refer  to  the  ceremony  of  enquiring  and  receiving  answers  at  the 
 celebration  of  the  Passover,  which  cannot  disprove  the  existence 
 of  the  Pentateuch,  since  the  custom  itself  originated  with  the  Pen- 
 tateuch. 
 
 After  the  inquiry  respecting  the  nature  of  the  sources  for  the 
 history  of  the  times  of  the  Judges,  we  proceed  to  determine  what 
 relation  the  materials  contained  in  these  sources  bear  to  the  ques- 
 tion respecting  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch. 
 
 In  reference  to  no  point  is  the  oj)position  between  the  Penta- 
 teuch and  the  period  of  the  Judges  believed  to  be  more  certain 
 than  in  reference  to  sacred  places.  In  the  Pentateuch,  we  are 
 told,  it  is  strictly  enjoined,  that  only  before  the  Tabernacle,  and 
 when  the  people  came  unto  the  land  of  Canaan,  only  in  "  that 
 place  which  Jehovah  had  chosen  from  all  the  tribes,  to  place  his 
 name  there,"  were  sacrifices  to  be  offered,  and  all  acts  of  Divine 
 worsliip  to  be  performed,  and  even  all  the  feasts  to  be  celebrated. 
 In  palpable  contradiction  to  all  this,  we  find  in  the  period  of  the 
 
SACRED  PLACES.  33 
 
 Judges  a  multitude  of  sacred  places.  De  Wette,  {Beitrdge,  i. 
 226) ;  Bleek,  {Stud.  u.  Grit.,  1831,  p.  501)  ;  Vatke,  (p.  264)  ; 
 Gramberg,  and  others. 
 
 We  shall  first  of  all  prove,  that  all  the  facts  which  are  ad- 
 duced to  prove  the  non-observance  of  the  law  respecting  the  unity 
 of  the  sanctuary,  are  incorrectly  apphed  ;  we  shall  show  positively 
 that  this  law,  during  the  whole  period  of  the  Judges,  was  in  ope- 
 ration— that  the  people  had  then  only  one  sanctuary. 
 
 The  facts  that  are  adduced  against  the  view  we  have  taken  are 
 the  following:  1,  According  to  Judges  ii.  5,  the  people  sacri- 
 ficed at  Bochim.  But  we  maintain,  that  by  tliis  act  the  Mosaic 
 ordinance  respecting  the  unity  of  the  sanctuary  and  the  presenta- 
 tion of  offerings  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  was  not  violated. 
 The  key  to  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  has  been  already  pointed 
 out  by  Serrarius,  eo  ijtso,  quad  ihi  apimrehat  domimis,^  et 
 pojmhim  ad  deinn  jjrojntiaiidum  hortabatur  videhatur  locum 
 mnctum  indicare,  simulque  potestatem  ihi  sacrificia  efferendi 
 facere.  Sacrifices  were  to  be  ordinarily  presented  at  the  Ark  of 
 the  Covenant,  because  there,  and  only  there,  was  the  ordinary  seat 
 of  God.  The  rule  was  the  basis  of  the  exception  ;  that  sacrifices 
 were  offered  to  God,  where  he  had  manifested  himself  in  an  ex- 
 traordinary manner,  flowed  from  the  same  principle.  To  main- 
 tain that  there  could  be  no  exception,  that  absolutely  no  sacrifices 
 whatever  were  to  be  offered  but  at  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  would  be 
 to  maintain,  that,  after  the  erection  of  the  tabernacle,  God  would 
 never  manifest  himself  elsewhere.  How  Httle  God's  presence  was 
 restricted  to  the  ark  of  the  covenant  appears  from  Jeremiah  iii.  16: 
 
 "  In  those  days,  saitli  the  Lord, 
 
 They  shall  say  no  more,  The  Ark  of  the  Covenant  of  the  Lord, 
 
 *  ScHMiD  {Comm.  p.  164J  has  adduced  evidence  that  the  being  who  appeai-ed  was  the 
 angel  of  the  Lord,  not,  as  modern  critics  have  decided,  on  angel,  or  perhaps  a  prophet. 
 On  grammatical  gi-ounds,  it  is  certain  that  n-^ni  '-jSPto  can  only  mean  the  angel  of  the 
 Lord.  Of  the  form  of  the  appearance  we  know  nothing,  nor  whether  the  words,  whicli 
 are  attributed  to  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  were  outwardly  uttered,  or  only  the  essence  of 
 his  address  interpreted  by  the  servants  of  God.  But  thus  much  is  certain  (and  this  is 
 all  that  concerns  our  object),  the  people  were  con^dnced  of  an  extraordinary  manifes- 
 tation {N((he)i)  of  God.  This  Geamberg  considers  to  be  the  ground  of  the  sacrifice 
 without  being  aware  wliat  he  admits  in  so  doing.  He  remai-ks  (i.  22)  that  there  could 
 be  no  hesitation  about  sacrificing  at  Bochim,  "  since  the  place  had  been  consecrated 
 by  the  appeai-ance  of  an  angel,  or  rather  (since  he  ascribes  to  himself  the  leadiuo-  out 
 of  Egypt)  of  Jehovah."  ° 
 
 VOL.  IT.  r 
 
34     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 Neither  shall  it  come  to  miud  ; 
 Neither  shall  they  remember  it ; 
 Neither  shall  they  visit  it; 
 Neither  shall  that  be  doue  any  more." 
 
 Th^Jinite  form  of  God's  manifestation  cannot,  even  while  it  en- 
 dures, be  purely  exclusive.  Should  it  he  said,  that  the  account 
 of  the  appearance  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  at  Bochim  was  mythic, 
 then  we  answer,  that  the  sacrifice  of  Israel  at  Bochim  must  be 
 taken  mythically  also ;  for  that  the  author  only  allowed  Israel  to 
 sacrifice,  because  the  Lord  appeared  there,  is  evident  from  his 
 never  mentioning  a  sacrifice  by  Israel  at  any  other  place  than  the 
 Ark  of  the  Covenant,  except  in  the  case  of  an  extraordinary  ap- 
 pearance of  God.  This  explanation  of  the  sacrifice  at  Bocliim  ap- 
 phes  equally  to  the  sacrifice  of  Gideon  at  Ophrah,*  for  that  also 
 rests  on  the  principle,  that  the  place  where  God  appears  is,  as  long 
 as  that  appearance  lasts,  a  sanctuary,  and  the  person  to  whom  God 
 appears  i^,  pro  tempore,  a  priest.  It  would  only  have  been  a  vio- 
 lation of  the  Mosaic  law  had  Gideon  constituted  a  permanent 
 ritual  in  his  native  place,  Ophrah.  This,  indeed,  is  asserted  by 
 Geambeeg.  He  remarks  (i.  p.  23)  in  reference  to  Judges  vi.  24, 
 ("  Then  Gideon  built  an  altar  there  unto  the  Lord,  and  called  it 
 Jehovah -shalom :  unto  this  day  it  is  yet  in  Ophrah  of  the  Abi- 
 Ezrites"),  "  Here  is  a  worship  of  Jehovah  at  Ophrah,  the  traces 
 of  which  were  not"  known  to  the  narrator."  But,  in  this  instance, 
 the  correct  view  has  been  already  given  by  the  older  expositors. 
 Thus  ScHMiD  observes,  Non  aedijicavit  Gideon  altare  hoc,  tit 
 velipse,  vel  alii,  sacrijicia  ibi  efferrent potitis,  qiiam  in  loco, 
 quern  ad  arcam  foederis  sibi  elegerat  Jehovah ;  sed  in  yratam 
 et  aeternani  memoriani  benejicii  et  miracuU,  sibi  a  Jehovah 
 praestiti  erexit  illiid.  Estque  illud  in  memoriam  conservatum 
 usque  ad  diem  hunc,  inquit  historiciis  sacer :  nee  legimus  nllum 
 ibi  tanquam  sacrijicium  oblatum  esse."  The  altar  had  its  name 
 in  Hebrew,  !j.?J^,  from  sacrifices,  but  that  the  ustis  loqiiendi  was 
 of  wider  extent  than  the  etymological  meaning,  is  evident  from 
 the  fact,  that  the  altar  of  incense  on  which  no  °^'?^'!  were  offered 
 also  bore  the  name  hm^.     Instances  of  altars  as  memorials  are 
 
 *  Let  it  be  observed,  that  on  everxj  occasion  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Judges  of  an 
 extraordinaiy  appearance  of  God,  sacrifices  were  oftered.  This  strengthens  the  force 
 of  the  conclusion  which  has  been  drawn  from  the  "  nevi-r  elseirhere^"^ 
 
SACRED  PLACES.  35 
 
 found  in  Exod.  xvii.  15,  and  Josh.  xxii.  10,  "  Not  for  burnt-of 
 ferings  nor  for  sacrifices,  but  it  is  a  witness  between  us  and  you," 
 i.e.  that  the  tribes  on  the  other  side  Jordan  belonged  to  the  people 
 of  Jehovah,  ver.  28.  That  the  altai*  erected  by  Gideon  was  not 
 designed  for  sacrifices  appears  especially  from  ver.  26.  Why 
 otherwise  should  Gideon  erect  another  altar  ?  This  second  altar, 
 likewise,  and  the  sacrifice  that  Gideon  offered  upon  it  by  night  after 
 the  Lord  had  appeared  to  him,  (in  reference  to  which  Lightfoot 
 justly  remarks,  "  Sacrijicium  hoc  fiiit  tnirae  et  variae  disj^ensa- 
 tiotiis  oblatum  iioctn,  loco  communi,  a  persona  jyrivata,  adhi- 
 hitis  lignis  a  luco  idololatrico,  ipsumque  idolo  fuerat  destina- 
 ttim),  are  only  apparently  in  opposition  to  the  Mosaic  ordinance. 
 This  ordinance  referred  only  to  the  common  course  of  things ;  it 
 established  the  rule  to  which  exceptions  could  only  be  taken  by  ex- 
 press Divine  command  communicated  either  by  acts  or  words.  Such 
 a  command  Gideon  here  received.  The  transaction  was  isolated. 
 It  had  a  symboHc  meaning.  It  was  a  practical  declaration  of  war 
 on  the  part  of  God  against  idols — a  prediction  that  their  supre- 
 macy in  Israel  was  now  at  an  end — that  God  now  demanded  back 
 what  had  been  unlawfully  withdrawn  fi'om  him.  These  observa- 
 tions will  also  explain  Manoah's  sacrifice,  of  which  God  testified 
 his  approval.     Judges  xiii.  19, 
 
 2.  It  is  said  in  Judges  xi.  11,  "  And  Jephthah  uttered  all  his 
 words  before  the  Lord,"  ^T]  ^^^X  This  expression,  it  is  asserted, 
 commonly  occurs,  in  reference  to  a  sacred  place,  when  a  ceremony 
 with  reUgious  rites  is  performed  at  an  altar  or  sanctuary  of  Jeho- 
 vah. Moreover,  solemn  contracts  and  oaths  were  always  con- 
 nected with  sacrifices,  and  hence  most  naturally  were  performed 
 on  spots  set  apart  for  sacrifices.  Probably  there  was  such  a  spot 
 at  Mizpeh,  on  the  other  side  Jordan,  where  the  transaction  nar- 
 rated in  the  passage  before  us  took  place  ;  yet  possibly  the  sacri- 
 fice was  offered  on  an  altar  suddenly  erected  for  the  occasion. 
 (See  Studeu  on  the  passage.)  But  we  deny  that  there  is  any 
 trace  of  a  sanctuary  or  of  a  sacrificial  act.  As  to  the  latter,  it  is 
 asserted,  indeed,  that  oath-taking  was  always  accompanied  by  sa- 
 crifice. But  the  contrary  is  evident  from  ver.  10,  where,  in  the 
 land  of  Tob,  the  elders  of  Gilead  say  to  Jephthah,  "  The  Lord  be 
 witness  between  us,  if  we  do  not  so  according  to  thy  words,"  Was 
 there  any  such  thing  as  an  altar  to  Jehovah  in  the  heathen  land 
 
 c  2 
 
3G     THE  PENTATEUCH  A^iD  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 of  Tob,  or  was  one  erected  there  by  tlie  Gileadites  ?     Certainly 
 oaths  were  often  taken  with  sacrifices,   (see  Michaelis,  Mos. 
 Rechte,  iv.  §  189;  vi.  §  302);  and  even  here  sacrifices  might 
 have  been  ofiered,  if  circumstances  had  j^ermitted  to  perform  the 
 act  at  the  tabernacle.     But  that  oaths  were  not  always  connected 
 with  sacrifices  is  shown  by  examples  to  the  contrary  in  Gen.  xiv. 
 22,  23,  and  Piuth  i.  17,  wdien  Ruth,  in  the  land  of  Moab,  swore 
 by  Jehovah.     Other  instances  may  be  found  in  Jahn,  (ArcJueo- 
 loffie,  iii.  §  1 13).     It  is  nowhere  prescribed  in  the  law,  that  sacri- 
 fices should  be  (as  a  general  rule)  connected  with  oath-taking. 
 It  is  asserted,  that  the  phrase  n'.tr^  ^2t?  alludes  to  a  sanctuary.   But 
 we  are  by  no  means  justified  in  putting  such  a  material  construc- 
 tion on  these  words,  of  which  even  Movers  has  not  been  able  to 
 keep  clear,  (who  asserts,  (JJeher  die  Chronik,  p.  290),  that,  in  all 
 the  passages  where  it  is  said  that  a  religious  act  was  performed 
 ''before  the  Lord,"  n--^  -^^th,  the  presence  of  the  Ark  or  the  Taber- 
 nacle is  always  implied.     The  expression  tr.ri^  ^22^  says  no  more 
 than  that  Jephthah  confirmed  all  his  words  by  an  oath.     If  it  be 
 maintained,  that  n^.n-^  "■^th  must  refer  to  the  sanctuary,  it  must  be 
 also  maintained,  that  all  oaths  could  only  be  taken  at  otie,  or 
 the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah,  of  which,  neither  in  the  law  nor  in  the 
 sacred  history,  is  there  any  trace.     We  allow  that  the  phrase 
 rr.n^  "^isV  is  very  frequently  used  in  reference  to  transactions  which 
 were  performed  at  the  place  of  the  sanctuary,  but  only  on  this  ac- 
 count, that  Jehovah  had,  in  an  especial  manner,  made  himself 
 known  in  the  sanctuary.      If  the  expression  rr.rr^  ^ith  could  only 
 apply  to  transactions  connected  with  a  sanctuary,  then  Jehovah 
 could  only  be  present  there — would  be  enclosed  in  his  sanctuary  ; 
 an  absurd  notion  vvhich  nullifies  the  Divine  omnipresence,  and 
 which  no  one  can  find  in  any  part  of  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
 
 In  hke  manner,  in  reference  to  Judges  xx.  1,  "  Then  all  the 
 cliildren  of  Israel  went  out,  and  the  congregation  was  gathered 
 together  as  one  man  .  .  unto  the  Lord  in  Mizpeh."  From 
 this  passage  it  has  been  inferred  that  in  the  period  of  the  Judges 
 there  was  a  sanctuary  of  Jehovah  at  Mizpeh.  The  spiritual  in- 
 terpretation which  is  to  be  found  in  Kimchi,  iihicunque  locorum 
 congregatur  totiis  Israel,  eel  major  pars  ejus,  ihi  divina  ma- 
 jestas  habitat ;  and  in  Schmid,  ubi plus  Dei  popiilus  congre- 
 gatur,  ibi  sijie  dubio  dens  est  in  medio  ipsorum,  is  also  here  the 
 
SACRED  TLACES,  37 
 
 correct  one  ;  compare  ver.  2,  "  in  the  assembly  of  the  people  of 
 God."  If  the  people  were  conscious  of  being  the  people  of  God, 
 then  their  assembly,  wherever  it  might  be  held,  would  be  "  unto 
 the  Lord"  n'.n^ Vk.  Ejusmodi  conyregatio  non  mere  civilis  sen 
 j)olitica  fidt,  sed  simitl  ecclesiastica  et  sacra.  Schmid.  In 
 general  such  assemblies  were  held  at  the  place  of  the  sanctuary, 
 or  even  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  was  brought  there.  Yet  this 
 was  not  indispensably  necessary.  In  the  present  instance,  it  is 
 not  difficult  to  ascertain  why  the  assembly  was  called  not  at  Shiloh 
 but  at  Mizpeh.  Mizpeh  was  not  only  in  itself  admirably  suited 
 for  a  place  of  meeting,  by  its  position  in  the  midst  of  the  Hebrew 
 territory  on  this  side  Jordan,  but  was  specially  adapted  by  its  being 
 in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin.  In  the  place  where  the  offence  had  been 
 committed,  the  judicial  proceedings  took  place,  so  that  if  the  accu- 
 sed tribe  did  not  clear  itself,  execution  might  imm^ediately  follow. 
 8.  Peculiar  weight  is  attached  to  Judges  xx.  and  xxi.,  from 
 which  it  incontrovertibly  appears  that  in  the  period  of  the  Judges 
 there  was  a  place  for  offering  sacrifices  to  the  Lord  at  Bethel. 
 But  one  place  of  sacrifice  simply  cannot  be  intended ;  it  is  said 
 XX.  27,  "  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  of  God  was  there  in  those 
 days."  This,  however,  is  easily  explained,  if  we  admit  that  the 
 Ark  of  the  Covenant  was  brought  during  the  Benjamitish  war, 
 from  Shiloh  to  Bethel.  For  this  supposition  there  are  the  follow- 
 ing reasons,  (i).  The  repeated  statements  (even  in  this  very  sec 
 tion)  of  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges,  that  the  Ark  of  the 
 Covenant,  during  the  whole  period  of  the  Judges,  and  especially 
 in  the  time  of  the  Benjaminitish  war,  had  its  abiding  resting-place 
 at  Shiloh.  Now,  unless  we  are  willing  to  involve  the  author  in 
 a  gross  self-contradiction,  the  explanation  we  have  suggested  must 
 be  admitted,  in  which  there  is  no  difficulty,  (ii.)  The  author 
 himself  has  plainly  enough  indicated  that  the  stay  of  the  ark  at 
 Bethel  was  only  temporary.  This  may  be  gathered  especially  from 
 xxi.  4,  "  And  it  came  to  pass  on  the  morrow,  that  the  people  rose 
 early  and  built  there  an  altar,  and  offered  bmiit  offerings  and 
 peace  offerings."  That"  an  altar  must  first  be  built  shows  that 
 Bethel  was  not  the  common  place  of  the  sanctuary,  and  in  general 
 not  a  place  of  sacrifice.  Further,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  mention 
 is  made  only  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  and  not  of  the  tabernacle  ; 
 nor  must  we  overlook  the  clause,  "  in  those  days,''  xx.  27.     It 
 
38  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIiME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 has  been  asserted,  indeed,  that  the  author  must  have  expressed 
 himself  more  distinctly,  if  he  had  meant  to  be  understood,  of  a 
 temporary  removal  of  the  ark.  But  this  would  erroneously  imply 
 that  the  author  wrote  for  people. who  did  not  know  what  Avas  the 
 regular  abiding-place  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  during  the  whole 
 period  of  the  Judges.  But  he  everywhere  assumes  that  Shiloh 
 was  known  as  such  to  his  readers,  and  that  they  were  sufficiently 
 aware  of  the  terminus  ad  quern,  (compare  xviii.  31,  where  he 
 speaks  of  it  as  a  well  known  fact),  (iii.)  The  situation  of  Bethel 
 makes  it  probable  that  the  ark  was  brought  there  ov\^  pro  tem- 
 j)ore.  That  it  lay  exactly  in  the  land  of  Benjamin,  near  Gibeah, 
 which  was  not  far  from  Jerusalem,  would  have  been  a  singular 
 coincidence  if  that  had  been  the  constant  abode  of  the  ark.  On 
 the  other  hand  it  has  been  remarked  that  one  does  not  see  why 
 the  ark  was  brought  to  Bethel  and  not  into  the  camp  before  Gibeah, 
 and  this  is  an  objection  wliich  must  not  be  summarily  dismissed. 
 We  must  be  able  to  give  a  reason  why,  of  all  places  in  the  land 
 of  Benjamin  and  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  seat  of  war,  Bethel 
 was  fixed  upon  for  the  temporary  abode  of  the  ark.  Nor  will  it 
 be  difficult  to  satisfy  this  demand.  It  is  necessary  (though  very 
 often  neglected),  to  distinguish  between  holy  places  in  a  strict  sense, 
 places  for  sacrificing,  and  holy  places  in  a  wider  sense.  In  the 
 land  of  Israel,  the  places  rendered  sacred  by  the  memorials  of  past 
 time  were  by  no  means  few.  But  in  the  whole  history  of  the  period 
 of  the  Judges  not  a  single  instance  occurs  of  sacrifices  being  offer- 
 ed at  any  of  these  places  unless  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  was  there. 
 But  these  places  were  not  holy  by  an  abuse  of  the  term,  they  were 
 really  intended  to  be  so.  The  same  book  of  the  law  which  con- 
 tains the  ordinance  enforcing  the  unity  of  the  sanctuary  in  a  stricter 
 sense,  records  also,  wdth  evident  design,  those  facts  on  which  the 
 hohness  attributed  to  these  places  was  founded.  Everywhere  ob- 
 jects were  presented  to  the  Israelites  tending  to  cherish  their 
 piety  ;  everywhere  they  were  excited  to  walk  in  the  steps  of  their 
 pious  ancestors.  Of  the  holy  places  in  this  sense,  Bethel  stood  in 
 the  first  rank.  For  this  reason,  among  the  places  which  lay  near 
 the  seat  of  the  war,  it  was  chosen  for  the  temporary  abode  of  the  arE. 
 The  narrative  itself  seems  to  point  to  this  reason  for  fixing  on 
 Bethel,  and  alludes  to  the  events  of  former  days,  by  which  the  place 
 was  rendered  sacred.      After  the  expedition  was  over,  the  people 
 
SACRED  PLACES.  ^39 
 
 assembled  again  at  Bethel,  xxi.  2,  "  And  the  people  came  to  Bethel 
 {the  house  of  God,  Eng.  vers.)  and  abode  there  till  even  before 
 God  (°T'^^^,C''?.f'?),  and  lifted  up  their  voices  and  wept  sore  ;  and  said, 
 O  Lord  God  of  Israel,  why  is  this  come  to  pass  in  Israel,  that  there 
 should  be  to-day  one  tribe  lacking  in  Israel  ?"  The  use  of  Elohim 
 in  such  a  connection,  where  otherwise  Jehovah  would  always  stand, 
 iit  once  leads  us  back  to  Genesis.  At  Bethel — where  God  had 
 blessed  his  descendants  in  Israel,  where  he  had  said  to  him,  "And 
 thy  seed  shall  be  as  the  dust  of  the  earth,  and  thou  shalt  break 
 forth  to  the  west,  and  to  the  east,  and  to  the  north,  and  to  the 
 south,"  Gen.  xxviii.  14 — at  Bethel,  where  God  had  said,  "be 
 fruitful  and  multiply,  a  nation  and  a  company  of  nations  shall  be 
 of  thee,"  XXXV.  9,  was  the  lamentation  raised  on  the  strange  con- 
 trast between  the  matter  of  fact  and  the  idea,  (iv.)  Immediately 
 after  the  end  of  the  war,  all  the  people  came  back  to  Shiloh, 
 Judges  xxi.  19.  There  the  Passover  was  celebrated  at  the  Taber- 
 nacle. At  Mizpeh  and  Bethel  a  reason  might  be  given  why  the 
 people  should  assemble  there  on  extraordinaiy  occasions ;  not  so 
 at  Shiloh.  Now,  to  this  let  it  be  added,  that  it  was  customary,  and 
 especially  in  the  time  of  the  Judges,  for  the  ark  to  accompany  the 
 people  on  their  expeditions,  and  then  certainly  no  difficulty  can 
 remain  in  admitting  that  the  Ark  was  merely  for  a  season  at  Bethel, 
 and  that  no  violation  of  the  law  respecting  the  unity  of  the 
 sanctuary  was  committed  in  the  course  of  these  transactions. 
 
 4.  It  has  been  thought  that  the  facts  which  go  to  prove  that 
 in  the  time  of  Samuel,  and  by  him,  sacrifices  were  offered  in  seve- 
 jal  places,  would  justify  certain  conclusions  respecting  the  times 
 of  the  Judges.  But  this  justification  could  only  be  vahd,  if  it 
 could  not  be  shewn  that  the  facts  in  the  time  of  Samuel  rested  on 
 special  causes  which  were  not  in  operation  in  the  period  of  the 
 Judges  ;  if  it  could  not  be  proved  that  the  multiphcation  of  places 
 of  sacrifice  in  Samuel's  time  rested  on  other  grounds  than  on  igno- 
 rance of  the  law  respecting  the  unity  of  the  sanctuary.  But  hap- 
 pily we  are  not  left  here  to  mere  conjecture,  but  history  affords  us  a 
 certain  solution.  The  captm^e  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  by  the 
 Phihstines  deprived  Israel  of  the  national  sanctuary,  for  the  sa- 
 cred tabernacle  that  was  only  made  a  sanctuary  by  means  of  the 
 ark,  could  no  longer  be  considered  as  such,  but  was  a  body  with- 
 out a  soul,  a  corpse.     True,  indeed,  the  ark  was  brought  back 
 
40     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 again,  but  the  catastrophe  which  the  men  of  Beth-Shemesh  suf- 
 fered on  its  arrival,  shewed  the  people  that  the  promise,  "  I  will 
 dwell  in  your  midst,"  was  not  yet  to  he  fulfilled  by  means  of  it. 
 A  state  of  things  had  arisen  like  that  in  the  wilderness  after  the 
 worship  of  the  calf,  or  daring  the  Babylonish  Captivity.  It  was 
 needful  for  the  people  to  become  inwardly  a  people  of  God,  before 
 the  sanctuary  could  again  be  estabhshed  among  them.  They 
 beheld  in  their  national  affairs  a  practical  declaration  of  God  that 
 he  would  no  longer  dwell  in  Shiloh. 
 
 The  Israelites  dared  not,  on  their  own  responsibility,  to  select 
 a  new  place  for  the  sanctuary.     They  only  endeavoured  to  find  a 
 shelter  for  the  ark  in  futuros  iisus,  and  this  was  no  easy  task. 
 The  Bethshemites  despaired  of  getting  rid  of  it.     Contrary  to  ex- 
 pectation, the  inhabitants  of  Iliijath-Jearim  were  wilhng  to  re- 
 ceive it.      No  one  envied  them  its  possession;    no   one  would 
 deprive  them  of  it.     In  a  succession  of  occurrences  its  presence 
 had  been  so  disastrous,   that  they  were  glad  to  get  rid  of  it. 
 Even  David,  by  whom  the  ark  obtained,  so  to  speak,  a  resurrection, 
 was  at  first  afraid  to  bring  it  to  Jerusalem.     "And  David  was 
 afraid  of  the  Lord  that  day,  and  said,  how  shall  the  Ark  of  the 
 Lord  come  to  me  ?     So  David  would  not  remove  the  Ai^k  of  the 
 Lord  unto  him  into  the  city  of  David,"  2  Sam.  vi.  9,  10.     We 
 find  no  trace  of  sacrifices  being  ofi'ered  at  Kirjath-Jearim.     And 
 this  shows  that  the  state  of  things  at  that  time  was  peculiar.     For 
 it  is  admiited  that  during  the  period  of  the  Judges,  the  abode  of 
 the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  was  the  chief  place  of  sacrifice.     A  pas- 
 sage in  Psalm  Ixxviii.  leads  us  to  a  middle  state,  a  time  during 
 which  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  though  outwardly  again  in  Israel, 
 v^^as  inwardly  in  the  land  of  the  Philistines. 
 
 When  God  heard  tliis,  he  was  wi-oth, 
 And  greatly  abhorred  Israel ; 
 So  that  he  forsook  the  tabernacle  of  Shiloh, 
 The  tent  which  he  placed  among  men. 
 
 Ps.  Ixxviii.  69,  GO. 
 
 On  the  return  of  his  favour,  the  Lord  chose,  instead  of  Ephraim 
 and  Shiloh,  Judah  and  Zion.  Here,  therefore,  an  empty  interval 
 lies  between  the  time  in  which  the  Lord  dwelt  at  Shiloh,  and  that 
 in  which  he  dwelt  at  Zion.  Now,  it  was  natural  that  with  the 
 depreciation  of  the  sanctuary,  the  holy  places  should  rise  in  im- 
 
SACRED  PLACES.  41 
 
 portance,  up  to  the  point  of  becoming  places  of  sacrifice.     This 
 view  which  the  present  writer  had  reached  independently,  he  after- 
 wards found  in  the  older  expositors.     It  is  ably  developed  by 
 ScHMiD,  in  lihr.  Sam.     At  p.  187,  he  says  ''  Altaria  et  sacri- 
 Jicia  non  tarn  ad  arcam  foederis  Jehovae,  quam  ad  locum  quem 
 Jehovah  sibi  et  arcae  suae  electurus  erat,  alligata  fuenmt. 
 Quando  ergo  locus  Jehovae  electus  nullus  erat,  altaria  alibi 
 locorum  ex  bona  etjusta  saltem  causu,  quando  ex.gr.  comitia 
 poimli  alicubi  habebantur,  aut praesens  aliqua  necessitas pos- 
 tulabat,  erigiet  sacrijicia  afferripoterant.     Quando  ipsa  area 
 i7i  privatis  aedibus  hospitabatur  qnomodo  ibi  totus  populus 
 sacrijicare.et  cultum  divinnm  peragere  potuit"^      .       .     Area 
 mmqiiam  in  Noben  translata  est,  propterea procul  dubio,  quod, 
 quae  tabernaculo  et  vasis  tentorii  supererant,  ibi  in  urbe  sa- 
 cerdotum  et  apud  pontijicem  maximum,  et  post  percusstim  a 
 Saule  Noben,  in  Gibeone,  7ion  minus  tantum  hospitabantur, 
 quam  area  foederis  in  Kirjath-Jearim  :  atque  sic  omnia  ex 
 spectabant  locum  quem  Jehovah  repudiata  Schilunte  electurus 
 erat."     Yet,  let  it  be  observed,  that  in  1   Sam.  ii.  35,  the  full 
 restoration  of  the  high  priesthood,  of  which  the  temporary  degra- 
 dation, in  connection  with  that  of  the  sanctuary,  began  with  the 
 death  of  Eli,  is  placed  parallel  with  the  appointment  of  a  king, 
 "And  I  will  raise  me  up  a  faithful  priest,     .     .     .     and  I  will 
 build  him  a  sure  house,  and  he  shall  walk  before  my  Anointed 
 for  ever." 
 
 Movers  has  attempted  to  remove  the  same  difficulty  in  another 
 way.  He  maintains  (p.  200)  that  in  all  places  where,  according 
 to  the  books  of  Samuel,  sacrifices  were  offered,  the  ark  was  pre- 
 sent. He  prefers  Gilgal,  wliich  is  frequently  mentioned  in  the 
 Books  of  Samuel,  as  a  place  of  sacrifice,  where  the  ark  remained 
 for  a  long  period.  It  was  brought  thither  from  Kii'jath-Jearim 
 where,  according  to  1  Sam.  vii.  2,  it  had  remained  twenty  years. 
 But  it  must  have  been  brought  back  afterwards  to  Kirjath-Jearim, 
 for  David  fetched  it  thence.  This  hypothesis,  however,  rests  on 
 no  certain  grounds.  For  we  have  shown  that  the  phrase 
 !T,n^  ^32^  to  which  Movers  appeals,  by  no  means  conveys  the  idea 
 that  the  transaction  to  which  it  relates  occurred  where  the  Ark  of 
 the  Covenant  was  kept.  And  the  second  reason,  that  the  ark 
 remained  only  twenty  years  at  Kiijath-Jearim,  rests  on  a  false 
 
42     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 interpretation  of  1  Sam.  vii.  2,  arising  from  an  arbitrary  separa- 
 tion of  the  two  parts.  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  after  the  ark  had 
 been  a  long  time,  twenty  years,  at  Kirjath-Jearim,  the  children  of 
 Israel  lamented  afier  the  Lord,"  The  ark  is  mentioned  here  only 
 in  order  to  determine  the  date  of  this  event  in  relation  to  the 
 preceding  history.  Not  a  word  is  said  to  the  efifect  that  the  ark 
 was  removed  from  Kirjath-Jearim  at  the  end  of  twenty  years. 
 In  this  instance  persons  have  allow^ed  themselves  in  an  arbitrary 
 interpolation,  under  the  influence  of  a  secret  bias.  Had  the  ark 
 really  been  taken  away  from  Kiijath-Jearim,  it  would  hardly  have 
 been  brought  back  again,  since  its  being  deposited  there  was 
 accidental,  and  any  other  place  would  have  been  equally  proper. 
 But  not  only  is  this  view  destitute  of  all  support ;  there  are  seve- 
 ral weighty  considerations  against  it.  According  to  it  the  ark 
 would  have  been,  even  under  Samuel,  the  centre  of  the  whole  re- 
 hgious  Ufe  of  the  Israelites.  But  how  does  it  consist  with  its 
 being  so  that  it  should  remain  at  Kirjath-Jearim,  in  a  private 
 house,  without  priestly  attendance  ?  How  does  it  consist  with 
 1  Ohron.  xiii.  3,  where  it  it  said,  that  "  the  ark  was  not  enquired 
 at  in  the  days  of  Saul  ?"  Let  it  be  also  observed  that  only  ac- 
 cording to  our  view  can  the  exercise  of  the  priestly  functions  by 
 Samuel  be  satisfactorily  explained.  Along  with  the  sanctuary, 
 the  priesthood  was  also  rejected  by  God,  and  in  reference  to  both 
 there  was  a  provisional  arrangement,  till  they  w^ere  restored. 
 
 5.  There  is  only  o?ie  case  remaining,  in  which  a  violation  of 
 the  law  respecting  the  unity  of  the  sanctuary  was  committed, 
 namely,  the  estabhshment  of  a  private  sanctuary  by  Micah,  which 
 was  transferred  by  him  to  the  colony  of  Danites.  But  in  this 
 isolated  fact  no  one  would  detect  a  proof  that  at  that  time  the  law 
 respecting  the  unity  of  the  sanctuary  was  not  known  and  acknow- 
 ledged. Bleek  at  least  disclaims  any  violation  of  the  law  in  the 
 case,  without  any  reference  to  the  persons  ft'om  whom  the  charge 
 proceeds-  He  remarks  (p.  5G2),  "If  the  law  in  this  form  had 
 existed  and  been  acknowledged  as  Mosaic,  one  might  expect  that 
 at  least  the  pious  part  of  the  people,  who  adhered  with  zeal  to  the 
 service  of  Jehovah,  and  laboured  to  uphold  and  promote  it,  would 
 be  held  and  constrained  to  the  observance  of  that  prescription." 
 But  it  is  clear  as  day  that  neither  the  knave  Micah,  nor  the  boor- 
 ish Danites  belonged  to  this  class.     The  whole  proceedings  of 
 
SACRED  PLACES.  43 
 
 Micah  and  the  Danites  is  decidedly  regarded  by  the  author  of  the 
 Book  of  Judges  as  a  criminal  abuse.  Compare  tbe  more  copious 
 investigation  in  the  section  on  sacred  persons. 
 
 It  is  therefore  settled  that  in  the  whole  period  of  the  Judges, 
 not  a  single  instance  can  be  adduced  which  will  bear  examination 
 of  that  freedom  of  worship  which  it  is  said  must  have  happened 
 during  that  time.  Let  us  now  collect  the  evidences  which  prove 
 that  one  national  sanctuary — the  Tabernacle  with  the  Ark  of  the 
 Covenant  fixed  by  Joshua  at  Sliiloh,  was  during  the  period  of  the 
 Judges  the  rehgious  centre  of  the  nation,  and  the  only  place  of 
 sacrifice  that  was  lawful  and  frequented  by  the  godly. 
 
 1.  That  there  was  only  one  house  of  God,  one  sanctuary  for 
 all  Israel,  appears  incontestably  from  Judges  xix.  1 8,  when  shelter 
 was  refused  the  Levite  in  Gibeah,  he  said,  "  I  am  going  to  the  house 
 of  the  Lord,  and  there  is  no  man  that  receiveth  me  to  house." 
 Studer  remarks  (p,  393),  "  We  may  understand  by  this  sanc- 
 tuary Shiloh,  or  rather  Bethel,  or  some  other  Ephraimitish  sanc- 
 tuary. But  the  place  here  specified  is  "  the  house  of  the  Lord" 
 (rtw  n^a  ms.)  And  how  could  the  Levite  found  on  his  connection 
 with  a  particular  sanctuary  a  claim  to  be  received  hospitably  in  a 
 Benjaminitish  town  ?  To  find  where  the  national  sanctuary  was, 
 tills  passage  gives  us  no  clue. 
 
 2.  Judges  xviii.  31  is  a  very  important  passage.  For  we  not 
 only  learn  from  it  that  the  house  of  God  was  at  a  definite  time  in 
 Shiloh,  but  it  is  expressly  said  that  it  was  there  from  the  time  of 
 the  expedition  of  the  Danites  that  took  place  at  the  beginning  of 
 the  period  of  the  Judges,  to  the  capture  of  the  ark  by  the  Phihs- 
 tines  towards  the  close  of  the  same  period.* 
 
 3.  That  the  great  feasts  were  celebrated  in  Shiloh,  and  that 
 the  whole  nation  assembled  there  to  attend  them,  appears  fi'om 
 Judges  xxi.  19  (compare  the  investigation  of  tliis  passage  in  the 
 section  on  sacred  times). 
 
 4.  The  first  chapters  of  the  First  Book  of  Samuel  furnish 
 important  information.  There  also  we  find  the  sanctuary  in 
 Shiloh.  That  it  was  the  sole  and  exclusive  one,  appears  from  the 
 names  'lil^"!  '^''?,  the  house  of  Jehovah,  i.  7,  24  ;  iii.  15 ;  and  ^^v* 
 ^l^\  i.  9  ;  iii.  3.     Besides  the  name  ^T^.  '^'=,  another  also  is  used 
 
 *  Vol.  i.  p.  197,  and  the  section  on  sacred  persons  in  this  vol. 
 
44     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 which  often  occurs  in  the  Pentateuch,  "'-^'^^  ^v'^,  Tabernacle  of  the 
 Congregation,  ii.  22.     There,  and  only  there,  were  the  offerings 
 of  the  whole  nation  presented,  and  there  the  feasts  were  celehrated. 
 The  Lord  speaks  in  ii.  28,  33,  of-  "  his  altar;"  and  the  words  in 
 ver.  29,  "  Wherefore  kick  ye  at  my  sacrifice,  and  at  my  offering 
 which  I  have  commanded  in  the  hahitation"  f^!?,  furnish  evi- 
 dence that  besides  the  tabernacle,  no  other  legitimate  place  of 
 worsliip  at  that  time  existed.     The  tabernacle  was  absolutely  the 
 habitation  of  God,  as  exclusively  as   heaven,   Deut.   xxvi.   15. 
 All  offerings  were  presented  there.     That  the  sacred  tabernacle  at 
 Shiloh  was  the  national  sanctuary  ordained  by  Moses,  is  shown 
 by  i.  22,  "  But  Hannah  went  not  up  ;  for  she  said  unto  her  hus- 
 band, I  will  not  go  up  until  the  child  be  weaned,  and  then  I 
 will  bring  him  that  he  may  appear  before  the  Lord!'     The  ex- 
 pression ^T^^  '"i'.?"^?  ^?r?  refers  to  Deut.  xvi.  16.     Three  times  in  a 
 year  shall  all  thy  males  appear  before  the  Lord  thy  God,  in  the 
 place  which  he  shall  choose."     In  the  tabernacle  was  the  lamp  of 
 God,  and  this,  like  the  Mosaic,  was  kept  burning  till  early  in  the 
 morning.     Compare  iii.  3,  ''  And  ere  the  lamp  of  God  went  out," 
 with  Exod.  xxvii.  20,  21,  where  the  command  is  given  to  Aaron 
 and  his  sons  to  ''  burn  the  lamp  always  in  the  Tabernacle  of  the 
 Congregation  without  the  veil,  from  evening  to  morning — a  statute 
 for  ever."     See  Lev.  xxiv.  3,  and  Exod.  xxx.  7,  8,  according  to 
 which  the  lamps  were  to  be  lighted  '^IT^^jI  T?  "  between  the  two 
 evens,"  and  bmii  from  even   to   morning.      In   the  sanctuary, 
 moreover,  was  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant.     As  to  its  form,  there 
 were  on  this  as  on  the  Mosaic,  Cherubim.     This  appears  from 
 1  Sam.  iv.  4,  ''  So  the  people  sent  to  Sliiloh,  that  they  might 
 bring  from   thence   the  Ark  of  the   Covenant  of  the  Lord  of 
 Hosts,  which  dwelleth  between  the  cherubim,"  '^^r^^^yi  -T.     Com- 
 pare 2   Sam.  vi.   2.      Gramberg,  indeed,   maintains    (p.   30), 
 that  the  author  does  not  mean  to  say,  that  the  images  of  the 
 cherubim  were  on  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  but  only  to  mark 
 Jehovah's  elevation,  and  certainly  this  distinction  is  here   sig- 
 nified more  by  the  fact  of  God's  elevation  above  all  creatm'es 
 than  by  the  symbol ;  but  if  this  latter  had  not  been  present,  the 
 former  certainly  would  not  have  been  here  described  in  a  simple 
 narrative  after  tliis  manner  ;  the  mere  ^*'^?f  would  have  been  suf- 
 ficient.    As  to  the  nature  and  importance  of  the  Ai'k  of  the  Co- 
 
SACRED  PLACES.  .. 
 
 45 
 
 venant,  it  h-^  already  appeared,  that  it  is  generally  spoken  of  as  the 
 Ark  of  the  Covenant  of  the  Lord,  or  the  Ark  of  God-dmt  i   f 
 cup.ed  essentially  the  same  position  as  the  Mosaic  Ark  ofl    Co 
 renant ;  for  thts  designation  implies  that  it  was  the  only  lee  of 
 
 iLir%::t'''''''^7'!'-'  °"'^  ^undattonof  hisr£t°o 
 Israel.     That  it  occupied  tins  position  is  shown,  besides   in  the 
 most  unequivocal  manner.    The  ark  and  the  Lord  appeal'inseja 
 ably  umted  ml  Sam.  iv.  3,  where  the  Israelites  say,"  Leut 
 
 S  i1: ;  ::  ^°"""^' '' ''''  '^'''  °"'^  °^  ^^^^  -'-" 
 
 vei.  o     and  the  Philistines  say,  ver.  7,  "  God  is  come  into  the 
 camp  ;    v^r.  8,  "  Woe  unto  us,  who  shall  deliver  „s  outS   1  e 
 hand  of  these  mighty  gods  ?"     The  higli  priest  Eli  rece  ved^ 
 be  other  moui.ful  tidings,  Israel's  overthrow,  and  the  death  of 
 
 arer'T^CTr?"^\'^'''''^"^^^^"8-erwhohades:t^ 
 The  ;,V  1        i  /'  *'^'°'    ^''  ^«"  fi-°«  1»^  seat,  iv.  18. 
 
 named  the  ^i-dlehabod,  saying.  The  gloiy  is  departed  from  Is- 
 rael for  the  A  ■  fr  1  "''  f'  '""''  "^^  -"'°^  ^«  departed  from 
 to  the  Iv  /       t'"^  ■'  '"'^'"■■'     '^^''  Bethshemites,  referring 
 
 io  d  G^d  ">  •'■ ''  • "  f '°  ^^  ""''■' '"  ^'^"^  ^^fo-  «-  holy 
 
 Lord  God.       This  national  view  of  the  Ark  of  the   Covenant 
 
 sideis  the  whole  land  as  earned  into  captivity,  in  this  its  sane 
 «^,  which  formed,  as  it  were,  its  niicletis  and  essence  M  H 
 
 so  that    I,    r  ""''  °'  '''  '"^^'"''^y  ^  '''  ~-7  consent   ne!' 
 so  that  all  the  passages  which  express  this  view  of  the  ail  mav 
 
 IS,  m  tutth  a  simple  corollaiy  to  the  declaration  of  the  Lord  that 
 
 rael,  and  wdled  to  be  present  among  his  people  only  through  its 
 medium.     From  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  Lnuel  rS  Ms 
 
 be  scattered,  and  let  them  that  hate  thee,  flee  before  thee  '   ~ 
 
46     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 pare  1  Sam.  iii.  4.  After  all  this,  let  our  readers  judge  for  them- 
 selves with  what  right  De  Wette  remai'ks  {Beitrdr/e.  i.  255), 
 "  Whether  the  sanctuary  at  Shiloh  was  the  Mosaic  ty^^  Vns  cannot 
 be  determined,  and,  indeed,  is  ver}'  doubtful  ;"  and,  in  his  Archce- 
 ologie,  (2d  ed.  Leipz.  1830),  §  222,  he  says,  "  The  existence  of 
 the  Mosaic  tabernacle  soon  becomes  uncertain  in  history.  Ex- 
 cept Joshua  x\iii.  1  (but  compare  ch.  xxiv.  1,  26),  no  certain 
 trace  appeal's  of  this  national  sanctuary  in  the  whole  time  from 
 Joshua  to  David  I" 
 
 5.  In  2  Sam.  vii.  6,  it  is  said,  "  Whereas  I  have  not  dwelt  in 
 any  house,  since  the  time  that  I  brought  up  the  children  of  Israel 
 out  of  Egypt,  even  to  this  day,  Init  have  ivalked  in  a  tent  and  a 
 tahernacle,''  Iff .^f'l  ^t^'^f  1?l'*7'^  ^^^^^^  According  to  this  passage, 
 one  and  the  same  portable  sanctuary  lasted  from  the  march  out 
 of  Egypt  to  the  time  of  David,  consequently  it  was  the  Mosaic 
 tabernacle  through  the  period  of  the  Judges. 
 
 6.  The  78th  Psalm  assumes,  that,  from  the  conquest  of  Canaan, 
 only  one  national  sanctuary  existed,  first  at  Shiloh,  and  aftenvards 
 at  Zion. 
 
 7.  Jeremiah  says,  in  vii.  12,  **  But  go  ye  now  unto  my  place 
 which  was  at  Shiloh,  where  I  set  my  name  at  the  first,  and  see 
 what  I  did  to  it  for  the  wickedness  of  my  people  Israel."  Here 
 also  only  two  sanctuaries  are  referred  to — first,  that  at  Shiloh 
 njris^a^  which  was  already  destroyed  in  Eli's  time,  in  the  war  of 
 the  Philistines — the  destruction  refers  not  to  the  town,  for  this 
 existed  in  later  times  (see  Bachiene,  ii.  3,  p.  423),  but  to  the 
 sanctuai'y  as  such  ;  then  that  at  Jerusalem,  wliich  now  was  to  be 
 destroyed.  We  have  here  a  verbal  reference  to  Deut.  xii.  11, 
 "  Then  there  shall  be  a  place  which  the  Lord  your  God  shall 
 choose,  to  cause  his  name  to  dwell  there,  thither  shall  ye  bring 
 all  that  I  command  you,"  &c.  In  this  reference,  the  character 
 of  exclusiveness  is  evidently  attributed  to  Shiloh,  which,  accord- 
 ing to  the  law,  it  ought  to  possess.  Also,  in  ch,  xxvi.  6,  the 
 house  of  God  at  Sliiloh  is  placed  on  a  pai'  with  Jerusalem. 
 
 In  relation  to  Sacred  Persons,  in  order  to  prove  the  wide  dis- 
 crepancy between  the  period  of  the  Judges  and  the  supposed  Mo- 
 saic institutions,  great  stress  has  been  laid  on  the  following  cir- 
 cumstances :  i.  In  the  period  of  the  Judges,   every  leader  of  the 
 
SACRED  PERSONS.  47 
 
 people,  nay,  every  father  of  a  family,  bad  a  light  to  offer  sacrifice, 
 aud  nothing  at  all  was  known  of  the  prerogative  with  which  the 
 priests  were  invested  hy  the  law.  See  De  Wette,  p.  ^55  ; 
 Gramberg,  p.  178  ;  Von  Bohlen,  p.  119  ;  and  Vatke,  p.  273. 
 We  maintain,  on  tlie  contrary,  that,  in  the  period  of  the  Judges, 
 the  priests  were  exactly  in  this  respect  what  they  were  required 
 to  be  by  the  Pentateuch ;  that  not  a  single  instance  occurs  in 
 which  the  laity  exercised  those  sacrificial  functions  wliich,  ac- 
 cording to  the  law,  belong^ed  to  the  priests.  For  the  opposite  opi- 
 nion, an  appeal  is  made  to  1  Sam.  ii.  15-17,  according  to  which, 
 the  offerers  performed  the  whole  sacrifice,  even  to  the  bm-ning  of 
 the  fat.  See  Gramberg,  p.  108.  But  the  latter  statement  is  de- 
 cidedly incorrect.  The  burning  of  the  fat,  the  '^''V".'?,  was  per- 
 formed by  persons  who  were  as  distinct  from  the  offerers  as  tho 
 sons  of  Eli.  This  is  intimated  by  the  expression,  "  before  t/iet/ 
 burnt  the  fat,"  ^^^''^i^l.^.^^f  in  ver.  15,  but  still  more  decidedly  by 
 ver.  IG,  where  the  offerer  himself  says,  "  Let  tkem  not  fail  to  burn 
 the  fat."  Compare  Lev.  iii.  3.  Thus,  if  the  latter  part  of  the 
 statement  be  false,  the  former  cannot  be  correct.  And  how  could 
 the  author  think  of  sacrifices  without  priests,  when,  in  ver.  28  of 
 the  same  chapter,  the  presentation  of  sacrifices  is  reckoned  among 
 the  prerogatives  of  the  priests,  the  marks  of  distinction  Avith  which 
 God  had  favom^ed  them  ?  The  only  reason  alleged  is,  that  the 
 person  who  brought  the  offering  is  called  the  "  ma?i  that  sacri- 
 jiced"  "^^V: *>^''*?^.  We  need  not  confine  ourselves  with  appealing 
 to  the  maxim.  Quod  qiiis per  alios  facit.  It  must  not  be  over- 
 looked, that  the  persons  who  presented  the  offering  had  an  im- 
 portant pait  in  the  sacrificial  act.  To  them  it  belonged,  accord- 
 ing to  the  law,  to  lead  the  victim  to  the  altar,  and  lay  their  hands 
 upon  its  head.  To  them  also  belonged  the  HJaying  of  it,  as  well 
 as  the  taking  out,  dividing,  and  w^asliing  the  entrails,  so  that  the 
 term  '^r!  need  not  occasion  us  the  least  difficulty.  Compare  Lev. 
 i.  4,  5,  11  ;  iii.  2  ;  iv.  24,  &c. ;  and  Outram,  p.  148.  Hence, 
 even  in  the  law,  sacrificing  is  frequently  attributed  to  the  people, 
 "  Thou  shalt  sacrifice  the  passovcr  unto  the  Lord  thy  God," 
 Deut.  xvi.  2,  compared  with  Numb,  xxviii.,  xxix.,  &c.  In  the 
 law  respecting  sacrifices,  Lev.  xvii.  2,  c^'c,  whore  yet  the  greatest 
 exactness  is  to  be  looked  for,  the  '^r^.  ^?J  is  attributed  to  the  laity, 
 ver.  5,  7  ;  and  likewise  the  ^t'  "^V^.-  <^nd  "^^J  in  ver.  8.     Lund  has 
 
48  THE  TENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  TPIE  JUDGES. 
 
 explained  that  passage  in  Joshua  viii.  30,  "  Then  Joshua  built  an 
 altar  .       .      and  they  offered  thereon  burnt- offerings,  and 
 
 sacrificed  peace-offerings,"  on  the  principle  of  that  usus  loqueiidi, 
 *'  qiice  causae  iiri}icij)ali  omnia  etiam  ad  ministerialem  perti- 
 nentia  frihidt."  "  Qiiis  credat"  he  remarks,  "  manii  idfecisse 
 propria  in  ipsa  legis  Mosaicae proniulgatione,  quce  ihi  descri- 
 hitiir,  et  adstante  cum  area  foederis  toto  sacerdotium  et  Levi- 
 tarum  concilio  V  The  assertion  we  are  combating  proceeds, 
 therefore,  from  pure  ignorance.  It  is  attenwted,  however,  to  sup- 
 port it  by  the  cases  of  Gideon  and  Manoah,  who  sacrificed  under 
 circumstances  which  would  not  admit  of  any  priestly  co-operation, 
 But  let  it  be  considered,  that  Gideon  and  Manoah  instituted  no 
 constant  ritual  in  which  they  might  officiate  as  priests,  but  that 
 they  only  once,  under  quite  extraordinary  circumstances,  in  con- 
 sequence of  an  appearance  of  an  angel  of  the  Lord  to  them,  exer- 
 cised the  priestly  function.  But  that,  under  such  circumstances, 
 even  according  to  the  Mosaic  law,  the  laity  were  permitted  to 
 present  sacrifices,  provided  they  did  not  go  beyond  the  ground  of 
 the  license,  the  immediate  presence  of  the  Lord,  who  can  deny  ? 
 The  appearance  itself  was  a  practical  declaration  on  the  part  of 
 God,  that,  on  such  occasions,  he  dispensed  with  his  wonted  me- 
 dium of  communication.  Let  it  be  also  considered,  tiiat,  accord- 
 ing to  the  law  itself,  the  priestly  dignity,  peculiarly  and  originally, 
 belonged  to  all  individuals  of  the  chosen  people.  "  And  ye  shall 
 be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of  priests,"  Exod.  xix.  G.  Accordingly,  the 
 Levitical  priesthood  possessed  only  transferred  rights ;  the  rights  of 
 the  people  were  only  suspended.  That  they  might  at  some  future 
 time  be  imparted  to  them  again,  wt^s  implied  in  that  fundamental  pas- 
 sage of  the  law.  For  what  is  contained  in  the  idea  must  one  day  be 
 brought  to  pass  in  the  reality.  In  Is.  Ixi.  6  it  is  said  oiall  Israel, 
 *'But  ye  shall  be  named  the  priests  of  the  Lord,  men  shall  call 
 you  the  ministers  of  our  God."  So  that,  at  a  future  period,  all 
 Israel  would  be  a  priestly  race.  And,  according  to  Jerem.  xxxiii. 
 22,  all  Israel  will  be  changed,  not  only  into  the  race  of  David, 
 but  into  the  tribe  of  Levi.  (See  Christolorjie,  iii.  p.  G 1 8) .  There 
 fore  the  Levitical  priesthood  could  not  have  the  same  importance 
 as  the  priesthood  belonging  to  other  nations  of  antiquity,  as  for 
 instance  the  Egyptians,  where  the  priests  and  the  people  stood  in 
 direct  contrast.     What  therefore  was  not  air  apyj]'^,  and  would 
 
SACRED  PERSONS,  4.9 
 
 cease  in  the  future,  we  miglit  presume  would  sufier  intermptioiis 
 in  the  intermediate  period,  under  extraordinary  circumstances. 
 The  hidden  glory  must  at  certain  seasons  gleam  through  the 
 temporary  veil.  Still  there  remained  to  the  people,  in  order  to 
 let  it  be  known  that  itwasessentially  possessed  of  priestly  dignity, 
 even  after  the  institution  of  the  Levitical  priesthood,  that  priestly 
 function  which  formed  the  root  and  groundwork  of  all  the  rest, 
 the  presentation  of  the  covenant-sacrifice,  the  Pascal-Lamb.  (See 
 Christologie,  iii.  p.  015).  Lastly,  it  is  urged  that,  according  to  1 
 Sam.  vi.  15,  the  inhabitants  of  Bethshemesh,  when  the  Ark  of  the 
 Covenant  came  to  them,  presented  sacrifices  alone  for  themselves. 
 But  even  if  we  grant  that  the  words  "  the  men  of  Bethshemesh 
 offered  burnt  offerings  and  sacrificed  sacrifices  the  same  day  unto 
 the  Lord,"  really  contain  what  is  attributed  to  them  (Michaelis 
 remarks,  adhibit  is  sacerdotihiis,  quorum  ihi  cojnafuit),  it  ought 
 not  to  be  overlooked  that  here  are  circumstances  quite  out  of  the 
 usual  course  which  forbid  the  inference  a  siieciaU  ad  generalc. 
 If  no  priest  were  at  hand  when  the  ark  arrived,  the  presentation 
 of  sacrifices  by  the  laity  was  certainly  in  accordance  with  the 
 spirit  of  the  Mosaic  legislation.  But  if  they  were  present,  (and 
 that  they  were  we  cannot  doubt,  since  Bethshemesh  was  one  of 
 the  cities  of  the  priests,  and  because  it  was  so,  the  ark  was  sent 
 there  by  the  PliiHstines),  then  the  laity  would  never  have  thought 
 of  violently  appropriating  a  Levitical  function,  by  taking  down 
 the  ark,  and  still  less  of  assuming  the  priestly  office.  Not  the 
 slightest  scruple  arose  in  the  mind  of  an  Israelite  that  the  sacri- 
 fices were  to  be  attributed  without  hesitation  to  those  for  whom 
 they  were  presented.  To  mention  expressly  the  co-operation  of  the 
 priests  never  entered  the  thoughts  of  the  historian,  as  he  was 
 not  writing  a  ritual  chronicle.  We  repeat  it,  let  any  one  point 
 out  in  the  course  of  the  whole  period  of  the  Judges  a  single 
 example,  where,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  those  who  pro- 
 fessed to  be  the  servants  of  Jehovali,  and  were  acknowledged 
 as  such,  offered  sacrifices,  unless  they  belonged  to  the  priestly 
 race. 
 
 2.  It  is  asserted  that,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  regulations  of  the 
 Pentateuch,  Samuel,  without  being  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  performed 
 service  in  the  sanctuary,  which  legally  belonged  only  to  the  Levites. 
 Compare  De  Wette,  p.  231,  and  Arclnwloyie,  p.  171);  Von 
 
 VOL.  II.  D 
 
50     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 BoHLEN,  p.  121,  and  others.  If  Samuel  were  really  not  of  Levi- 
 tical  descent,  tliis  reason  would  certainly  be  of  importance.  That 
 Samuel  at  a  later  period,  without  being  of  the  priestly  race,  exer- 
 cised priestly  functions,  creates  no  difficulty.  An  explanation  is 
 found  in  the  disordered  relations  of  the  times,  and  in  the  theo- 
 cratical  dictatorship  with  which  he  was  invested  by  God  on  account 
 of  these  disorders.  But  the  case  is  veiy  different  in  regard  of  his 
 youthful  engagements.  Here  nothing  can  be  found  on  wliich  to 
 ground  an  exception  to  the  rule.  His  parents  had  already  dedi- 
 cated him  without  hesitation  to  the  temple-service.  But  the 
 assertion  that  Samuel  was  no  Levite  is  made  quite  at  random. 
 To  set  aside  the  argument  which  is  drawn  from  the  ^^^'}^.  an 
 Eiihrathite  in  1  Sam.  i.  1,  nothing  more  is  needed  than  the  single 
 expression  in  Judges  xvii.  7,  which  has  been  adduced  in  support 
 of  the  assertion,  "  a  young  man  of  the  fiimily  of  Judah,"  with  the 
 remark  that  immediately  follows,  "  who  Vx^as  a  Levite,  and  he 
 sojourned  there."  From  this  it  follows,  that  the  Levites  were 
 reckoned  as  belonging  to  the  tribes  among  whom  they  sojourned; 
 that  there  were  Levites  of  Judah,  of  Ephraim,  and  so,  as  may  be 
 understood  at  once,  of  other  tribes.  For  how^  indeed,  could  it  be 
 imagined  that  the  Levites  could  live  among  the  separate  tribes 
 without  becoming  in  some  measure  intermixed  with  their  common, 
 civil  life  ?*  On  the  other  hand,  in  favour  of  Samuel's  Levitical 
 descent,  there  are  in  the  first  place  two  independent  genealogies 
 in  the  Chronicles.  In  1  Chron  vi.  7-13,  Kohath's  descendants 
 are  brought  down  to  Samuel.  They  appear  again  in  an  ascend- 
 ing line  in  ver.  18-23,  where  the  family  is  mixed  with  that  of  the 
 chief  singer  Heman,  who  lived  in  David's  time  and  was  Samuel's 
 uncle.  A  wilful  fiction  cannot  be  suspected  in  these  genealogies, 
 since  the  author,  had  he  been  disposed  to  forge  a  false  succes- 
 sion, would,  no  doubt,  have  made  Samuel  a  descendant  of  Aaron. 
 Yet  we  have  another  ground  besides,  wliich,  though  liitherto  not 
 noticed,  confirms,  in  a  remarkable  manner,  the  account  in  Chro- 
 nicles.    It  lies  in  the  name  of  Samuel's  father  Elkanah.     All  the 
 
 *  Perhaps  it  may  be  objected  that  if  Samuel  was  a  Levite,  it  was  unnecessary  to 
 devote  him  to  the  sanctuary.  But  let  it  be  observed  that  the  Levites  were  not  consir 
 dered  eligible  for  ser\ice  till  their  35th  year,  and  that  only  the  smallest  part  of  them 
 dwelt  near  the  sauctuaa-y. 
 
SACRED  PERSONS.  51 
 
 numerous  Elkanahs  who  appear  in  the  history  are  Levites,  (com- 
 pare SiMONis  Otwmasticon,  p.  493),  and  particularly  among  the 
 posterity  of  Korah,  from  whom  Samuel  was  descended,  this  name 
 is  continually  recurring.  The  equivalent  name  '^*^?.P.^  was  also 
 Levitical.  The  force  of  this  argument  increases,  if  we  fix  om- 
 attention  on  the  meaning  of  the  name.  The  appellation  can  then 
 no  longer  he  considered  accidentaL  The  name  is,  in  its  meaning, 
 not  less  Levitical  than  in  its  use.  The  Levites  were  suhstitutes 
 for  the  first-horn  whom  the  Lord  purchased  for  himself  when  he 
 slew  the  first-horn  in  Egypt,  Num  iii.  13-41,  &c.  The  excess 
 of  the  first-horn  were  to  he  redeemed  ;  compare  Num.  viii.  14  ; 
 Deut.  X.  8,  9.  The  name  refers  to  this  relation.  Besides  heing 
 a  pledge  of  Samuel's  Levitical  descent,  it  renders  us  another  service. 
 Appearing  in  the  Mosaic  age,  it  serves  to  confirm  the  accounts  of 
 the  Pentateuch  respecting  the  choice  of  the  Levites,  and  even 
 their  substitution  for  the  first  bom.  For  s^ap  imphes  that  a  price 
 had  been  paid  for  them. 
 
 3.  In  1  Sam.  ii.  27,  in  the  address  of  the  man  of  God  to  Eli, 
 the  account  of  the  institution  of  the  priesthood  is  at  variance  with 
 the  Mosaic  record  in  Egypt.  Such  is  the  statement  of  Leo  in 
 his  Jiid.  Gesch.  p.  6G.  This  is  certainly  the  case  according  to 
 the  common  interpretation ;  but  this  interpretation  is  to  be  rejected 
 on  grammatical  grounds.  It  has  been  assumed  that  the  n  inter- 
 rogative stands  for  *^'^i!,  Have  I  revealed  my  self  1  for,  Have  I 
 not  revealed  myself?  But  such  9.  quid  pro  quo  naturally  never 
 occurs.  SeeEv^^ALD's  Gr.  p.  658  ;  Maurer  on  Gen.  xxvii.  36. 
 It  ought  rather  to  be  translated,  ''  Have  I  revealed  inyself  {did 
 1 2)lainly  appear,  Eng.  Auth.  vers.)  to  thy  father  s  house  when 
 they  were  in  Egypt  .^  Verse  28  forms  a  contrast  to  ver.  27, 
 "  In  Egypt  I  had  not  yet  made  myself  known  to  them,  and  yet  I 
 invested  them  with  such  honour  in  the  wilderness,  as  if  they  had 
 long  stood  in  the  nearest  relation  to  me."  Thus  the  passage  has 
 a  directly  contrary  meaning. 
 
 4.  It  appears  fi^om  the  first  chapters  of  the  Books  of  Samuel, 
 that  the  service  of  the  sanctuary  at  Shiloh  was  conducted  very 
 unostentatiously.  The  only  sacred  persons  who  meet  us  here  are 
 Eli,  his  two  sons,  and  Samuel.  See  De  Wette,  p.  234  ;  Boh- 
 LEN,  p.  120  ;  and  Vatke,  p.  277,  and  others.  But  it  is  a  strange 
 conclusion  to  infer,  that  because  only  these  persons  are  men 
 
 D  2 
 
52     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 tioned,  that  no  others  were  there.  Do  we  find,  in  the  first  chap- 
 ters of  the  Books  of  Samuel,  a  fall  representation  of  the  state  of 
 rehgion  at  that  time  ?  Bid  the  historian  make  it  his  object  to  give 
 a  kind  of  theocratic  statistics  ?  The  avfjumenUnn  a  silentio  can 
 only  rationally  he  applied,  when  it  must  evidently  he  within  the 
 plan  of  the  author  to  mention  the  events  in  question,  and  even 
 then  the  greatest  caution  is  necessary.  But  still  we  are  able  to 
 shew  that  the  state  of  things  was  altogether  different  from  that 
 maintained  by  our  opponents.  In  1  Sam.  i.  3,  it  is  said,  '"'  And 
 the  two  sons  of  Eli  were  there,  Ilophni  and  Phinehas,  priests  to 
 the  Lord,"  v;"""^  '=^^Ll=,  not  "priests  of  the  Lord,  as  would  have 
 been  said  if  they  had  been  the  only  ones.  The  historian  therefore 
 plainly  intimates  that  there  were  others.  We  shall,  moreover, 
 point  out  in  the  section  on  sacred  rites,  that  no  sacrifice  at  that 
 time  was  offered  without  the  co-operation  of  the  priests.  Now, 
 since  all  Israel  at  that  time  offered  their  sacrifices  at  the  sanctuary 
 in  Shiloh  (1  Sam.  ii.  11),  how  was  it  possible  for  two  or  tlu'ee 
 priests  to  perform  the  requisite  service  ?  Besides,  the  burning  of 
 fat  is  attributed  in  ii.  14,  IG,  to  persons  not  less  distinct  from  the 
 sons  of  Eli  than  from  those  wlio  brought  the  victims.  Let  it  also 
 be  obsers^ed,  that  according  to  ch.  ii.  22,  the  female  militia  sacra 
 was  then  in  its  most  flourishing  state,  a  circumstance  of  which  we 
 should  not  have  been  aware  bat  for  the  scandalous  behaviour  of 
 the  sons  of  Eli  to  some  individuals  belonging  to  it.  But  how  can 
 we  admit  the  existence  of  the  ministration  of  females  in  the 
 sanctuary,  without  that  of  the  other  sex  ? 
 
 5.  "  There  seemed  to  be  no  pecuUar  recognition  of  the  specific 
 sacredness  of  the  priesthood,  since  priests  were  consecrated  and 
 hired,  when  they  were  needed,  without  employing  the  assistance  of 
 other  priests.  Judges  xvii.  5-12  ;  1  Sam.  v.  1."  Thus  Vatke, 
 p.  273  ;  see  also  Studer,  p.  103.  Judges  xvii.  claims  our  first 
 attention.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  any  stress  can  be  laid 
 on  these  transactions.  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  w^e  have 
 here  the  account  of  an  abuse.  We  might  as  well  conclude,  that, 
 because  Micah  committed  a  theft  on  his  mother,  that  the  com- 
 mandments, "  Honour  thy  fathei'  and  mother"  and  "  Thou 
 shall  not  steal"  were  not  then  in  existence.  Micah  first  conse- 
 crated one  of  his  sons  as  a  priest ;  that  he  did  tliis  against  his  bet- 
 ter knowledge  and  conscience,  his  own  words  show,  when  he  sue- 
 
SACKED  PERSONS.  53 
 
 ceedecl  in  gaining  a  Levite.  xvii.  18,  "  Now  know  I  that  the 
 Lord  will  do  me  good,  seeing  I  have  a  Levite  to  my  priest." 
 "  Apjmret,"  Schmid  observes  {Comm.  p.  13G4),  "  quod  MicJias 
 morsum  conscientiae  in  corde  siio  soiserii  oh  cult  urn  idololatri- 
 cum  etfilium  sacerdotem  constitutiim.  Koverat  nimirum  ex 
 lege  Mosaica,  quodnon  liceret  sacerdotal  fungi  nisi  Levitis ;  idea 
 maledictioneni  potius,  quani  henedictionem  dicinam  sihi prae- 
 scigiit,  quamdiu  contra  legem  dei  ex  Jiliis  suis  sacerdotem  ha- 
 huity  But  suppose  that  Micah  had  not  found  a  Levite,  what 
 then  ?  Would  not  our  opponents  have  considered  it  an  incon- 
 trovertible proof  that  notliing  was  then  known  of  the  Levites  as  a 
 separate  religious  order?  If  Micah  could  have  obtained  an 
 Aaronic  priest  on  moderate  terms,  who  either  would  have  officiat- 
 ed for  him,  or  consecrated  his  Levite,  he  would  again  have  said, 
 "  Now  I  know  that  the  Lord  wdll  do  me  good,  seeing,"  &c.  How 
 can  any  one  think  of  drawing  a  conclusion  respecting  the  general 
 state  of  religion  in  that  age,  from  the  doings  and  w^ays  of  a  worth- 
 less fallow  [aus  dem  Tliuii  and  Treihen  eines  Nichtswurdigen) 
 like  Micah,  or  the  six  hundred  loose  adventurers  of  the  tribe  of 
 Dan?  (Judges  xvii.  11).*  But  it  is  objected  (see  Studer,  p. 
 377),  if  Micah  had  repudiated  the  Mosaic  law^,  supposing  it  to  be 
 in  force  in  his  time,  why  did  not  the  historian  censure  his  whole 
 procedure  ?  Does  not  his  silence  appear  like  a  tacit  approval  of 
 his  priesthood  and  private  ritual  ?  We  reply,  that  the  historian's 
 not  passing  his  judgment  on  events  ex  professo,  may  be  accounted 
 for  from  the  solicitude  which  he  manifests  throughout,  not  to  get 
 off  the  ground  of  objectivity.  Does  he  express  any  direct  disap- 
 probation of  Micah's  theft  ?  On  all  occasions,  he  leaves  the  facts 
 to  speak  for  themselves.  He  only  indicates  his  ow^n  opinion  by 
 slight  hints  ;  but  these  are  not  wanting  here ;  they  are  given,  in- 
 deed, with  no  sparing  hand.  The  historian  directs  his  readers  to 
 the  point  of  view  from  v/hich  all  the  events  narrated  in  the  Ap- 
 pendices are  to  be  contemplated  by  the  regular  formula  ;  "  In 
 those  days,  there  was  no  Icing  in  Israel ;  every  man  did  that  which 
 was  riglit  in  his  own  eyes'.'  Studer  himself  infers  from  this  ex- 
 pression, that  the  author,  "  Uving  in  the  times  of  the  kings,  wished. 
 
 *  Who  would  take  tlie  proceedings  of  the  first  SpauisL  conquerors  of  America  as  a 
 criterion  of  the  state  of  religion  and  morals  at  that  time  in  Spain? 
 
54  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES, 
 
 by  some  examples,  to  set  the  anarchy  of  earher  times  in  an  ap- 
 palHng  light."  Therefore,  hy  asserting  that  the  historian  favoured 
 Micah's  private  worship,  he  directly  contradicts  liis  own  decision 
 as  to  the  object  of  the  narrative.'  Moreover,  if  any  action  wiiat- 
 ever  spoke  for  itself,  and  rendered  an  express  opinion  upon  it 
 unnecessary,  it  was  so  in  the  present  case.  Micah  was  a  thief ;  the 
 image  and  the  rest  of  the  apparatus  were  made  of  money  that  was 
 accm'sed.  What  was  to  be  expected  from  such  a  ritual  ?  The 
 historian's  judgment  is  contained  in  the  reference  to  Deut.  xxvii. 
 15,  ''  Cursed  is  the  man  that  maketh  any  graven  or  molten  image 
 (n33^ibs2)^  an  abomination  unto  the  Lord,  the  work  of  the  hands 
 of  the  craftsman,  and  putteth  it  in  a  secret  place  ;  and  all  the  peo- 
 ple shall  answer  and  say,  Amen."  This  reference  is  evidently 
 made  in  xvii.  3,  4  ;  xviii.  31.  The  historian  signifies,  that,  by 
 an  accursed  medium,  the  mother  sought  to  save  her  son  from  the 
 curse.  A  judgment  is  also  indicated  when  the  author,  in  ch.  xviii. 
 31,  speaks  of  the  house  of  God  in  Shiloh.  If  there  w^as  only  one 
 house  of  God,  then  Micah's  and  the  Danites  house  of  God  must 
 have  been  merely  an  imaginary  one,  a  Devil's- chapel,  {eine  Teu- 
 felscajyell) .  Lastly,  the  author  points,  at  the  close,  to  the  ex- 
 tinction of  that  ritual  by  the  reformation  under  Samuel.  Had  he 
 regarded  its  institution  as  praiseworthy,  he  must  have  disapproved 
 of  its  extinction.  But  that  he  has  done  this,  no  one  will  be  very 
 ready  to  maintain.  His  judgment  unquestionably  coincides  with 
 that  of  Samuel. — We  now  turn  to  the  second  passage,  1  Sam.  vii. 
 1,  on  wliich  De  Wette  has  laid  great  stress.  "  The  inhabitants  of 
 Kiijath-jearim  received  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  fr-om  Bethshe- 
 mesh,  and  brought  it  to  the  house  of  Aminadab,  and  sanctified 
 Eleazar  his  son  to  keep  the  ark  of  the  Lord."  Where,  in  all  this, 
 is  a  syllable  about  the  consecration  of  Eleazar  as  a  priest  ?  He 
 was  appointed  not  to  be  a  priest,  but  a  watcher  at  the  grave  of  the 
 ark,  by  the  side  of  its  corpse,  until  its  future  joyful  resurrection.* 
 
 *  Calvin  has  taken  a  vei^  correct  view  of  tlie  passage — "Kon  siguificatur  eos  illi 
 officium  Leyitae  attribiiisse.  .  .  sed  niliil  etiam  impedit,  quominus  ilium  custodem 
 elegerint  areas,  ne  quis  nimirum  proprius  ad  lociim,  in  quo  posita  erat,  accederet,  et  ne 
 profana  haberetur,  non  axitem  ut  ad  earn  tractandam  proprius  accederet,  quod  soUus 
 sacerdotis  erat  officium.  At  quoniam  in  privatas  aedes  erat  admissa,  poterat  ira  Dei 
 provoeaii  atque  omnis  everti  religio  et  sanctitas,  si  ai'ca  Dei  privatis  et  domesticis  re- 
 bus immixta  fuisset  sine  discrimine ;  quare  ut  locus  ille,  in  quo  posita  fuerat,  sanctior 
 
SACRED  PERSONS.  ,55 
 
 0.  It  has  been  asserted  (De  Wette,  p.  263)  that  if  the  priestly 
 and  Levitical  order  in  the  period  of  the  Judges  had  occupied  the 
 place  assigned  it  in  the  Pentateuch,  that  state  of  freedom  and  hcense 
 in  worsliip  could  never  have  arisen  which  we  find  there.  But  that 
 state  of  unrestrained  hcense  is  arbitrarily  imagined.  The  state  of 
 worsliip  during  the  period  of  the  Judges  was  more  regular  than 
 that  under  the  ungodly  kings,  among  whom,  in  a  considerable  de- 
 gree, the  Levites  and  priests  occupied  their  legal  position.  The  re- 
 mark of  the  author  of  the  book  of  Judges,  "  In  those  days,  there 
 was  no  kinr/  in  Israel^'  &c.  requires  us  to  place  the  composition  of 
 the  book  in  the  time  of  a  king,  probably  David.  This  period, 
 indeed,  has  the  preference  before  that  of  the  Judges.  The  royal 
 piety  lent  religion  its  arm,  and  this  arm  was  felt  throughout  the 
 whole  land.     Compare  what  has  been  akeady  said,  p.  4. 
 
 7.  In  reference  to  the  attire  of  the  priests,  a  remarkable  de- 
 viation from  the  Pentateuch  occurs  in  the  period  of  the  Judges. 
 According  to  the  former,  the  ephod  belonged  exclusively  to  the 
 high  i)riest ;  on  the  contrary,  in  the  time  of  the  Judges,  and  still 
 later,  the  ephod  is  brought  into  very  general  use  ;  the  child  Samuel 
 wears  an  ephod — it  appears  as  the  common  priestly  dress — David 
 himself  was  clothed  with  the  ephod  when  he  danced  before  the 
 ark.  Thus  Gramberg,  p.  31,  compared  with  Studer,  p.  367. 
 But  on  a  closer  inspection  this  argument  is  changed  into  its  op- 
 posite. Y ox,  first,  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Samuel  knew  the 
 ephod  as  the  exclusive  property  of  the  high  priest.  In  1  Sam. 
 xiv.  3  (And  Abiah  .  .  wearing  the  ephod  "'^25<  Ktya)  ''wearing 
 the  ephod;'  =  to  being  the  High  Priest.  In  1  Sam.  xxiii.  9, 
 David  said  to  Abiathar  the  liigh  priest,  "  bring  hither  the  ephod." 
 So  also  in  1  Sam.  xxx.  7.  In  1  Sam.  ii.  28,  to  wear  the  ephod 
 is  expressly  named  as  the  prerogative  of  the  high  priest.  Se- 
 condly,  in  all  the  three  places  in  the  Books  of  Samuel  to  which 
 an  appeal  is  made,  1  Sam.,  ii.  18  ;  xxii.  18  ("  Andhe  slew  on  that 
 day  fourscore  and  five  persons  that  did  wear  a  linen  ephod") ;  2 
 Sam.  vi.  14,  not  an  ephod  simply  is  spoken  of,  but  a  linen  ephod, 
 •^=  7'2s.  That  "la  is  always  and  without  exception  added  to  it,  indi- 
 cates that  there  was  an  ephod,  situjuiciier  sic  dictum,  of  more 
 
 haberetur,  atque  illi  debitus  honor  exhiberetur,  dicitur  electus  communi  totius  populi 
 consensu  et  suffragis  Eleazar  custos  istius  arcae." 
 
56     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  Of  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 costly  materials,  and  is  in  admirable  agreement  with  the  passages 
 where  that  is  mentioned.     Thus  we  arrive  at  a  result  exactly  the 
 opposite  to  Gramberg's.     The  "?  "'"^^**  shows,  that  tlie  ephod  of 
 the  high  priest,  as  prescribed  in  the  Pentateuch,  was  unique  in 
 its  kind,  and  hkewise  that  it  consisted  of  costly  materials.     In  all 
 essential  points  the  correct  view  may  be  found  in  Witsius,  ^jgyp- 
 tiaca,  p.  40  ;  and  in  Carpzov,  Ajyjy.  p.  78.     "  It  is  necessary/" 
 the  latter  observes,  "to  distinguish  the  two  ephods" — alterum 
 vulgare,  quo  inieUigitur  vcstis  e  solo  lino  confecta,  ordinaria 
 sacerdotihus,  tantum  cum  tempU7ninisteriisvacarent  induenda  : 
 alterum  Pontijicium,  quod  erat   indumentum  inultae  artis  et 
 ingenii,  auro,  gcmmis  et  colorihus  distinctum  et  variegatuin, 
 quodpontifici  uni,  cum  sacra  faceret,  gestare  concessum  fuerat. 
 That  the  high  priest's  ephod  in  the  time  of  the  Judges  retained 
 all  the  dignity  attributed  to  it  in  the  Pentateuch,  appears  from 
 the  tw^o  examples  of  superstitious  reverence  for  it  which  this  period 
 furnishes,  in  the  cases  of  Micali  and  Gideon.     The  singularity  of 
 the  high  priest's  ephod  is  also  shown  in  its  being  the  only  one 
 by  which  answers  were  sought  and  received  from  the  Lord.     The 
 view  taken  of  this  particular  by  those  wlio  would  identify  the 
 ephod  of  the  high  priest  with  the  common  one,  may  be  gathered 
 fi'om  Studer's  remark — "  Oracles  might  be  communicated  inde- 
 pendently of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  through  any  priest  wdio 
 wore  the  ephod  with  the  Urim  and  Thummim."     But  with  this 
 inference  from  the  identity  of  the  ephods,  the  history  does  not 
 agree;  consequently  this  identity  is  to  be  rejected.     The  multi- 
 phcity  of  organs  for  obtaining  answers  from  the  Lord  is  very 
 plainly  excluded  by  Judges  xx.  18,  "And  the  children  of  Israel 
 arose,  and  went  up  to  the  house  of  God,  and  asked  counsel  of 
 God,  and  said,  which  of  us  shall  go  up  first  to  the  battle  against 
 the  children  of  Benjamin?"  compare  ver.  23,  and  ch.  i.  1.     The 
 organ  by  which  they  enquired  of  God  was  so  fixed  and  determi- 
 nate, that  there  was  no  occasion  to  designate  it  more  exactly  than 
 merely  "  they  asked  counsel  of  God!'     All  these  times  the  case 
 is  exactly  that  which  is  so  particularly  described  in  the  law.  Num. 
 xxvii.  21,  "And  he  shall  stand  before  Eleazar  the  priest,  who 
 shall  ask  for  him  hy  the  metliod  of  lights  (after  the  judgment  of 
 Urim,  Eng.A.  Vers.)  ;   {^'^y^f''^  '^?'f^^)  ;  at  his  word  shall  they  go 
 out,  and  at  his  word  they  shall  come  in."     Let  it  be  noticed  that 
 
SACRED  TERSONS.  67 
 
 at  Bethel,  whither  the  children  of  Israel  resorted  in  order  to  en- 
 quire of  the  Lord,  Phinehas  the  son  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron, 
 "  stood  hefore  the  ark  in  those  days,"  as  we  are  expressly  told  in 
 ver.  28. 
 
 Even  this  refutation  of  our  opponents  contains  important 
 positive  grounds  for  our  assertion,  that  in  essential  points  the  state 
 of  religion  in  the  period  of  the  Judges,  as  far  as  it  concerns  sacred 
 persons,  was  in  unison  with  the  regulations  of  the  Pentateuch. 
 We  will  here  bring  together  what  positive  grounds  still  remain. 
 
 First  of  all,  the  passages  which  prove  that  the  Levites,  during 
 the  period  of  the  Judges,  occupied  the  places  assigned  them  in  the 
 Pentateuch.  To  this  class  belongs  the  account  of  the  Levite 
 whom  Micah  obtained  for  his  sanctuary.  How  decidedly  must 
 the  tribe  of  Levi  have  been  considered  as  the  privileged  order  of  the 
 servants  of  God,  when  Micah,  merely  from  obtaining  an  itinerant 
 member  of  this  tribe,  who  possessed  no  distinction  but  his  birth, 
 promised  himself  such  prosperity  and  blessing ;  "  Now  know  I 
 that  the  Lord  \dl\  do  me  good,  seeing  I  have  a  Levite  to  my 
 priest."  The  purpose  of  the  Danites  to  rob  Micah  of  his  sanctuary 
 was  inseparably  connected  with  that  of  obtaining  his  Levitical 
 priest.  The  whole  of  the  second  appendix  of  the  Book  of  Judges 
 is  occupied  about  a  Levite.  He  is  described  in  ch.  xix.  1  as  t« 
 stranger,  sojourning  on  Mount  Ephraim.  This  implies  that  the 
 Levites,  during  the  period  of  the  Judges,  had  fixed  and  separate 
 places  of  abode  in  Palestine,  agreeable  to  the  injunctions  in  the 
 Pentateuch.  For  if  they  were  all  strangers,  why  should  the  fact 
 be  noticed  respecting  an  individual  ?  Schmid  correctly  remarks, 
 Peregrinusfuit  ratione  habitationis,  quod  in  iirhe  aliqua  Levitis 
 assignata  non  hah  it  aver  it.  We  obtain  the  same  result  from  ch. 
 xvii.  7,  where  it  is  said  of  Micah's  Levite,  "  And  there  was  a  young 
 man  out  of  Bethlehem  Judah,  of  the  family  of  Judah,  who  was  a 
 Levite,  and  he  sojourned  there."  Bethlehem  was  not  a  Levitical 
 town.  The  passage  in  the  second  appendix,  ch.  xix.  18,  is  of 
 special  importance,  where  the  Levite  who  could  find  no  lodging 
 in  Gibeah  complains,  "  /  have  to  do  ivith  tJic  house  of  the  Lord, 
 and  there  is  no  man  that  receiveth  me  to  house."  That  tlie  words 
 nV.^  ■"??.  ^T^,  n^n-j^si  must  be  so  explained  is  very  evident.  1^_"  with 
 -ns  Qi'  tay  i-Qeans  to  have  intercourse,  to  have  to  do  with  persons 
 or  things  ;  see  Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  p.  378.     The  older  exposi- 
 
0  8  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 tors  (see  Schmid  on  the  passage)  rightly  pai-aphrase  the  passage, 
 "  Dotninis  me  dignatur  ut  ipsi  ministrem  ia}iqua7n  Levita  in 
 domo  ipsius^  et  nemo  de  populo  dei  est,  qui  me  dignetur,  ut  hos- 
 pitio  suo  me  excijnat."  Studer  concurs  in  this  explanation. 
 The  passage  proves  that  the  Levites,  though  their  dwelling-places 
 were  scattered  over  the  land,  yet  had  to  perform  all  the  services  at 
 the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord,  and  were,  so  to  speak,  his  domestics. 
 The  claims  which  the  Levite  made,  the  complaints  which  he 
 uttered,  show  in  what  esteem  the  order  was  held,  and  lead  us  to 
 consider  the  unfriendly  conduct  of  the  inhabitants  of  Gibeah  towards 
 one  of  its  members  as  something  strange  and  kregular.  The  third 
 passage  of  importance  is  1  Sam.  vi.  13.  How  much  weight  is  at- 
 tached to  it  appears  from  the  assertion  of  De  Wette  and  others, 
 that  a  Levite  interpolator  must  have  tampered  with  it.  It  is  said  in 
 ver.  14,  15,  "  And  the  cart  came  into  the  field  of  Joshua,  aBeth- 
 shemite,  and  stood  there,  where  there  was  a  great  stone,  and  they 
 clave  the  wood  of  the  cart,  and  offered  the  kine  a  burnt  offering 
 unto  the  Lord.  And  the  Levites  took  down  the  ark  of  the  Lord 
 and  the  coffer  that  was  with  it,  wherein  the  jewels  of  gold  were, 
 and  put  them  on  the  great  stone ;  and  the  men  of  Bethshemesh 
 offered  burnt- offerings  and  sacrificed  sacrifices  the  same  day  unto 
 the  Lord."  The  only  plausible  reason  which  De  Wette  can 
 assign  for  a  Levitical  interpolation,  rests  upon  a  liysteron  pro- 
 teron  which  is  supposed  to  be  in  the  narrative  as  it  now  stands. 
 "  After  the  Bethshemites  had  cleaved  the  wood  of  the  cart  and 
 offered  the  kine,  the  Levites  come  and  take  down  the  ai^k,  and 
 then  the  Bethshemites  sacrifice  again."  But  this  difficulty  is  a 
 self-made  one.  The  first  sacrifice  was  presented  not  on  the  part 
 of  the  inliabitants  of  Bethshemesh  but  on  the  part  of  the  Philis- 
 tines, and/br  them  if  not  hij  them.  That  this  act  principaliter, 
 if  not  also  ministerialiter,  belonged  to  the  Phihstines,  we  infer 
 not  only  on  the  grounds  already  adduced  by  Schmid  {Tutaverim 
 sacrijicium  nomine  py^incipuyn  Phil,  pro  ipsis  et  terra  eorum 
 expiandis  ohlatiim  fuisse  ex  vaccis  et  plaustro,  qui  ipsorum 
 erant.  Atque  kine  esse  existimo,  quod  hoc  sacrijicium  seorsim 
 refertur  et  Betsch.  non  hoc,  sed  alia  unox  holocausta  etpacijica 
 attribuntur),  but  because  the  words,  "  and  they  clave  the  wood," 
 &c.,  naturally  can  be  referred  only  to  the  Phihstines,  because 
 hitherto  they  had  been  the  persons  who  had  to  do  with  the  Ark 
 
SACRED  PERSONS.  59 
 
 of  the  Covenant,  since  the  taking  it  down  "by  the  Leyites  is  not 
 mentioned  till  ver.  15.  As  it  is  not  allowable  to  have  recoiu-se 
 to  a  corruption  or  interpolation  unless  every  other  mode  of  expla- 
 nation fails,  it  must  he  admitted  that  the  author  follow^s,  not  a 
 chronological  order,  hut  an  arrangement  founded  on  the  different 
 parties  engaged  in  the  transaction,  and  thus  every  tiling  will  he 
 in  its  proper  place.  He  relates  A.  what  the  Phihstines  did — they 
 sacrificed  their  kine.  B.  what  the  Israelites  did,  that  is,  (i.)  the 
 Levites,  on  whom,  according  to  the  law,  the  carrying  of  the  ark 
 devolved — they  took  it  down  and  placed  it  on  the  great  stone, 
 (ii.)  The  inhabitants  of  Bethshemesh  offered  sacrifices.  Thus 
 everything  is  most  suitably  arranged.  The  author  might  more 
 readily  adopt  this  method  since  the  chronological  order,  (i.)  the 
 taking  down  the  ark,  (ii.)  the  sacrifice  of  the  Phihstines,  (iii.) 
 the  sacrifice  of  the  inhabitants  of  Bethshemesh,  is  self-evident. 
 Whatever  besides  is  alleged  by  De  Wette  may  be  easily  disposed 
 of.  He  thinks  that  the  Levites  could  not  be  there,  for  everything 
 seems  to  have  been  done  at  haphazard ;  the  Bethshemites  even 
 reaped  the  corn.  If  it  be  said  the  Bethshemites  were  Levites, 
 since,  according  to  Joshua  xxi.  IG,  Bethshemesh  w^as  allotted  to 
 the  Levites,  this  would  certainly  harmonize  the  statements,  but 
 the  expression  "  Levites"  would  be  unsuitable,  as  amounting  to 
 nothing ;  they  were,  as  far  as  this  act  was  concerned,  not  Levites, 
 and  what  they  did,  they  did  not  as  Levites.  These  difficulties 
 are  disposed  of  by  the  following  view  of  the  proceeding.  Beth- 
 shemesh, according  to  Josh.  xxi.  16, 1  Ohron.  vi.  44,  was  a  priests 
 town.  The  Phihstines,  by  the  advice  of  their  priests,  (ver.  2,  9), 
 intentionally  sent  the  ark  to  Bethshemesh  as  the  nearest  priest's 
 town.  The  reapers  were  not  priests  or  Levites,  for  only  the  pas- 
 turage, and  not  the  arable  land  in  the  vicinage  of  their  towns, 
 belonged  to  them.  See  Bachiene,  I.  ii.,  p.  401.  But  they 
 sent  to  the  town  which  w^as  near  at  hand,  and  caused  those  who 
 ministered  at  the  sanctuary  to  be  called,  a  circumstance  which  no 
 one  will  maintain  was  needful  to  be  expressly  mentioned.  Until 
 they  arrived,  the  cart  stood  still  with  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant. 
 Either  Levites  dwelt  with  the  priests  at  Bethshemesh,  (the  num- 
 ber of  the  priests  who  were  assigned  to  each  priests'  town  was 
 very  small,  (see  Bachiene,  I.  ii.  p.  395)  and  it  was  very  natural 
 that  the  Levites  should  resort  to  them  by  preference),   or  the 
 
GO  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 priests  are  introduced  liere  in  the  quality  of  Levites,  since  they 
 performed  an  office  which  by  the  law  appertained  to  the  Levites ; 
 those  in  the  higher  station  might,  under  certain  circumstances, 
 perform  the  functions  of  those  in  the  lower,  hut  the  reverse  was 
 inadmissible.  Thus  the  suj)position  of  a  Levitical  interpolation 
 is  destitute  of  all  foundation,  and  it  is  so  much  less  probable,  since 
 a  Levitical  interpolator  would,  first  of  all,  have  taken  care,  in  order 
 to  avoid  the  appearance  of  sacrifice  having  been  performed  by 
 the  laity,  to  use  the  term  "  priests,"  instead  of  ''  the  men  of 
 Bethshemesh." 
 
 Passages  containing  a  direct  or  indirect  mention  of  priests  have 
 been  already  adduced  in  the  part  containing  a  reply  to  objections. 
 Let  it  be  considered,  that  an  extensive  supply  of  priests  and  sacri- 
 fices was  required  by  the  great  reverence  in  which,  according  to  1 
 Sam.  iv.-vii.,  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  was  held  at  this  period. 
 The  patriarchal  age,  which  some  persons  might  be  disposed  to  re- 
 gard as  parallel  to  the  period  of  the  Judges,  had  no  such  sanctuary. 
 In  the  address  of  the  man  of  God  to  Eh  (1  Sam.  ii.  28),  it  is  re- 
 presented as  a  prerogative  of  the  priesthood  to  place  the  sacrifices 
 on  the  altar,  to  burn  incense,  and  to  receive  all  the  oflerings  made 
 by  fire,  of  the  children  of  Israel.  In  this  passage,  all  the  essential 
 prerogatives  are  enumerated,  w^hich,  in  tlie  Pentateuch,  are  secured 
 to  the  priests.  Compare,  in  reference  to  the  share  of  the  priests 
 in  the  burnt -offerings  of  the  children  of  Israel,  Lev.  vi.  7-11  ;  vii. 
 28-35  ;  X.  12.  An  order  possessed  of  such  prerogatives  must  be 
 held  in  high  esteem,  and  must  contain  a  considerable  number  of 
 members.  For  what  could  one  or  two  isolated  priests  do  with  the 
 sacrifices  of  all  Israel  ?  This  address  alludes  to  only  one  priest- 
 hood for  all  Israel,  that  of  Aaron's  descendants.  "  And  did  I 
 choose  him,"  it  is  said  in  ver.  28,  "  out  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel 
 to  be  my  priest  ?"  and  ver.  29,  "  honourest  thy  sons  above  me  to 
 make  yourselves  fat  with  the  chiefest  of  all  the  offerings  of  Israel 
 my  people,"  confines  our  thoughts  to  one  particular  priesthood — 
 one  Israel,  the  people  of  God,  and  one  priesthood  for  all  Israel. 
 From  ver.  35,  according  to  which,  Eli's  descendants  would  say  to 
 the  new  high  priest,  "  Put  me,  I  pray  thee,  into  one  of  the  priests' 
 offices,  that  I  may  eat  a  piece  of  bread,"  it  follows,  that,  besides 
 the  high  priest  and  his  sons,  there  would  be  a  considerable  num- 
 ber of  other  priests,  that  the  family  of  Eh  consisted  of  a  consider- 
 
SACRED  PERSONS.  01 
 
 able  number  of  members.  Moreover,  it  is  evident,  that,  besides 
 the  family  of  EJi,  there  was  still  another  priestly  line  into  which 
 the  high  priesthood  was  destined  to  pass.  That  the  profligate  con- 
 duct of  Eli's  sons  was  permitted  to  pass  unpunished,  is  also  an- 
 other proof  of  the  great  and  deeply-rooted  regard  in  w^hich  the 
 priesthood  was  held  at  this  period.  But  the  great  authority  of 
 the  priests  is  not  conceivable  apart  from  their  forming  a  numerous 
 body.  Let  it  be  also  observed,  that,  at  that  time,  the  priestly 
 order  was  held  in  high  esteem  among  all  the  nations  by  whom  the 
 Israelites  were  surrounded.  Compare,  for  instance,  in  reference 
 to  the  Philistines,  1  Sam.  v.  5  :  vi.  2.  The  modern  view  of  the 
 period  of  the  Judges  forcibly  takes  the  Israelites  out  of  all  con- 
 nection with  their  neighbours.  In  the  patriarchal  times,  it  was 
 also,  in  this  respect,  essentially  different. 
 
 The  continuance  of  the  high  priesthood  during  the  period  of 
 the  Judges  is  also  attested  by  the  two  chief  sources  of  information. 
 Judges  XX.  28  relates  to  the  beginning  of  that  period,  "  And 
 Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron,  stood  before  him 
 (the  Lord)  ^^i?^  "'P.^  in  those  days" — a  passage  which  is  illustrated 
 by  Deut.  x.  6,  8.  How  troublesome  it  is  to  our  opponents  is 
 shown  by  Gramberg's  attempt  to  prove  its  spuriousness.  Stu- 
 DER  remarks  (p.  405),  "  The  account  of  the  high  priest  .... 
 Phinehas  presupposes  a  succession  of  this  office  in  the  elder  line 
 of  Aaron's  family,  in  unison  with  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Book  of 
 Joshua."  Eleazar  is  named  as  Aaron's  successor  in  Num.  xx. 
 28,  &c. ;  Deut.  x.  6.  He  was  high  priest  in  Joshua's  time; 
 Josh.  xiv.  1  ;  xvii.  4.  His  death  is  mentioned  Joshua  xxiv.  33. 
 The  high  priesthood  was  promised  to  his  son  Phinehas  and  his 
 descendants  in  Num.  xxv.  13.  Tow^ards  the  end  of  the  period  of 
 the  Judges,  we  obtain  a  fuller  account  respecting  the  high  priest- 
 hood of  Eh,  who,  to  distinguish  him  from  his  sons,  who  were  only 
 ^?:^-=?Ll=  is  called  the  priest  It^^n  ;  gge  1  Sam.  i.  9  ;  ii,  11.  If  the 
 beginning  and  end  are  ascertained,  we  need  not  be  apprehensive 
 about  the  middle.  The  argumentum  a  silentio  w^hich  has  been 
 made  use  of  against  the  continuance  of  the  high  priesthood  dur- 
 ing the  intermediate  period,  is  rather  in  its  favour.  Compare 
 Studer,  p.  406.  The  interruption  would  be  much  more  likely 
 to  be  mentioned  than  the  continuance.  Yet  for  the  middle  w^e  are 
 not  entirely  confined  to  the  inference  di'awn  from  the  beginning 
 
62     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 and  end.  There  are  special  reasons  for  it  within  our  reach.  In 
 the  address  of  the  man  of  God  to  Eh  in  1  Sam.  ii.  28,  it  is  im- 
 phed,  that  the  high  priestliood  had  continued  uninterruptedly  from 
 its  institution  after  the  departure  from  Egypt  to  the  times  of  EH. 
 Eh  was  not  of  the  family  of  Phinehas,  but  the  family  of  Ithamar 
 attained  with  him  the  liigh  priesthood.  Now,  if  it  be  admitted, 
 that,  in  the  inteiTal  between  him  and  Phinehas,  the  high  priest- 
 hood was  not  continued,  then  the  fulfilment  of  Num.  xxv.  13  could 
 not  be  proved,  in  which  the  high  priesthood  is  granted  to  Phinehas 
 for  him  and  liis  posterity  ''^;v^'':'"p_.  This  argnnnent  can  only 
 acqmre  importance  if  the  spmiousuess  of  the  Pentateuch  be 
 maintained.  In  that  case  the  promise  would  be  notliing  more 
 than  history  in  the  garb  of  prophecy.  The  uninterrupted  con- 
 tinuance of  the  high  priesthood  during  the  period  of  the  Judges 
 is  also  confirmed  by  Jewish  tradition.  Josephus  gives  us  the 
 succession  of  the  higli  priests. '  Antiq.  v.  1 1,  §  5.*  "  But  Eli  first 
 obtained  the  high  priesthood  of  the' family  of  Ithamar,  another  of 
 Aaron's  sons,  (for  the  liigh  priesthood  w^as  first  in  the  family  of 
 Eleazar/the  dignity  being  transmitted  fr'om  father  to  son),  and  he 
 delivered  it  to  Phinehas,  his  son,  after  whom  Abiezer,  his  son, 
 having  received  that  honour,  left  it  to  his  son,  named  Buki,  from 
 whom  Ozis  his  son  received  it,  after  whom  Eli  held  the  sacerdotal 
 office." 
 
 The  Samaritans  also  have  much  to  teU  of  Ozi  as  Eh's  prede- 
 cessor in  the  high  priesthood,  wliich  they  have  drawn  from  Jew- 
 ish traditions.  See  Reland,  Dlssertatt.  i.  152.  This  tradition 
 finds  support  in  1  Chron.  v.  29  ;  vi.  35  ;  Ezra  vii.  1,  where  Ele- 
 azar's  descendants  are  enumerated  in  agreement  with  Josephus, 
 but  without  noticing  that  they  were  Ms  successors  in  the  liigh 
 priesthood. 
 
 Thus  it  is  settled  that  the  three  classes  of  sacred  persons  in  a 
 stricter  sense,  who  are  mentioned  in  the  Pentateuch,  existed  in 
 the  period  of  the  Judges,  and  occupied  exactly  the  position  that 
 is  assigned  to  them  in  the  Pentateuch. 
 
 *  vp^^  ^£  'TTpaJTOS  'HXei  ^I^afidpov  tou  eTipov  twv  Aapcovo^  vlwv  oiKLa^  rj  yap 
 EkEu^dpov  OLKLa  TO  irpooTov  IspaTO,  iraii  irapa  irwrpo^  iTTLBexopiZvoi  ti)v  TLp.t]v, 
 EKtivo?  TE  f^LVEtcTT]  Tto  TTaiOi  avTov  irapa^LOoocn,  pLt^'ov  'A/3tf  ^E^rjs  ulos  wv  ai/Tov  ttjv 
 Tifxiju  'TrapaXa(iu}v,  TraiSl  ahrov  Bou/cl  Tovvofxa  avTO's  avTijv  KaTiXzLiriv  avTw,  Trap' 
 ov  SLEoi^aTo  'O^ts,  ulos  wv,  jULE^'ov  'HXeI  t'crxE  'ri/v  iEpu)arvvi]v. 
 
SACRED  PERSONS.  63 
 
 But  sacred  persons  in  a  wider  sense,  who  are  mentioned  be- 
 sides in  the  Pentateuch,  also  recur  in  the  period  of  the  Judges. 
 These  are 
 
 1.  The  SxVCRED  Women.  According  to  1  Sam.  ii.  22,  the 
 sons  of  EH  "  lay  with  the  women  that  assembled  at  the  door  of 
 the  Tabernacle,"  "T'^  ^Tj^  ^''!?.  J^'^J^a^ij.  Here  is  a  literal  reference 
 to  Exod.  xxxviii.  8,  "  And  he  made  the  laver  of  brass,  and  the 
 feet  of  it  of  brass,  of  the  mirrors  of  the  (female)  servants  who 
 served  at  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle,"  bt^i«  hr^s  issn^ -f  s  ^«kn 
 ■72ji>3,  No  one  will  maintain  that  the  verbal  agreement  in  the 
 only  two  passages  wliich  treat  of  this  institute  could  be  acci- 
 dental. The  author  by  this  verbal  reference  pointed  out  in  an 
 indirect  manner  (as  is  customary  with  him)  that  the  institute 
 wdiich  Eli's  sons  profaned  was  no  other  than  what  existed  in  the 
 times  of  the  lawgiver,  and  was  venerable  from  its  antiquity.  Fur- 
 ther investigations  respecting  this  institute  we  shall  give  in  our 
 enquuy  on  Jephthali's  vow,  whose  daughter  was  received  into  the 
 number  of  the  women  who  ministered  to  the  Lord. 
 
 2.  The  Nazarites.  Samson  and  Samuel  appear  as  such  in 
 this  period.  But  it  is  asserted  that  the  Nazarites'  institute  makes 
 its  appearance  here,  not  as  an  enactment  of  the  Mosaic  law,  but  as 
 a  custom  which  existed  anterior  to  it,  and  afterwards  was  legahzed 
 and  modified  by  it.  SccStuder,  p.  486.  This  opinion  is  sup- 
 ported on  the  following  grounds,  i.  There  is  no  reference  to  the 
 law  delivered  in  the  Pentateuch.  Von  Bohlen,  p.  148.  It  is 
 true,  this  reference  is  only  given  in  the  usual  delicate  manner  of 
 the  author,  but  yet  so  strongly  and  plainly,  that  even  the  most 
 obtuse  person,  when  the  facts  are  laid  before  him,  must  allow  that 
 in  the  author's  view  the  Nazariteship  of  Samson  and  Samuel  was 
 dependent  on  the  Pentateuch.  In  Num.  vi.  3,  it  is  said,  '"  He 
 shall  separate  himself  from  wine  aiid  strong  drink."  In  Judges 
 xiii.  4,  *'  Drink  not  wine  nor  strong  diink  ;"  in  ver.  14,  "  Neither 
 let  her  drink  wine  nor  strong  drink."  In  Num.  vi.  5,  "  There 
 shall  no  razor  come  upon  his  head,"  '"^^^^^'J  '^ay^-sV  "^^J^,  In  Judges 
 xiii.  6,  '•'^•s^-^?  ^)?.;^^'^  ^^^;^.  In  ch.  xvi.  17,  ^"f-J^^-Vy  m>s-sS  fn^i^.  i 
 Sam.  i.  1 1,  "^^f^^  ^Wb  nnia  ^  xhe  substitution  of  ^^'-"3  in  all  the 
 three  passages,  for  the  '^V^  of  the  law  is  not  accidental.  We  per- 
 ceive the  reason  from  1  Sam.  xvii.  51  ;  2  Sam.  xx.  8,  where  ^V^ 
 is  used  in  the  sense  of  sheath  or  scabbard ;  in  the  sense  of  a 
 knife  it  occurs  in  prose  (besides  the  Pentateuch)  only  in  Jer, 
 
64     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 xxvi.  23.  Probably  duriug  the  intervening  period  it  had  disap- 
 peared in  this  sense  from  colloquial  use.  ii.  To  the  Nazarite  in- 
 stitute under  the  Judges,  belonged  abstinence  fr'om  unclean  meats, 
 of  wliich  nothing  is  said  in  the.  law  contained  in  Num.  vi.  But 
 a  dependance  on  the  lav/  of  Moses — at  least  according  to  the  view 
 of  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges — undeniably  occurs  in  refer- 
 ence to  this  point.  The  expressions,  "  Beware,  drink  not  wine 
 nor  strong  drink,  and  eat  not  any  unclean  thing,"  in  Judges  xiii. 
 4,  compared  with  ver.  14  "  nor  eat  any  unclean  thing,"  refer  to 
 Lev.  ch.  xi.,  in  which  ^^'i  is  constantly  a  technical  term.  To 
 ''  thou  shalt  not  eat"  of  the  law,  corresponds  as  in  reference  to 
 drink,  the  "  eat  not"  in  Judges  xiii.  14.  As  the  ground  of  the 
 law,  the  injunction  is  given,  ''  Be  ye  holy  for  I  am  holy  "  This 
 was  in  an  especial  manner  binding  on  the  Nazarite,  of  wdiom  it  is 
 said.  Num.  vi.  8,  "  All  the  days  of  his  separation  he  is  holy  unto 
 the  Lord."  iii.  The  prescription  of  the  law  that  the  Nazarite 
 should  abstain  from  touching  the  dead,  v^as  entirely  neglected  by 
 Samson,  who  slew  so  many  of  his  enemies.  But  this  exception 
 was  occasioned  by  Samson's  vocation,  which  he  did  not  assume 
 himself,  but  received  it  from  God.  Moreover,  even  Vatke  has 
 observed,  that  Samson's  Nazariteship  points  to  a  higher  antiquity, 
 and  a  wider  prevalence  of  this  institute  in  his  time ;  for  he  who 
 did  not  live  in  the  spirit  of  such  an  institute,  could  not  have 
 founded  the  custom. 
 
 3.  The  Prophets.  These  occupy,  in  the  period  of  the  Judges, 
 the  position  which  is  assigned  to  them  in  the  Pentateuch.  Com- 
 pare Deut.  xviii.  18.  True,  the  word  of  the  Lord  was  precious 
 in  those  days,  and  prophecy  was  not  widely  spiead,  yet  neither 
 was  it  entirely  wanting.  In  the  Book  of  Judges,  prophets  make 
 their  appearance  as  heralds  and  interpreters  of  the  Divine  judg- 
 ments and  preachers  of  repentance;  in  1  Sam.  ii.  27,  a  man  of 
 God  comes  to  Eli ;  and  the  great  importance  which  the  prophetic 
 order  suddenly  acquired  in  Samuel's  time,  can  be  explained  only 
 on  the  supposition  that  it  had  afready  taken  root.  Against  those 
 who  deny  the  efficiency  of  this  order  before  the  time  of  Samuel, 
 an  appeal  is  sufficient  to  the  song  of  Deborah.  This  song  has 
 throughout  a  prophetic  character.  If  the  author  had  not  told  us 
 that  Deborah  was  a  prophetess,  this  song  would  be  sufficient  evi- 
 dence of  the  fact. 
 
SACRED  TIMES.  65 
 
 ON  SACRED  TIMES. 
 
 From  SACRED  persons  we  now  proceed  to  the  consideration  of 
 SACRED  TIMES,  and  especially  of  the  Passover. 
 
 I.  In  following  the  traces  of  tliis  feast  through  the  period  of 
 the  Judges,  we  hegin,  in  order  to  obtain  a  firm  footing,  with  the 
 principal  passage  in  Judges  xxi.  19,  "And  they  said  (the  elders 
 of  all  Israel  after  the  victory  over  the  Benjamites),  behold  there 
 is  a  feast  of  the  Lord  in  Shiloh  from  year  to  year."  Let  us  first 
 examine  the  reasons  which  have  been  urged  against  the  applica- 
 tion of  this  passage  to  the  three  great  feasts  of  the  Israelites,  (i.) 
 "  The  other  tribes  appear  to  have  taken  no  part  in  this  feast,  at 
 least  not  the  Benjamites,  who  were  to  lie  in  ambush  for  the  danc- 
 ing virgins."  Thus  De  Wette,  after  the  example  of  several  of 
 the  older  expositors  (Schmtd  for  instance),  and  following  liim 
 George,  DieJud.  Feste,  §  p.  150.  But  it  is  difficult  to  conceive 
 how  this  assertion  could  be  made.  The  virgins  from  Jabesh  were 
 brought  to  Shiloh  into  the  camp,  xxi.  12.  Thither  the  Benjam- 
 ites were  invited  by  the  whole  congregation  '°'7?!v"^5,  ver.  1 3  ;  they 
 made  their  appearance  there  and  received  wives,  ver.  14 ;  and 
 there  a  plan  was  contrived  to  obtain  wives  for  those  who  remained ; 
 ver.  19.  The  elders  in  ver.  20,  21,  advised  them  not  to  come  to 
 Shiloh,  but  to  ''go  and  lie  in  wait  in  the  vineyards ;"  with  that 
 their  address  begins.  But  how  could  they,  without  further  preface, 
 speak  to  the  children  of  Benjamin  of  the  vineyards,  unless  they 
 were  already  at  Shiloh  ?  In  the  narrative  of  the  capture  of  the 
 women  in  ver.  23,  nothing  is  said  about  the  coming  of  the  Ben- 
 jamites to  Shiloh,  but  merely,  "  And  the  children  of  Benjamin 
 did  so,  and  took  wives  according  to  their  number,"  If  the  Ben- 
 jamites were  attending  the  Passover  at  Shiloh,  the  stratagem 
 could  easily  be  executed.  They  could  secrete  themselves  without 
 exciting  surprise  by  their  disappearance,  since  it  w^as  allowable  to 
 retm^n  home  on  the  morning  after  the  feast.  Deut.  xvi.  7.  Michae- 
 Lis,  Mos.  Recht.  iv.  §  197.  (ii.)  "  If  one  of  the  great  feasts  had 
 been  intended  in  this  narrative,  it  w^ould  certainly  have  been  dis- 
 tinguished by  its  appropriate  name,  and  not  merely  styled  in  ge- 
 neral terms,  A  Fe.ast  of  Jehovah."  Tliis  reason  is  pecuhar  to 
 George.     It  will  have  no  force  until  it  can  be  shewn  that  '^^J."""^^, 
 
 VOL.  IT.  E 
 
66  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 not,  perhaps  must  mean,  but  can  only  mean,  a  feast  of  Jeliovah. 
 Here  is  an  oifence  against  the  first  principles  of  grammar.  A 
 feast  of  Jehovah  must  he  called  ^T^''^.  ^'^. 
 
 In  favour  of  considering  the  feast  in  question  as  the  Passover, 
 we  produce  the  following  reasons.  1.  As  soon  as  it  is  settled 
 that  the  feast  was  not  a  particular,  hut  a  national  one,  it  would 
 seem  far-fetched  to  he  imagining  that  it  was  some  feast  with  which 
 we  were  not  famihar,  since  no  trace  whatever  remains  of  any 
 national  feasts  excepting  those  that  are  prescribed  in  the  Penta- 
 teuch. 2.  The  mention  made  of  the  feast  of  the  Lord  leads  our 
 thoughts  to  the  Passover,  the  eopr^  Kari^oxw-  ^s  the  three 
 principal  feasts  held  a  conspicuous  place  among  the  rest,  so  did 
 the  Passover  among  these.  It  was  dedicated  to  the  commemora- 
 tion of  a  signal  act  of  the  Divine  goodness,  and  was  a  pledge  of 
 its  continuance.  On  the  prerogatives  of  the  Passover  compare 
 Lund,  p.  974,  Christologie,  ii.  565.  The  dances  in  companies 
 in  which  the  daughters  of  Shiloh  (that  this  designation  must  be 
 regarded  as  one  a  potiori,  and  that  many  of  the  young  women 
 from  other  parts  who  came  to  the  feast  joined  in  the  dances,  may 
 be  inferred  from  the  numbers)  engaged,  indicates  that  it  was  the 
 Passover.  For  this  practice  stands  in  relation  to  Exodus  xv.  20, 
 the  dances  of  the  Israelitish  women,  under  the  direction  of  Miriam, 
 which  fell  within  the  seven  days  of  the  Passover.  The  dances  of 
 the  yomig  men  at  Shiloh  were  probably  performed  on  the  same^ 
 and  not  on  the  principal  day  of  the  feast.  The  middJe  days  would 
 have  some  vacant  intervals  which  they  would  attempt  to  fill  up  in 
 this  manner.  4.  The  expression  ^^'I'^^^l  ^^^^^.  previously  occurs  in 
 the  Pentateuch  respecting  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  and  it 
 appears  that  the  reference  to  it  was  constant.  At  least,  wherever 
 we  find  ?ntt^a^  S3''?2'^«,  the  reference  to  the  Passover  is  rendered  pro- 
 bable on  otJier  grounds.  5.  The  Passover  falls  in  admirably  with 
 the  whole  series  of  events.  After  the  causes  of  offence  were  re- 
 moved, the  feast  of  the  Covenant  was  celebrated,  being  at  the  same 
 time  a  feast  of  reconciliation  between  brethren.  Then  they  all  re- 
 tmiied  to  their  respective  homes. 
 
 If  the  passage  under  consideration  refers  to  the  Passover,  it  is 
 so  much  more  important,  since  it  does  not  refer  to  a  single  cele- 
 bration of  it,  but  expressly  says  that  it  was  regularly  repeated,  and 
 returned  vearlv.     As  to  the  manner  of  the  celebration,  we  learn 
 
SACRED  TIMES,  67 
 
 that  the  feast,  in  conformity  with  the  prescriptions  of  the  hiw,  was 
 held  at  the  place  of  the  national  sanctuary,  and  that  all  the  tribes 
 assembled  thither. 
 
 II.  Shghter,  but  yet  very  remarkable  traces  of  the  Passover, 
 are  presented  to  us  in  Judges,  ch.  vi.  The  address  of  the  prophet 
 to  the  children  of  Israel  in  ver.  8  can  only  be  considered  as  spoken 
 at  a  feast  of  the  assembled  nation.  For  the  expression,  ''  to  the 
 children  of  Israel,"  is  more  probably  to  be  taken  literally,  since 
 the  oppression  of  the  Midianites  (in  ver.  4)  was  universal.  The 
 special  reference  to  the  departure  from  Egypt  would  best  suit 
 the  Passover  of  all  the  national  feasts  ;  *'  Thus  saith  the  Lord 
 Go.d  of  Israel,  I  brought  you  up  fr'om  Egypt,  and  brought  you 
 forth  out  of  the  house  of  bondage."  The  whole  address  of  the 
 prophet  has  the  air  of  a  discourse  at  the  Passover.  The  time  also 
 agrees  with  it.  The  coming  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  is  immedi- 
 ately connected  with  the  mission  of  the  prophet,  ver.  18.  When 
 he  came,  Gideon  was  tln'eshing  wheat.  But  the  harvest  began 
 immediately  after  the  feast,  and,  in  part,  during  the  feast.  See 
 MiCHAELis,  iv.  §  197.  Still  further,  Gideon's  answer  in  ver.  13 
 contains  an  allusion  to  what  he  had  heard  at  the  Passover,  "  where 
 be  all  his  miracles  which  our  fathers  told  us,  saying,  Did  not  the 
 Lord  bring  us  up  from  Egypt  ?"  The  expression,  '"  Did  not  the 
 Lord  ?"  implies  a  question,  as  if  he  had  said,  ''  What  is  this  ser- 
 vice to  us,  or  what  does  it  mean  ?"  Founded  on  the  passages  in 
 Exod.  xii.  26,  27,  ''  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  your  chil- 
 dren shall  say  unto  you,  Wliat  mean  you  by  this  service  ?  that  ye 
 shall  say.  It  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord's  Passover,  who  passed 
 over  the  houses  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  when  he  smote 
 the  Egyptians."  xiii.  8,  "  And  thou  shalt  show  thy  son  in  that 
 day  ;  because  of  that  which  the  Lord  did  unto  me  when  I  came 
 forth  out  of  Egypt."  Ver.  14,  15,  "  And  it  shall  be  when  he 
 asketh  thee  in  time  to  come.  What  is  this  ?  that  thou  shalt  say 
 unto  him,  By  strength  of  hand  the  Lord  brought  us  out  of  Egypt, 
 from  the  house  of  bondage.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Pharaoh 
 would  hardly  let  us  go,  that  the  Lord  slew  all  the  first-born  in  the 
 land  of  Egypt" — founded  on  these  passages  were  the  questions 
 from  the  Jewish  youth  to  their  fathers,  which  here  were  introduced 
 as  representatives  of  the  past  in  relation  to  the  present — they 
 formed  an  integral  part  of  the  celebration  of  the  feast,  and  we  see 
 
 E  2 
 
68     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 from  this  passage,  that  this  practice  existed  in  the  time  of  the 
 Judges. 
 
 III.  In  Judges  xi.  40,  it  is  said,  "  And  it  was  a  custom  in  Is- 
 rael, from  year  to  year,  t^^^^a^  la^^'^^  that  the  daughters  of  Israel  went 
 to  celehrate  (^^-l'})  the  daughter  of  Jephthah  the  Gileadite  four 
 days  in  a  year."  The  custom  of  celebrating  the  daughter  of  Jeph- 
 thah is  here  expressly  said  to  he  constant,  existing  in  the  author's 
 time,  and  in  fact  a  national  custom.  Now  it  cannot  he  supposed, 
 that  a  feast  lasting  four  days  throughout  all  Israel  w^ould  he  de- 
 voted to  such  an  object.  The  most  intelhgible  supposition  is, 
 that  the  celebration  was  held  on  one  of  the  two  seven- days  feasts, 
 when  the  people  assembled  at  the  sanctuary,  and  that  it  was  held 
 at  the  sanctuary  is  rendered  more  probable  by  the  expression, 
 *'  t/iei/  went"  and  by  the  circumstance  that  the  daughter  of  Jeph- 
 thah ministered  at  the  sanctuary.  But  of  these  two  feasts,  we  shall 
 be  led  to  fix  upon  the  Passover,  for  this  reason,  that,  as  appears 
 from  1  Sam.  i.  2,  only  at  this,  whole  families  w^ere  accustomed  to 
 visit  the  sanctuary.  Moreover,  we  have  another  example  of  the 
 connection  of  other  festive  celebrations  with  the  Passover  (p.  %^)\ 
 but  the  cliief  ground  Hes  in  the  phrase  n^^^a'^  a^te^to,  wliich  never  de- 
 monstrably is  used  excepting  for  the  Passover. 
 
 IV.  2  Kings  xxiii.  22,  it  is  said,  '^  Surely  there  was  not  holden 
 such  a  Passover  (under  Josiah)  from  the  days  of  the  Judges  that 
 judged  Israel,  nor  in  all  the  days  of  the  kings  of  Israel,  nor  of  the 
 kings  of  Judah."  2  Chron.  xxxv.  18,  ''  And  there  was  no  Pass- 
 over like  to  that  kept  in  Israel  from  the  days  of  Samuel  the  pro- 
 phet, neither  did  all  the  kings  of  Israel  keep  such  a  Passover." 
 From  these  passages,  it  follows,  (i.)  that  the  Passover  was  gene- 
 rally celebrated  in  the  times  of  the  Judges  ;  and,  (ii.)  that  it  was 
 attended  by  the  wdiole  nation.  For  it  is  exactly  in  this  point  that 
 the  Passover  in  Josiah's  reign  agreed  with  the  celebration  of  that 
 feast  in  the  times  of  the  Judges,  (the  short  period  under  David 
 and  Solomon  is  not  taken  into  account,  or  rather  is  reckoned  with 
 the  period  of  the  Judges  as  the  time  of  the  national  unity),  and 
 differed  from  what  it  was  under  the  kings.  In  the  Chronicles, 
 this  is  very  evident ;  for,  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  account, 
 it  is  expressly  stated,  that,  besides  Judah,  the  rest  of  Israel  also 
 took  part  in  the  Passover ;  and,  in  the  book  of  Kings,  the  same 
 fact  appears  on  a  closer  examination.     Immediately  before,  we  are 
 
SACRED  TIMES.  69 
 
 informed  that  Josiali  had  extended  Ms  reformation  over  the  whole 
 land  of  Israel.  For  in  2  Kings  xxiii.  21,  it  is  said,  "  And  the 
 king  commanded  all  the  people  ;"  and  to  this  expression  the  sub- 
 sequent clause  refers,  "  such  a  Passover."  Hence  also  we  may 
 perceive  how  far  De  Wette  (p.  258),  is  justified  in  attempting  to 
 prove  from  this  passage,  that  the  Passover  was  celebrated  for  the 
 first  time,  according  to  the  law,  under  Josiah.  The  clause  "from 
 the  days  of  the  Judges,"  which  he  must,  however  unwillingly,  ad- 
 mit, sufficiently  shows  that  his  interpretation  cannot  possibly  be 
 the  correct  one. 
 
 V.  That  towards  the  end  of  the  time  of  the  Judges,  the  Pass- 
 over was  regularly  celebrated,  and  that  even  at  the  end,  they  as- 
 sembled fi'om  all  Israel  at  the  sanctuary,  we  learn  from  1  Sam.  i. 
 In  ver.  3,  it  is  said,  "  And  tiiis  man  (Elkanah)  went  up  out  of  his 
 city  from  year  to  year  n^"'5a^  a^w^^a,  to  w^orship  and  to  sacrifice  unto 
 the  Lord  of  hosts  in  Shiloh;"  compare  with  ver.  21,  "  And  the 
 man  Elkanah  and  all  his  house  w^ent  up  to  offer  unto  the  Lord  the 
 yearly  sacrifice  ^^TJl  ^r!,  and  his  vow."  According  to  the  three 
 principal  passages,  Exod.  xxiii.  15;  xxxiv.  20;  Deut.  xvi.  10, 
 17,  {"  in  the  place  which  he  shall  choose  ;  in  the  feast  of  unlea- 
 vened bread,  and  in  the  feast  of  weeks,  and  in  the  feast  of  taber- 
 nacles ;  and  they  shall  not  appear  before  the  Lord  empty.  Eveiy 
 man  shall  give  as  he  is  able,  according  to  the  blessing  of  the  Lord 
 thy  God  which  he  hath  given  thee,")  besides  the  offerings  pre- 
 scribed by  the  law  for  the  whole  nation,  free- will  sacrifices  and 
 gifts  were  to  be  presented  by  individuals.  AVe  must  consider  one 
 of  these  feasts  to  be  referred  to  in  1  Sam.  i.,  since  Elkanah's  jour- 
 ney to  the  sanctuary  appears  to  have  been  fixed  entirely  by  a  par- 
 ticular period,  and  not  dependent  on  personal  preference.  And 
 of  these  three  we  shall  be  determined  to  fix  upon  the  Passover  by 
 the  circumstance,  that  this  feast,  in  close  connection  with  its 
 meaning,  was  that  which  was  attended  by  the  Israelites  at  all  times 
 without  exception,  while  their  appearance  at  the  sanctuary  on  the 
 occasion  of  the  other  feasts  w^as  not  so  strictly  observed.  Mi- 
 CHAELis,  Mos.  Recht,,  iv.  §  197.  As  Elkanah  visited  the  sanc- 
 tuary regularly  only  once  a  year,  we  are  led  to  beheve,  for  the  rea- 
 sons assigned,  that  it  was  the  Passover ;  but  here  also  we  are  con- 
 firmed in  our  opinion  by  the  plnase  n^*^^"^  n^^"^. 
 
 Thus  it  appears,  that  we  possess  more  numerous  and  certain 
 
70     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 grounds  for  tlie  regular  celebration  of  the  Passover  in  the  period  of 
 the  Judges  than  we  might  expect  from  the  nature  of  our  sources 
 of  information.  That  the  other  sacred  times  are  not  mentioned 
 appears  to  us,  according  to  theru,  perfectly  natural.  We  consider 
 that  Havernick  {Einleitung,  I.  2,  p.  577)  is  too  hasty  in  ad- 
 mitting, that  the  celebration  of  the  feasts  during  the  period  of  the 
 Judges  was  very  irregular,  and  far  from  being  exactly  conformed 
 to  the  law.  There  is  nothing  in  favour  of  such  an  opinion,  for 
 how  little  it  came  within  the  plan  of  the  sacred  history  to  give  in- 
 formation respecting  the  celebration  of  the  feasts  is  apparent,  from 
 our  not  finding  a  single  direct  notice  of  the  Passover,  though  its 
 regular  celebration  is  demonstrable.  Against  Havernick's  opi- 
 nion we  have  the  analogy  of  the  Passover.  If,  in  reference  to  this, 
 there  was  an  exact  adherence  to  the  Mosaic  law,  it  may  be  pre- 
 sumed that  this  was  the  case  with  the  other  feasts. 
 
 SACRED  RITES. 
 
 From  the  investigation  respecting  the  sacred  times  in  the  pe- 
 riod of  the  Judges,  we  proceed  to  that  relating  to  sacred  rites. 
 
 From  the  nature  of  our  materials,  wiiich,  collectively,  have  a 
 preponderating  tendency  to  what  is  internal,  {eine  vorwiegend  in- 
 nerliche  Tendenz),^  we  cannot  venture  to  expect  to  find  proofs  for 
 the  observance  of  the  Mosaic  sacrificial  system  in  all  its  individual 
 parts.  We  must  be  satisfied,  if  it  can  be  proved,  that  nothing  which 
 occurs  in  reference  to  sacrifices  is  contradictory  to  the  Pentateuch, 
 but  that  everything,  as  far  as  it  goes,  is  in  close  accordance  with  it. 
 
 Let  us  first  obviate  what  has  been  adduced  as  contradictory 
 to  the  Mosaic  sacrificial  system.  The  most  plausible  objections 
 on  this  head  relate  to  the  character  of  the  Shelamim  in  the  book 
 of  Judges.  What  Gramberg  (i.  107)  and  Studer  (in  part,  p. 
 405),  have  urged,  that  the  Shelamim,  according  to  Judges  xx. 
 26,  and  xxi.  4,  were  presented  with  the  Oloth  on  7notirufiil  occa- 
 sions— the  first  time  after  the  Israehtes  were  conquered  ;  the  second 
 time  after  the  almost  total  extirpation  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin, 
 though,  according  to  the  law,  the  Shelamim  were  ofierings  of  gra- 
 
 *  t.  e,  To  illustrate,  by  liistoriral  details,  tlie  internal  or  spiritual  character  of  the 
 Theocracy  as  a  moral  government. 
 
SACRED  RITES.  71 
 
 titude  or  joy — is  of  little  weight.  The  assertion  rests  merely  on 
 confounding  the  genus  with  the  species,  tsV^a  with  n^^.  For  their 
 adjustment,  Outram's  observation  is  sufficient.  Sacrljicia  salu- 
 taria,  in  sacris  Uteris  a^bV:?  dicta,  ut  quae  semj)er  de  rehus  p'os- 
 pefis  Jieri  sole  rent,  impetratis  utiqiie  aiit  impeirandis.  The 
 Shelaniim  always  \\^^ prosperity ,  good,  for  their  object ;  but  they 
 were  presented,  under  a  variety  of  circumstances,  either  as  embo- 
 dying thanks  ioY  good  imparted,  oy petitions  iox  good  to  he  im- 
 parted. The  person  of  the  offerer  was  first  made  acceptable  by 
 burnt- offerings  and  sin-offerings,  and  then  the  Shelamim  were 
 presented  with  a  reference  to  his  pecuHar  concerns  and  desires. 
 But  it  is  apparent,  though  overlooked  by  our  opponents,  that,  in 
 the  period  of  the  Judges,  only  two  kinds  of  sacrifices  were  ever 
 mentioned — the  Oloth  and  the  Shelamim.  Hence  it  might  be 
 inferred,  that  that  peculiar  state  of  mind  which  expressed  itself  in 
 the  sin-offerings,  the  sense  of  guilt,  was  first  recognised  as  a  dis- 
 tinct element  at  a  later  period,  and  with  so  much  greater  probability, 
 since  the  Pentateuch  itself  indicates  the  later  institution  of  sin-of- 
 ferings. They  do  not  appear  in  Genesis,  and  belong,  at  the  earliest, 
 to  the  Mosaic  age.  But,  on  closer  examination,  Vv^e  obtain  a  dif- 
 ferent result.  Olali,  in  a  wider  sense,  included  the  sin-offering. 
 In  tliis  wider  since,  it  is  always  understood  when  connected  with 
 a^^aVi;  or  a^^at,  which  is  all  the  same,  ("  quippe  quae  vox  in  sacris 
 litteris,  praesertim  voci  Olah  addita,  nulla  designat  sacrorum 
 genera,  nisi  tantum  sacra  salutaria,'')  and,  in  a  narrower  sense, 
 with  ms-ji-i.  The  bm^nt  offerings,  in  a  narrower  sense,  and  the  sin- 
 offerings,  formed  a  common  contrast  to  the  Shelamim,  which,  in 
 essential  points,  was  the  same  as  that  wliich  the  Jews  make  be- 
 tween a^'«u-!p ^'^ip  and  n^^p a^'^-ip,  Sacr a  s a c e r r im a — O utram re- 
 marks, p.  146 — Bid  Solent  qiiihus  vel  nemini prorsus  vesci,  vel 
 nemini  nisi  sacerdoti  aut  sacerdotis  Jilio  licuit,  neque  his  nisi 
 
 intra  sanctuarium holocausta,  omnia  sacra  piacula 
 
 via.  Sacra  levia,  quihus  vesci  aliis  etiam  licuit  uhivis  intra 
 Hierosloijmam  ....  salutaria  sacra.  For  a  general  desig- 
 nation of  the  first  class,  the  term  ^T^  is  perfectly  suited,  both  by 
 its  derivation  and  meaning,  and,  as  such,  often  occurs  in  the  Pen- 
 tateuch. Oloth  and  Zebachim  or  Shelamim  are  not  unfrequently 
 so  plainly  connected  as  to  indicate  the  collective  sacrifices,  includ- 
 ing the  sin-offering.     Compare  Exod.  x.  25  ;  xviii.  12  ;  and  es- 
 
72  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 pecially  Lev.  xvii.  8 ;  Num.  xv.  3,  8.  Olah  undeniably  occurs 
 in  the  general  meaning,  tantamount  to  V^Vs  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  10. 
 In  the  Book  of  Joshua;  wliich  has  been  charged  with  so  strong  a 
 Levitical  bias  (Levitismns),  the  designation  of  the  totality  of  sa- 
 crifice by  Oloth  and  Shelamim,  occurs  not  less  frequently  than  in 
 the  Book  of  Judges,  ch.  viii.  81.  Thus  also  in  the  Chronicles, 
 which  are  written  in  a  Levitical  spirit,  1  Chron.  xvi.  1,  2  ;  2 
 Chron.  vii.  1.  In  Ps.  li.  18,  21,  from  wdiich  certainly  no  one 
 would  think  of  excluding  sin-offerings,  only  Oloth  and  Zehachim 
 are  named.  So  in  Is.  Ivi.  7.  In  Ezra  viii.  35,  sin-offerings  are 
 expressly  numbered  among  the  burnt- offerings.  If  now  there  is 
 a  general  designation  which  includes  sin-  offerings  and  burnt  offer- 
 ings, and  those  persons  fr-equently  use  it  whose  minds  had  a  more 
 outward  direction,  we  are  prepared  to  find  it  employed  by  the 
 author  of  the  Book  of  Judges. 
 
 Gramberg  (p.  108)  finds  a  contradiction  to  the  Mosaic  ritual 
 in  1  Sam.  ii.  15-17,  where  it  would  seem  to  be  the  custom  to 
 offer  boiled  flesh.  But  that  the  Shelamim  alone  are  here  spoken 
 of,  is  evident.  Only  in  reference  to  these,  is  the  phrase  i^?.!  '^rj 
 used.  In  the  case  of  the  Shelamim,  according  to  the  law,  no 
 flesh  was  offered,  either  raw  or  dressed.  Sanguis  et  exta  arae 
 cedehant,  2)ectus  et  armns  sacerdotihus,  j)ellis  et  caro  offerenti- 
 hus.  Levi  b.  Gersom  on  Lev.  iii.  1 ;  in  Carpzov,  p,  706.  Also 
 here  in  ver.  15,  where  it  is  charged  on  the  sons  of  Eli  as  impiety, 
 that  they  demanded  their  portion  before  God  had  received  his, 
 the  fat  is  described  as  constituting  the  latter.  The  passage 
 shows,  not  that  dressed  flesh  was  offered,  but  only  that  it  was  eaten. 
 
 The  most  glaring  departure  from  the  Mosaic  sacrificial  system 
 was  the  offering  of  Jephthah's  daughter.  But  in  the  section  on  the 
 state  of  religion  and  morals  in  the  jieriod  of  the  Judges,  we 
 shall  show  that  the  admission  of  this  sacrifice  owes  its  origin  to 
 the  arbitrary  construction  that  has  been  put  upon  the  narrative  by 
 expositors. 
 
 Having  disposed  of  the  objections,  we  now  offer  the  positive 
 proofs  for  the  truths  of  our  assertion,  that  the  sacrificial  system 
 in  the  period  of  the  Judges  was  conducted  according  to  the  pres- 
 criptions of  the  Pentateuch,  though  we  must  again  remind  our 
 readers,  that  our  sources  of  information  are  of  such  a  natm'e,  that 
 it  would  be  absurd  to  make  lai'ge  demands  upon  them. 
 
SACRED  RITES.  78 
 
 1 .  The  manner  in  wliicli  tlie  author  of  the  Books  of  Samuel 
 descrihes  the  impiety  of  the  sons  of  Levi,  impHcs,  that  there  was 
 an  absolute  fixed  regulation,  by  which  it  was  determined  what 
 part  of  the  offerings  were  to  he  retained  by  the  priests,  what  were 
 allotted  to  God,  and  what  to  the  offerers.  Apart  fi'om  this,  it 
 would  be  no  easy  matter  to  decide  in  what  the  illegality  of  Eli's 
 sons  consisted.  But  the  historian  makes  a  special  reference  to  this 
 regulation,  slight,  after  his  usual  manner,  but  yet  sufficiently  dis- 
 tinct. In  ch.  ii.  13,  it  is  said,  ''And  the  priest's  custom  with  the 
 people  was,  when  any  man  offered  sacrifice,  ^=)  'j?.f  ^^^~^?,  the 
 priest's  servant  came  wliile  the  flesh  was  in  seething  with  a  flesh' 
 hook  of  three  teeth  in  his  hand,  &c.  .  .  all  that  the  flesh-hook 
 brought  up,  the  priest  took  for  himself."  These  words  contain  an 
 unquestionable  reference  to  Deut.  xviii.  3,  and  this  reference  con- 
 tains the  condemnation  of  the  sons  of  Eli.  It  is  there  said,  "  And 
 this  shall  be  the  priest's  due  from  the  people,  from  them  that  offer 
 sacrifice,  ^'^^.^  ^^^^  ^^^. ;  and  they  shall  give  unto  the  priest  the 
 shoulder,  and  the  two  cheeks,  and  the  maw."  The  perquisite 
 which  they  took  is  set  in  contrast  to  the  perquisite  which  was 
 allowed  them  ;  compare  in  reference  to  the  ^^'f?  ch.  viii.  11,  with 
 X.  25.  Without  this  reference  to  the  lawful  perquisite,  the  author 
 would  not  have  designated  the  perquisite  that  was  actually 
 claimed  -cvs;^.  Instead  of  being  satisfied  with  the  portions  assigned 
 them  by  the  law,  they  arbitrarily  took  whatever  they  pleased. 
 
 2.  In  accordance  with  the  Mosaic  ordinance  respecting  the 
 Shelamim,  only  their  fat  was  presented  to  the  Lord.  The  arrange- 
 ment of  the  sacrificial  act,  which  Eli's  sons  attempted  to  per^'ert 
 in  contradiction  to  the  offerers,  agreed  with  that  prescribed  in  the 
 law.  The  offerers,  according  to  1  Sam.  ii.  16,  refused  to  give 
 flesh  to  the  priests  before  the  fat  was  burnt.  According  to  the 
 law,  the  biu'ning  of  the  fat  immediately  followed  the  slaying  of 
 the  animal.  Compare  Lev.  iii.  1-5,  where,  and  hkewise  in  I 
 Sam.  ii.  11,  the  technical  term  ^""rT'll  is  used.  Also  according  to 
 Lev.  vii.  20,  &c.  the  priests  did  not  receive  their  share  till  the 
 Lord  had  received  liis  own. 
 
 3 .  Elkanah  went  yearly  to  the  sanctuary,  in  order  to  offer  there 
 the  sacrifice  of  days,  ^^^"S^  '^'r]-^^.,  and  his  vow,  1  Sam.  i.  21.  Of 
 the  meals  which  he  then  prepared  of  the  Shelamim,  his  whole 
 family  partook.      1  Samuel  i.  4,  "  And  when  the  time  was  that 
 
74     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 Elkanali  offered,  he  gave  to  Peninnah  his  wife,  and  to  all  her  sons 
 and  her  daughters  portions."  In  acting  thus  he  put  into  practice 
 the  injunction  given  in  Deut.  xii.  17,  18,  ''  Thou  mayst  not  eat 
 within  thy  gates,  the  tithe  of  thy  corn,  or  of  thy  wine,  or  of  thy 
 oil,  or  the  firstUngs  of  thy  herds,  or  of  thy  flock,  nor  any  of  thy 
 vows  which  thou  vowest,  nor  thy  free-will  offerings,  or  heave-offer- 
 ings of  thy  hand.  But  thou  must  eat  them  before  the  Lord  thy 
 God,  in  the  place  which  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  choose,  thou,  and 
 thy  son,  and  thy  daughter,  and  thy  man-servant,  and  thy  maid- 
 servant, and  the  Levite  that  is  within  thy  gates,  and  thou  shalt 
 rejoice  before  the  Lord  thy  God."  The  sacrifice  of  the  days  and 
 the  vow,  briefly  express  what  is  described  at  length  in  the  law. 
 The  first  was,  as  it  were,  the  yearly  account  with  the  Lord,  the 
 presentation  of  that  portion  of  the  property  that  fell  to  him  in  the 
 course  of  the  year. 
 
 It  is  of  especial  importance  that,  in  agreement  with  the  law,  4, 
 all  the  offerings  were  presented  at  the  sanctuary ;  and  5,  every 
 thing  was  performed  with  the  concurrence  of  a  priest.  But  these 
 points  have  already  been  noticed  in  another  connection. 
 
 That  the  sacrificial  system  during  the  period  of  the  Judges  was 
 in  a  flourishing  condition,  is  very  evident  from  the  first  chapters 
 of  the  Books  of  Samuel.  According  to  cli.  ii.  14,  all  Israel  came 
 to  Shiloh  in  order  to  sacrifice;  and  Gramberg's  assertion  (p. 
 280)  that  Elkanah's  yearly  sacrifice  appears  to  have  been  only  a 
 voluntary  result  of  his  piety,  is  manifestly  false.  This  is  contra- 
 dicted by  the  expression  '^'^TT-  '^^T-  Elkanah  did  not  present 
 some  kind  of  offering  every  year,  but  the  yearly  sacrifice,  the  offer- 
 ing which  every  Israelite  was  bound  and  accustomed  to  present. 
 
 To  the  sacred  rites  which  w^ere  performed  during  the  period  of 
 the  Judges,  in  accordance  with  the  Mosaic  law,  belonged  the  Che- 
 REM,  ^tli!!,  or  compulsory  devotement  to  the  Lord,  of  those  who 
 would  not  voluntarily  devote  themselves  to  him.*- 
 
 The  first  mention  of  the  a^h  occurs  in  Judges  i.  17.  It  is  there 
 carried  into  execution  against  the  Canaanites.  But  there  are  two 
 instances  of  it  that  are  peculiarly  striking,  which  are  narrated  in 
 the  appendix. 
 
 That  the  conduct  of  the  other  tribes  towards  the  Benjamites  is 
 
 KiTTo's  Biblical  Cyclopaedia,  Art,  Anathei7ia. — [Tr.] 
 
SACRED  RITES.  75 
 
 to  be  regarded  as  a  Cherem,  is  quite  apparent.  It  was  not 
 called  forth  by  a  blind  spirit  of  revenge  ;  but  the  tribes  performed 
 with  deepfelt  pain  what  they  considered  was  their  duty.  The 
 question,  "  Shall  I  yet  again  go  out  to  battle  against  the  children 
 of  Benjamin  my  brother  ?"  in  ch.  xx.  28,  shews  how  far  the  peo- 
 ple were  from  exasperation,  even  after  they  had  suffered  a  most 
 painful  loss.  They  would  gladly  have  been  reheved  from  the 
 service,  but  they  believed  it  necessary  to  obey  their  Lord's  call, 
 lest  the  ban  should  be  transferred  from  the  guilty  to  themselves. 
 This  is  evidently  imphed  in  the  words  which  they  uttered  before 
 the  war  with  the  Benjamites  broke  out,  ''  that  we  may  put  away 
 evil  fr'om  Israel,"  Judges  xx.  13.  After  the  event,  they  expressed 
 the  deepest  sorrow  in  the  words,  "  0  Lord  God  of  Israel,  why  is 
 this  come  to  pass  in  Israel,  that  there  should  be  to-day  one  tribe 
 lacking  in  Israel  ?"  They  wept  before  the  Lord.  And  how  came 
 it  to  pass,  that,  besides  the  men,  they  slew  all  the  cattle,  contrary 
 to  their  own  interest,  if  they  merely  acted  from  personal  conside- 
 rations, and  with  no  reference  to  an  inviolable  law  ?  But  all 
 doubt  vanishes  when  we  compare  the  second  case,  the  perfectly 
 analogous  conduct  of  the  tribes  towards  the  inhabitants  of  Jabesh 
 Gilead,  which  is  expressly  described  as  Cherem.  Compare  ch. 
 xxi.  11,''  And  this  is  the  thing  that  ye  shall  do,  ye  shall  utterly 
 destroy  every  male  and  every  married  woman,"  ^'^'^i^qn. 
 
 But  not  only  in  general,  the  conduct  of  the  Israelites  in  both 
 cases  was  evidently  regulated  by  the  Mosaic  injunctions  respecting 
 the  Cherem;  we  can  point  out  specially  that  the  tribes  were 
 guided  by  the  locus  classicus  in  Deut.  xiii.  18,  respecting  the 
 execution  of  the  Cherem  on  those  who  belonged  to  the  people  of 
 the  Covenant.  This  furnishes  a  key  to  the  wdiole  transaction. 
 According  to  that  passage  an  Israelitish  city,  which  had  been 
 guilty  of  worsliipping  other  gods  (to  bring  the  offence  of  the 
 Benjamites  and  Jabesites  under  this  denomination,  requhes  a 
 spiritual  but  not  an  arbitrary  intei-pretation) ,  was  placed  under 
 the  ban  with  all  that  was  in  it,  the  men  and  cattle  were  to  be  slain 
 with  the  sword,  the  plunder  was  to  be  burnt,  "  that  the  Lord 
 might  turn  from  the  fierceness  of  his  anger,  and  show  mercy  and 
 have  compassion  upon  thee,  as  he  hath  sworn  unto  thy  fathers." 
 Between  ver.  1,  6,  containing  the  command,  "  thou  shalt  surely 
 smite  the  inhabitants  of  that  citv  with  the  edge  of  the  sword,  ^"^^r^?^. 
 
76     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 .  .  .  and  the  cattle  thereof,"  and  Judges  xx.  48,  there  is  a  verbal 
 coincidence,  "  and  smote  them  with  the  edge  of  the  sword,  ^  t*^"^?:  ? 
 as  well  the  men  of  the  city  as  the  least."  Also  the  clause,  "  they 
 set  on  fire  all  the  cities  that  they  came  to,"  corresponds  to  Deut. 
 xiii.  16,  "thoushalt  burn  with  fire  the  city."  Also  in  Judges 
 xxi.  10,  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  words  of  the  law,  ''Go,  and 
 smite  the  inhabitant?  of  Jabesh-Gilead  with  the  edge  of  the  sword," 
 
 Among  the  sacred  acts  performed  according  to  the  directions  of 
 the  Pentateuch,  must  be  reckoned  the  blowing  with  trumpets 
 when  preparing  to  attack  their  enemies.  The  injunction  on  this  sub- 
 ject is  given  in  Numb.  x.  9,  "  And  when  ye  go  to  war  in  your  land 
 against  the  enemy  that  oppresseth  you,  then  ye  shall  blow  an  alarm 
 with  the  trumpets,  and  ye  shall  be  remembered  before  the  Lord 
 yom'  God,  and  ye  shall  be  saved  fi'om  your  enemies."  Accor- 
 dingly, blowing  with  the  trumpet  was  a  signal  by  which  the  peo- 
 ple of  the  Lord  signified  to  him  their  need  of  aid,  and  invoked  him 
 to  bestow  it.  As  he  himself  had  ordered  the  signal,  and  had 
 annexed  a  promise  to  its  use,  whenever  they  heard  the  sound  of 
 the  trumpet,  they  might  confidently  beheve  that  the  Lord  would 
 assist  them.  The  act,  therefore,  was  a  means  of  rousing  the  theo- 
 cratic spirit.  We  meet  with  the  first  instance  of  comphance  with 
 this  injunction  in  Joshua  vi.  5.  In  the  Book  of  Judges,  the 
 deliverers  of  Israel  commonly  begin  their  work  with  it.  Tliis 
 ceremony  has  been  very  much  misunderstood,  when  the  object  of 
 blowing  the  trumpet  has  been  considered  to  be  that  of  calling 
 the  people  together  hke  an  alarm-bell.  Of  such  an  object  we 
 nowhere  find  any  trace,  but  the  one  assigned  in  the  Pentateuch 
 meets  us  everywhere.  On  all  occasions  the  sounding  of  the  trum- 
 pet stands  in  immediate  connection  with  the  consequence  promised 
 in  the  Pentateuch,  so  that  only  the  fulfilment  of  this  consequence 
 can  be  considered  as  the  object.  In  the  passage  just  referred  to. 
 Josh.  vi.  5,  the  calUng  together  of  the  people  cannot  be  considered 
 as  the  object.  So  hkewise  in  Judges  iv.,  when  Barak,  at  the 
 command  of  the  Lord,  blew  the  trumpet  in  prolonged  blasts  on  Ta- 
 bor. How  sadly  those  persons  have  lost  their  labour  who  have  not 
 perceived  the  reference  to  the  Pentateuch,  may  be  seen  in  Studer. 
 That  the  Mount  Tabor  where  Barak  blew  the  trumpet  was  not  the 
 place  of  the  gathering  is  evident  Jfrom  ver.  10,  where  Kadesh  is 
 
SACRED  RITES.  77 
 
 described  as  such.  From  ver.  G,  10,  14,  taken  together,  it  fol- 
 lows, that  Barak  first  assemhled  the  host  in  Kadesh,  then  led  it 
 to  Tahor,  and  thence  to  the  field  of  battle,  so  that  the  blowing  of 
 the  trumpet  could  only  answer  the  purpose  assigned  to  it  in  the 
 Pentateuch.  That  this  act  referred  only  to  the  Lord  appears  also 
 from  the  relation  ofT^^^  in  ver.  7,  to  C^.''^^  in  ver.  G,  "Go  and 
 draw  toward  Mount  Tabor,"  and  "  I  will  draw  unto  thee,  to  the 
 river  Kishon,  Sisera  the  captain  of  Jabin's  army ;"  which  requires 
 that  the  bare  use  of  t^''^  in  ver.  G,  without  the  words  "  with  the 
 trumpet,"  should  be  intentional,  and  that  a  double  meaning  should 
 be  affixed.  If  such  be  admitted  in  the  words,  "  Go  and  draw 
 toward  Mount  Tabor,"  and  this  is  much  more  probable,  since  it  is 
 the  language  of  a  prophetess,  the  reference  is  clear.  The  long- 
 drawn  blast  must  draw  the  Lord ;  then  the  Lord  draws  Sisera  the 
 ca^Jtain  of  Jabin's  host.  First,  Barak  draws  the  helper  from 
 heaven — then  the  Lord  draws  the  enemy  on  earth.  Also  in  ch. 
 iii.  37,  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  blowing  the  trumpet 
 was  the  means  of  gathering  the  people.  After  Ehud  had  sounded 
 the  trumpet  on  Mount  Ephraim,  he  said  to  the  children  of  Is- 
 rael, at  whose  head  he  found  himself,  "  Follow  after  me,  for  the 
 Lord  hath  delivered  your  enemies  into  your  hand."  In  reference 
 to  ch.  XX.  37,  even  Studer  feels  obliged  to  make  the  remark, 
 "  The  idea  of  calling  together  a  host  to  battle  does  not  suit  this 
 passage." 
 
 The  rite  of  Circumcision  formed,  during  the  period  of  the 
 Judges,  the  distinguishing  mark  of  Israel  in  relation  to  the  sur- 
 rounding nations;  it  was  considered,  in  accordance  with  the  Pen- 
 tateuch, as  a  high  prerogative.     Compare  Judges  xiv.  3. 
 
 Swearing  by  Jehovah,  according  to  Judges  xxi.  1.  18,  in  ac- 
 cordance with  Exod.  xx.  8;  Lev.  xix.  2:  Deut.  v.  11,  was  esteemed 
 vei7  sacred.  Vov^^s  were  regarded  as  inviolable  ;  compare  Judges 
 xi.  35,  3G,  with  Deut.  xxiii.  24.  Fasting  appears  as  in  the 
 law,  Lev.  xvi.  29,  as  an  embodying  of  repentance.  Judges  xx.  26. 
 The  laws  respecting  unclean  food  were  known  and  observed, 
 Judges  xiii.  4,  14. 
 
 How  firmly  the  Mosaic  ritual  had  taken  root  in  the  period  of  the 
 Judges,  and  how  completely  erroneous  it  is  to  attribute  the  priority 
 to  a^ritual  not  according  to  the  law,  is  evident  from  the  remarkable 
 
78  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 cases  in  which  the  hitter  is  notoriously  a  mere  corruption  of  the 
 former. 
 
 One  of  these  cases  meets  us  at  the  very  commencement  of  the 
 period  of  the  Judges.  It  is  the  account  given  us  in  the  appendix 
 to  the  Book  of  Judges  of  the  image-worship  of  Micah,  and  after- 
 wards of  the  Danites.  A  striking  di£Perence  here  is  presented 
 in  reference  to  the  sanctuaries.  In  some  passages  four  objects 
 are  named,  Pesel,  Maseka,  Ephod,  and  Teraphim.  The  two 
 first  were  prepared  by  the  mother,  and  handed  over  to  her  son. 
 ch.  xvii.  4.  The  two  latter  were  made  by  the  son,  and  when  he 
 had  consecrated  a  priest,  the  whole  apparatus  was  complete.  In 
 ch.  xviii.  17  these  objects  are  enumerated  in  a  different  order, 
 image,  ephod,  teraphim,  molten  work.  In  ver.  20  of  the  same 
 chapter  only  three  are  named,  ephod,  teraphim,  and  pesel ;  and 
 in  ver.  30,  31,  only  the  pesel  is  spoken  of.  The  singular  verb 
 *'^'l^  at  the  end  of  ch.  xvii.  4  directs  us  to  an  individual  object. 
 
 These  discrepancies  may  be  reconciled  in  the  following  manner. 
 Evidently  the  four  objects  were  such  as,  though  connected,  were 
 yet  separable,  and,  though  separable,  w^ere  yet  connected.  The 
 molten  work  was  the  pedestal  under  tlie  image,  and  included  in 
 that  term,  when  used,  scnsu  latiori — the  image  was  clothed  with 
 an  ephod.  That  the  ephod  was  not  the  priest's  dress  is  evident 
 from  the  circumstance  that  it  was  taken  away  ivhen  the  priest 
 went  out  of  doors  ;  and  is  shown  more  distinctly  fi'om  the  phrase 
 T?.?^?.  the  ephod  pesel,  in  ch.  xviii.  18,  in  which  pesel  and  ephod 
 are  most  closely  connected.  And  in  the  ephod  were  the  teraphim, 
 from  whom  information  and  good  counsel  for  the  future  were 
 expected.  For  that  this  is  the  object  of  the  whole  contrivance  is 
 plain  from  ch.  xviii.  5,  6,  where  the  priests  ask  counsel  of  God 
 for  the  Danites. 
 
 Taking  this  view  we  shall  be  able  to  explain  all  the  fticts  before 
 us.  We  can  satisfactorily  account  for  the  change  of  designation 
 in  every  passage.  In  ch.  xviii.  14,  the  spies  say  to  the  Danites, 
 ''Do  ye  know  that  there  is  in  these  houses  an  ephod,  and  teraphim, 
 and  pesel,  and  masekah  ?"  That  which  would  excite  their  desii'e, 
 which  gave  its  worth  to  the  whole,  is  first  named.  The  masekah 
 was  only  on  account  of  the  pesel,  the  pesel  only  on  account  of 
 the  ephod  with  the  teraphim.  Hence,  in  ver.  1,  8,  we  have  the 
 ephod-pesel.     The  same  arrangement,  according  to  theu^  relative 
 
SACRED  RITES.  79 
 
 value,  is  also  observed  in  ver.  20,  where  masekah  is  regarded  as 
 an  appendage  of  the  pesel,  and  included  under  it.  The  teraphim 
 are  never  named  primo  loco,  because  they  are  inseparable  from 
 the  ephod.  Matcrialhj  the  pesel  was  regarded  as  the  principal 
 object;  hence  in  ver.  17  we  have  "the  pesel,  and  the  ephod,  and 
 the  teraphim,  and  the  molten  work;"  and  in  ver.  30  and  31, 
 only  "  the  pesel."  Since  the  pesel  was  the  material  foundation, 
 pesel  is  also  at  first  placed  next  to  masekah. 
 
 In  all  the  varieties  of  collocation  still,  i,  ephod  and  teraphim 
 are  never  separated  from  each  other ;  ii.  neither  of  them  is  named 
 alone ;  iii.  teraphim  is  never  placed  before  ephod ;  iv.  masekah  is 
 never  placed  before  pesel ;  v.  masekah  is  never  mentioned  without 
 pesel.  Let  any  one  try  to  explain  these  facts,  of  which,  according 
 to  our  view,  the  explanation  is  self-evident,  by  any  other  method. 
 
 If  our  view  of  the  nature  of  sacred  objects  be  correct,  it  must 
 be  acknowledged  that  the  ephod  of  Micah  with  the  teraphim,  was 
 an  imitation  of  the  ephod  of  the  high  priest  with  the  Urim  and 
 Thummim — exactly  as  his  priesthood  evinced  itself  to  be  an  imi- 
 tation of  the  Levitical  priesthood — and  thus  gives  a  pledge,  not 
 only  of  its  existence,  but  of  the  high  repute  in  which  it  w^as  held. 
 For  the  attempt  to  create  a  substitute  for  it  can  only  be  explained 
 on  the  supposition  of  this  repute.  The  teraphim  were  intended 
 to  serve  instead  of  the  twelve  precious  stones  in  the  breastplate. 
 Tf^,  which  formed  the  groundwork  of  the  Urim  and  Thummin, 
 a  spiritual  affair.  What  the  high  priest  possessed  for  the  whole 
 people,  Micah  wished  to  possess  for  himself.  For  this  pui'pose 
 he  ai'bitraiily  took  it  out  of  its  proper  connection,  and  formed  it 
 differently  according  to  circumstances.  This  disjointed  and  acci- 
 dental character  of  his  contrivance  sufficiently  shows  that  it  was 
 borrowed.  The  ephod  originally  was  certainly,  as  it  appears  from 
 the  Pentateuch,  the  clothing  of  the  servants  of  the  sanctuary,  and 
 the  pm'pose  to  which  it  is  here  assigned  must  have  been  forced 
 upon  it.  And  as  the  tunic  originally  belonged  to  persons  and  not 
 to  images,  so  also  the  connection  of  tlie  holy  oracle  with  the  ephod 
 did  not  proceed  in  Micah,  as  it  did  in  the  high  priest,  from  an 
 internal  motive.  We  never  find  the  ephod  and  teraphim  else- 
 where connected  with  one  another,  as  must  have  been  the  case 
 had  they  belonged  to  one  another. 
 
 The  history  of  Gideon  presents  us   with    a  second  instance. 
 
80     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 That  tlie  epliod  prepared  by  him  was  an  imitation  of  the  high 
 priest's,  is  apparent  for  the  simple  reason,  that  without  an  external 
 reason  it  would  never  enter  any  one's  thoughts  to  prepare  a  heavy 
 coat  and  set  it  up  as  an  object  of  adoration.  The  perfectly  inad- 
 missible attempt  of  several  critics  (Vatke  the  latest,  p.  267,)  to 
 change  the  coat  into  an  image — a  supposition  which  the  whole 
 character  of  Gideon  forbids  us  to  eutertain,  apart  from  all  other 
 considerations,  (compare  Christologie  iii.  p.  127,  and  the  remarks 
 on  Judg.  xvii.  18),  his  zeal  for  the  true  God  was  so  great  that 
 idolatry  could  not  find  entrance  till  after  his  death,  Judg.  viii.  33 
 — shows  that  it  is  impossible  to  explain  the  fact,  except  from  one 
 point  of  view.  In  Gideon's  mind  an  anxious  dread  of  violating 
 the  letter  of  the  Mosaic  law  was  mingled  with  an  ardent  desne  to 
 possess  a  sanctuary  of  his  own.  He  therefore  caused  to  be  made 
 a  costly  imitation  of  the  high  priest's  ephod.  This  proceeding  im- 
 plies, as  in  the  analogous  case  of  Micah,  that  the  ephod  at  that 
 time  was  held  in  great  honour,  and  this  honour  could  not  be  paid 
 to  the  ephod  in  and  for  itself,  but  depended  on  the  Choshen  con- 
 nected with  it,  together  with  the  Urim  and  Thummim.  That 
 Gideon's  ephod  was  finished  after  the  pattern  of  the  Mosaic, 
 is  rendered  more  probable,  since  we  find  that  Gideon,  in  one  cir- 
 cumstance relative  to  its  manufacture,  was  guided  by  an  ancient 
 model.  Why  did  Gideon  request  the  people  to  give  up  exactly 
 their  golden  ear-rings  for  this  object  ?  He  evidently  imitates  Aaron 
 on  this  occasion  ;  compare  Exod.  xxxii.  2,  to  which  the  historian 
 seems  to  allude,  if  we  compare  the  expression,  *'  And  Gideon 
 made  an  ephod  thereof,"  Judges  viii.  27,  with,  "  And  he  made  it 
 a  molten  calf,'-'  Exod.  xxxii.  4.  As  Jeroboam  followed  Aaron's 
 example  as  to  the  form,  so  did  Gideon  as  to  the  materials, 
 which  he  might  believe  himself  more  at  liberty  to  do,  since  the 
 blame  that  was  attached  to  Aaron's  conduct  appeared  to  relate 
 only  to  the  form.  It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  the  materials 
 for  the  original  ephod  consisted  also  of  fi-eewill  contributions. 
 Exod.  XXV.  7.  Nor  let  it  be  objected,  that  if  Gideon  did  nothing 
 more,  the  severe  judgment  is  inexplicable,  wdiich  the  author  of 
 the  Book  of  Judges  expresses  on  his  conduct.  In  Gideon  him- 
 self there  was  certainly  not  a  little  alloy  of  selfishness  in  action ; 
 his  private  sanctuary  withdrew  liis  heart  more  or  less  from  the 
 common  sanctuary  of  the  nation,  and  even  if  the  proceeding  had 
 
SACRED  ritp:s.  81 
 
 not  been  injurious  to  himself,  yet,  from  a  regard  to  the  weak- 
 ness of  tlie  people,  he  ought  to  have  abstained  from  the  un 
 dertaking  which  would  very  shortly  make  the  new  self-chosen 
 sanctuary  an  object  of  unholy  attachment.  Gideon's  offence 
 brought  the  Divine  judgments  on  his  family,  who  placed  their 
 honour  in  advancing  the  reputation  of  the  new  sanctuary,  and  this 
 apparently  slight  deviation  laid  the  foundation  for  a  succession 
 of  Divine  judgments  which  are  described  in  ch.  ix. 
 
 Also,  in  reference  to  what  was  strictly  idolatry,  we  may  point  to 
 a  remarkable  example  of  a  later  corruption  which  had  its  founda- 
 tion in  the  pure  worship  of  Jehovah.  According  to  Judges  ix., 
 in  the  times  after  Gideon's  death,  there  existed  in  Shechem,  the 
 chief  place  in  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  a  sanctuary  of  Baal-Berith, 
 ^^T?  ^??.  The  origin  and  meaning  of  this  name  we  learn  from  ver. 
 6.  The  inhabitants  of  Shechem,  the  adherents  of  Baal-berith,  as- 
 sembled to  elect  Abimelech  king  on  the  same  spot  where  Joshua 
 had  held  the  last  assembly  of  the  people  immediately  before  his 
 death.  Josh.  xxiv.  1,  25,  26,  where  he  erected  a  pillar  as  a  me- 
 morial, a  witness  of  the  covenant  which  the  people  had  made  and 
 sworn  to  Jehovah.  As  Joshua  xxiv.  5,  refers  back  to  Gen.  xxxv. 
 4 — Joshua  fixed  upon  the  place,  the  tree  which  had  been  rendered 
 sacred  by  Jacob,  where  he  had  buried  the  idols — so  the  transaction 
 in  the  Book  of  Judges  refers  back  to  what  is  recorded  in  the  Book 
 of  Joshua  ;  down  to  Joshua's  time  the  reference  was  to  the  oak, 
 but  fi'om  that  period  to  the  oak  and  the  pillar  ^?!?.  V'%  as  it  is 
 called  in  the  Book  of  Judges.  In  the  same  place  stood  also  the 
 temple  of  Baal-berith.  This  is  evident  from  a  comparison,  ver.  40 
 with  ver.  G,  which  shows  that  it  was  not  in  Shechem,  but  in  the 
 neighbourhood.  If  therefore  it  is  certain  that  the  name  Baal- 
 berith  relates  to  the  covenant  concluded  with  the  Lord  under 
 Joshua,  it  follows  that  the  w^orship  of  Baal,  which  was  not  in  direct 
 opposition  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  but  rested  on  syncretism, 
 (Baal-berith  in  Judges  ix.  46,  is  called  El-Berith  ;  if  a  direct  op- 
 position to  the  worship  of  Jehovah  be  assumed,  the  reference  to 
 the  covenant  under  Joshua  is  inexphcable) — a  mere  corruption 
 of  the  pure  worship  of  Jehovah.  For  the  idea  of  the  covenant 
 and  that  of  Jehovah-Baal  mutually  exclude  one  another.  If  the 
 covenant  be  old,  then  must  Baal  be  new,  an  intruder.  Therefore 
 we  have  in  the  name  of  the  Shechemite  idol,  a  confirmation  of  the 
 
 VOL.  II.  F 
 
82     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 express  statement  of  the  historian  respecting  the  late  origin  of 
 his  worship,  which,  according  to  him,  proceeded  from  a  criminal 
 apostacy,  ch.  viii.  33. 
 
 How  deeply  the  Mosaic  ritual  had  struck  its  roots,  appears 
 from  the  fact  that  the  festivals  which,  according  to  the  law,  were 
 to  he  held  in  honour  of  Jehovah,  were  transferred  to  Baal.  An 
 instance  of  this  kind  occurs  in  Judges  ix.  27,  "  And  they  went 
 out  into  the  fields,  and  gathered  their  vineyards,  and  trod  the 
 grapes,  and  made  merry  ^^?^*\',  and  went  into  the  house  of  their 
 god,  and  did  eat  and  drink,  and  cursed  Ahimelech."  The  refer- 
 ence of  this  festival  to  Lev.  xix.  23-25  is  undeniahle  :  "  And 
 when  ye  shall  come  into  the  land,  and  shall  have  planted  all  man- 
 ner of  trees  for  food  ;  then  ye  shall  count  the  fruit  thereof  as  uncir- 
 cumcised  ;  three  years  shall  it  he  as  uncircumcised  unto  yon  ;  it 
 shall  not  he  eaten  of.  But  in  the  fourth  year  all  the  fruit  thereof 
 shall  he  holy  to  praise  o^ViVrt  Jehovah  withal.  And  in  the  fifth 
 year  shall  ye  eat  of  the  fruit  thereof;  the  Hillulim  which  the 
 Seventy  have  retained  not  without  reason,  since  it  is  evidently  a 
 kind  of  nomen  proprium  occurs  only  in  these  two  passages.  The 
 pseudo-Hillulim  hore  the  same  relation  to  the  genuine  as  Baal- 
 berith  to  Jehovah. 
 
 We  have  hitherto  been  engaged  in  estahhshing  the  relation  be- 
 tween the  period  of  the  Judges  and  the  ecclesiastical  regulations 
 of  the  Pentateuch.  Let  us  now  turn  to  examine  the  relation  in 
 which  the  period  of  the  Judges  stands  to  the  civil  regulations  of 
 the  Pentateuch. 
 
 Here  our  attention  is  first  called  to  the  relation  of  the  Book  of 
 Ruth  to  the  laws  of  the  Pantateuch  in  the  special  instance  of  the 
 Levi  rate  laic. 
 
 The  Book  of  Ruth — Bohlen  maintains — in  one  of  the  esta- 
 blished customs,  the  Levirate,  knows  nothing  of  the  arrangements 
 of  the  Pentateuch.  We,  on  the  contrary,  maintain,  that  the  juridical 
 process  in  the  Book  of  Ruth  rests  entirely  on  the  legislation  of 
 the  Pentateuch,  and  shows  that  it  had  taken  deep  root  in  the 
 period  of  the  Judges. 
 
 Two  regulations  of  the  Pentateuch  are  here  to  be  considered. 
 The  first  is  that  in  Lev.  xxv.  25,  "  If  thy  brother  be  waxen  poor, 
 and  hath  sold  away  some  of  his  possession,  and  if  any  of  his  kin 
 
CIVIL  LEGISLATION.  83 
 
 come  to  redeem  it,  then  shall  he  redeem  that  which  his  brother 
 sold."  An  act  of  love  is  here  spoken  of,  performed  by  a  relation 
 towards  a  relation.  He  was  not  allowed  to  purchase  the  land  for 
 himself,  but  in  order  to  return  it  to  his  impoverished  relation  if 
 still  alive,  or  if  he  died  childless,  to  keep  up  his  name  in  his  inhe- 
 ritance. For  this  object  he  retained  the  right  of  redemption 
 against  the  purchaser.  Neither  was  a  legal  obhgation  laid  upon 
 him,  nor  was  an  advantage  promised  him  which  he  could  derive 
 from  the  unfortunate  situation  of  his  kinsman  ;  but  only  the  con- 
 ditions were  legally  secured  to  him,  on  which  he  could  perform  this 
 act  of  relative  kindness.  That  the  regulation  is  thus  to  be  under- 
 stood, appears  (i.)  from  the  name  '^^  which  is  here  given  to  the 
 relation.  This  is  erroneously  interpreted  by  Gesenius  as  exactly 
 equivalent  to  coynatus.  But  it  denotes  a  kinsman  only  in  one 
 peculiar  aspect,  only  as  far  as  he  redeems  the  person  to  whom  he 
 is  related  from  distress,  and  takes  care  of  his  interests,  (ii.)  From 
 ver.  26,  which  speaks  of  the  case  in  which  there  is  no  Goel,  and 
 the  person  himself  is  in  a  condition  to  redeem  his  property.  The 
 connection  of  the  two  cases  shows,  that  also  in  the  first  the  redemp  • 
 tion  was  effected  for  the  advantage  of  the  impoverished  person, 
 (iii.)  From  the  analogy  of  ver.  48,  49.  If  an  Israehte  had  sold 
 himself,  "  after  that  he  is  sold  he  may  be  redeemed  again  ;  one  of 
 his  brethren  may  redeem  him  ;  either  his  uncle,  or  his  uncle's  son 
 may  redeem  him,  or  any  that  is  nigh  of  kin  unto  him  of  his  family 
 may  redeem  him,  or  if  he  be  able  he  may  redeem  himself."  If 
 the  redemption  which  regards  the  iierso^i  was  an  act  of  kindness, 
 so  also  was  that  which  regarded  the  irroperty. 
 
 The  second  regulation  of  the  Pentateuch  which  is  here  to  be 
 noticed,  is  that  respecting  the  Levirate  marriage,  Deut.  xxv.  5,  of 
 which  the  reason  is  ably  explained  by  Africanus  in  Eusebius, 
 Hifit.  Eccles.  i.  7.  tcu  ovoyiaTa  tmv  fyevoiv  r/pt6fjieLT0  rj  (pvcrec 
 rj  vojJLW'  <^vaei  fjuev,  'yvrjalov  crTrep/xaro?  hiaho^fj'  vofJLcp  Be,  irepov 
 TracBoTTocovfjievov  et?  ovo/ma  reXevr^cravTO'^  aSeXcpov  dreKVov  ore 
 <yap  ovBeTTco  BiSoro  cXttI?  dvacrrdaeco^;  aacji^'^,  T)]V  /jueWovcrav 
 eirayyektav  dvaardaei  ejjbLjJLOvvTO  Ovrjrfj,  iva  dveKXecTrrov  fJievrj 
 TO  ovofjLa  rod  fieTriKkaxoro^.  This  regulation  refers  literally 
 indeed  only  to  tlie  unmarried  brother-in-law,  and  not  to  the  other 
 relations.  But  if  traced  back  to  its  idea,  it  also  conveys  an  ex- 
 hortation to  them  to  care  for  the  maintenance  of  their  brother's 
 
 F  2 
 
81      THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 name  in  a  ^Yide^  sense,  especially  since  among  tlie  Israelites,  the 
 ties  of  kindred,  as  the  extensive  use  of  the  name  hs  shows,  were 
 closer  than  among  us. 
 
 The  second  regulation,  therefore,  in  its  spirit,  must  be  con- 
 sidered as  connected  with  the  first.  The  maintenance  of  the  name 
 by  inheritance  alone  was  an  imperfect  method.  It  was  justly  con- 
 cluded that  whoever  made  this  an  object  when  he  came  forward  as 
 God,  must  also,  if  opportunity  offered,  make  use  of  the  other 
 efiective  means  for  keeping  up  the  name,  by  marrying  the  widow 
 of  the  deceased.  Whoever  declined  doing  that,  showed  that  he 
 was  not  disposed  to  fulfil  Lev.  xxv.  25,  according  to  the  inten- 
 tion of  the  lav/giver,  that  under  the  cloak  of  a  kinsman's  love  he 
 concealed  a  selfish  regard  to  his  own  interests.  The  prerogative 
 of  the  Vk.  did  not  become  him.  If  there  was  another  kinsman 
 who  was  willing  to  mari-y  the  widow,  the  right  of  redemption  was 
 also  transferred  to  him. 
 
 From  this  view  of  the  subject,  the  whole  course  of  the  trans- 
 actions in  the  Book  of  Euth,  ch.  iv.,  may  be  easily  explained. 
 Naomi  had  sold  her  land.*  Boaz,  a  wealthy  and  noble-minded 
 man,  had  no  avaricious  motive  for  assuming  the  right  of  redemp- 
 tion, but  he  saw  that  he  could  not  perfectly  attain  the  object  of 
 his  marriage  with  Ruth,  if  her  land  was  not  secured  to  the  child- 
 ren that  might  be  the  issue  of  this  connection.  This  right  of 
 redemption  was  at  that  time  possessed  by  a  nearer  kinsman ;  as  a 
 means  of  withdrawing  it  and  transferring  it  to  himself,  Boaz  asked 
 categorically  whether,  according  to  the  umvritten  law,  which  rested 
 on  the  written,  he  was  willing  to  comply  with  the  obligation  con- 
 nected with  the  redemption  of  the  property,  of  marrying  the  widow. 
 As  the  Idnsman  declined  doing  this,  the  right  of  redemption  was 
 transferred  to  Boaz,  and  he  could  now  raise  up  a  name  for  the 
 deceased  on  his  own  inheritance. 
 
 *  That  the  land,  as  Josephus  also  supposes,  had  heen  already  sold,  not,  as  is  com- 
 monly supposed,  was  then  to  be  sold,  appeai-s  from  (i.)  The  preterite  !T^d^.  (ii.)  The 
 term  r:  njsn  which  implies  that  a  sale  had  already  taken  place,  (iii.)  Tlie  comparison 
 with  Levit.  xxv.  according  to  which  the  right  of  redemption  succeeded  to  the  actual 
 sale  of  the  property,  (ver.  29,  30).  Naomi  had  not  sold  the  land  to  Boaz,  (for  appear- 
 ance) as  Recslob,  (?<&.  d.  Leviraiscln;,  p.  37),  supposes,  hut  to  a  third  person.  This 
 plainly  appeai-s  from  ch.  iv.  4,  where  Boaz  says— If  the  Gael  will  not  redeem  it,  he  will, 
 as  the  next  after  him.     Compai-e  also  ver.  C. 
 
THE  LEVIEATE  LAW.  85 
 
 None  can  be  disposed  to  deny  the  reference  of  the  Book  of 
 Euth  to  the  reguhition  in  Lev.  xxv.  The  expression  in  ver.  25, 
 "  And  his  Goel  comes  wlio  is  nigh  to  him,"  ^''\^.  ^^7^3,  is  aUuded 
 to  in  the  expression  of  Boaz,  "  there  is  a  kinsman  nearer  than  I," 
 ■«i;2^  ai-p^%j -i"^^  ch.  iii  12.  According  to  the  law,  it  was  necessary 
 to  be  not  merely  a  Vs;  but  the  nearest  h\^:r,  compare  ver.  49,  where 
 the  various  degrees  of  kindred  are  given.  In  ch.  iv.  3,  '*  And  he 
 said  unto  the  Goel,  Naomi  Jtath  sold  a  parcel  of  land  which  was 
 0117'  hrother  Elimelech's."  '^^^v?  is  used  in  allusion  to  the  words 
 of  the  law,  "  then  shall  he  redeem  that  which  Ids  hrotJier  sold." 
 Lev.  XXV.  25. 
 
 •  The  reference  to  Deut.  xxv.  has  been  more  disputed.  The  fol- 
 lowing reasons  have  been  alleged  against  it  (compare  among  the 
 older  writers,  Carpzov  on  the  Book  of  Euth  ;  among  the  mo- 
 derns, Redslob,  die  Leviratsehe,  Leipz.  183G.)  (i.)  According 
 to  Deut.  XXV.  G,  the  first-born  son  of  a  Levkate  marriage  was 
 to  be  regarded  as  the  son  of  the  deceased,  and  to  bear  his  name. 
 But  here  the  first-born  was  not  named  Mahlon  after  the  deceased, 
 but  Obed ;  also  Obed  was  never  reckoned  to  be  Mahlon's  son, 
 but  always  the  son  of  Boaz.  The  reason  is  completely  disposed 
 of  by  Perizonius  in  his  excellent  dissertation,  Illustratnr  con- 
 stitutio  divina  de  diicenda  defuncti  fratrls  iixore,  the  first  of 
 liis  Dissertait.  vii.  Leiden  1740,  whom  Benari,  De  Leriratu, 
 has  followed.  He  has  shown  what  Augustin  {Qi/aest.  ad  Deut. 
 h.  I.)  had  before  perceived,  that  the  maintenance  of  the  name  did 
 -  not  consist  in  the  son's  bearing  the  name  of  the  deceased,  but 
 only  in  being  '' ad  ejus  nomeii  referri  ej usque  censer i  et  dici 
 Jilium ;"  moreover,  that  tlie  law  of  the  relation  to  the  natural 
 father  could  not  be  altogether  taken  aw^ay,  as  among  the  Greeks 
 the  adopted  sons  were  often  called  by  the  name  of  their  natural 
 father,  (ii.)  The  technical  term  ^.t?  never  occurs  in  the  Book  of 
 Ruth.  But  this  could  not  be  used,  because  it  only  refers  to  the 
 Levirate  marriage  strictly  so  called,  (iii.)  In  reference  to  pulhng 
 off"  the  shoe  in  ch.  iv.  7,  no  appeal  is  made  to  the  law,  but  it  is 
 only  noticed  as  a  custom.  But  this  may  be  explained  on  the 
 ground  that  here  the  Levirate  marriage,  in  the  strict  sense,  is  not 
 here  spoken  of,  in  connection  with  which  the  pulhng  oil' the  shoe 
 was  legally  prescribed. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  in  favour  of  the  reference  to  Deut.  xxv., 
 
86  THE   PENTATKlell  AND  THE  TIME  OE  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 the  following  reasous  may  be  rtssigued.  [i.)  The  iuialogy  of  the 
 reference  to  Lev.  xxv.  makes  it  probahle.  There  are  besides  some 
 other  references  to  the  Pentateuch.  Compare  iv.  11,  Avith  Num. 
 xxiv.  IG  ;  Deut.  viii.  17,  18;  iv.  12,^YithGen.  xxxviii.  29.  (ii.) 
 The  actual  relation  of  the  Goel'm  the  Book  of  Ruth  to  thcJabafn 
 of  the  law  is  undeniable.  "  U/crf/ffc,"  Perizonius  remarks, 
 *'  jj?'oh'//i  dcfuncto  genera  re  e.v  ij)so  ejus  ua'ore  dehuit.  Utrius 
 que  rei  eadem  eausa,  tie  deleaiur  nomen  defuneti  ex  Isr.  vol  ex 
 ffentiUhus  ejus.  Denique  in  utraque  re,  qui  recusaret  demor- 
 tui  uxorem  ducere ])uhUee  id  testahatur  exuendo  ectlceo.  (iii.) 
 But  equally  undeniable  and  sdll  more  decided  is  the  verbal  re- 
 ference to  the  law,  which  is  fully  equivalent  to  an  express  quota- 
 tion. Only  compare  with  Deut.  xxv.  C,  "  And  it  shall  be  that 
 the  first-born  wdiicli  she  beai'eth,  shall  succeed  in  the  name 
 of  his  brother  which  is  dead,  ^^•:J}  ^""v?  =r:"~'f  ^"71 ;  Ruth  iv.  6, 
 "  Ruth  the  Moabitess,  the  wife  of  Mahlon,  have  I  j)wrcliased  to 
 be  my  wife,  to  raise  up  the  name  of  tlie  dead  upon  his  inheritance, 
 '■"'"^^i^r''^  ^^r^l''^'?.  ^7-'?-  Tl^^  name  of  the  deceased,  according  to  the 
 law,  could  only  be  maintained  by  a  son's  being  ascribed  to  him. 
 Tliis  semce  of  kindness  Boaz  was  prepared  to  show ;  the  Goel 
 must  either  do  what  Boaz  offered,  or  he  must  relinquish  the  right 
 of  redeeming  the  property  which  belonged  to  the  nearest  Goel. 
 But  the  reference  to  Deut  xxv.  G  is  still  more  exin'ess  in  Ruth  iv. 
 
 10,  "  Moreover  Ruth  have  I  purchased  to  be  my  wife,  to  raise  up 
 the  name  of  the  dead  upon  his  iiilieritance,  that  the  name  of  the 
 dead  be  not  cut  off  from  among  his  brethren,  and  from  the  gate 
 of  his  place."  According  to  Deut.  xxv.  9,  the  transaction  between 
 the  brother  in-law  and  sister-in-law  was  to  take  place,  '=^?Fi?)!!  T.?^ ;  in 
 Ruth  iv.  2,  it  is  said,  *'  he  took  ten  men  of  the  elders  of  the  city." 
 In  Deut.  xxv.  9,  it  is  said,  "  so  shall  it  be  done  unto  that  man  that 
 will  nut  build  //is  hro titer's  house  ;"  with  this  compare  Rutli  iv. 
 
 11,  "  The  Lord  make  the  woman  that  is  come  into  thine  house, 
 like  Rachel,  and  like  Leah,  which  two  did  build  tlie  house  of  Is- 
 rael," as  much  as  to  say,  "  since  thou,  according  to  the  injunction 
 of  the  law,  hast  built  thy  brother's  house,  the  Lord  make,"  &e. 
 (iv.)  That  Deuteronomy  is  more  ancient  than  the  Book  of  Ruth, 
 appeal's  from  the  circumstance  that  the  author  of  tlie  latter 
 describes  the  symbolic  action  of  taking  ofi'  the  shoe  as  one  that 
 had  grown  obsolete  in  his  time,  wliile  in  Deuteronomy  it  is  spoken 
 
THE   LKVIKATE  LAW.  87 
 
 of  as  in  actual  use,  and  requiring  no  explanation;  compare  Be-, 
 NARI,  p.  28. 
 
 We  must  here  examine  Redslob's  view,  according  to  which  the 
 Levirate  marriage  is  to  he  deduced  from  the  Pjlichtehe,  (i.  e.  the 
 marriage  ohhgatory  on  the  next  of  kin  who  redeemed  the  inheri- 
 tance), so  that  the  dependence  of  the  ohligatory  marriage  on  Deut. 
 XXV.  would  cease.     But  hesides  the  allusions  in  the  Book  of  Ruth 
 to  Deut.  XXV.,  which  have  already  been  pointed  out,  the  following 
 reasons  may  be  urged  against  this  view,  (i.)  That  the  extension  of 
 the  obligation  to  the  nearest  relatives  was  solely  in  consequence 
 of  the  Mosaic  law,  is  rendered  probable  from  our  finding  before 
 the  times  of  Moses  only  traces  of  the  I.evirate  marriage.     Tamar 
 did  not  imagine  that,  besides  Judah's  sons,  she  had  also  a  claim  on 
 their  cousins.     We  must  regard  as  arbitrary  and  unfounded  such 
 assertions  as  the  following,  (p.  C),  "Long  before  ISIoses  a  custom 
 existed  in  the  land  of  Canaan  that  the  widow  of  a  person  who  died 
 childless  should  claim  marriage  with  his  nearest  relations,  first  of 
 all  with  his  brother  ;"  and  again,  "  the  law  \m\)\\Q^  the  ohligatory 
 marriage  in  general  as  an  estabhshed  custom."     (ii.)  That  the 
 ohligatory  marriage  arose  out  of  the  Levirate,  and  not  inversely, 
 appears  from  this,  that  only  the  latter  has  a  peculiar  name,  the 
 former  must  be  satisfied  with  taken  part  in  another.     Redslob  is 
 evidently  wrong  in  taking  Vss  without  hesitation  as  the  termimis 
 techn  iciis  for  the  ohliga  tory  marriage.     '^'^\  to  redeem  must,  accord- 
 ing to  its  meaning,  refer  pecuharly  and  primarily  to  the  inheritance, 
 and  can  only  be  transferred  to  tlie  ohligatory  marriage,  because 
 the  onus  of  the  latter  rests  upon  the  inheritance.     That  Vs:  in  the 
 Book  of  Ruth  denotes  primarily  the  redemption  of  the  land,  is 
 plainly  shown  by  the  transaction  in  ch.  iv.  8-4.     Had  there  been 
 no  real  estate,  Ruth,  in  ch.  iii.  9,  could  not  have  supported  her  re- 
 quest to  Boaz  with  the  words  "for  thou  art  Goel,"  nor  would 
 Vkj  have  been  used  as  it  is  in  v.  13. 
 
 That  the  proliibitions  of  the  Pentateuch  in  reference  to  marring-^ 
 with  the  Canaanites  were  in  existence,  appears  fi'om  the  second 
 Appendix  to  the  Book  of  Judges.  The  great  perplexity  into  which 
 the  elders  of  the  people  were  thrown  when  they  were  at  a  loss  from 
 what  quarter  to  obtain  wives  for  the  Benjamites,  after  the  children 
 of  Israel  had  sworn  not  to  give  them  any  of  their  daughters,  could 
 arise  from  no  other  source.     It  would  have  been  onlv  needful  for 
 
88     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 the  Benjamites  to  take  Canaanitish  wives,  but  they  never  had  a 
 thought  of  such  an  expedient.  If,  moreover,  in  the  period  of  the 
 Judges,  such  marriages  were  not  uncommon,  judging  from  the 
 facts  relating  to  the  Benjamites,  it  must  have  been  an  abuse,  and 
 is  expressly  noted  as  such  in  Judges  iii.  6,  ("  And  the  children 
 of  Israel  dwelt  among  the  Canaanites,  &c.  .  .  and  they  took 
 their  daughters  to  be  then  wives,  and  gave  their  daughters  to  their 
 sons,  and  served  their  gods.")  Vatke's  assertion  that  the  mixture 
 and  intermarrying  of  the  Hebrews  with  the  Canaanites  was  by  no 
 means  considered  as  criminal  and  forbidden,  is  decidedly  erro- 
 neous, if  referred  to  the  estimation  in  which  such  practices  were 
 held  by  the  pious ;  and  when  he  moreover  maintains,  that  the  He- 
 brews, by  intermixing  with  the  Canaanites,  had  become  altoge- 
 ther a  different  people,  he  merely  asserts,  without  reason  or  evi- 
 dence, what  suits  liis  own  favourite  view.  With  much  greater 
 plausibility  it  might  be  inferred  from  Is.  i.  21,  that  in  the  time  of 
 that  prophet  all  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  were  murderers. 
 
 That  to  the  close  of  the  period  of  the  Judges,  there  existed  a 
 strong  disinclination  on  the  part  of  the  pious  to  connections,  not 
 merely  with  the  Canaanites,  but  wdth  heathen  w^omen  in  general, 
 we  see  from  the  example  of  Samson's  pai'ents,  who  were  not  will- 
 ing (ch.  xiv.  3)  that  he  should  take  a  wife  from  the  uncircumcised 
 PhiUstines,  but  urged  him  to  take  a  wife  from  his  own  people. 
 Hence  we  also  see  that  the  separation  between  Israel  and  the 
 heathen  still  continued  to  exist ;  that  Israel  was  very  far  from 
 being  a  mixed  people,  and  that  intermarriages  with  the  heathen 
 were  not  the  rule,  but  the  exception. 
 
 But  it  has  been  asked,  if  the  strict  prohibitions  of  the  Penta- 
 teuch against  maniages  witli  strangers  were  in  existence,  how 
 could  it  enter  the  thoughts  of  Samson  the  Nazarene  to  connect 
 himself  with  a  foreigner  ?  how  could  his  parents,  although  reluc- 
 tantly, consent  to  such  a  union  ?  how  could  the  historian  repre- 
 sent it  as  approved  by  the  Lord  ? 
 
 It  has  been  replied,  that  the  prohibitions  of  the  Pentateuch  were 
 directed  merely  against  marriages  with  the  Canaanitish  women. 
 But  it  is  evident  that  they  are  only  named  as  sjjecies  pro  genere, 
 since  the  Israelites  would  be  in  the  greatest  proximity  to  the  Ca- 
 naanites ;  so  that  in  forbidding  connections  with  the  Canaanitish 
 women,  connections  with  heathen  women  in  general  were  forbid- 
 
MARRIAGES  WITH  THE   CANAANITES,  yO 
 
 den.  That  tins  is  the  view  taken  in  the  Old  Testament,  appears 
 from  1  Kings  xi.  1,  2,  where  the  passages  relating  to  this  subject 
 in  the  Pentateuch  are  applied  to  Solomon,  though  his  wives  were 
 not  taken  only  from  the  Canaanites,  hut  fi'om  the  other  smTound- 
 ing  nations.  J.  J).  Michaelis  (Mos.  Recht,  ii.  §  100),  is  evi- 
 dently mistaken  in  refen'ing  the  words  "  of  the  nations  concern- 
 ing which  the  Lord  said,"  &c.,  only  to  the  Canaanites. 
 
 The  following  is  the  correct  answer.  Not  mai'riages  with  the 
 Canaanitish  women  and  with  the  heathen  in  general,  considered 
 simply  in  themselves,  were  forbidden  in  the  Pentateuch — but  a 
 particular  kind  of  marriages,  in  which  the  persons  with  whom 
 they  became  connected  remained  in  other  respects  as  they  were 
 before,  on  terms  of  exact  parity — marriages  such  as  those  which 
 the  Shechemites  proposed  to  Jacob's  sons,  Gen.  xxxiv.  I G,  when 
 Jacob's  sons,  accepting  the  proposal,  say,  "  then  we  will  give  our 
 daughters  unto  you,  and  we  will  take  your  daughters  to  us,  and 
 we  will  dwell  with  you,  and  we  will  become  (?y^^  people" — marriages 
 in  which  those  who  were  born  heathens  remained  heathens. 
 
 That  the  prohibitions  of  the  Pentateuch  relate  only  to  mixed 
 marriages,  such  as  those  of  Solomon,  who  allowed  his  wives  to 
 practise  idolatry,  may  be  at  once  inferred  from  an  attentive  con- 
 sideration of  these  prohibitions.  Such  marriages  only  are  ex- 
 pressly forbidden  which  resulted  from  making  a  covenant  with  the 
 inhabitants  of  the  land.  In  Exod.  xxxiv.  the  prohibition,  strictly 
 speaking,  is  confined  to  ver,  15,  "  Lest  thou  make  a  covenant  with 
 the  inhabitants  of  the  laud;"  and  what  follows  is  merely  an  enu- 
 meration of  the  consequences  that  would  ensue  from  the  violation 
 of  the  command.  So  in  Deut.  vii.  o,  the  words,  "  Neither  shalt 
 thou  make  maniages  with  them,"  kG.,  are  preceded  by  the  clause, 
 ''  thou  shalt  make  no  covenant  with  them."  And  we  are  led  to 
 the  same  result  by  Deut.  xxi.  10-lf,  which  permits  the  Israelites 
 to  marry  the  heathen  women  that  were  taken  captive  in  war.  All 
 depended  on  their  being  received  into  the  national  connection. 
 That  the  prohibitions  of  the  Pentateuch  were  always  thus  under- 
 stood is  shewn  by  the  example  of  liahab  in  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
 which  breathes  entirely  the  spirit  of  the  Pentateuch. 
 
 But  since  those  who  were  heathens  by  birth  would  probably 
 retain  some  taint  of  heathenism,  this  prohibition  of  mixed  mar- 
 riages involved  a  dissuasive,  which,  being  understood  and  received 
 
90     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 into  their  hearts  by  the  pious,  created  an  aversion  in  their  minds 
 to  such  connections. 
 
 By  these  remarks  everything  is  rendered  clear.  We  cannot 
 say  that  Samson  ipso  facto  violated  the  Mosaic  law.  The  essen- 
 tial point  was  the  effect  of  the  marriage  on  his  own  character, 
 whether  he  was  led  hy  it  into  a  civil  and  religious  union  with  the 
 Philistines.  Of  this  his  parents  were  apprehensive,  and  therefore 
 were  dissatisfied  with  the  marriage,  yet  without  decidedly  opposing 
 it,  wliich  would  not  have  been  justified  hy  the  law.  But  Samson 
 was  so  far  from  loving  his  wife  as  a  Philistine,  that  he  rather 
 sought  for  an  opportunity  of  injuring  the  Phihstines  by  means  of 
 this  connection,  and  for  this  purpose  it  was  favoured  by  the  Lord. 
 
 That  the  right  of  inheritance  in  the  time  of  the  Judges  was 
 founded  on  the  Pentateuch,  we  see  ffom  ch.  xi.  of  the  Book  of 
 Judges.  Jei^hthah  was  the  son  of  a  harlot.  "  And  Gilead's  wife 
 bare  him  sons,  and  his  wife's  sons  grew  up,  and  they  thrust  out, 
 (^'>^?r.^)  Jephthah,  and  said  unto  him,  Thou  shalt  not  inherit  in  our 
 father's  house,  for  thou  art  the  son  of  another  woman."  The 
 allusion  here  is  undeniably  to  Gen.  xxi.  10,  ''And  Sarah  said 
 to  Abraham,  cast  out  C"^'."?^)  this  bondwoman  and  her  son,  for  the 
 son  of  this  bondwoman  shall  not  be  heir  with  my  son,  with  Isaac." 
 The  general  term  ''  another  woman,"  is  chosen  in  order  to  bring 
 the  mother  of  Jephthah  into  the  same  category  with  Hagar.  As 
 the  son  of  a  harlot,  Jephthah  would  have  still  less  right  than  "  the 
 son  of  a  bondwoman."  Yet  the  sons  of  Gilead  choose  the  phrase 
 "  another  woman,"  in  order  to  justify  the  Subsumption.*  Those 
 persons  who  do  not  perceive  the  allusion  to  the  Pentateuch  have 
 been  disposed  to  understand  the  words  '"^.^v-  ^^"'^  in  part  of  a  fo- 
 reign woman  ;  thus  Le  Clerc  and  even  Josephus  ;  but  compare 
 
 *  "  Subsumption."  The  sous  of  Gilead  choose  to  say  "  another  woman,"  in  or- 
 der to  indicate  the  applicability  of  the  passage  in  Gen.  xxii.  10  to  the  mother  of 
 Jephthah,  who  was  a  haiiot.  The  term  "  another  woman"  subsumes,  {i.  e,  includes), 
 both  pai'ticulars,  both  bondwoman  as  in  Genesis,  and  harlot  as  in  Judges.  If  the  sous 
 of  Gilead  had  repeated  the  word  bondwoman,  the  reference  to  Genesis  would  not  have 
 been  applicable  to  Jephthah's  mother  ;  therefore,  departing  from  the  letter  of  Genesis, 
 they  appeal  to  the  animus  let/is,  substituting  the  words  "  another  woman"  for  "bond- 
 woman."  Thus  they  lay  the  foundation  of  a  logical  subsumption,  or  comprehension,  or 
 taking  up  together  of  the  ideas  '•  bondwoman"  and  "  harlot,"  under  the  more  general 
 term  under  which  both  ideas  are  subordinated  or  subsumed  as  species  under  the  genus. 
 -[Tb.] 
 
STATE  OF  RELIGlOxN  AND  MORALS,  91 
 
 Studer.  We  see  irom  ver.  7  that  Jeplitliah's  banishment  was 
 not  effected  by  the  mere  arbitrary  conduct  of  his  brethren,  but  by 
 a  judicial  sentence.  The  law  therefore  was  acknowledg'cd  in  foro, 
 and  not  only  w^iere  it  spoke  decidedly,  but  also  in  merely  ana- 
 logical cases.  It  is  said  in  ver.  7,  "  And  Jephthah  said  unto  the 
 elders  of  Gilead,  Did  not  ye  hate  me,  and  expel  me  out  of  my 
 father's  house  ?"  These  words  are  easily  explained  if  we  suppose 
 an  acquaintance  with  the  contents  of  the  Pentateuch.  Besides  the 
 unfavourable  analogy,  there  is  a  favourable  one,  that  of  Jacob, 
 whose  sons  by  his  handmaids  received  their  inheritance  on  equal 
 terms  with  the  rest,  (see  Michaelis,  Mos.  liechf.,  ii.  §  79)  and 
 the  ground  of  Jephthah's  complaint  was,  that  the  former  was 
 applied  to  his  case. 
 
 The  history  proceeds  on  a  threefold  supposition,  (i.)  That  there 
 was  no  decisive  law  applicable  to  all  cases  on  this  subject;  (ii.) 
 that  one  ancient  analogy  was  unfavourable  ;  and  (iii.)  one  other 
 was  favourable  to  those  who  were  not  born  in  lawful  wedlock. 
 All  these  three  suppositions  we  find  confirmed,  if  we  regard  the 
 Pentateuch  as  the  legal  standard  and  source  of  information  at 
 that  time. 
 
 ON  THE  STATE  OF  RELIGION  AND  MORALS  IN  THE  TIME 
 OF  THE    JUDGES. 
 
 It  has  been  asserted  that  the  state  of  morals  and  religion  during 
 the  time  of  the  Judges,  even  among  the  pious,  who  must  be  re- 
 garded as  the  representatives  of  Israelitish  principles,  was  of  a 
 very  imperfect  and  immature  character,  far  below  the  standard  of 
 the  Pentateuch.  The  exhibition  of  the  theocracy  existed  then 
 only  in  the  germ,  or  as  an  abstract  principle,  and  therefore  in  a 
 form  which  scarcely  deserved  the  name.  These  positions  Vatke 
 (p.  254)  especially  has  attempted  to  establish,  and  with  him  De 
 Wette  agrees  in  the  review  before  quoted,  (p.  988.) 
 
 We,  on  the  contrary,  maintain,  that,  throughout  the  time  of  tlie 
 Judges  there  was  ane/c\o7^7,  whose  subjective  religion  corresponds 
 to  the  objective  religion  of  the  Pentateuch — that  the  general  reh- 
 gious  and  moral  state  of  the  people,  notwithstanding  numerous 
 melanclioly  appearances,  presented  much  that  was  cheering — and 
 that  the  exhibition  of  the  theocracy  in  the  time  of  the  Judges, 
 
1)2     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 among  tliose  in  whom  the  better  tendency  predominated,  was  as 
 fully  developed  as  in  the  Pentateuch.  The  proofs  that  we  offer 
 for  these  assertions  are  the  following : 
 
 I.  The  most  complete  delineation  of  the  rehgious  and  civil  state 
 of  this  period  is  presented  in  the  Book  of  Euth  ;  though  it  must 
 not  be  forgotten,  that  the  events  that  are  narrated  in  this  book 
 happened  at  a  time  when  Israel  had  been  purified  in  the  furnace 
 of  afihction,  and  had  been  powerfully  animated  by  the  wonderful 
 aid  of  the  Lord,*  so  that  we  have  only  the  features  of  the  better 
 times  in  the  period  of  the  Judges  ;  yet  we  must  also  remember  that 
 ex  nihilo  nihil  Jit,  If  a  good  foundation  had  not  still  remained  in 
 degenerate  times,  both  suffering  and  deliverance  v/ould  have  passed 
 away  without  producing  a  deep  effect.  The  impression  which  this 
 delineation  calls  forth  we  cannot  describe  better  than  in  the  words 
 of  Egos  :  "  The  httle  book  of  Euth  stands  between  the  bool^s 
 which  treat  of  wars  and  other  matters,  as  a  delicate  and  incompar- 
 able pictiu'e  of  honour,  propriety,  prudence,  and  rectitude,  as  ex- 
 hibited in  the  domestic  life  of  individuals.  This  lovely  histoiy 
 includes  a  representation  of  all  those  virtues  which  are  required  in 
 household  and  social  life.  It  redounds  to  the  eternal  praise  of  the 
 God  of  Israel,  that,  in  the  freedom  which  his  people  then  enjoyed, 
 there  was  such  a  prevalence  of  modesty,  equity,  kindness,  and  fair- 
 ness. Who  were  Naomi,  Boaz,  and  Euth  ?  They  were  country 
 people.  How  lovely  is  their  simple  eloquence !  how  pleasing 
 their  kind-heartedness  !  how  delicate  their  manners  !  what  refined 
 and  intelligent  persons  !"  In  relation  to  tlie  rehgious  and  theo- 
 cratic position  of  that  age,  let  any  one  compare  ch.  i.  15,  16,  where 
 the  God  of  Israel  is  represented  as  unique  in  direct  opposition  to 
 
 *  The  events  of  this  hook,  in  all  ijrobahility,  happened  in  the  time  soon  after  the  de- 
 liverance from  the  Midianites.  This  appears  from  the  coincidence  of  circumstances  in 
 the  Book  of  Judges  and  those  in  the  Book  of  Euth.  In  both,  there  is  a  gi-eat  famine, 
 and  in  the  Book  of  Paith  one  which  continued  through  several  years,  so  that  the  Is- 
 raehtesfelt  ohHged  to  move  their  residence  entirely  into  a  foreign  land,  to  which  there- 
 fore they  could  not  have  been  induced  by  bad  hai'vests,  which  must  have  affected  the 
 .neighbouring  land  of  INIoab  equally.  Elimelech  wandered  on  account  of  the  famine  from 
 Bethlehem;  the  ravages  of  the  Midianites  extended,  according  to  Judges  vi.  4,  as  far 
 as  Gaza;  therefore  beyond  the  district  in  which  Betlilehem  v.-as  situated.  After  ten 
 years,  Naomi  heard  that  the  Lord  had  visited  his  people,  and  returned  to  her  native 
 land.  Tlie  oppression  of  the  Midianites  lasted  for  seven  yeai-s,  and  some  years  must 
 necessarily  have  elapsed  till  the  land  could  recover  from  its  effects,  and  again  present 
 .that  flourishing  state  of  cultivation  in  wliich  Naomi  found  it  on  her  return. 
 
STATE  OF  RELIGION  AND  MORALS.  98 
 
 the  gods  of  the  neighbourmg  nations  ;  ch.  ii.  4,  where  Boaz  says 
 to  the  reapers,  "  The  Lord  he  witli  you,"  and  they  answer,  "  The 
 Lord  bless  thee  ;  ver.  12,  where  Boaz  says  to  Euth,  "  The  Lord 
 recompense  thy  work,"  (in  forgetting  her  parents  and  the  land  of 
 her  birth,  and  coming  to  a  people  of  whom  before  she  knew  no- 
 thing), "  and  a  full  reward  be  given  thee  of  the  Lord  God  of  Is- 
 rael, under  whose  wrings  thou  art  come  to  trust ;  ver.  20,  where 
 Naomi  says  to  Euth,  in  reference  to  Boaz,  "  Blessed  be  he  of  the 
 Lord,  who  hath  not  left  off  his  kindness  to  the  living  and  to  the 
 dead,"  &c.  Everywhere  we  meet  with  heartfelt  piety,  living  devotion, 
 the  full  and  concrete  theocratic  sejitiment.  But  Vatke  here  also 
 remains  faithful  to  his  motto,  Philosophus  nil  curat.  In  order  to 
 remove  this  stumbhng-block  out  of  the  way,  he  attacks  the  credi- 
 bility of  the  book.  The  idyllic  colouring  of  its  descriptions,  he 
 maintains,  is  in  irreconcilable  contradiction  to  the  Book  of  Judges, 
 and  the  preference  must,  without  reservation,  be  given  to  the  lat- 
 ter. We  gratefully  accept  the  open  acknowledgment  as  irrecon- 
 cilable with  his  representation  of  the  rehgious  state  of  the  j)eriod 
 of  the  Judges ;  it  may  take  upon  itself  the  vindication  against  the 
 attacks  on  its  credibility  in  the  opinion  of  all  imprejudiced  per- 
 sons. Only  come  and  see  !  If  ever  a  history  was  written  which 
 presents  self-evidence  of  its  credibihty,  it  is  this.  What  is  to  be 
 thought  of  the  alleged  contradictions  between  this  book  and  the 
 book  of  Judges,  may,  in  part,  be  gathered  from  the  preceding  ob- 
 seiTations.  We  have  shown  that  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges 
 does  not  profess  to  write  a  complete  history,  but  only  to  notice 
 particular  portions  ;  moreover,  that  it  was  one  main  object  to  ex- 
 hibit Tob  (TKavBaXa.  Nothing  can  be  more  narrow  and  partial 
 than  to  make  a  history  of  a  nation's  wars  the  standard  of  its  col- 
 lective religious  and  moral  state,  and  to  subject  every  thing  to  the 
 pruning  knife  which  will  not  agree  with  it.  On  the  summit  of  the 
 mountains,  it  often  snows  and  freezes,  while  the  vallies  at  their 
 base  enjoy  the  genial  sunshine.  From  such  a  point  of  view,  the 
 four  Gospels  must  be  regarded  as  a  series  of  pictures  with  an  idyllic 
 colouring,  but  destitute  of  all  reahty.  Let  any  one  read  the  Jew- 
 ish Wars  of  JosEPHUS ;  quite  a  different  image  is  presented  to 
 us.  During  such  a  period,  it  might  seem,  there  was  no  room  for 
 a  Simeon  and  a  Hannah,  for  a  John  the  Baptist,  for  the  whole 
 group  of  peaceful  characters  that  meet  us  in  the  New  Testament. 
 
94  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES, 
 
 Let  a  person  read  a  history  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War  vnih  all  its 
 horrors,  and  he  would  hardly  imagine  that  in  the  same  age  as 
 Tilly,  a  Paul  Gerhard  lived  whose  existence  cannot  he  regarded 
 as  isolated,  hut  is  only  conceivahle.as  a  memher  of  a  great  company 
 of  kindred  souls.  What  a  difference  exists  hetween  the  altercations 
 of  the  theologians  of  the  seventeenth  century  and  the  hymns  of  that 
 period,  the  most  heautiful  we  possess.  The  same  age  which,  ac- 
 cording to  one  class  of  materials,  appears  the  most  mournful, 
 according  to  another  is  the  most  glorious  of  the  evangelical 
 church.  A  full  refutation  of  this  argument  against  the  credihi- 
 lity  of  the  Book  of  Euth  will  he  given  in  the  sequel.  It  will  ap- 
 pear that  the  Book  of  Judges  presents  a  succession  of  points  of 
 contact  with  it,  so  that  in  rejecting  it,  the  essential  constituents  of 
 the  Book  of  Judges  must  he  given  up,  as  Vatke  really  admits 
 that  it  is  necessary,  in  order  to  carry  out  his  views,  to  rescind  cer- 
 tain religious  elements  in  the  Book  of  Judges  as  unhistorical. 
 
 II.  The  second  principal  source  for  ascertaining  the  religious 
 condition  of  the  period  of  the  Judges,  is  the  first  chapters  of  the 
 first  Book  of  Samuel.  A  beautiful  picture  of  Israelitish  piety 
 meets  us  here  in  Elkanah  and  Hannah.  The  song  of  the  latter 
 is  a  ripe  fruit  of  the  spirit  of  God.  Eli  appears  in  all  his  weak- 
 ness, yet  always  as  a  proof  that  in  the  Israelitish  devotion  there 
 was  no  deficiency  of  sincerity,  depth,  and  fulness.  Its  most 
 beautiful  aspect  is  exhibited  in  Samuel.  In  relation  to  that 
 blessed  time  in  which  the  author  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  wrote, 
 the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Lord  were  indeed  rare — the  word  of 
 God,  it  is  said  in  1  Sam.  iii.  2,  was  precious  in  those  days.  Pro- 
 phesying was  not  extended,  and  since  extraordinary  gifts  stand 
 in  close  connection  with  ordinary  ones,  we  must  infer  that  the 
 latter  were  also  sparingly  imparted,  that  amongst  the  mass  there 
 was  much  lukewarmness,  that  in  some  quarters  a  manifest  apostacy 
 had  begun,  and  that  the  need  of  reformation  was  urgent.  To 
 this  conclusion  also  we  are  led  by  the  fact,  that  the  people  were  at 
 that  time  oppressed  by  the  Philistines.  From  the  efiect  we  can 
 draw  our  conclusions  respecting  the  causes.  Yet,  that  the  extra- 
 ordinary gifts  of  God  were  not  entirely  withdrawn,  we  learn  not 
 merely  from  Samuel's  example,  but  from  that  of  the  man  of  God 
 who  came  to  Eli,  in  order  to  set  before  him  his  sins,  and  to 
 announce  the  Divine  judgments.     And  as  to  the  ordinary  gifts. 
 
STATE  OF  RELIGION  AND  MORALS.  95 
 
 tlie  custom  of  the  Nazirate  leads  us  to  believe  that  a  considerable 
 €K\oyr)  existed,  and  that  the  spirit  of  piety  was  by  no  means  ex- 
 tinct, especially  since  an  institution  like  that  of  the  Nazirate  was 
 closely  connected  with  the  general  state  of  religion,  and  could 
 only  be  practised  when  more  or  less  supported  by  it.  Vatke  here 
 satisfies  himself  with  attempting  to  set  aside  what  in  this  chapter 
 contradicts  his  rej)resentation  of  the  period  of  the  Judges  most 
 palpably — the  prayer  of  Hannah — without  considering,  that  as 
 long  as  the  circumstances  remained  the  same  to  which  such  a 
 prayer  was  so  admirably  fitted  (for  a  person  such  as  Hannah  is 
 described  must  have  prayed  in  that  manner),  very  little  is  to  be 
 gained.  But  of  this  he  takes  no  account.  "Hannah's  prayer," 
 he  remarks  (p.  287),  "anticipates  a  later  state  of  things,  and  is 
 therefore  unhistorical."  This  objection  is  evidently  founded  on 
 1  Sam.  ii.  10. 
 
 "  The  Lord  shall  judge  the  ends  of  the  earth, 
 And  he  shall  give  strength  unto  his  king, 
 And  exalt  the  horn  of  his  anointed." 
 
 But  this  verse  contains  nothing  which  could  not  have  been  spoken 
 by  Hannah.  She  considered  herself,  as  the  authors  of  the  Psalms 
 usually  did,  as  the  representative  of  the  suffering  and  oppressed. 
 What  fell  to  her  lot  was  not  something  isolated,  but  an  efflux 
 of  the  idea,  and  hence  a  practical  prophecy  in  reference  to  all  who 
 were  in  similar  circumstances,  and  to  the  destinies  of  the  whole 
 nation.  She  saw  them  in  herself;  and  their  enemies  in  her  own. 
 She  knew,  from  the  traditions  of  a  former  age,  that  the  nation  was 
 destined  to  a  kingly  government,  to  the  realisation  of  which,  as 
 the  events  under  Samuel  show,  it  was  impatiently  tending  towards 
 the  end  of  the  period  of  the  Judges.  She  had  a  presentiment  that 
 tliis  change  would  soon  be  eflPected — that  the  people  in  and  with 
 the  kingdom  that  would  be  established — (the  king  and  anointed 
 one  is  an  ideal  person) — would  attain  to  an  elevation,  of  wdiich 
 her  elevation  w\as  a  type. 
 
 III.  Before  w^e  turn  our  attention  to  the  Book  of  Judges  in  ge- 
 neral, the  so??f/  of  Deborah  in  Judges  v.  is  an  object  worthy  of  se- 
 parate consideration.  The  genuineness  of  this  song  has  been  very 
 decidedly  vindicated  by  Ewald  {Hohesl.  p.  18),  Hollmann 
 {Cantic.  Dehorae,  p.  6),  and  Studer  (p.  112),  and,  after 
 some  passing  attacks,  is  now  acknowledged  by  the  boldest  critics, 
 
90     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 even  by  Vatke.  Hence  that  view  of  the  religious  state  of  the 
 period  of  the  Judges  which  cannot  be  brought  into  unison  with 
 the  contents  of  this  Song  must  be  abandoned.  Here  the  first 
 thing  that  strikes  us  is  that  the  .theocratical  point  of  view  from 
 which  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges  contemplates  the  history 
 of  tliis  period,  is  not  one  arbitrarily  selected  and  imposed  by  him- 
 self, belonging  rather  to  later  times,  but  the  same  from  which  those 
 who  lived  in  the  midst  of  that  time  looked  on  the  passing  events. 
 The  Song  breathes  the  most  animated  and  enlarged  theocraticism. 
 The  authoress  begins  with  the  covenant  wliich  the  Lord  had  made 
 wdth  Israel ;  she  then  depicts  the  mournful  condition  of  anarchy 
 wliich  ensued  from  the  violation  of  the  covenant  by  tlie  worsliip 
 of  strange  gods,  and  concludes  with  the  deliverance  which,  by  God's 
 grace,  had  been  in  part  accomplished  for  the  people.  Moreover, 
 those  persons  who  admit  the  genuineness  of  the  Song,  and  yet 
 maintain  that  the  propensity  of  the  Israehtes  to  idolatry  in  the 
 period  of  the  Judges  is  not  to  be  considered  in  accordance  with 
 the  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges,  (who  decides  from  his  own  later 
 point  of  view,)  as  apostacy  from  acknowledged  truth,  a  falling  back 
 into  the  ancient  evil  practices,  but  to  be  explained  by  the  later 
 separation  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah  from  natural  religion,  are 
 chargeable  with  a  gross  inconsequence.  We  here  find  the  most 
 direct  opposition  between  Jehovah  and  tlie  strange  gods;  the 
 service  of  the  latter  is  regarded  as  a  criminal  departure  from 
 plainly  revealed  and  distinctly  acknowledged  truths.  But  more 
 than  this,  the  Song  contains  undeniable  references  to  the  Penta- 
 teuch, and  shows  likewise  that  the  theocratic  sentiments  of  the 
 heroic  personages  in  the  period  of  the  Judges  were  developed  and 
 sustained  by  it.  The  whole  composition  is  evidently  a  counter- 
 part to  the  song  of  the  Israelites  after  the  passage  tlu'ough  the 
 Red  Sea.  Verse  8  alludes  to  Deut.  xxxii.  17  ;  v.  16  to  Gen.  xlix. 
 14;  V.  17  to  Gen.  xlix.  13.  But  these  shghter  allusions,  which 
 may  be  disputed,  obtain  their  true  meaning  when  taken  in  con-" 
 nection  with  the  unquestionable  references  that  are  contained  in 
 ver.  4  and  5. 
 
 "  Jehovah,  when  tliou  wentest  oiit  of  Seir, 
 When  thou  marchest  out  of  the  field  of  Edom, 
 The  earth  trembled,  and  the  heavens  dropped  ; 
 The  clouds  also  dropped  water. 
 Tlie  mountains  melted  from  before  Jehovah, 
 Even  that  Sinai  from  before  Jehovah,  God  of  Israel." 
 
STATE  OF  RELIGION  AND  MORALS.  97 
 
 111  this  introduction  of  the  Song,  there  is  a  double  reference  to 
 the  Pentateuch,  first,  to  the  JSlessino-  of  Moses  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  2, 
 
 Jehovah  came  from  Siuai, 
 
 And  rose  up  from  Seir  unto  them ; 
 
 He  sliined  forth  from  Mount  Paran  ; 
 
 and  then,  to  the  account  of  the  appearances  at  the  giving  of  tlie 
 Law,  Exod.  xix.  16 — "  And  it  came  to  pass  on  the  third  day  in 
 the  morning,  that  there  were  thunders  and  hghtnings,  and  a  thick 
 cloud  upon  the  mount,  and  the  voice  of  the  trumpet  exceeding 
 loud  ;  so  that  all  the  people  that  were  in  the  camp  trembled,"  &c. 
 That  a  reference  to  the  first  passage  is  intended,  may  be  support- 
 ed on  the  following  grounds.  (i.)  If  this  reference  be  admitted, 
 the  sense  is  at  once  clear.  From  the  primary  passage  light  is 
 shed  upon  the  secondary.  ''  And  he  was  king  in  Jeshurun,"  is 
 the  leading  idea  of  Deut.  xxxiii.  2-5.  The  allusion  to  the  Cove- 
 nant, from  which  all  blessings  flowed,  forms  a  preliminary  to  the 
 blessings  on  the  Tribes.  The  author  represents  Jehovah  as  com- 
 ing to  them  from  the  land  which  he  would  give  them  for  an  in- 
 heritance. He  comes  to  them,  to  ratify  the  Covenant,  from  the 
 place  whither  he  designed  to  lead  them,  and  bring  them  to  him 
 self — from  the  land  which,  ever  since  the  times  of  the  Patriarchs, 
 was  sacred  to  Him,  in  which  Bethel  was  situated.  He  takes  his 
 way  over  the  highest  mountains  ;  since  God  walks  over  the  high 
 places  of  the  earth.  He  comes,  first  of  all,  from  Sinai,  and  then 
 from  Seir  and  Paran.  "  Sinai"  is  placed  at  the  head,  because  it 
 was  the  place  of  God's  public  manifestation  (the  others  were 
 only  points  of  transition)  ;  and,  likewise,  by  way  of  contrast  be- 
 tween the  earthly  places  of  departure  and  the  heavenly.  The 
 clause,  ''  he  rose  from  Sinai,"  and  this,  "  he  came  with  ten  thou- 
 sands of  saints"  stand  in  close  relation  to  one  another.  Seir, 
 the  mountain-range  which  lies  on  the  southern  border  of  Pales- 
 tine, is  named  before  Varan,  the  range  between  Seir  and  Sinai, 
 because  the  author,  after  placing  Sinai  first,  for  the  reason  above- 
 mentioned,  returns  to  the  geographical  order,  Seir,  Paran,  Sinai. 
 After  these  explanations  of  the  primary  passage,  we  shall  find  no 
 difficulty  in  Judges  v.  4,  5.  Affliction  proceeded  from  the  Cove- 
 nant ;  from  the  Covenant  proceeded  also  salvation ;  compare  v.  1 1. 
 On  this  foundation  the  authoress  begins  her  Song,  as  Moses  be- 
 
 VOL.  II.  G 
 
98  THE   PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 gan  his,  to  which  it  corresponds.  She  also  brings  the  Lord  out 
 of  Canaan  to  his  people  for  the  ratification  of  his  Covenant.  How 
 indispensable  the  comparison  with  the  primary  passage  is,  appears 
 from  the  fact,  that  those  expositors  who  have  neglected  it  are  at 
 a  loss  for  the  meaning.  Hollmann  and  Studer  would  refer  the 
 words  to  the  presence  of  Jehovah,  as  the  pledge  of  victory  in  the 
 late  conflict ;  heaven  and  earth,  dropping  clouds,  and  quaking 
 mountains,  announced  the  coming  of  their  almighty  Euler,  as  he 
 hastened  from  Sinai,  liis  dwelling-place,  over  Edom,  to  the  help 
 of  his  people.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  (1.)  It  is  not  said  that 
 Jehovah  came  from  Sinai.  Sinai  indeed  was  rather  the  spot 
 where  the  mountains  melted  before  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel. 
 That  Jehovah,  as  the  Covenant- God  of  Israel,  had  his  abode  on 
 Mount  Sinai,  never  appears  elsewhere.  (2.)  The  representation 
 that  God  came  to  his  people  out  of  Canaan,  is  so  peculiar,  that 
 we  cannot  imagine  one  passage  to  be  entirely  independent  of  the 
 other.  (3.)  The  double  reference  to  the  Pentateuch  (both  to 
 Deuteronomy  and  Exodus)  forbids  the  supposition  that  the  au- 
 thor of  Deuteronomy  had  drawn  his  materials  from  the  Song  of 
 Deborah.  (4.)  The  dependance  on  Deuteronomy  is  also  con- 
 firmed by  the  analogy  of  the  parallel  passage  in  Habakkuk  iii.  3, 
 which  is  likewise  dependant  on  Deuteronomy. 
 
 "  God  will  come  from  Teman, 
 And  the  Holy  One  from  Mount  Paran." 
 
 The  future  ^^^^  stands  here  in  manifest  relation  to  the  preterite 
 «?  and  5^^'^  of  the  Pentateuch.     And  previously  in  v.  2, 
 
 "  O  Lord,  I  have  heai'd  thy  speech,  and  was  afraid  : 
 O  Lord,  revive  thy  work  in  the  midst  of  the  years  ; 
 In  wrath  remember  mercy." 
 
 A  decurtata  comparatio  is  implied.  "  Ut  olim,"  says  Michae- 
 Lis,  "  Israelitis  a  Temane  in  occursum  venit  Jilius  dei  ad  oc- 
 cupandam  terram  Canaan,  sic  iterimi  veniet  ad  haereditate  oc- 
 cupandum  inundum."  Habakkuk's  expression  can  neither  be  the 
 primary  passage  nor  independent.  The  thought,  as  he  presents  it, 
 is  absolutely  unintelUgible,  if  not  illustrated  by  the  Pentateuch. 
 To  this  we  may  add  the  numerous  analogies  of  various  references  to 
 the  Pentateuch  in  Habakkuk;  for  example,  ch.  i.  3  and  13,  com- 
 pared with  Num.  xxiii,  31  ;  ch.  ii.  4,  and  Gen.  xv.  6  ;  ch.  iii,  9; 
 
STATE  OF  RELIGION  AND   MORALS.  99 
 
 and  Exod.  xvii.  6,  Num.  xx.  11  ;  ch.  iii.  19,  and  Deut.  xxxii. 
 13,  xxxiii.  29,  If  we  compare  the  two  passages,  Judg.  v.  4  and  5, 
 and  Hab.  iii.  3,  we  find  the  three  localities  of  tlie  primary  pas- 
 sage, of  which  Seir  and  Teman  are  common  to  both  ;  Paran  is 
 peculiar  to  Habakkuk,  and  Sinai  to  Deborah. 
 
 IV.  We  would  now  bring  into  one  view  eveiy  thing  of  import- 
 ance in  the  Book  of  Judges  (the  Song  of  Deborah  excepted)  that 
 bears  a  relation  to  our  object,  and  would  take  the  events  in  their 
 chronological  sequence.  That  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges 
 always  proceeds  on  the  supposition  that  every  thing  whic]i,-in  the 
 times  of  the  Judges,  contradicted  the  pure  and  exclusive  worship 
 of  Jehovah,  was  to  be  regarded  as  Apostacy  and  Bcgeneracy, 
 and  not,  as  Vatke  imagines,  imperfect  Development,  is  clear  as 
 day.  According  to  him,  a  more  perfect  state  preceded  the  imper- 
 fect. (Comp.  ch.  ii.  7) — ''  And  the  people  served  Jehovah  all 
 the  days  of  Joshua,  and  all  the  days  of  the  Elders  that  outlived 
 Joshua,  who  had  seen  all  the  great  works  of  the  Lord ;"  the  child- 
 ren of  Israel  ''forgot  Jehovah  their  God."  Judg.  iii.  7,  they 
 forsook  Jehovah  the  God  of  their  Fathers.  For  the  correctness 
 of  this  view,  those  appearances  testify  Avhich  meet  us,  as  it  were, 
 at  the  threshold  of  the  times  of  the  Judges, — a  testimony  which 
 is  so  much  the  more  important,  since,  according  to  Vatke 's  view, 
 it  is  precisely  "in  the  earher  times  of  the  period,  when  there  was 
 a  conflict  of  all  the  elements  of  religious  knowledge"  (p.  255),  that 
 the  most  direct  opposition  was  to  be  expected  to  the  rehgious  and 
 moral  contents  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  the  time  soon  after  Joshua's 
 death,  the  two  events  happened  which  are  narrated  in  the  Appen- 
 dix to  the  Book  of  Judges.  This  date  cannot  be  doubtful,  since, 
 according  to  ch.  xx.  27,  Phinehas,  the  contemporary  of  Joshua, 
 was  still  high  priest;  and,  indeed,  it  is  generally  allowed  to  be 
 correct.  The  first  event,  that  relating  to  Micali's  image,  is  pecu- 
 liarly worthy  of  notice,  since  it  indicates  a  state  of  transition  be- 
 tween the  pure  worship  of  Jehovah,  as  it  existed  in  the  time  of 
 Joshua,  and  under  Moses,  and  the  idolatry  to  which  that  portion 
 of  the  people  who  were  in  heart  apostates  surrendered  themselves 
 during  the  period  of  the  Judges.  We  have  not  here  to  do  with 
 the  eKko^rj,  but  with  those  who  represented  the  evil  tendency. 
 And  yet  in  all  these  persons,  Micah  and  his  mother,  the  Levites, 
 the  Danites,  we  find  Jehovah,  and  only  Jehovah,  and  no  trace 
 
 G  2 
 
100    THE  TENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 hitherto  of  idolatry.  Had  this  been  generally  prevalent  in  Israel, 
 the  people,  in  such  a  state  of  mind,  would  have  given  themselves 
 up  to  it,  and  not  have  been  satisfied  with  a  foolish  imitation  of 
 the  puhhc  worship  of  Jehovah.  This  shows  very  plainly  that 
 Vatke  has  inverted  the  natural  order  of  things. 
 
 The  second  event,  the  war  of  extermination  against  the  Ben- 
 jamites,  occasioned  by  the  atrocious  act  of  the  inhabitants  of 
 Gibeah,  shows  us  that  in  the  times  immediately  succeeding  Joshua, 
 the  people  w^ere  imbued  with  a  strong  sense  of  moral  and  rehgious 
 obligation  and  theocratic  zeal.  That  the  sensual  propensities 
 which,  at  a  later  period,  Israel  indulged  to  their  ruin,  were  then 
 in  action,  is  proved  by  the  instance  of  a  whole  city,  wdiich  was  sunk 
 as  low  in  vice  as  Sodom  ;  and  by  the  conduct  of  the  Benjamites, 
 whose  aversion  from  sin  vvas  so  weak,  that  it  was  overpowered  by 
 the  feeling  of  wounded  honour  and  of  anger,  which  roused  the 
 whole  nation  to  take  arms  against  them,  in  a  presumed  private 
 concern  of  their  tribe.  Yes,  in  the  main  body  of  the  people,  this 
 aversion  was  vivid  to  an  extraordinary  degree.  They  feared  lest 
 they  should  call  down  God's  judgments  upon  them  if  the  crime 
 went  unpunished.  They  had  the  moral  energy  to  amputate  the 
 diseased  limb  of  the  body  pohtic.  The  soundness  of  the  general 
 organism  so  far  preponderated,  that  it  had  strength  to  ovei'power 
 and  throw  off  the  morbid  elements.  That  before  entering  on  the 
 undertaking,  counsel  was  asked  of  the  Lord  (Judg.  xx.  18),  shows 
 the  vigour  of  the  theocratic  principle,  and  how  very  far  Jehovah 
 w^as  from  being  a  mere  abstraction.  When  the  Deity  is  regarded  as 
 an  abstraction,  men  act  towards  Him  as  if  He  were  a  nonentity. 
 It  is  also  a  proof  that  their  piety  was  not  superficial ;  that  their 
 ill  success,  instead  of  driving  them  from  God,  led  them  to  Him  ; 
 that  they  sought  for  its  cause  in  themselves,  and  endeavoured  to 
 remove  it  by  unfeigned  repentance.  When  God  is  treated  as  an 
 abstraction,  no  such  sense  of  the  sanctity  of  an  oath  is  felt  as 
 meets  us  liere.  These  facts  are  so  much  the  more  important, 
 since  the  credibility  of  the  sources  from  which  they  are  taken 
 must  force  conviction  on  the  most  prejudiced  minds.  Thus  Gram- 
 berg  remarks  (i.  p.  20),  "  Scarcely  any  historical  narration  of  the 
 Old  Testament,  contemporaiy  with  its  subject,  can  be  preferred  to 
 it  for  genuine  truth  and  distinctness."     Compare  p.  178. 
 
 Ch.  iv.  furnishes  some  important  results.     Deborah  was  a  pro- 
 
STATK  OF  RELIGION  AND  MORALS.  101 
 
 phetess,  and,  as  such,  judged  Israel ;  the  children  of  Israel  came 
 to  her  for  judgment.  This  implies,  that  even  in  that  degenerate 
 age  the  theocratic  sentiment  was  not  dead.  But  Deborah's  con- 
 ference with  Barak  is  peculiarly  worthy  of  attention.  She  called 
 upon  him  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  to  come  to 
 their  rescue.  Barak  answered  (ver.  8),  "  If  thou  wilt  go  with  me, 
 then  I  will  go  ;  hut  if  thou  wilt  not  go  with  me,  then  I  will  not 
 go."  Deborah  rejoined,  "  I  will  surely  go  with  thee  :  notwith- 
 stancHng  the  journey  that  thou  takest  shall  not  be  for  thine  hon- 
 our ;  for  the  Lord  shall  sell  Sisera  into  the  hand  of  a  woman." 
 This  conversation  is  commonly  misunderstood,  as  if  Barak  here 
 disclosed  his  pusillanimity,  and  Deborah  taunted  liim  on  account 
 of  it.  Studer  does  not  hesitate  to  call  Barak  the  representative 
 of  that  faint-heartedness  which  at  this  time  had  seized  the  He- 
 brews. The  LXX.  have  taken  the  correct  point  of  view.  To  the 
 words  contained  in  the  original  text,  they  have  made  the  follow- 
 ing addition  :  ore  ovk  dlha  t7]v  rj/buepav,  iv  r)  evoBol  Kupco^;  tov 
 dyyekov  jjuer  ijjbov.  Barak  knew  (and  this  is  an  evidence  of  the 
 vigour  and  depth  of  his  theocratic  sentiment)  that  nothing  was 
 accomplished  in  the  battles  of  the  Lord's  people  by  mere  human 
 power  and  courage  ;  he  knew  that  for  their  success  the  liigher  con- 
 secration and  calling  were  necessary.  This  he  perceived  existed 
 in  a  higher  degree  in  the  prophetess  Deborah  than  in  himself; 
 hence  it  was  humility  (a  feature  in  liis  character  which  shows  with 
 what  httle  reason  the  Book  of  Judges  has  been  treated  as  a  his- 
 tory of  heroes  in  the  ordinary  sense),  and  by  no  means  defect  of 
 courage,  which  prompted  him  to  urge  her  to  accompany  him.  Her 
 answer  conveys  no  reproach.  She  only  suggested  to  him  not  to 
 think  more  highly  of  himself  after  the  victory  than  before  it ;  not 
 to  ascribe  to  himself  what  would  be  the  achievement  of  a  woman, 
 and  therefore  of  God,  and  thus  directed  his  attention  to  the  rea- 
 son why  God  compelled  him,  a  man  of  might,  to  depend  on  a 
 weak  female.  It  was  in  order  to  impress  the  people  powerfully 
 with  the  sentiment  irov  ovv  rj  Kav-x^qcn^; ;  e^eKkelaOrj,  Bom.  iii.  27. 
 To  grant  succour  through  a  woman  was  calculated  to  raise  hea- 
 venwards the  thoughts  of  men,  which  are  so  prone  to  cleave  to 
 the  earth.  If  the  honour  was  due  to  God  alone,  they  would  be 
 more  disposed  to  show  their  gratitude  by  sincere  conversion.  That 
 Barak  was  obliged  to  lean  on  Deborah,  depended  on  the  same 
 
102  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME   Of  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 law  by  which  Gideon  was  chosen  to  be  the  deliverer  of  Israel  from 
 the  Midianites,  though  his  family  was  the  meanest  in  Manasseh, 
 and  himself  the  youngest  in  his  father's  house  ;  that  law  by  which 
 Gideon  was  divinely  directed  to  take  only  300  men  for  the  whole 
 assembled  host ;  the  women  Deborah  and  Jael  stand  in  the 
 same  category  with  the  ox-goad  of  Shamgar.  In  all  ages  God  is 
 pleased  to  choose  for  his  service  the  inconsiderable  and  the  des- 
 pised. Where  this  truth  is  as  clearly  and  deeply  acknowledged 
 as  in  the  case  of  Deborah,  there  must  be  some  thing  more  than  a 
 mere  abstract  theocratic  sentiment,  which  adheres  to  the  maxim 
 ex  nihilo  nihil  fit. 
 
 We  would  now  direct  the  attention  of  our  readers  to  a  single 
 particular  in  Gideon's  lii story — the  answer  wliicli  he  gave  to  the 
 people  when  they  wished  to  make  him  king.  Vatke  (p.  262) 
 feels  himself  obliged  '*  to  regard  this  speech  of  Gideon  as  unhis- 
 torical,  and  to  reject  all  the  inferences  which  may  be  drawn  from 
 it."  The  reasoning  by  which  he  attempts  to  justify  this  arbitrary 
 procedure  loses  all  its  force  as  soon  as  it  is  recollected  that  Gideon 
 did  not  decline  royalty  in  ahstracto,  when  he  declared  that  the 
 kingly  dignity  encroached  on  the  prerogative  of  the  Lord,  who 
 alone  was  king  in  Israel,  but  a  concrete  royalty  in  the  sense  in 
 which  it  was  offered  him  by  the  people.  That  in  this  sense,  roy- 
 alty was  not  a  form  of  realizing  the  sovereigntyof  God  in  Israel, 
 but  the  direct  opposite,  he  felt  deeply.  The  people,  since  they 
 ascribed  the  victory  over  Midian  not  to  God,  but  to  Gideon,  be- 
 lieved that  by  choosing  him  for  a  king,  they  might  in  future  over- 
 power their  enemies  without  the  Divine  assistance.  Gideon's 
 heart  must  have  revolted  from  the  proposal ;  so  much  the  more 
 since  he  was  assured  that  God,  if  so  important  a  change  had  beeni 
 agreeable  to  his  will,  would  have  given  a  distinct  intimation,  which, 
 on  this  occasion,  was  wanting.  Had  his  religion  been  a  mere  ab- 
 straction, he  would  have  eagerly  closed  mth  the  offer.  (Compare 
 besides,  the  examination  of  Samuel's  opposition  to  the  introduc- 
 tion of  the  regal  form  of  government  in  connection  with  the  laws 
 relating  to  kings  in  the  Pentateuch,  in  the  section  on  "  Ana- 
 chronisms") 
 
 In  Samson,  also,  there  was  a  higher  element — a  fund  of  power- 
 ful and  living  faith  that  was  every  where  apparent,  and  was  to  be 
 seen  even  in  his  falls.     But  it  is  needful  to  distinguish  between 
 
STATE  OF  RELIGION  AND  MORALS.  103 
 
 the  first  and  the  second  Samson — the  servant  of  the  Lord,  and  the 
 slave  of  sm.  What  the  first  Samson  performed  was,  on  the  whole, 
 not  unworthy  of  a  servant  of  a  Lord,  if  we  do  not  measure  it  hy 
 an  erroneous  spiritual  standard,  and  compare  him  with  Samuel, 
 who  received  a  very  different  call  from  God,  or  attempt  a  parallel 
 hetween  liim  and  Luther,  who,  of  all  the  reformers,  seems  most 
 allied  to  him  in  mental  quahties,  or  with  Calvin  ;  he  is  rather  to 
 be  compared  with  Gustavus  Adolphus,  or  with  one  of  the  Chris- 
 tian princes  in  the  Crusades. 
 
 After  having  thus  stated  the  positive  grounds  of  our  views  re- 
 specting the  period  of  the  Judges,  we  must  now  examine  the  ar- 
 guments that  have  been  urged  on  the  opposite  side. 
 
 Vatke  maintains,  that  in  the  period  of  the  Judges,  the  neces- 
 sary foundations  were  wanting  of  a  developed  theocratic  senti- 
 ment. The  people  did  not  constitute  one  rehgious  society  ;  each 
 individual  tribe  formed  a  separate  whole. 
 
 If  tliis  position,  to  the  extent  in  which  it  is  laid  down,  were  cor- 
 rect, then  certainly  the  conclusion  that  has  been  drawn  from  it 
 must  be  acknowledged  to  be  well-founded.  The  theocracy  neces- 
 sarily supposes  one  order  of  religious  sentiment  to  prevail  through- 
 out Israel ;  and  where  such  an  uniformity  exists,  it  must,  in  some 
 way  or  other,  be  outwardly  represented. 
 
 But  we  can  prove  that  at  no  time  was  the  political  unity  alto- 
 gether wanting  during  the  period  of  the  Judges.  The  narrative 
 of  the  war  against  the  Benjamites  is  here  of  pecuHar  importance- 
 It  shows  that  in  the  times  immediately  succeeding  Joshua,  the 
 national  unity  was  still  preserved.  The  Levite  divided  the  body 
 of  his  concubine  into  twelve  pieces,  and  sent  them  "  into  all  the 
 coasts  of  Israel,"  ch.  xix.  29,  a  proceeding  which  would  be  un- 
 accountable unless  a  national  unity  existed.  The  people  came 
 forward  with  great  energy  as  a  whole.  It  is  said  in  ch.  xx.  1, 
 "  Then  all  the  children  of  Israel  went  out,  and  the  congregation 
 was  gathered  together,  as  one  man."  The  assembly  had  nothing 
 of  a  tumultuous  character,  but  was  perfectly  regular,  and  we 
 must  therefore  assume  that  they  were  summoned  by  theocratic 
 authority.  On  this  point  Schmid  remarks:  Quis  convocaverit 
 non  dicitur;  neque  quod  sponte  convenerit  jmjpuhis  credibile  est. 
 Certe  Levita  licet  causam  comitionum  agendorum  omnihus  tri- 
 hnhus  siihmi7tistraverit,  potest atem  tamen  convocandi  non  ha- 
 
104    THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  Or  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 hi/it,  cum  itaque  v.  2,  angidorinn  iioimli  h.  e.  principum  jio- 
 jyiili  tanquam  qui  iwoposuerint  rem  deliherandam  et  examin- 
 andam.Jiat  mentio  procul  duhio  etiam  iidem  fuerunt  qui popu- 
 liim  convocarunt.  In  ch.  xxi.  16,  the  Elders  of  the  rr^-i  are  ex- 
 pressly mentione:!,  and  we  see  that  they  resolved  and  acted  with 
 full  authority  respecting  the  national  affairs.  It  also  appears  from 
 V.  22,  that  the  a'^apt  were  the  highest  judicial  authorities.  This 
 chapter,  according  to  which  the  Elders  alone  brought  the  transac- 
 tion respecting  the  wives  for  the  Benjamites  to  a  conclusion,  shows 
 that  a  general  convocation  of  the  people  took  place  only  on  very 
 extraordinaiy  occasions,  and  that  the  authorities  attended  to 
 general  affairs.  Such  a  general  assembly  of  all  the  children  of 
 Israel  we  find  also  at  Bochim.  In  later  times,  the  political  ties 
 which  bound  all  the  tribes  together  aj)pear  to  have  become  re- 
 laxed. This  disunion  was  at  once  the  necessary  consequence,  and 
 the  punishment  of  their  departure  from  the  centrum  nnitatis,  the 
 Lord.  Yet  it  was  acknowledged  by  the  more  pious  part,  that 
 this  state  was  iiTegular;  compare  Judg.  v.  13,  where  the  duty 
 of  all  the  tribes  to  fight  against  their  heathen  oppressors  is  ac- 
 knowledged; and  through  the  whole  Song,  Israel  is  regarded  as 
 one  whole.  And  as  the  separation  was  irregular,  the  unity  was 
 always  reasserting  its  claims.  The  dissatisfaction  of  the  Ephraim- 
 ites  in  ch.  xii.  shows  that  a  separate  war,  like  that  of  Jephthah's, 
 was  unusual.  They  regarded  it  as  an  insult,  that  they  should 
 not  be  called  to  assist;  (the  southern  tribes  had  enough  to  do 
 with  the  Philistines.)  All  the  daughters  of  Israel,  according  to 
 Judg.  xi.  40,  praised  the  daughter  of  Jephthah  the  Gileadite. 
 After  the  close  of  the  Ammonitish  oppression,  the  war  against  the 
 Philistines  was  carried  on  by  all  Israel,  1  Sam.  iv.  1.  All  the 
 Elders  of  Israel  came  together  to  Samuel,  in  order  to  obtain  from 
 him  the  appointment  of  a  king,  1  Sam.  viii.  4. 
 
 But  the  religious  unity  was  much  stronger  than  the  political. 
 We  have  shown,  that  through  the  whole  period  of  the  Judges, 
 one  sanctuary,  the  Mosaic  Tabernacle,  was  the  rehgious  centre  of 
 the  whole  nation;  that  there,  at  the  gTcat  feasts,  the  whole 
 nation  assembled.  In  a  religious  respect,  Israel  always  remained 
 a  congregation  {eiue  Gemei)ide),'Si\\how^h.  in  a  pohtical  sense  it  had 
 more  or  less  ceased  to  be  such.  EU  said  to  liis  sons,  ''  Ye  make 
 the  Lord's  people  to  transgress;"   1   Sam.  ii.  24.     Besides  the 
 
STATE  OF  RELIGION  AND  MORALS.  105 
 
 priests,  the  prophets  also  contributed  to  maintain  the  rehgious 
 unity.  Compare  1  Sam.  iii.  20,  "  And  all  Israel  knew,  from  Dan 
 even  to  Beersheba,  that  Samuel  was  estabhshed  to  be  a  prophet  of 
 the  Lord."  In  the  addresses  of  the  prophets  in  the  Book  of 
 Judges,  Israel  always  appear  as  one  man.     Judges  vi.  8. 
 
 A  second  main  support  for  the  assertion  that  the  period  of  the 
 Judges  was  an  age  of  religious  rudeness,  is  sought  for  in  the 
 history  of  Jephthah.  We  wish  to  close  this  dissertation  with  a 
 fall  examination  of  this  important  point. 
 
 Two  very  different  views  are  held  respecting  Jephthah's  vow  and 
 his  daughter's   fate.*       According  to   one,   Jephthah  slew  his 
 
 *  Besides  these,  there  is  a  third  which  was  first  proposed  by  Cappellus,  then  re- 
 vived by  Dathe  (ill  Glassius,  p.  599,  and  in  his  notes  on  the  passage),  and  lastly 
 followed  by  HaVebnick  {Einl.  vfs  A.  Test.  1.  2.    Erlangen  1837,  p.  562.)     But  this 
 is  not  of  equal  value  with  the  others,  and  may  be  disposed  of  in  a  note.     It  is  evidently 
 a  product  of  the  perplexity  in  which  the  vindicators  of  the  originality  of  the  Mosaic 
 legislation  were  involved,  who  did  not  succeed  in  extricating  themselves  entirely  and 
 thoroughly  from  the  first  view.     From  the  detestation  with  which  the  Law  expresses 
 itself  against  human  sacrifices,  it  was  difficult  to  imagine  how  a  servant  of  Jehovali 
 could  present  a  human  sacrifice  with  a  clear  conscience,  without  surmising  that  he  was 
 doing  anything  wrong,  amd  without  having  his  attention  drawn  to  it  by  the  appointed 
 guardians  of  the  law,  during  the  two  months  that  elapsed  between  his  vow  and  its 
 completion.     The  removal  of  this  perplexity  was  attempted  by  a  modification  of  the 
 first  view.     Jephthah's  vow,  it  was  maintained,  is  to  be  understood  with  a  restriction 
 arising  from  the  nature  of  the  case.    If  he  was  met  by  an  animal  which,  according 
 to  the  law,  was  fit  for  sacrifice,  then  he  would  present  it  as  a  burnt-offering;  but  if  this 
 was  not  the  case,  if  he  was  met  by  an  animal  legally  unclean,  or  by  a  human  being, 
 then,  instead  of  being  sacrificed,  the  animal  or  person,  in  agreement  mth  the  Mosaic 
 law  respecting  the  a-nii,  would  be  put  to  death.    But  this  interpretation  is  to  be  re- 
 jected for  two  reasons.     1.  It  rests  on  a  mistranslation  equally  untenable;  ^'ivhat 
 Cometh  to  meet  me,"  instead  of,  ''irho  cometh  to  me."    If  Jephthah  thought  from  the 
 first  only  of  human  beings,  the  supposed  restriction  falls  to  the  ground  at  once.     He 
 could  then  only  fulfil  his  vow  by  the  actual  presentation  of  the  person  as  a  burnt- 
 offering.    2.  It  has  an  eiToneous  notion  of  the  a^h  at  its  basis.    If  this  were  the 
 proper  idea  of  the  Cherem,  were  every  one  at  liberty  to  put  to  death  his  innocent  chil- 
 dren, mthout  hesitation,  for  the  honour  of  God,  then  the  prescriptions  on  the  subject  of 
 human  sacrifices  would  be  simply  in-econcilable  with  the  authority  of  Moses  as  a 
 divine  messenger.    Human  sacrifices  might  as  well  have  been  expressly  sanctioned. 
 The  correct  idea  of  the  Cherem  has  been  explained  in  an  Essay  on  the  right  of  the 
 Israelites  to  Palestine  in  the  Ev.  K.  Z.  1833,  Januaiy  and  Februaiy,  and  in  my  Chris- 
 tologie,  iii.  453  — "  The  idea  of  the  Cherem  {Verbcumvng)  is  always  that  of  a  forced 
 consecration  of  those  persons  to  God  who  had  obstinately  refused  to  dedicate  themselves 
 to  him— the  manifestation  of  the  Divine  glory  in  the  destniction  of  those  who,  during 
 their  life-time,  would  not  serve  as  a  mirror  to  reflect  it,  and  therefore  refused  to  realise 
 the  proper  destiny  of  man,  the  gi-eat  End  of  Creation.     God  sanctifies  himself  in  his 
 treatment  of  those  by  whom  he  is  not  sanctified."     Thus  on  all  accounts  it  appears 
 that  here  there  can  be  no  reference  to  the  Cherem,  that  no  Israelite  coiUd  think  of  ap- 
 
106    THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 daughter  and  presented  her  as  a  sacrifice ;  according  to  the  other 
 he  devoted  her  to  the  service  of  the  sanctuary. 
 
 The  first  interpretation  is  founded  on  the  ancient  translations 
 (LXX.  Chald.  Vulg.),  for  only  from  this  quarter  can  it  have 
 been  suggested  to  substitute  ''  to  lamenf  for  "  to  praise"  in  ver.  40. 
 It  is  found  in  Josephus  and  the  other  ancient  Jewish  writers.  No 
 other  explanation  was  known  to  the  fathers  ;  the  exact  references 
 may  be  found  in  Dkesde,  Votum  Jepht.  Leipz.  1767,  particu- 
 larly in  p.  18,  wliich  furnishes  valuable  contributions  to  the  liis- 
 tory  of  the  interpretation.  At  a  later  period,  it  is  worthy  of  no- 
 tice, during  the  first  revival  of  correct  gTammatical  and  historical 
 intei-pretation,  the  other  (clogged,  indeed,  with  much  that  was 
 open  to  correction),  came  forth  in  opposition  (it  was  first  pro- 
 posed by  Moses  Kimchi),  and  found  means  to  maintain  its 
 ground,  though  oftentimes  only  within  very  confined  limits. 
 
 That  it  had  so  tenacious  a  fife,  depended  at  first  from  a  very 
 important  defect,  with  which  its  opponent  had  been  hitherto  bur- 
 dened. The  advocates  of  the  second  interpretation  commonly 
 explain  Jephthah's  vow  thus : — That  which  cometh  forth,  whatever 
 shall  come  out  of  the  doors  of  my  house,  meeting  me,  if  I  return 
 in  peace,  shall  be  the  Lord's,  and  I  wdll  present  it  as  a  bumt-ofier- 
 ing.  Jephthah  must  have  lioped  that  an  animal  would  first  meet 
 him.  Against  this  interpretation  a  multitude  of  difficulties  arise, 
 (i.)  Jephthah  vowed  whatever  should  first  meet  liim  coming  out  of 
 the  doors  of  his  house.  If  he  meant  any  animal  belonging  to  his 
 herds,  then  the  house  of  the  Gileadite  chieftain  must  have  been  a 
 kind  of  Noah's  Ark — cattle  and  men  in  one  room,  going  out  and 
 
 plying  the  Mosaic  directions  respecting  it  to  the  case  before  us.  1.  The  Cherem 
 necessai'ily  supposes  in  its  objects  impiety,  decided  enmity  against  God,  moral  coiTup- 
 tion ;  Jephthah's  daughter  was  a  vii'tuous,  pious  young  woman.  2.  The  fundamental 
 idea  of  Cherem  is  that  of  forced,  in  opposition  to  voluntary  consecration :  k  free-will 
 offering  and  Cherem  exclude  one  another.  Je])hthah's  daughter  submitted  to  her  lot  with 
 free  consent.  3.  Sacrifice  and  Cherem  are  in  direct  opposition.  The  vow  of  a  sacri- 
 fice could  never  be  fulfilled  by  the  presentation  of  a  Cherem.  This  would  only  ha^jpen 
 if  the  difference  was  merely  formal.  4.  The  Cherem,  according  to  its  idea,  was  a  Divine 
 prerogative,  and  appears  as  such  everywhere,  both  in  the  Law  and  the  History.  Men 
 are  only  instruments  in  performing  it,  to  fulfil  the  mandates  of  the  Divine  will.  The 
 Cherem  was  never  any  thing  devoted  arbitrarily  by  man,  or  without  express  Divine 
 direction.  Otherwise  every  murderer  might  shelter  himself  under  the  injunctions  re- 
 specting it. 
 
STATE  OF  RELIGION  AND  MORALS.  107 
 
 in  at  the  same  door,  stall-fed  alike — a  thing  surely  not  to  be 
 seriously  thought  of.  Every  thing  that  we  know  of  the  arrange- 
 ments in  building  their  houses  among  the  Hebrews  is  against  it. 
 See  J AB.T<!,  Arc hae I.  Yo].  i.  195.)  (ii.)  T/ie  goiufj  out  to  meet 
 him  is  an  expression  not  suitable  in  speaking  of  animals,  but 
 only  of  human  beings  ;  and  what  shews  it  still  more  to  be  so,  is 
 the  language  used  respecting  Jephthah's  daughter,  v.  34,  ''  and 
 behold  his  daughter  came  forth  to  meet  him,"  ''^'^'^yy.  "^^T  "^^^  "?!?! 
 (iii.)  The  vow  to  offer  a  single  animal  is  far  too  insignificant 
 for  so  signal  a  victory.  Pfeiffer  justly  remarks  {Buh.  vex.  p. 
 35G.)  that  the  utterance  of  such  a  vow  as — "  0  God,  only  grant 
 me  the  victory,  and  I  will  sacrifice  to  thee  the  first  calf  that  meets 
 me  on  my  return,"  would  forcibly  remind  any  one  of  the 
 
 "  Pai'timunt  montes,  nascetur  ridiculus  mus." 
 
 especially  since  Jephthah,  without  a  vow,  would  have  ofi'ered,  not 
 a  solitary  victim,  but  many  sacrifices,  (iv.)  Jephthah's  vow  evi- 
 dently stands  in  relation  to  an  established  Israelitish  custom, 
 according  to  which  the  women,  and  virgins  particularly,  received 
 the  victors  on  their  return  with  singing,  music,  and  dancing, 
 Exod.  XV,  20.  The  existence  of  this  custom  is  joroved,  not  only 
 by  the  conduct  of  Jephthah's  daughter,  but  from  1  Sam.  xviii.  6, 
 '*  And  it  came  to  pass  as  they  came,  when  David  was  returned 
 from  the  slaughter  of  the  Philistines,  that  the  women  came  out 
 of  all  the  cities  of  Israel,  singing  and  dancing,  to  meet  King 
 Saul  (exactly  a  similar  phrase  '^'^^.  ^-f^,)  with  tabrets  and  with  joy, 
 and  with  three-stringed  instruments."  (v.)  According  to  this 
 interpretation,  we  cannot  see  how  Jephthah  adopted  a  vow  of 
 such  a  form.  It  seems  perfectly  arbitrary  that  he  should  resolve 
 to  off'er  the  first  object  that  met  him.  Why  did  he  not  vow, 
 without  any  ambiguity  of  language,  to  offer  the  best  of  his 
 herds  ?  The  outward  circumstance  must  have  had  an  inward 
 foundation,  and  tliis  would  not  be,  unless  ss-.^n  be  taken  in  a  per- 
 sonal sense.  "  The  disciple  that  Jesus  loved"  ran  hastily  before 
 the  other,  and  came  first  to  the  sepulchre,  John  xx.  4.  Thus 
 Jephthah  attached  an  importance  to  the  first  that  came  out  to  meet 
 him,  since  it  was  an  expression  of  love,  and  since  love  is  recipro- 
 cal, he  declared  himself  ready  to  offer  up  what  he  loved  most  to 
 the  Lord. 
 
108  TI-IE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 We  must,  therefore,  even  though  we  decide  against  explaining 
 the  passage  of  Jephthah's  devoting  his  daughter  to  death,  under- 
 stand sis-.-^r;  personally,  "  ichoever  cometh  forth,"  &c.,  and  admit 
 that  Jephthah  thought  of  his  daughter ;  and,  indeed,  that  he  con- 
 sidered it  most  prohable  that  she  who  loved  him  most  tenderly 
 would  he  the  first  to  meet  him — herein  lay  the  greatness  of  the 
 vow — hut*  he  also  indulged  a  hope,  that  perhaps  God,  satisfied 
 with  the  offer  of  what  it  would  cost  lum  most  to  surrender,  would 
 not  require  the  surrender,  but  so  order  circumstances  as  that  the 
 improbable  might  come  to  pass,  and  that  not  herself,  but  one  of 
 his  favourite  slaves  might  meet  him.  According  to  this  necessary 
 improvement  of  the  second,  the  two  declarations  are  to  be  taken 
 differently  in  the  words,  ''  It  shall  surely  be  the  Lord's,  and  I  will 
 offer  it  up  for  a  burnt- ofiering."  The  first  is  to  be  taken  quite  hte- 
 rally,  the  second  figuratively,  by  applying  the  maxim,  talia  snnt 
 jpraedicata,  qiialia  permittuntur  a  suis  'Whjectis.  The  meaning 
 is — I  present  him  (or  her)  as  a  sacrifice,  by  such  a  kind  of  conse- 
 cration to  God  in  the  case  of  persons  as  corresponds  to  sacrifices 
 in  the  offering  of  animals,  which  in  the  Scriptures  forms  a  regular 
 contrast  to  the  Shelamim,  often  also  merely  an  offering  in  which, 
 besides  the  Lord,  the  offerers  also  had  a  share.  The  words,  "  he 
 shall  be  the  Lord's,  and  I  will  offer  him  as  a  whole  bm^nt- offering," 
 are  related  to  one  another  as  genus  and  species ;  he  was  to  be  de- 
 voted to  the  Lord,  and  that  wholly  and  exclusively  :  compare  Han- 
 nah's vow,  1  Sam.  i.  11,  ''  then  I  will  give  him  unto  the  Lord  all 
 the  days  of  his  life,  and  there  shall  no  razor  come  upon  his  head," 
 that  is,  he  shall  belong  to  the  Lord,  even  as  a  Nazarite. 
 
 Besides  the  defect  which  till  now  has  been  left  unsupplied,  the 
 figurative  interpretation  is  still  clogged  with  another,  wliich  must 
 be  removed  before  it,  can  obtain  our  approval.  Its  ancient  advo- 
 cates have  not  rightly  understood  how  to  place  the  fact,  which, 
 according  to  it,  is  stated  in  this  passage,  in  connection  with 
 Israelitish  antiquity :  the  total  and  unreserved  consecration  of  a 
 person  to  the  Lord,  with  a  dissolution  of  all  natural  ties,  appears 
 as  something  perfectly  irregular,  which  could  never  be  brought 
 into  harmony  or  alhance  with  the  other  parts  of  the  social  system. 
 As  long  as  this  is  the  case,  the  suspicion  must  be  on  this  interpre- 
 tation, that  it  is  a  kind  of  artificial  refinement,  by  which  a  faulty 
 subjectivity  attempts  to  get  rid  of  whatever  in  Holy  Writ  does 
 
STATE  OF  RELIGION  AND  MORALS.  109 
 
 not  suit  its  prejudices.  We  must  therefore  first  of  all  endeavour 
 to  make  good  the  ground  and  foundation  of  this  interpretation, 
 by  showing  that  addiction  to  a  monastic  life  was  not  unknown 
 under  the  Old  Covenant,  that  it  was  especially  a  custom  for  wo- 
 men to  dedicate  themselves,  or  to  be  dedicated,  to  the  Lord. 
 
 That  even  in  the  times  of  Moses  it  was  not  unusual  for  per- 
 sons to  dedicate  themselves  or  their  relations  to  the  •Lord  by  a 
 vow,  we  see  from  Lev.  xxvii.  1-8.  Li  this  regulation  there  is 
 indeed  a  certain  price  of  redemption  specified,  by  w^hich  the  indi- 
 vidual might  be  freed  from  the  personal  fulfilment  of  the  vow ; 
 but  it  was  in  the  nature  of  the  thing,  that  many,  in  their  pious 
 zeal,  would  renounce  their  right  to  this  privilege  when  they  made 
 their  vow. 
 
 The  Nazaritic  Institution,  of  which  the  leading  idea  is,  that  the 
 Nazarite  must  consider  himself  as  dead  to  the  w^orld,  and  belong- 
 ing to  God  alone,  claims  our  notice  here,  because,  according  to 
 the  express  statement  in  Numbers  vi.  2,  females  might  undertake 
 this  vow.  In  the  law  relating  to  it,  it  is  true,  only  a  limited  time 
 is  mentioned,  but  for  the  simple  reason  that  in  the  Mosaic  age 
 (the  law  was  enacted,  not  for  the  pui'pose  of  calling  the  custom 
 into  existence,  but  only  to  regulate  it  as  already  existing)  this 
 vow  was  practised  within  very  confined  limits.  There  is  not  a 
 syllable  to  forbid  its  wider  extension,  and  that  this  would  follow, 
 lay  in  the  nature  of  the  institute.  If  a  way  be  once  consecrated, 
 and  distinguished  as  meritorious,  pious  zeal  will  pursue  it  with- 
 out stopping  to  its  utmost  limit.  That  this  natural  development 
 really  ensued,  we  see  in  the  instances  of  Samuel  and  Samson,  who 
 were  Nazarites  from  the  womb  to  the  end  of  their  lives.  That  a 
 monastic  element  also  existed  among  the  prophetic  order  has  been 
 already  pointed  out  in  vol.  i. 
 
 A  passage  in  Exod.  xxxviii.  8,  is  very  pertinent  to  the  present 
 subject.  "  And  he  made  the  laver  of  brass,  and  the  foot  of  it  of 
 brass,  of  the  mirrors  of  the  ministering  women,  who  ministered  at 
 the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation."*     This  passing 
 
 *  Bahr  translates  this  somewbat  differently.  (Sijmholik  des  Mosaischen  Cultus, 
 i.  486.)  "  He  made  the  laver  of  brass,  and  its  foot  of  brass,  ivith  the  mirrors  of  the 
 women,  &c."  According  to  him  the  mirrors  were  not  the  material  of  the  laver,  but 
 were  fastened  as  they  were  to  the  laver  when  finished.    But  this  translation  is  not  al- 
 
110     THE  TENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES.   " 
 
 notice  is  of  great  iroportance.*  That  the  institute  here  noticed 
 was  not  one  that  came  to  an  end  with  the  Mosaic  period,  as  it 
 might  be  supposed  would  happen,  since  it  was  never  prescribed  or 
 recommended  by  a  law,  but  was  left  entirely  to  the  free  choice  of 
 individuals,  if  they  wished  to  consecrate  themselves  or  theirs  to 
 the  Lord  in  this  manner,  but  that  it  continued  through  the  whole 
 period  of  ifie  Judges,  we  see  from  1  Sam.  ii.  22,  a  passage  which 
 relates  to  the  same  period  within  which  Jephthah's  vow  falls. 
 Among  the  grievous  outrages  of  Eli's  sons,  it  is  here  mentioned 
 that  they  lay  with  the  women  who  ministered  at  the  door  of  the 
 Tabernacle.  The  language  is  taken  literally  from  Exod.  xxxviii. 
 8,  in  order  to  point  out  that  the  institute  which  they  thus  pro- 
 faned was  one  venerable  for  its  antiquity,  and  that  existed  under 
 the  very  eyes  of  the  Lawgiver. 
 
 As  to  the  duty  and  calhng  of  these  women,  it  is  in  both  places 
 called  ministering  before  the  door  of  the  Tahernacle.  The 
 Hebrew  term  X5'^  means  to  serve  in  a  miUtary  sense  ;  in  a  figura- 
 
 lowable  on  lingual  grounds.    In  the  original  it  is  rs'°i>aa  and  S  can  never  mean  luith, 
 
 in  the  sense  of  along  with  ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  passages  in  which  ii  refers  to  the 
 
 material  of  which  any  thing  is  made  are  very  numerous.  Compare  1  Kings  vii.  14, 
 "  all  works  in  brass"  n'^rtsa   (Ewald's  yr.  Gr.  606.  kl.  Gr.  §  528,j    Biilu-'s  objections 
 
 against  our  translation  are  easily  answered.  He  thinks  it  doubtful  whether  brazen 
 mirrors  were  in  general  use,  and  that  they  were  in  general  of  polished  steel ;  but  in 
 the  whole  Old  Testament  we  have  no  certain  mention  of  steel.  See  Beckmann's 
 Gesch.  der  Erfindungen,  vol.  i.  78.  He  remarks,  that  the  mirrors,  in  case  they  formed 
 the  material  of  the  laver,  must  have  been  melted,  and  that  it  could  not  be  seen  whether 
 the  vessels  were  made  of  common  brass  or  of  the  mirrors  of  the  women.  But  it  was 
 not  necessaiy  that  this  should  be  perceptible  to  the  bodily  eye ;  that  the  remembrance 
 of  it  was  retained  by  oral  and  written  tradition  would  be  sufficient.  The  golden  calf 
 did  not  show  that  it  was  made  of  the  ear-rings  of  the  wives,  the  sons,  and  the  daugh- 
 ters of  the  IsraeHtes,  Exod.  xxxii.  2,  nor  Gideon's  ephod  that  it  was  made  of  the  golden 
 rings  of  the  Ishmaelites,  Judges  viii.  24,  the  vessel  of  the  Scythians  that  it  was  made 
 out  of  daa-ts,  and  the  Crater  of  Apollo,  from  the  ornaments  of  the  Roman  women.  See 
 Bahr,  p.  495.  Lastly,  the  objection  that  an  immense  number  of  mirrors  would  be  ne- 
 cessary for  the  laver,  is,  apai't  from  our  not  knowing  either  the  nur/iber  of  the  women 
 or  the  size  of  the  laver,  not  weighty,  since  it  need  not  be  admitted  that  the  mirrors 
 were  the  only  materials.  However,  it  was  certainly  not  mere  accident  that  mirrors 
 were  used  for  the  laver.  The  washing  of  the  priests  in  the  laver  had  a  symbohcal 
 meaning,  (v.  Bahr,  p.  492.)  What  hitherto  had  served  as  an  instrimient  for  gaining 
 approbation  in  the  world,  would  now  be  a  means  of  gaining  the  approbation  of  God. 
 
 *  It  is  to  be  taken  in  connection  with  Lev.  xxvii.  4.  The  women  who,  according 
 to  that  passage,  were  dedicated  to  the  Lord  and  not  redeemed,  were  reckoned  in  the 
 number  of  those  who  served  the  Lord  at  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle. 
 
STATE  OF  RELIGION  AND  MORALS.  Ill 
 
 tive  sense  it  is  used  of  the  militia  sacra  of  the  Priests  and  Le- 
 vites  ;  compai^e  Num.  iv.  23,  35,  39,  43,  viii.  25.  The  leader 
 and  captain  of  the  host  was  the  God  of  Israel.  By  the  side  of 
 this  sacred  mihtia,  a  female  band  is  placed  ;  and  the  choice  of  the 
 expressions  shows  that  we  have  here  to  do  with  an  extensive,  im- 
 portant, formally  organized  institution.  That  the  women  had  out- 
 ward offices  to  perform  at  the  Tabernacle  is  not  expressly  said, 
 only  by  an  misplaced  reference  to  the  German  use  of  the  term  ser- 
 vice or  ministry  {Dienen)  has  this  been  inferred,  and  is  very 
 doubtful.  Neither  the  Law  nor  the  History  recognise  any  service 
 of  females  at  the  sanctuary  in  this  sense.  That  in  ancient  times 
 the  Jews  interpreted  the  language  of  no  such  ministrations,  but 
 rather  understood  it  to  refer  to  spiritual  service,  is  shown  by  the 
 paraphrase  of  the  LXX.  which  for  serving  substitutes  fasting — 
 eK  TO)v  KaroTTTpcov  Tcov  vrjarevaaorcov  at  evrjCTTevaav — as  well  as 
 by  that  of  Onkelos,  who,  with  a  remarkable  coincidence,  renders 
 servinghj praying.  Thus  also  Aben  Ezra — "  They  came  daily 
 to  the  Tabernacle  in  order  to  pray  and  hear  the  words  of  the  law." 
 But  of  especial  importance  for  explaining  the  nature  of  this  serv 
 ing  is  the  third  passage,  relating  to  this  institution  of  sacred  fe- 
 males, which  certifies  its  continuance  to  the  times  of  Christ.  In 
 Luke  ii.  37,  it  is  said  of  Anna,  that  ''  she  departed  not  from  the 
 sanctuary,  but  served  with  fastings  and  prayers  night  and  day." 
 The  allusion  in  this  passage  to  Exod.  xxxviii.  7,  is  so  much  more 
 apparent,  if  we  compare  it  with  the  translation  of  the  LXX.  and  of 
 Onkelos.  Keeping  this  in  view,  we  shall  also  find  a  reference 
 to  the  Jewish  institute  in  1  Tim.  v.  5,  "  She  that  is  a  widow  in- 
 deed and  desolate,  trusteth  in  God,  and  continueth  in  suppHca- 
 tions  and  prayers  night  and  day  ;"  a  reference  which  imphes,  that 
 the  service  of  the  widows  was  not  performed  m\h  their  hands,  but 
 with  their  hearts. 
 
 The  institution  had  a  strictly  ascetic  character.  This  appears 
 from  the  circumstance  that  the  pious  women — in  accordance  with 
 the  order  given  to  Moses  that  he  should  receive  the  free  will 
 offerings  of  the  Israelites  for  the  erection  of  the  Tabernacle, 
 Exod.  XXV.  2,  "  Of  every  man  that  giveth  wilhugly  with  his  heart, 
 ye  shall  take  my  offering,"  compare  ch.  xxx^dii.  24,  Num.  ch.  vii. — 
 presented  their  mirrors,  the  means  of  assisting  them  in  decorating 
 theip  persons  and  exciting  general  admiration.     The  sun-ender  of 
 
112    THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 the  use  of  the  mirrors  is  parallel  to  the  Nazarites'  allowing  the 
 hair  to  grow,  by  which  they  gave  a  practical  demonstration  that, 
 as  long  as  they  continued  that  practice,  they  forsook  the  world,  in 
 which  trimming  the  hair  was  a  social  custom,  in  order  to  serve 
 God  alone.  In  this  light  the  presentation  of  the  mirrors  was 
 viewed  by  Aben  Ezra,  (Lightfoot,  i.  G43.)  Consiietudo  est 
 omnhun  midierum  insjJtciendi  vnoquoque  matuti)io  tempore 
 faciem  suam  in  speculo,  ut  possint  comam  componere,  seel  ecce 
 erant  mulieres  in  Israele,  quae  serviehant  domino,  quae  omi- 
 serunt  mundanam  hanc  volupiatem,  et  tradiderunt  specula  sua 
 tanquam  ohlationes  spontaneas  ;  neque  enim  iis  amplius  indige- 
 hant,  sed  quotidie  veniehant  ad  ostium  tahernacuU  ad  orandum 
 et  audienda  verba  praecepti.  That  the  presentation  of  the 
 mirrors  had  this  meaning,  is  also  indicated  by  the  use  to  which 
 they  were  devoted  by  Moses,  which  adds  the  positive  to  the  nega- 
 tive import.  They  were  to  adorn  themselves,  not  for  the  world  but 
 for  God,  and  seek  to  please  him  alone;  compare  1  Peter  iii.  3,  4. 
 
 That  females  of  distinction  dedicated  themselves  to  the  Lord 
 is  probable,  from  the  nature  of  the  case — (where  such  a  way  is 
 once  opened,  it  will  be  trodden,  in  proportion,  more  frequently  by 
 those  of  higher  rank  than  by  those  of  a  lower  station) — and  is 
 here  very  evident  from  the  mention  of  mirrors.  Metallic  mirrors 
 w^ere,  as  their  presentation  on  this  occasion  shows,  an  article  of 
 luxury,  and  as  such,  are  enumerated  by  Isaiah,  ch.  iii. 
 
 Having  at  last  brought  the  second  interpretation  into  a  condi- 
 tion capable  of  maintaining  its  ground,  it  is  time  that  we  should 
 set  the  two  modes  of  interpretation  in  array  against  each  other. 
 
 For  the  death  of  Jephthah's  daughter  the  following  reasons 
 have  been  alleged. 
 
 First,  The  letter  of  the  text  forms  an  incontrovertible  argu- 
 ment for  the  bodily  sacrifice.  It  is  this  which  renders  this  inter- 
 pretation so  tenacious  of  life.  As  long  as  persons  fix  their 
 attention  too  exclusively  on  the  outward  appearance  of  the  sacri- 
 ficial system  under  the  Old  Testament,  they  do  not  properly 
 perceive  that  it  formed  a  transparent  veil ;  that,  as  it  originally 
 represented  spiritual  relations,  so  also  it  must  again  lend  expres- 
 sion to  spiritual  relations  ;  and  thus  it  has  been  supposed  that 
 violence  would  be  done  to  the  letter  of  the  text  if  the  notion  of 
 a  bodily  sacrifice  was  given  up.     That  a  burnt- offering  is  a  burnt- 
 
STATE  OF  RELIGION  AND  MORALS.  113 
 
 offering  has  been  repeated  by  all  the  advocates  of  the  latter,  and 
 must  be  repeated  as  long  as  a  correct  and  comprehensive  view  is  not 
 taken  of  the  sacrificial  system  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  numerous 
 individual  passages  which  may  be  adduced  for  the  use  of  sacri- 
 ficial expressions  in  a  spiritual  sense,  can  only  gain  full  acceptance 
 if  persons  are  led  by  them  to  that  comprehensive  view  which  will 
 fi-ee  them  from  being  regarded  as  isolated  and  accidental.  More- 
 over, persons  will  constantly  return  to  the  words  of  Luther  in  the 
 marginal  gloss,  "  People  will  have  it  that  he  did  not  sacrifice  her, 
 but  there  it  stands  clearly  in  the  text."  But  at  all  events,  a 
 reference  to  a  number  of  these  passages  will  serve  to  shake  the 
 confidence  with  which  an  appeal  is  made  to  this  argument.  We 
 will  here  give  them.  Hosea  speaks  of  "  the  calves  of  the  lips" 
 which  Israel  would  offer  to  the  Lord,  ch.  xiv.  3.  "  Sacrifice  and 
 offering  thou  didst  not  desire,"  it  is  said  in  Psalm  xl.  7-9, 
 ''  mine  ears  hast  thou  opened,  burnt- offering  and  sin-offering  hast 
 thou  not  required  ;  then  said  I,  Lo  I  come  ;  in  the  volume  of  the 
 book  (in  the  sacrificial  ordinances  of  the  Books  of  Moses)  it  is 
 written  of  me.  I  dehght  to  do  thy  will,  O  God,  yea  thy  law  is 
 within  my  heart."  The  Psalmist  represented  the  surrender  of  his 
 own  personahty,  which  was  evinced  by  obedience  to  the  Divine 
 commands,  as  constituting  the  true  sacrifice  required  by  God,  as 
 the  kernel  wliich  lay  concealed  in  the  shell  of  the  animal  sacri- 
 fices that  were  commanded  in  the  law,  (which,  as  soon  as  it  is 
 isolated,  is  useless,)  and  expressed  himself  ready  to  present  this 
 sacrifice.  "  The  sacrifices  of  God,"  says  David,  Ps.  li.  17,  "  are 
 a  broken  spirit."  "  Accept,  I  beseech  thee,  the  free-v/ill  offerings 
 of  my  mouth,"  it  is  said  in  Ps.  cxix.  108,  In  the  New  Testa- 
 ment, compare  Rom.  xii.  1,  xv.  16;  Philip,  iv.  18;  Heb.  xiii. 
 15,  16.  Since  the  animal  sacrifices  symbolised  the  off'ering  of 
 the  persons,  these  were  the  sacrifices  strictly  speaking,  so  that  the 
 expression,  which  outwardly  taken  is  figurative,  wdien  inwardly 
 apprehended,  is  the  proper  and  literal  meaning ;  thus  the  presenta- 
 tion of  sacrifices  was  directly  connected  with  the  consecration 
 of  persons.  This  we  see  from  1  Sam.  i.  24,  25.  When  the  child 
 Samuel  was  brought  by  his  parents  to  Eli,  they  slew  three  bul- 
 locks. The  sacrifice  in  reahty  was  Samuel  himself;  the  presenta- 
 tion of  the  buUocks  only  served  to  symbohse  his  consecration. 
 Gen.  xxii.  2,  furnishes  one  of  the  most  remarkable  proofs  for  the 
 
 VOL.  II.  H 
 
114    THE  PENTATEUCH,  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 use  of  sacrificial  terms,  especially  as  it  is  provable  that  the  author 
 of  the  Book  of  Judges  had  it  in  his  eye  on  this  occasion.  Abra- 
 ham there  receives  a  command  in  reference  to  liis  son  Isaac, 
 "  offer  him  as  a  burnt- offering,"  If  these  words  were  taken 
 literally,  then  God,  who,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  "  is  not  a  man  that  he  should  lie,  nor  the  son  of  man 
 that  he  should  repent,"  could  not  afterwards  have  forbidden  the 
 performance;  what  according  to  his  own  law  is  impious  to  a  sur- 
 passing degree,  that  he  could  not  command,  even  by  way  of  trial; 
 ver.  1 2  shews  that  satisfaction  was  rendered  to  the  Lord's  command, 
 when  the  spiritual  sacrifice  was  completed.  Hence  we  perceive 
 that  the  trial  lay  in  the  ambiguity  of  tlie  language. 
 
 It  has  been  objected,  that  if  the  expression  is  to  be  figm'a- 
 tively  understood,  this  at  least  ought  to  be  indicated  by  a 
 word.  But  since  the  professors  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah  never 
 offered  human  victims,  all  ambiguity  was  avoided,  and  a  saving 
 clause  was  unnecessary.  Since  the  use  of  sacrificial  terms,  in 
 a  spiritual  sense,  runs  through  the  whole  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
 the  nature  of  the  case  is  in  favour  of  a  sp»iritual  sacrifice,  the 
 author  might  rather  have  been  expected  to  remark,  had  that  been 
 his  intention,  that  the  expressions  he  used  were  to  be  understood 
 of  a  bodily  sacrifice. 
 
 It  has  been  further  objected,  that  all  the  passages  in  which  sa- 
 crificial terms  occur  in  a  figurative  sense  (it  might  as  well  be 
 said  m  a  literal  sense ;  for  the  sacrificial  act  is  an  allegory  which 
 is  explained  in  such  passages)  speak  only  of  a  spiiitual  sacrifice, 
 never  of  a  bodily  consecration  to  temple  service.  But  this  objec- 
 tion is  founded  chiefly  on  the  wrong  view  we  have  already  ex- 
 posed of  the  service  in  the  sanctuary.  The  spiritual  consecra- 
 tion is  here  the  first  and  main  subject;  the  outward  consecration 
 is  only  noticed  as,  at  that  time,  its  usual  form  and  covering. 
 Samuel  also,  for  whom  as  for  Isaac,  a  bodi]'"  sacrifice  was  pre- 
 sented, was  regarded  as  a  spiritual  sacrifice,  and  yet  in  his  case 
 an  outward  consecration  was  added  to  the  inward. 
 
 Secondlij,  An  appeal  is  made  to  Jephthah's  intense  sorrow. 
 But  for  this  there  was  sufficient  occasion,  according  to  the  other 
 interpretation.  The  ardent  desire  of  men  for  perpetuating  their 
 existence  for  immortality,  had  not,  under  the  Old  Covenant,  found 
 its  right  end,  from   a  defective  clearness  in  the  prospect  of  a 
 
STATE  OF  RELIGION  AND  MORALS.  115 
 
 future  life.  Tliey  sought  to  sntisfy  this  desire  in  the  present  life. 
 Hence  that  extravagantly  vivid  yearning  to  pei^petuate  Hfe  in  their 
 posterity,  fi'om  regard  to  which  the  Lawgiver  himself  made  an  ex- 
 ception from  the  laws  of  marriage  which  were  so  strictly  defined, 
 and  sanctioned  the  obligatory  marriage  {VjiicliteJie)  which  arose 
 out  of  that  feeling  and  had  been  already  customary.  It  was  re- 
 garded as  a  cruel  want  of  affection  in  a  surviving  brother  towards 
 the  deceased,  if  he  refused  to  do  his  part,  that  the  name  of  his 
 brother,  his  memory,  might  not  perish  out  of  Israel.  Compare 
 Deut.  XXV.  0.  Isaiah,  in  ch.  Ivi.  5,  first  looks  for  consolation  to 
 the  future,  for  the  disconsolate  anguish  of  the  childless  in  the 
 present.  Supposing  this  to  be  the  general  ground  of  Jephthah's 
 sorrow,  whose  only  hope  of  posterity  rested  on  his  daughter,  it 
 must  have  been  greatly  heightened  by  his  peculiar  circumstances. 
 What  the  Lord  had  bountifully  given  him  with  one  hand,  he  had 
 taken  entirely  away  with  the  other.  He  had  been  raised  from  the 
 dust  of  depression  to  be  a  chieftain  of  Gilead  ;  he  had  attained  to 
 honours  and  riches  ;  but  of  what  avail  was  all  this  to  him  ?  At 
 his  death  all  would  be  lost ;  and  therefore  he  could  derive  no  joy 
 from  it  now.  His  state  of  mind  resembled  Abraham's  in  Gen. 
 XV.  3.  He  had  no  one  with  whom  he  could  rejoice.  His  daugh- 
 ter, the  dearest  object  to  him  on  earth,  was  to  him  as  if  dead. 
 That  cliildren  who  were  dedicated  to  the  Lord  were  considered 
 as  altogether  withdrawn  from  their  parents,  is  shewn  in  1  Sam. 
 ii.  20,  21,  where  other  children  are  promised  by  Eli  and  guaran- 
 teed by  God  to  Samuel's  parents  as  a  compensation  for  him.* 
 
 *  The  Catliolic  Chnrcli  furnislies  mauy  interesting  parallels  to  the  histoiy  of  .Teph- 
 thalis  daughter.  One  of  the  most  remai-kable  is  the  fai-ewell  which  the  wife  of  Chan- 
 tal  took  of  her  child  ou  her  entrauce  into  a  convent.  It  is  narrated  in  Vie  de  St 
 Franqais  de  Sales,  by  Marsollier,  ii.  144.  Paris  1821.  "  Madame  de  Chantal,  etant 
 arrivee  a  Dijou,  crut  devoid*  se  miiuir  du  pain  d-^s  forts  coutre  les  assauts  que  la  ten- 
 dresse  et  la  compassion  ah.  ent  lui  livrer,  dans  la  sepai-ation  de  ce  qu'elle  avait  de  plus 
 cher.  EUe  n'etoit  pas  de  ces  personnes  dures  qui  out  etoufFe  tous  les  sentiments  de 
 la  nature.  Elle  etoit  fille,  elle  etoit  mere  ;  elle  ressentoit  poiu-  un  ptre,  qui  Vavoit  tou- 
 jours  uniquement  aimee,  tout  ce  que  la  plus  tendre  recounaisance  pent  inspirer.  Elle 
 avoit  pour  ses  enfants  tout  I'amour  dont  la  coeur  d'uue  bonne  m^re  est  capable.  On  ne 
 rompt  pas  de  pareils  engagements,  sans  se  faire  une  extreme  violence  ;  tout  se  revolte, 
 tout  se  souleve  au  fond  du  coem-.  Le  premier  objet,  qui  se  presenta  a  elle  en  entrant 
 chez  le  president,  sou  pere,  fut  fils  unique  tout  en  lai'mes,  qui  se  viut  jeter  a  son  cou, 
 il  la  tint  longtemps  embrassee,  et  fit  et  dit  en  cet  etat  tout  ce  qu'on  pent  dire  et  faire 
 de  plus  capable  d'attendrir.     II  se  cou?ha  au  travers  de  la  porte  par  on  elle  devoit  pas- 
 
 H  2 
 
110     THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES. 
 
 Thirdhjy  J.  D.  Micliaelis  urges  that  the  lament  of  Jeplithali's 
 daughter  for  her  virginity  is  only  explicable  on  the  supposition  of 
 her  being  devoted  to  death.  "  The  Nazarites  devoted  from  their 
 mothers'  womb,  and  all  those  who  were  dedicated  to  the  sanctuary, 
 were  at  liberty  to  marry."  That  this  in  reference  to  men  was 
 really  the  case,  is  shewn  by  the  example  of  Samuel.  But  it  is 
 certainly  very  precipitate  when  that  is  applied,  without  hesitation, 
 to  women,  which  only  holds  good  of  men.  With  their  vow,  mar- 
 riage was  incompatible.  It  is  urged,  indeed,  that  the  word  virgin 
 is  never  introduced  in  connection  with  these  ministering  females. 
 But  there  is  a  vahd  reason  why  it  should  not,  which  we  gather 
 from  Luke  ii.  37,  and  1  Tim.  v.  5.  Not  merely  virgins,  but  wi- 
 dows also,  and,  as  it  appears,  those  principally  who  were  weary 
 and  tired  of  the  w^orld,  devoted  tliemselves  to  the  sacred  sersdce. 
 On  this  account  a  general  term  was  chosen.  But  that  only  those 
 who  were  not  in  the  state  of  wedlock  could  dedicate  themselves  to 
 the  service  of  the  sanctuary,  and  hence,  that  those  who  were  vir- 
 gins when  they  entered  upon  it,  must  remain  virgins,  hes  in  the 
 nature  of  the  case.  A  woman  who  is  under  a  husband  (Num.  v. 
 29 ;  Eom.  vii.  2),  cannot  dedicate  herself  to  the  exclusive  service 
 of  the  Lord  ;  she  would  be  obliged  to  take  what  was  not  her  own 
 in  order  to  give.  Even  in  reference  to  acts  of  reHgion,  the  wife, 
 according  to  the  lav/,  was  to  be  subject  to  her  husband,  as  is  shown 
 by  the  regulations  respecting  the  vow.  It  was  only  by  the  con- 
 sent of  the  husband,  that  a  vow  made  by  a  wife  was  binding. 
 What  the  Apostle  says  in  1  Cor.  vii.  81,  '*  There  is  a  difference 
 between  a  wife  and  a  virgin.  The  unmarried  woman  careth  for 
 the  things  of  the  Lord,  that  she  may  be  holy,  both  in  body  and 
 
 ser — "  Je  suis  troj)  foible,"  lui  dit-il,  "Madame,  pour  voiis  arreter;  mais  an  moins 
 sera-t-il  dit,  que  vous  aurez  passe  sur  le  corps  de  votre  fils  unique  pour  Tabaudonuer." 
 Un  spectacle  si  toucbant  I'aiTeta,  ses  lai'mes,  jusques-la  retenues,  coulereut  eu  abon- 
 dauce,  mais  la  gi-ace,  jdus  forte  que  la  natiu-e,  I'emporta.  Elle  passa  sur  le  corps  de 
 ce  cber  enfant,  et  fut  se  jeter  aux  pieds  de  son  pere,  le  supplia  de  la  benir,  et  d' avoir 
 soin  du  fils,  quelle  lui  laissoit.  Quelque  temps  qu'euteu  le  president poiu-  se  preparer 
 a  cette  triste  sepai-ation,  il  n'avait  encore  pu  sy  resoudi'e;  il  re^ut  sa  fille  les  lannes 
 aux  yeux  et  la  coeur  si  seixe  de  doulenr,  qu'il  faillit  a  en  motu-ir.  II  embrassa  sa  fille, 
 et  levant  au  ciel  ses  yeux  tout  baignes  des  lai-mes,  "  O  mon  Dieu,  dit-il,  quel  sacrifice 
 me  demandez  vous  !  Mais  vous  le  \o\i\ez,je  vous  Foffre  done,  cette  chere  enfant,  re- 
 cevez-la,  et  me  consolez."  Ensuite  il  la  benit,  la  releva  et  I'embrassa ;  mais  il  n'eut 
 pas  la  force  de  I'accompagner."  Here  also  we  have  a  sacrifice  without  blood,  and  sor- 
 row for  the  living  exactly  as  for  the  dead. 
 
STATE  OF  RELIGION  AND  MORALS.  117 
 
 spirit ;  but  she  that  is  married  careth  for  the  things  of  the  world, 
 how  she  may  please  her  husband"*  appUes  still  more  strongly 
 here,  since  the  question  is  not  respecting  the  service  of  the  Lord 
 in  general,  but  about  a  distinct  form  of  it  which  was  incompatible 
 with  the  discharge  of  household  duties.  It  was  not  till  after  her 
 husband's  decease  that  Anna  engaged  in  the  sacred  senice  ;  and 
 in  1  Tim.  v.  6,  "  she  that  is  a  widow  indeed,  and  desolate, 
 continueth  in  supplications  and  prayers  night  and  day."  We  see 
 from  Matt.  xix.  12,  (elcriv  evvov')(OL,  o'lrive^  evvovy^iaav  eavTov^ 
 hiaTi-jv  jSacnXelav  T(x)v  ovpavMv),  that  even  under  the  Old  Cove- 
 nant, in  particular  cases,  men  remained  single,  that  they  might 
 be  able  to  caiTy  on  the  w^ork  of  God  more  zealously  and  uninter- 
 ruptedly. What  in  men  was  only  matter  of  free  determination 
 (the  maxim  "  No  man  can  serve  two  masters,"  was  not  in  gene- 
 ral applicable  to  them),  depended  in  women  so  much  on  the  na- 
 ture of  the  case,  as  not  to  admit  of  exceptions. t  If  the  women 
 at  the  Tabernacle  were  devoted  to  perpetual  virginity,  the  crimi- 
 nality of  Eh's  sons  appears  in  a  far  more  glaring  light,  in  the 
 liglit  in  which  the  author  regards  it. 
 
 The  reasons,  therefore,  that  have  been  alleged  for  the  literal 
 (bodily)  sacrifice  of  Jephthah's  daughter  are  not  vahd ;  on  the 
 other  hand,  for  the  non-literal  (or  spiritual)  construction  of  the 
 vow,  we  adduce  the  following  arguments.  First,  the  presentation 
 of  human  sacrifices  is  so  decidedly  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  letter 
 of  the  religion  of  Jehovah,  that  in  the  whole  history  w^e  cannot 
 find  a  single  instance  of  any  one  wdio  even  outwardly  acknow- 
 ledged Jehovah  and  yet  presented  such  a  sacrifice.  But  let  us 
 make  a  distinction — it  is  not  the  question  whether  a  Hebrew  by 
 birth,  who  very  possibly  might  be  a  heathen  in  his  habits,  ever  pre- 
 sented a  human  sacrifice,  which  there  would  be  no  difficulty  in 
 admitting,  but  whether  a  worshipper  of  Jehovah,  to  whom  he  was 
 known  by  being  made  an  instrument  of  salvation  to  his  people, 
 
 *  Tlje  Apostle's  remarks  in  tliis  cliapt;r  ou  marriage  and  celibacy,  receive  much 
 light  if  viewed  in  coimectiou  with  the  Isratlitish  institution,  which  we  have  now  been 
 considering. 
 
 +  See  ABARBANELon  Judges  xi.  Fcminti,  (hmcc  vivo  adhaerel,nou  potest  diviiio  ciil- 
 tui  dicari,  quonunn  marit'i  ministerio  ct  iisui  asfricta  est,  pm  letjc  mulierwn  marito  le- 
 gUime  adjunctarum. 
 
lis  THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  Of  THE  JUDGES, 
 
 ever  ])resented  to  JeLovah  a  human  sacrifice.  Certainly  a  thing 
 so  improbable  in  itself  would  only  be  admitted  by  an  extreme 
 necessity. 
 
 Human  sacrifices  do  not  belong  to  heathenism  generally,  but 
 only  to  the  darkest  midnight  of  heathenism.    They  are  only  found 
 among  nations  sunk  the  lowest  in  the  scale  of  religion  and  morals. 
 The  conscience  of  the  nobler  heathens  revolted  from  it,  unseduced 
 by  the  appearance  of  grandeuj\    Cicero  {de  officiis  iii.  25)  calls  the 
 sacrifice  of  Iphigenia  tetrum  f acinus  ;  and  Curtius  iv,  3,  §  23, 
 describes  the  ofiering  of  human  sacrifices  as  sacrum,  quod  qui- 
 dem  diis  minime  corde   esse  crediderim — sacrilegium   verius 
 qiiam  sacrum — dura  super stitio.    The  people  who  were  favoured 
 wdth  Divine  revelation  were  taught  by  one  of  the  most  ancient 
 and  sacred  traditions — the  ofi'ering  of  Isaac — that  human  sacri- 
 fices were  not  acceptable  to  the  Lord,  tliat  he  only  required  the 
 surrender  of  the  dearest  object  in  the  disposition  ;  and  as  an  ex- 
 pression of  tliis  surrender,  the  presentation  of  animal  sacrifices. 
 In  the  Law,  himaan  sacrifices  were  always  branded  as  an  accur- 
 sed crime,  which  could  only  be  perpetrated  in  connection  with 
 total  apostacy  fi'om  the  true  God.     Not  to  Jehovah,  but  only  to 
 Moloch,  were  human  sacrifices  presented.     The  deepest  detesta- 
 tion prevails  whenever  the  human  sacrifices  of  the  heathen  are 
 mentioned.     Compare  Lev.  xviii.  21,  Deut.  xii.  31,  xviii.  10,  xx. 
 1-5.     Human  sacrifices,  and  particularly  those  of  children,,  are 
 stigmatised  as  the  foulest  of  heathen  abominations.    "  Thou  shalt 
 not  do  so  unto  Jehovah  thy  God,  for  every  abomination  to  the 
 Lord  which  he  hateth  have  they  done  unto  their  gods  ;  for  even 
 their  sons  and  their  daughters  they  have  burnt  in  the  fire  to  their 
 gods."      Deut.  xii.  31.     These  special  declarations  of  the  law  re- 
 specting human  sacrifices,  are  only  the  results  and  corollaries  of 
 its  fundamental  principles,  to  which  human  sacrifices  stand  in 
 du'ect  contradiction.    The  very  name  of  the  God  of  Israel,  Jeho- 
 vah, denotes  his  spirituality,  and  testifies  aloud  that  the  sacrifice 
 of  the  heart  is  to  him  the  only  acceptable  one,  for  which  nothing 
 outward,  not  even  the  dearest  object,  can  be  substituted.     God, 
 who,  according  to  the  definition  of  his  nature  (Exod.  xxxiv.  6), 
 is  "  gracious,  and  long-sufiermg,  and  abundant  in  goodness,"  can- 
 not desire  that  man,  who  bears  his  image,  should  destroy  that 
 image  in  his  fellow-men,  in  order  to  make  himself  acceptable  to 
 
STATE  OF  RELIGION  AND  MORALS.  119 
 
 liim.  Tlie  law  places  all  human  life  under  the  guardianship  of 
 God,  and  represents  the  blood  of  the  murdered  as  crying  to  God 
 against  him  who  shed  it. 
 
 The  glaring  opposition  in  which  Jephthah's  conduct,  if  we  ad- 
 mit the  notion  of  a  literal  sacrifice,  would  stand  to  the  law,  is 
 rendered  still  more  striking,  if  it  can  be  proved  from  the  narra- 
 tive itself  that  the  supposition  of  the  crudeness  of  his  religious 
 notions  and  unacquaintedness  with  the  law  is  destitute  of  founda- 
 tion. We  have  akeady  shown  that  Jephthah's  argument  against 
 the  Ammonites  is  almost  a  literal  extract  from  the  correspond- 
 ing section  in  the  Pentateuch,  What  Jephthah  says  to  his 
 daughter  in  ver.  35,  ''I  have  opened  my  mouth  unto  the  Lord, 
 and  I  cannot  go  back,"  and  still  more  his  daughter's  answer  in 
 ver.  36,  "  do  to  me  according  to  that  which  hath  proceeded  out 
 of  thy  mouth,"  present  a  literal  reference  to  Numb.  xxx.  2,  "  If 
 a  man  vow  a  vow  unto  the  Lord  ...  he  shall  not  break 
 his  word  ;  he  shall  do  according  to  all  that  proceedeth  out  of  his 
 mouth."  Compare  Deut.  xxiii.  23,  ''  thou  shalt  keep  and  per- 
 form .  ,  .  which  thou  hast  promised  with  thy  mouth."  If 
 it  be  objected,  that  we  have  no  security  that  the  historian  has  ex- 
 actly recorded  the  words  of  Jephthah  and  his  daughter,  thus  much 
 at  least  is  certain,  that  according  to  his  own  view  Jephthah  was 
 not  destitute  of  rehgious  culture,  and  this  is  sufficient  for  oiu' 
 object. 
 
 To  meet  the  argument  that  the  offering  of  human  sacrifices  is 
 entirely  opposed  to  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  religion  of  Jeho- 
 vah, an  appeal  is  made  to  the  example  of  Abraham.  But  here  it 
 is  overlooked  that  the  idea  of  offering  his  son  did  not,  as  was  the 
 case  with  Jephthah,  proceed  fi'om  liis  own  mind,  but  was  received 
 as  a  distinct  Divine  command — that  a  trial  like  that  to  which  he 
 was  subjected  is  only  conceivable  in  a  state  of  childlike  undevelop 
 ed  faith,  beyond  w^hich  the  kingdom  of  God  had  proceeded  in  its 
 later  development ;  and  that  even  by  this  event  it  was  estabhshed 
 in  what  sense  alone  God  alone  required  human  beings  for  sacrifice, 
 as  we  read  in  the  histoiy  of  Samuel,  "  And  they  slew  a  bullock, 
 and  brought  the  child  to  Eli,"  1  Sam.  i.  25  ;  that  after  this  event  a 
 misunderstanding  like  that  of  Abraham,  in  case  there  had  been  a 
 similar  call,  would  have  been  sinful,  nay,  impious. 
 
 Secondly,  If  the  literal  interpretation  were  correct,  it  might  be 
 
120    THE  PENTATEUCH  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES, 
 
 expected  that  in  the  narrative  so  outrageous  an  act  as  the  death 
 of  a  daughter  by  her  father's  hand  would  be  alluded  to,  though 
 ever  so  briefly.  But  we  find  nothing  of  the  sort.  It  is  simply 
 said,  "  he  did  with  her  according,  to  his  vow,  which  he  had  vow- 
 ed ;"  and  then  follows,  "  and  she  knew  no  man."  Buddeus  very 
 properly  remarks,  Quis  ver'o  ferret  in  narratione  historka  id 
 quod  jyraecijmuni  esse  dehehat  jjraetermitii,  et  jpoiii  illud  quod 
 jam  notum  eraty  earn  fuisse  virginem.  Only  compare  this  with 
 the  representation  in  Gen.  xxi.  With  all  the  objective  cast  of 
 the  narrative,  how  is  the  most  striking  incident  placed  in  the 
 strongest  and  most  ajffecting  light.  Whoever  had  to  give  an  ac- 
 count of  such  a  transaction  as,  according  to  the  literal  interpreta- 
 tion, was  here  to  be  described,  would  never  write  as  our  author 
 had  done  ;  in  fact,  he  could  not  do  so. 
 
 Thirdly,  If  Jephthah's  daughter  was  devoted  to  death,  one  can- 
 not see  why  the  only  topic  of  lamentation  was  her  being  unmar- 
 ried, and  v/hy  the  author  should  even,  at  the  last,  exhibit  this 
 cncumstance  as  the  most  severe  and  painful.  In  the  sight  of 
 death,  and  particularly  of  such  a  death — a  death  that  a  daughter 
 was  to  receive  from  the  hand  of  a  father — death,  if  not  the  only, 
 yet  certainly  would  be  the  principal,  object  of  contemplation. 
 Whatever  has  been  said  of  the  disgrace  of  a  single  life  among  the 
 Hebrews,  by  no  means  removes  this  difficulty  ;  all  the  purpose  it 
 answers  is,  that  it  accounts  for  the  grief  of  Jephthah's  daughter, 
 according  to  our  view  of  her  case.  Some  expositors,  to  meet  this 
 argument,  would  attach  to  the  word  ^^^-'^f ,  which  never  means 
 any  thing  but  virginity  in  a  physical  sense,  the  sense  of  youth, 
 as  if  Jephthah's  daughter  lamented  \\qy  premature  death  ;  but  this 
 attempt  is  only  worth  mentioning  in  order  to  show  how  much  our 
 opponents  have  felt  the  force  of  this  argmnent. 
 
 Fourthly,  It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that,  according  to  the  law,  the 
 consecration  of  those  who  entered  into  the  service  of  the  Lord  wafe 
 in  consequence  of  a  vow,  ''  When  a  man  shall  make  a  singular 
 vow,"  &c.  Levit.  xxvii.  2.  Thus  also  Jephthah's  daughter  was 
 presented  to  the  Lord  in  consequence  of  a  vow,  "  And  Jephthah 
 vowed  a  vow  unto  the  Lord,"  ver.  30  ;  "  And  he  did  with  her  ac- 
 cording to  liis  vow  that  he  had  vowed,"  ver.  39.  Such  a  vow  ap- 
 pears in  the  law  as  a  standing  form  of  Jewish  piety ;  of  vows,  on  the 
 other  hand,  in  connection  with  human  sacrifices,  we  know  nothing- 
 
STATE   OF  RELIGION  AND  MORALS.  121 
 
 Fifthlij,  As  an  accessory,  the  following  argument  is  of  some 
 force.  According  to  cli.  xi.  40,  this  event  formed  the  foundation 
 of  a  long- continued  custom  in  Israel.  '^  And  it  was  a  custom  in 
 Israel,  that  the  daughters  of  Israel  went  yearly  to  celebrate  ^^^^^ 
 the  daughter  of  Jephthah  the  Gileadite,  four  days  in  a  year." 
 We  have  already  made  it  probable,  that  this  festival  was  held  an- 
 nually at  the  Tabernacle.  If  this  was  the  case,  then  between  Gi- 
 lead  and  the  rest  of  Israel  a  strict  religious  connection  must  have 
 existed — (v\4iich,  indeed,  might  be  inferred  from  the  fact,  that  an 
 event  w^hich  formerly  belonged  to  Gilead,  was  the  occasion  of  a 
 festival  for  all  the  daughters  of  Israel) — and  then  the  improbabi- 
 lity appears  so  much  the  stronger,  that  such  an  act  of  barbarity 
 could  have  happened  in  Gilead.  And  we  are  more  justified  in 
 comparing  Jephthah's  act  with  what  we  know  from  other  quarters 
 of  the  religious  state  of  the  Israelites  at  that  time.  If  "we  make 
 this  comparison,  it  will  appear,  that  the  statement  that  the  daugh- 
 ters of  Israel  assemble  yearly  to  celebrate  Jephthah's  daughter, 
 serves  to  confirm  our  views.  Only  in  an  age  of  absolute  barbar- 
 ism, which,  according  to  existing  accounts,  the  period  of  the 
 Judges  was  not,  could  such  a  horrible  event  be  a  subject  of  na- 
 tional joy  and  festivity.  This  has  been  felt  by  the  ancient  trans- 
 lators, on  which  account  they  substitute  lament  for  celebrate. 
 Only  compare  2  Kings  iii.  27,  where  the  indignation  of  the  Lord 
 was  kindled  against  Israel,  because  they  were  indirectly  the  occa- 
 sion of  the  king  of  Moab's  offering,  in  despair,  his  son  as  a  burnt 
 sacrifice. 
 
 If  our  view  of  this  transaction  be  correct,  as  we  believe  we  may 
 confidently  maintain,  it  furnishes  a  very  striking  proof  of  a  living 
 and  deeply  seated  piety  in  the  period  of  the  Judges.  Besides  the 
 conduct  of  Jephthah  and  his  daughter,  let  regard  also  be  paid  to 
 the  recognition  of  it  by  all  Israel,  as  well  as  to  the  trace  of  the 
 existence  and  decided  religious  tendency  of  the  institution  of  sa- 
 cred women,  which  we  here  find. 
 
 Our  investigation  is  brought  to  a  close.  We  do  not  believe 
 that  any  one  can  now,  with  a  good  conscience,  say  that  De  Wette's 
 Essay  still  remains  unanswered. 
 
123 
 
 STATEMENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 
 
 BESPECTING  ITS 
 
 AUTHOR. 
 
 The  passages  of  the  four  first  books  in  wliich  certain  portions 
 are  stated  to  liave  been  committed  to  writing  by  Moses,  have  been 
 brought  together  in  vol.  i.  p.  435.  Their  full  importance  is  not 
 seen  till  we  point  out  the  internal  connection  which  binds  together 
 all  the  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.  If  this  is  perceived,  it  follows, 
 that  what  applies  to  the  parts,  will  apply  to  the  whole,  and  espe- 
 cially since  we  are  then  justified,  in  addition  to  the  statements  in 
 Deuteronomy,  to  unite  all  the  testimonies  of  the  Pentateuch  re- 
 specting its  author  into  a  whole — to  determine  from  generals  what 
 is  to  be  thought  of  particulars — that  it  refers  to  the  committal  to 
 writing  of  particular  portions  not  as  such,  but  as  a  component  part 
 of  a  greater  whole. 
 
 Vater  remarks,  p.  557,  in  reference  to  the  Divine  command 
 to  Moses  to  write  down  particular  portions,  "  In  recording  such  a 
 command,  the  opinion  of  the  reporter  possibly  is  indirectly  con- 
 veyed, that  Moses  did  not  commonly  make  a  practice  of  commit- 
 ting things  to  writing  on  the  spot."  But  we  must  feel  surprise, 
 that  Bleek  also  {Studien  iind  Kriiihen,  1831,  p.  511),  could 
 repeat  this  assertion,  which  is  so  plainly  a  kind  of  subterfuge,  and 
 so  little  suits  Bleek's  own  view,  since  he  himself  admits  the  coni- 
 position  of  a  very  considerable  number  of  passages  by  Moses,  in 
 which  nothing  of  the  kind  is  said.  If  the  conclusion  is  well  founded 
 here,  why  not  apply  it  also  to  the  prophets  ?  But  who  would  tliink 
 of  inferring  from  such  passages  as  Is.  xxx.  8  ;  Jerem.  xxx.  2  ; 
 Ezek.  xhii.  1 1  ;  Hab.  ii.  2,  any  thing  to  the  disparagement  of 
 the  remaining  portions  ?     These  passages  stand  on  precisely  the 
 
STATEMENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH,  &C.  123 
 
 same  footing  with  those  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  both  cases,  the 
 command  for  committing  them  to  writing  indicates  the  vahie  of 
 the  contents,  and  their  importance  for  posterity,  while  it  is  im- 
 phed,  that  this  written  form  was  the  only  means  of  their  secure 
 tradition.  Why  should  we  not  attribute  to  everything  of  the  same 
 kind  what  is  here  expressed  of  particular  portions  ?  Surely,  it  can 
 be  only  the  individual  application  of  a  general  maxim! 
 
 Among  the  passages  of  the  earher  books  is  one,  which,  of  itself, 
 without  our  placing  it  in  connection  with  other  facts,  or  making 
 use  of  the  particulars  contained  as  a  foundation  for  general  con- 
 clusions, leads  us  to  the  composition  of  an  extensive  work  by 
 Moses.  It  is  in  Exod.  xvii.  14,  "  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses, 
 Write  this  for  a  memorial  in  the  book  ^y^?-,  and  rehearse  it  in  the 
 ears  of  Joshua,  that  I  wdll  utterly  put  out  the  remembrance  of 
 Amalek  from  under  heaven."  This  passage  has  one  thing  in  com- 
 mon with  Num.  xxxiii.  2  ;  it  shows  that  Moses  acknowledged  not 
 merely  in  the  laws  the  necessity  of  written  documents  as  a  sup- 
 port of  oral  tradition.  But  what  is  pecuhar  to  it  is  the  allusion 
 contained  in  the  article  to  a  larger  whole,  with  which  this  portion 
 was  to  be  incorporated — whether  (a  point  wdiich  the  passage  itself 
 does  not  decide,  and  which  must  be  decided  on  other  gTounds) 
 the  larger  whole  w^as  already  begun,  and  the  insertion  was  to  be 
 made  immediately  (as  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Eosenmuller,  and 
 others  suppose) — or  the  w^hole  was  to  be  composed  in  proper  time, 
 and  the  declaration  of  Jehovah  to  be  inserted  in  due  time.  It  might 
 be  surmised,  that  attempts  w^ould  be  made  to  get  rid  of  this 
 troublesome  passage.  Indeed,  both  Vater  (p.  558),  and  Bleek 
 (p.  511),  maintain  that  ^???  means  just  the  same,  as  if,  by  a  shght 
 alteration  of  the  points,  it  was  '^r^??.  But  w^e  are  now  too  far 
 advanced  for  such  grammatical  laxity  ;  that  the  sacred  writers 
 knew  how  to  distinguish  between  a  book  and  the  book,  is  shown 
 by  such  passages  as  Jerem.  xx.  2,  "  Write  thee  all  the  w^ords  that 
 I  have  spoken  unto  thee  in  a  book,"  ^V?f'^, ;  Jer.  xxxvi.  2 ;  Is. 
 XXX.  8  ;  Deut.  xxxi.  24.  And  then,  supposing  it  allowable  to 
 deprive  the  article  of  its  proper  force,  or  to  remove  it  without  ce- 
 remony by  a  different  reading,  yet  in  this  connection  only  the  book 
 and  not  a  book  can  be  intended,  so  that  if  "^£&a  were  handed  down 
 to  us  unpointed,  we  must  punctuate  it  ^???  Certainly  "^^^  does  not 
 in  and  by  itself  denote  a  large  book ;  any  written  documeDt  can  be 
 
124  STATEMENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 
 
 SO  called;  (vol.  i.  p.  452).  But  that  Moses  drew  up  a  special 
 writing,  which  contained  no  tiling  more  than  the  words,  "•  I  will  ut- 
 terly put  out  the  rememhrance  of  Amalek  from  under  heaven/'  to 
 which  alone  and  not  also  to  the  history  of  the  wars  against  the 
 Amalekites,  the  command  to  write  refers,  is  perfectly  inconceiv- 
 able. Therefore,  nothing  is  left  to  our  opponents  hut  to  reinstate 
 the  article  in  its  rights,  at  the  same  time  maintaining  that  the  book 
 intended  was  a  memorial  of  the  transactions  with  the  Amalekites, 
 in  which  the  prophecy  of  their  overthrow  remained  to  be  inserted. 
 But  even  this  expedient  appears  to  be  inadmissible.  Not  a  word 
 is  said  in  the  context  of  a  monograph  on  the  wars  with  the  Ama- 
 lekites. How  then  could  the  historian,  without  any  preface,  refer 
 to  such  a  work  ?  Since  nothing  is  said  in  the  foregoing  part  of  any 
 specific  book,  the  book,  of  course,  can  only  be  that  of  which  every 
 reader  would  immediately  think,  or  could  think,  from  the  connec- 
 tion in  which  the  mention  of  the  book  occurs.  For  the  article 
 stands  "  when  only  individuals  of  a  class  are  spoken  of;  but  such 
 as  are  plainly  determined  to  the  readers  in  the  class,  from  the  cir- 
 cumstances of  the  discourse  and  the  connection  of  the  words." 
 EwALD,  p.  5G7.  But  who  would  ever  maintain,  that  this  was  the 
 pretended  monograph  on  Amalek,  the  existence  of  which  was  very 
 far  from  being  so  self-evident,  that  it  would  directly  occur  to  any 
 one's  thoughts?  Who  could  think  of  any  other  book  than  that  to 
 which,  according  to  the  conviction  of  every  Israelite,  that  expres- 
 sion of  the  Lord's  peculiarly  belonged — the  book  of  the  manifes- 
 tations of  the  Lord,  in  which  every  one  who  read  '^ssi,  actually 
 found  it,  while  no  one  knew  any  thing  of  a  monograph  on  the 
 Amalekites  ?  We  need  not,  indeed,  insist  on  the  improbability  of 
 the  existence  of  such  a  monograph,  nor  point  out  that  Moses  would 
 certainly  much  rather  v/rite  a  connected  representation  of  the 
 leadings  of  God's  people  than  such  monographs.  But  if  any  doubt 
 whatever  remains  how  to  construe  ^^son,  definitely  or  indefinitely, 
 and  to  what  book  the  reference  is  immediately  made,  which  we 
 must  deny,  yet  it  would  be  settled  by  a  comparison  with  the  pas- 
 sage in  Deuteronomy,  which  restricts  it  to  the  view  we  have  taken. 
 Every  unprejudiced  person  must  admit,  that  caeteris  parihus,  that 
 explanation  of  the  passage  in  Exodus  deserves  the  preference 
 which  brings  it  into  unison  with  the  expressions  in  Deuteronomy. 
 We  w^ould  further  remark,  that  this  passage  alone  is  sufficient  to 
 
RESrECTING  ITS  AUTHOR.  125 
 
 evince  the  nullity  of  the  inference,  from  the  special  mention  of  the 
 record  that  was  to  he  committed  to  writing,  respecting  the  rarity  of 
 written  documents,  and  the  monographic  character  of  the  records.* 
 We  now  turn  to  Deuteronomy,  and  first  of  all  to  the  principal 
 passage  in  ch.  xxxi.  It  is  said,  ver.  9-11,  ''And  Moses  wrote t 
 this  law,  and  delivered  it  unto  the  priests,  the  sons  of  Levi,  who 
 bare  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  of  the  Lord,  and  unto  all  the  Elders 
 of  Israel.  And  Moses  commanded  them  saying,  At  the  end  of 
 every  seven  years,  in  the  solemnity  of  the  year  of  release,  in  the  feast 
 of  Tabernacles,  when  all  Israel  is  come  to  appear  before  the  Lord 
 thy  God  in  the  place  which  he  shall  choose,  thou  shalt  read  this 
 
 *  Havernick  (Ehileitiou/,  I.  ii.  159)  believes  lie  has  discovered  a  second 
 wMch  must  refer  to  the  composition  of  a  large  work  by  Moses  in  Ex.  xxiv.  4,  7.  He 
 thinks  that  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  there  mentioned  was  the  Pentateuch,  as  far  as 
 he  could  then  have  composed  it.  But  a  closer  examination  leads  us  to  reject  this  opi- 
 nion, and  confirms  what  has  been  stated  already  in  vol.  i.  p.  435,  that  the  contents  of 
 the  book  consisted  of  Ex.  xx.  2-14,  and  xxi.-xxiii, — that  it  contained  the  Ti^i'in  in  minia- 
 ture, the  further  enlargement  of  which  was  the  purpose  of  the  subsequent  legislation. 
 The  Book  of  the  Covenant  could  contain  onli/  the  law.  This  appears  (i.)  from  ver.  7, 
 "And  he  took  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  and  read  in  the  audience  of  the  people,"  (let 
 it  be  observed,  it  is  not  said — he  read  out  of  it),  "  and  they  said,  All  that  the  Lord  hath 
 said  will  we  do,  and  be  obedient."  According  to  this  accouut,  the  Book  of  the  Cove- 
 nant contained  only  the  words  of  .Jehovah,  only  that  which  was  the  object  of  obedience. 
 Exactly  as  here,  after  the  reading  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  they  express  themselves 
 in  ver.  3,  after  the  oral  delivery  of"  all  the  words  of  the  Lord  and  all  tlie  judgments  : 
 all  the  people  answered  with  one  voice  and  said.  All  the  words  whicli  the  Lord  hath 
 said,  we  will  do."  (ii.)  The  same  appears  from  ver.  8,  where  the  covenant  is  repre- 
 sented as  ratified  "  concerning  all  these  words,"  which  are  contained  in  the  Book  of  the 
 Covenant.  Accordingly,  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  could  contain  nothing  more  than 
 what  was  to  be  performed  by  Israel,  in  case  the  covenant  stood.  (Ex.  xxxiv.  37,"  And 
 the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Write  thou  these  words :  for  after  the  tenor  of  these  words 
 I  have  made  a  covenant  with  thee  and  with  Israel."  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  is,  ac- 
 cording to  the  explanation  contained  in  this  verse,  not  the  book  which  contained  every 
 thing  that  referred  to  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  with  Israel,  but  the  book  which  con- 
 tained the  duties  of  the  covenant  {die  Bundcs-pjiichtcn) ,  These  reasons  are  so  deci- 
 sive, that  it  can  be  scarcely  necessary  to  point  out  how  this  \iew  of  Havernick's  sepa- 
 rates things  that  are  manifestly  connected — what  Moses  orally  delivered  that  he  wrote 
 — and  what  he  wTote,  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  wherein  what  he  delivered  was  solemn- 
 ly and  formally  registered  {protocolUrt),  he  read  ;  how  improbable  it  is  that  Moses,  on 
 that  occasion,  i-ead  to  the  i)eople  the  whole  of  Genesis,  the  history  of  the  depai'ture  fi'om 
 Eg5Tit,  and  the  march  to  Sinai,  &c.  &c. 
 
 t   In  reference  to   srs''*^  Mark  justly  observes  (Comm.  in  Pent.  p.  627.)    haec 
 
 scriptio  indefinite  intelUyenda  tanquam  successive  facta  potitis,  quam  eodem  tempore, 
 coll.  Ex.  xxiv.  4-7;  Num.  xxxiii.  2.  Ut  hoc  tantum  velit  textus,  Mosen  ler/em  suam 
 quoque  scripsisse,  non  deteminato  vno  aJiqiio  tempore,  quo  id  contigerit.  The  expres- 
 sion "And  Moses  wrote,"  &c.  is  tantamount  to,  "  And  Moses  gave  the  law  which  he 
 had  written." 
 
126  STATEMENTS  OP  THE  PENTATEUCH 
 
 law  before  all  Israel  in  their  hearing."  Then  ver.  24-26,  "  And 
 it  came  to  pass,  when  Moses  had  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words 
 of  this  law  in  a  hook,  until  they  were  finished,  that  Moses  com- 
 manded the  Levites  which  hare  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  of  the 
 Lord,  saying,  take  this  book  of  the  law,  and  put  it  in  the  side  of 
 the  Aj'k  of  the  Covenant  of  the  Lord  your  God,  that  it  may  be  there 
 for  a  witness  against  thee." 
 
 The  defenders  of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  regard  this 
 passage  as  an  express  testimony  for  the  composition  of  the  whole 
 by  Moses.  Their  opponents  strain  every  nerve  to  wrest  this  testi- 
 mony fi'om  them.  We  shall  first  examine  Bleek's  objections,  as 
 they  are  the  most  plausible,  and  then  take  notice  of  Vater's. 
 
 Bleek  remarks,  First,  ''In  ver.  24  is  the  first  mention  of  the 
 completion  of  writing  out  the  book  which  Moses,  according  to  ver. 
 9,  had  abeady  delivered  to  the  Priests  and  Levites.  This  con- 
 fusion suggests  the  notion  rather  of  an  author  removed  at  some 
 distance  from  the  events  than  of  one  v/ho  was  a  principal  actor  in 
 them.  But  such — not  confusion  indeed — but  exceeding  thought- 
 lessness could  be  chargeable  on  no  one,  unless  no  conceivable  ex- 
 pedient could  be  found,  in  order  to  escape  so  gross  a  contradiction. 
 We  must  give  the  person  credit  for  some  soundness  of  understand- 
 ing who  assumed  the  character  of  Moses.  The  opposite  opinion 
 would  be  a  gross  insult  on  those  who  still  continue  to  hold  him 
 for  Moses,  after  every  expedient  has  been  called  up  to  unmask 
 him."  The  simple  solution  is  the  following.  A^er.  9-11  and  v. 
 24-26  treat  of  a  different  delivery.  According  to  ver.  9,  the 
 book  of  the  law  was  given  to  the  priests  and  the  elders  of  the 
 people — though  in  a  public  and  solemn  assembly  of  all  the  people. 
 For  it  is  said  in  ver.  1,  "And  Moses  went  and  spake  these  words 
 unto  all  Israel ;"  in  ver.  7,  ''  And  Moses  called  unto  him  Joshua, 
 and  said  unto  him  in  the  sight  of  all  Israel ;"  and  as  no  change 
 of  place  or  of  auditory  is  intimated,  and  the  presence  of  the  elders 
 is  expressly  mentioned,  the  transaction  narrated  in  ver.  9-13 
 must  have  taken  place  in  the  sight  of  all  Israel.  *  This  first  de- 
 livervhad  a  symbolic  character.  It  indicated  that  the  ecclesiastical 
 and  civil  polity  were  to  be  regulated  according  to  the  prescriptions 
 
 *  Cb.  xxix.  1,  2,    "  And  Moses  called  unto  all  Israel,  and  said  unto  them." — xxxi.  13 
 form  one  great  transaction. 
 
RESPECTING  ITS  AUTHOR.  127 
 
 of  the  book  of  the  law ;  it  marked  that  book  as  the  foundation  of 
 the  whole  ecclesiastical  and  civil  commonwealth,  as  the  precious 
 bequest  of  the  Lawgiver  which  was  to  form  a  compensation  for  the 
 cessation  of  his  personal  agency.  After  this  dehvery,  which  had 
 merely  a  representative  character,  Moses  took  back  the  volume 
 and  wrote  what  still  remained  to  be  written.  *  Compare  the  words 
 in  V.  24,  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Moses  had  made  an  end  of 
 writing  the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book  until  they  were  finished," 
 with  the  brief  expression  in  ver.  9,  "  And  Moses  wrote  this  law." 
 Then  follows  the  second  delivery,  which  is  plainly  distinguished 
 from  the  first  by  the  circumstance  that  the  elders  of  the  people 
 were  not  present,  much  less  the  whole  people:  compare  ver.  28. 
 This  deliveiy  plainly  shows  its  object;  the  book  of  the  law  never 
 came  again  into  the  hands  of  Moses,  who  now,  as  the  author  ex- 
 pressly states,  had  written  all  that  he  designed  to  write.  With 
 tills  second  delivery  the  command  is  given,  "  Take  this  book  of 
 the  law,  and  put  it  in  the  side  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,"  whereas 
 on  the  first  occasion  it  is  merely  said,  "  And  he  gave  it."  f  The 
 author,  whoever  he  might  be,  certainly  supposed  that  things  took 
 this  course,  and  how  could  any  one  with  reason  object  to  what 
 was  so  natural  ? 
 
 Secondly,  The  book  of  which  the  writing,  completion,  and  de- 
 livering for  preservation  is  here  spoken  of,  could  not  itself  contain 
 the  account  of  its  delivery,  or  if  it  did,  Moses  must  have  written 
 it  by  anticipation,  a  supposition  to  which  no  sober  enquirer  would 
 accede.  With  equal  reason  the  narrative  of  Moses'  death  might 
 be  attributed  to  himself.  Therefore  the  statements  in  ch.  xxxi. 
 cannot  be  regarded  as  the  testimonies  of  the  work  itself,  and  of 
 the  author  respecting  its  composition,  but  rather  the  testimony  of 
 a  foreign  hand,  we  know  not  whose,  nor  of  what  age  (p.  517.) 
 
 *  Fii-st  of  all,  the  section  cli.  xxix.  I,  (2) — xxxi.  13,  then  xxxi.  14-28. 
 
 +  It  is  indeed  not  accidental  that  in  ver.  9,  the  priests  are  called  the  sons  of  Levi,  and 
 in  ver.  25,  the  Le'sites.  Under  the  latter,  indeed,  the  priests  are  included.  (Mark  on 
 the  passage  ohserves,  His  deinde  quoque  praccipitur  coitvocalio  omnium  scnionnn  et 
 prcefectorum,  absque  ulla  sacerdotum  mentione,  v.  28.J  But  in  that  first  symbolical  act, 
 only  the  priests  were  principally  interested,  whereas  in  the  second  the  whole  Levitical 
 order  was  concerned.  The  book  of  the  law  likewise  was  caiTied  not  by  the  priests,  but 
 by  the  common  Levites  with  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant ;  (the  caiTying  of  it  is  only  so  far 
 attributed  to  the  priests  as  the  Levites  performed  it  in  their  service,  and  under  their 
 inspection.    Num.  iv.  4.) 
 
128  STATEMENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 
 
 The  first  remark  we  have  to  make  is  that,  with  this  view,  the  ad- 
 mission of  a  fraud  is  unavoidably  connected.  For  the  author  of 
 Deuteronomy  must  have  pretended  that  that  was  written  by  Mo- 
 ses which  he  himself  had  written.  A  mistake  here  is  inconceiv- 
 able. The  only  way  of  escaping  the  admission  of  a  fraud,  would 
 be  the  hypothesis,  that  another  author  commenced  with  ch.  xxxi.  9, 
 &c.,  who  hondjide  assumedthat  the  preceding  part  was  by  Moses. 
 But  with  the  earnest  endeavour  with  which  the  deceiver  would 
 interpolate  his  workmanship  with  that  of  Moses  (surely  Deutero- 
 nomy does  not  give  us  the  impression  of  any  such  thing!)  the 
 carelessness  ill  agrees  with  which  he  joins  to  the  supposed  Mo- 
 saic work  what  must  be  regarded  as  his  own  performance,  or  at 
 least  as  the  addition  of  a  foreign  hand  ;  (for  no  one  will  maintain 
 that  he  designed  to  pass  off  the  conclusion  of  the  account  of  Mo- 
 ses' death,  &c.,  as  written  by  Moses).  A  deceiver  would  certainly, 
 smitten  by  his  own  evil  conscience,  mark  the  passages  as  strongly 
 as  possible,  wdiere  the  Mosaic  and  non-Mosaic  separate.  But  the 
 whole  objection  vanishes  on  closer  examination.  The  argument 
 against  the  Mosaic  composition  of  ver.  9-13,  has  been  already 
 set  aside  by  the  foregoing  remarks.  Here  was  no  anticipation, 
 but  merely  what  had  already  happened  is  reported.  With  ver. 
 24  begins  the  addition  of  a  foreign  hand.  That  Moses'  labour 
 now  ceases,  and  his  own  begins,  the  continuator  points  out 
 as  plainly  as  was  necessary  (supposing  he  had  a  good  con- 
 science, and  hence  guileless  himself,  would  not  reckon  on  a  sus- 
 picious reader),  by  the  phrase,  ""'  when  Moses  had  made  an  end," 
 and  ''  until  they  were  finished,"  ^^^n  ny,  xhis  imphes,  (i.)  That 
 Moses  wrote  all  that  preceded  as  far  as  this  verse  ;  and  (ii.)  That 
 he  wrote  nothing  more,  which  indeed  is  self-evident,  since  the 
 book  of  the  law  had  passed  out  of  his  hands.  Thus  the  words  in 
 ver.  25  form  the  close  of  Moses'  autograph — *'  And  he  gave  Joshua 
 the  son  of  Nun  a  charge,  and  said,  be  strong,  and  of  a  good 
 courage,  for  thou  shalt  bring  the  children  of  Israel  into  the  land 
 which  I  sv;are  unto  them ;  and  I  will  be  with  thee."  No  one 
 can  deny  that  this  conclusion  is  highly  suitable  and  becoming.  It 
 is  also  evident  that  the  Book  of  Joshua,  ch.  i.  6,  begins  with  the 
 same  hortatory  promise  of  God,  ''  Be  strong  and  of  a  good 
 courage,"  with  which  this  closes.  The  song  in  ch.  xxxii.  was 
 indeed  written  down  by  Moses  (compare  ch.  xxxi.  22)  ;  probably 
 
RESPECTING  ITS  AUTHOR.  129 
 
 also  the  blessing  on  the  tribes,  but  neither  of  them  could  be  in- 
 serted in  the  Torah  till  they  had  been  dehvered  to  the  people. 
 The  continuator  in  the  first  place  gave  an  account  of  the  comple- 
 tion and  delivery  of  the  book  of  the  law ;  then  the  introduction 
 to  the  song  and  the  blessing ;  and  lastly,  the  narrative  of  the 
 death  of  Moses.  He  is  plainly  distinguished  from  the  author 
 himself  by  the  expression  ^'T '??.r' ''>^^?  in  ch.  xxxiii.  i.,  which  never 
 occurs  in  the  part  written  by  Moses ;  by  '"i"!"*'??  in  ch.  xxxiv.  5 ; 
 and  above  all,  by  the  words  in  ver.  10,  "  And  there  arose  not  a 
 prophet  since  in  Israel  like  unto  Moses."  Such  a  reference,  by 
 way  of  comparison  to  later  times,  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the 
 whole  Pentateuch.  Thus  we  have  a  twofold  testimony  for  the 
 composition  of  the  Pentateuch  by  Moses,  that  of  the  author,  and 
 that  of  the  continuator. 
 
 Let  us  now  turn  to  the  objections  of  Vater,  while  we  pass  over 
 in  silence  assertions  like  that  in  p.  5G2  (that  ch.  xxxi.  19  might 
 be  brought,  not  without  plausibility,  against  the  common  repre- 
 sentation, as  a  proof  that  nothing  could  be  said  here  of  a  larger 
 collection  of  laws,  since  the  law  was  to  be  learnt  by  heart),  since 
 it  rests  on  a  palpable  misunderstanding  :  the  verse  refers  not  to 
 the  body  of  the  law,  but  to  the  Song. 
 
 I.  The  thirty-first  chapter  falls  into  a  number  of  separate  frag- 
 ments, following  each  other  in  succession,  ver.  1-8,  ver.  9-13, 
 ver.  14-23,  and  ver.  24-30.  Under  these  circumstances,  since 
 the  fragmentary  quality  of  the  Pentateuch  has  extended  even  to 
 this  chapter,  what  could  not  have  been  written  down  by  the  same 
 author  tmd  serie,  cannot  be  considered  as  a  testimony  to  the  Mo- 
 saic composition  of  the  whole  Pentateuch  (p.  402).  But  the  sec- 
 tion, ch.  xxxi.  1-23,  as  it  closely  connects  itself  with  what  goes 
 before — (in  reference  to  the  expression,  "  And  Moses  went  and 
 spake  these  words,"  Mark  justly  observes,  "  ivit"  hie  non  elicit 
 localem  motum  aliqiiem,  sed  mentis  linguaeque  progressum  ul- 
 teriorem  in  loquela,  ut  idem  sit  cum  adv.  ])orro,  ultra,  amjilius) 
 — so  it  forms  in  itself  an  orderly,  regular  narrative,  of  which  Mark 
 thus  traces  the  progress — Quae  post  liunc  foederalem  sermonem 
 Moses  sequitur  narratio  cxxxi.  est  spectans  I.  ad  Moseii,  qui 
 agit  hie  (i.)  cumpopulo,  ver.  1-6  (ii.)  cum  JosuayVQX.  7,  8  (iii.) 
 cum  poimli  praefectis  sacris  et  civilihus,  ver.  9-13.  II.  ad  Je- 
 hovam  qui  {i.)Mosen  cum  Jpsua  ad  se  vocat,  ver.  14  (ii.)  Usque 
 
 VOL.  II.  t 
 
130  STATEMENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 
 
 si  ma?ii/estat,  turn  ad  visum,  ver.  15,  turn  ad  auditum,  ver. 
 16-23. 
 
 II.  By  the  book  of  the  law  can  only  be  understood  Deutero- 
 nomy, for  the  other  books  were  by  diiferent  authors.  But  Deu- 
 teronomy again  is  divided  into  many  parts,  so  that  only  one  single 
 part  of  Deuteronomy  can  be  alluded  to  (p.  563).  Vater  in  this 
 statement  has  taken  a  step  in  the  right  direction,  since  he  acknow- 
 ledges that  by  the  book  of  the  law  a  larger  collection  is  to  be  un- 
 derstood ;  while  liis  predecessor  Nachtigal  (compare,  on  the 
 other  hand,  Eckermann  Beitr.  v.  44)  went  so  far  as  to  maintain 
 that  by  the  book  of  the  law  we  are  to  understand  the  Decalogue  ! 
 Bleek  goes  still  further  in  liis  concessions.  He  remarks  (p.  515) 
 that  by  the  book  of  the  law  could  be  intended  only  a  larger  writ- 
 ing, which  contained  the  Divine  laws  with  the  Divine  threatenings, 
 and,  consequently,  the  wdiole  preceding  portion  of  Deuteronomy. 
 This  much  is  certain,  if  no  positive  reasons  can  be  assigned  for 
 the  contrary,  then  by  the  book  of  the  law  we  must  understand  the 
 whole  of  the  Pentateuch.  For  as  far  as  w^e  can  trace  back  the 
 history,  we  find  the  five  books  as  a  whole,  of  which  the  distinct 
 portions  possess  a  perfectly  equal  dignity.  Not  the  least  trace 
 appears  that  Deuteronomy  alone,  or  any  single  portion  of  it,  was 
 esteemed  as  the  sacred  book  of  the  nation.  Nor  are  there  now 
 any  reasons  for  such  an  opinion.  For  the  evidence  from  the  pre- 
 tended fragmentary  character  changes  on  closer  examination  into 
 the  opposite.  Besides,  if  it  were  possible  that  by  the  book  of  the 
 law  merely  Deuteronomy,  or  some  single  portion  of  it,  were  in- 
 tended, yet  it  would  be  inadmissible  on  this  account — that  all  the 
 parts  are  most  intimately  connected  with  one  another ;  Deuterono- 
 my presupposes  the  existence  of  the  remaining  books  ;  the  book 
 of  the  law  in  ver.  9  must  be  identical  with  the  book  of  the  law  in 
 ver.  24  ;  the  depositing  of  the  book  of  the  law  in  the  side  of  the 
 Ark  of  the  Covenant,  mentioned  in  the  latter  passage,  cannot  pos- 
 sibly refer  to  any  single  part  of  the  records  of  Divine  revelation, 
 to  the  exclusion  of  the  rest  that  were  then  extant. 
 
 It  has  been  urged,  moreover,  that  the  extent  of  the  Pentateuch 
 was  far  too  great  to  allow  of  its  being  read  through  dming  the 
 feast  of  Tabernacles.  Hence  in  ver.  9  only  Deuteronomy  can 
 be  intended,  and  hkewise  in  ver.  24,  since  it  is  inadmissible  to 
 understand  the  book  of  the  law  in  a  different  sense  in  the  two  pas- 
 
RESPECTING  ITS  AUTHOR.  131 
 
 sages.  But  this  difficulty  is  obviated  in  a  far  more  easy  manner 
 by  supposing  that,  while  by  the  book  of  the  law  that  was  to  be 
 read  to  the  people,  the  whole  Pentateuch  is  to  be  understood,  it 
 was  left  to  the  discretion  of  their  spiritual  overseers  to  fix  on  those 
 sections  which  w^ere  proper  to  be  read  as  the  main  substance  of 
 the  whole  legislation, — the  book  of  the  law  in  miniature  ;  from 
 which  it  follows  of  course,  that  most  of  the  sections  would  be  se- 
 lected from  Deuteronomy.  In  this  quintessence  of  the  Law,  the 
 whole  would,  in  a  sense,  be  communicated  to  the  people  ;  compare 
 Matt.  xxii.  40,  iv  ravrac<;  ral'^  Svalv  ivTo\a2<;  0X09  0  vofio'^  Kao 
 ol  irpocfiriTai  Kpe/juavrac.  The  Mishnah  furnishes  us  with  an  epi- 
 tome of  the  kind,  (Sota  7,  8,  compare  Hottinger  de  8olenni 
 legis  praelectione,  on  Deut.  xxxi.  10,  Marb.  1717,  p.  7.)  But 
 no  one  among  the  Jews  has  ever  thought  of  hmiting  the  book  of 
 the  law  to  Deuteronomy.  According  to  the  Books  of  Ezra  and 
 Nehemiah,  the  law  was  read  at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  and  that 
 by  this  term  they  understood  the  whole  law,  and  not  Deuterono  • 
 my  alone,  is  as  clear  as  day.  Loci  Nehem.  inspectio  non  otiosa, 
 remarks  Gousset  {Lex.  p.  347)  manifestat  eum  loqiii  de  toto 
 Mosis  volumine.  Nam.  c.  viii.  1,  2,  iwoponit  absolute  librum 
 legis,  legem.  In  Esdra  qnoque  vii.  6  n^^'n  est  tola  lex  Mosis. 
 Item  Esr.  iii.  2.  Nam  holocausti  statuta  stmt  in  Lev.  i.  nan 
 in  Deut.  Josephus  Antiq.  iv.  c.  8,  §  1 2,  represents  Moses  as 
 saying — avvekOovTO^  Se  rod  irX'qOov';  eh  rrjv  lepav  itoXlv  iirl 
 rah  6valaL<;  hCer(bv  eirra,  rrj<;  (rK7]V07rr)<yla<;  eoprrj^;  ivarda7]<^, 
 6  ap')(^L6pev<;,  iiTi  PrjiJbaro<i  v-^rfKov  araOeh,  icj)  ov  ^kvoiro  i^uKOV- 
 O-T09,  avajLvcoo-Kerco  rov<^  vofiov^  iraai. 
 
 The  injunction  that  the  book  of  the  law  should  be  read  to  the 
 people  every  seven  years,  is  naturally  very  irksome  to  our  oppo- 
 nents. Vater  especially  sets  himself  to  combat  it.  He  remarks, 
 Jirst,  that  it  is  not  said  expressly  whether  it  was  to  be  only  once 
 in  the  next  seventh  year,  or  every  seven  years.  Yet  it  is  strange 
 that  the  people  were  never  in  doubt  on  this  point.  And  if  we 
 examine  the  matter  more  closely,  the  following  words  at  once 
 strike  our  eye,  in  ver  13,  "  and  that  their  children  which  have 
 not  known  any  thing  may  hear  and  learn  to  fear  the  Lord  your 
 God  as  long  as  ye  hve  in  the  land,  whither  ye  go  over  Jordan  to 
 possess  it."  But  the  refutation  of  Vater's  objection  hes  in  the 
 phrase  ^'^^i  ^"^'^  17^.     Tliis  cannot  mean,  when  seven  years  from 
 
 I  2 
 
Id2  STATEMENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 
 
 the  present  time  have  elapsed,  but  only,  from  seven  years  to 
 seven.  Moreover,  the  terminus  a  quo  must  be  expressly  and  dis- 
 tinctly marked.  Wherever  "(T^  stands  as  it  does  here,  it  relates 
 to  a  transaction  or  act,  regularly  repeated.  Thus,  for  instance,  in 
 Deut.  XV.  1,  which  is  of  greater  weight  since  the  author  refers 
 precisely  to  this  passage ;  "  ^^V:?  ^'5't?  "<'•!?  thou  shalt  make  a  release 
 '^^f .  Ch.  xiv.  28,  '=''V"^  *^^t  ™F^  a  fine  trium  annorum  =  tertio 
 quoqiie  anno  ;  compare  "  year  hy  year"  ^ti'^t  in  ver.  22.  Jerem. 
 xxxiv.  14,  &c.  Only  in  historical  composition,  where  the  termi- 
 nus  a  quo  is  fixed  of  itself,  "^^to  is  used  respecting  an  act  perform- 
 ed once  ;  compare  Gen.  viii.  6,  ''  At  the  end  of  forty  days,  Noah 
 opened  the  windows  of  the  ark  ;"  xli.  1,  "At  the  end  of  two  full 
 years  Pharaoh  dreamed." 
 
 Secondly,  (Vater  remarks,)  such  a  reading  is  never  men- 
 tioned, except  in  Nehem.  viii.  18,  at  a  great  celebration  of  the 
 feast  of  Tabernacles,  respecting  which  it  is  expressly  said,  in  ver. 
 J  7,  that,  "  since  the  days  of  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun,  unto  that 
 day,  had  not  the  children  of  Israel  done  so."  This,  therefore, 
 probably  first  of  all  relates  to  the  reading  of  the  law.  But  the 
 argumentum  a  silentio  will  here  amount  to  nothing,  and  the 
 positive  evidence  has  a  very  sorry  appearance.  It  is  said  in  Neh. 
 viii.  17,  18,  "And  all  the  congregation  ^174^^"'?  of  them  that  were 
 come  again  out  of  the  captivity  made  booths,  and  sat  under 
 the  booths ;  for  since  the  days  of  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  unto 
 that  day,  had  not  the  cliildren  of  Israel  done  so,  "?,  and  there  was 
 very  great  gladness.  Also,  day  by  day,  from  the  first  day  unto 
 the  last  day,  he  read  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  God ;  and  they 
 kept  the  feast  seven  days,  and  on  the  eighth  day  was  a  solemn 
 assembly,  according  to  the  manner."  The  1!?,  so,  cannot  be 
 referred  to  the  reading  the  book  of  the  law,  since  this  cannot 
 be  considered  as  a  peculiarity  of  the  erection  of  booths ;  it  is  this 
 special  occasion,  not  the  celebration  of  the  feast  in  general, 
 that  is  spoken  of.  The  emphasis  rests  upon  "  all  the  congrega- 
 tion." From  the  time  of  Joshua  to  the  captivity,  the  people  were 
 torn  by  divisions  ;  a  large  part  cleaved  to  idols,  and  did  not  cele- 
 brate the  feasts  of  the  Lord.  Jeroboam's  policy  had  altered  the 
 time  of  celebrating  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  in  order  to  disturb 
 the  unity  of  the  religious  spirit.  But  now  the  people  were  once 
 more,  as  in  the  time  of  Joshua,  of  one  heart  and  one  soul.     In 
 
RESPECTING  ITS  AUTHOR.  133 
 
 Ezra  iii.  1-4,  it  is  said,  "  the  people  gathered  themselves  to- 
 gether as  one  man  to  Jerusalein,  .  .  .  they  kept  also  the  feast 
 of  Tabernacles,  as  it  is  written."  }3iit  this  first  feast  of  Taber- 
 nacles was  not  suited  for  the  avTiaTotxov  (the  counterpart)  of  that 
 in  J  oshua's  time .  For  the  number  of  the  returned  was  yet  too  small ; 
 the  condition  of  the  people  altogether  formed  a  kind  of  interim.  In 
 refrrence  to  the  parallel  passage,  2  Kings  xxiii.  21,  (where  it  is  said 
 of  the  times  of  Josiah,  "  Surely  there  was  not  holden  such  a  pass- 
 over  fi'om  the  days  of  the  Judges  that  judged  Israel,  nor  in  all 
 the  days  of  the  kings  of  Israel,  nor  of  the  kings  of  Judah  ") 
 Movers,  {Zc4tschr.  f.  Philos.  u.  Kath.  TheoL,  Heft  xiv.  p. 
 1)7.)  has  shown  that  the  difference  of  the  festival  under  Josiah 
 from  that  under  the  kings,  consisted  in  the  unanimity  with  which, 
 at  that  time,  after  the  downfall  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  the 
 whole  people  shared  in  its  celebration. 
 
 Thus  we  have  removed  every  thing  out  of  the  way  by  which  it 
 has  been  attempted  to  deprive  the  very  important  explanation  in 
 ch.  xxxi.  of  its  force.  It  is  settled  that  the  autlior  of  the  work, 
 (strictly  so  called)  makes  himself  known  at  the  end  expressly  as 
 Moses,  and  that  the  author  of  the  Appendix  testifies  to  the  Mosaic 
 authorship  of  the  whole.  In  addition  to  the  reasons  already 
 adduced,  it  would  be  improper  to  confine  these  expressions  to 
 Deuteronomy  on  account  of  Exod.  xvii.  14.  According  to  this 
 passage,  something  that  is  not  found  in  Deuteronomy  but  in 
 Exodus,  was  inserted  in  that  Book  of  the  Covenant,  which,  we 
 are  informed  at  the  end  of  Deuteronomy,  was  delivered  to  the 
 elders  of  the  people,  and  put  in  the  side  of  the  Ark  of  the  Cove- 
 nant. 
 
 We  now  turn  to  the  remaining  expressions  in  Deuteronomy  re- 
 specting the  author  of  the  work.  It  is  said  in  Deut.  xvii.  18,  19, 
 "  And  it  shaU  be  when  he  (the  king)  sitteth  on  the  throne  of  liis 
 kingdom,  that  he  shall  write  him  a  copy  of  the  law  in  a  book,  out 
 of  that  which  is  before  the  priests,  the  Levites.  And  it  shall  be 
 with  him,  and  he  shall  read  therein  all  the  days  of  his  life,  that 
 he  may  learn  to  fear  the  Lord  his  God,"  &c.  It  is  here  implied 
 that  the  speaker,  Moses,  would  not  confine  himself  to  an  oral 
 communication,  but  would  deliver  a  written  codex  to  the  priests. 
 The  passage  points  forward  to  ch.  xxxi.,  which  states  that  Moses 
 gave  the  book  of  the  law  to  the  priests.     From  comparing  the 
 
134  STATEMENTS  OF  THE  PEiNTATEUCH 
 
 two  passages  together,  we  must  determine  what  is  to  be  under- 
 stood by  "  this  law."  That  it  must  not  be  limited  merely  to 
 Deuteronomy,  will  appear  from  the  foUomng  circumstances. 
 *'  This  laiv"  is  the  law  which  had  been  spoken  of  in  the  pre- 
 ceding context,  the  knowledge  of  w^hich,  according  to  yer.  8-13, 
 was  to  be  obtained  fi'om  the  priests.  But  ver.  8  points  to  Exod. 
 xxi.  18.  Bleek  (p.  513)  concedes  that  evidently  not  the  special 
 laws  relating  to  kings  are  meant,  but  a  whole  code  of  legal  pre- 
 scriptions— a  large  book  of  the  law ;  and  that,  according  to  the 
 connection  in  the  address  spoken  by  Moses,  it  is  without  doubt 
 intended  that  this  whole  book  of  the  law,  together  with  the  laws 
 relating  to  the  kings,  proceeded  from  Moses  liimself.  But  he 
 then  raises  the  difficulty,  that  the  existence  of  the  book  of  the 
 law,  the  original  of  which  the  priests  would  have  in  their  keep- 
 ing, is  presupposed.  Moses  could  not  have  spoken  thus,  at  a 
 time  when  the  book  of  the  law  was  not  yet  finished  and  com- 
 mitted to  the  priests.  By  this  blunder  the  author,  who  per- 
 sonates Moses,  betrays  himself  to  be  some  one  else.  But  this 
 difficulty  {and  similar  ones  iti  abundance  may  he  raised  against 
 every  historical  testimony,  ivhen  once  a  person  exchanges  the 
 position  of  an  impartial  judge  for  that  of  an  advocate)  vanishes 
 with  the  remark,  that  the  committal  of  the  law  to  writing,  and 
 the  delivery  to  the  priests,  occasioned  no  surprise  to  the  people. 
 If,  wdien  Moses  was  first  installed  in  his  office,  he  evidently  j)er- 
 ceived  that  one  of  its  principal  duties  was  to  compile  a  codex 
 of  the  Divine  revelations  (Exod.  xvii.  14),  would  he  not  make 
 the  people  acquainted  with  this  part  of  his  vocation,  and  thus 
 prepare  them  for  the  reception  of  the  book  of  the  law  ?  and 
 that,  at  the  time  when  he  addressed  the  contents  of  Deut.  xvii. 
 to  the  people,  that  it  was  almost  completed,  in  order  to  be 
 handed  over  to  the  custody  of  Levitical  priests,  is  self-evident 
 from  the  whole  position  which  the  priestly  order  assumed ;  and 
 is  almost  expressly  said  in  the  passage  immediately  preceding. 
 For,  if  the  knowledge  of  the  law  was  to  be  sought  from  the 
 priests,  must  they  not  also  be  the  chief  depositories  of  the  book 
 of  the  law,  the  only  authentic  source  of  the  law  ?  Thus  every 
 one,  when  he  heard  of  the  law  that  the  king  was  to  receive  from 
 the  priests,  w^ould  think  of  the  law  that  was  on  the  poiut  of  being 
 closed,  and  delivered  to  the  Levitical  priests. 
 
KESPECTTNG  ITS  AUTHOR.  186 
 
 There  are  still  the  followmg  passages  to  he  noticed ;  Dent, 
 xxviii.  58,  "  If  thou  wilt  not  ohserve  to  do  all  the  words  of  this 
 law  that  are  written  in  this  hook  ;"  ver.  Gl/'  Every  sickness  and 
 every  plague  which  is  not  written  in  the  hook  of  this  law ;"  ch. 
 xxix.  19  (20),  "  All  the  curses  that  are  written  in  this  hook  shall 
 lie  upon  him  ;"  ver.  20  (21),  "  All  the  curses  of  the  covenant  that 
 are  written  in  this  hook  of  the  law ;"  ver.  2G  (27),  "  All  the  curses 
 that  are  written  in  this  book."  In  reference  to  these  passages, 
 Bleek  remarks  (p.  514),  that  certainly  Moses  is  not  expressly 
 named  in  them  as  tlie  author  of  the  hook  of  the  law  with  the 
 curses  ;  hut  it  is  self-evident,  that  he  is  supposed  to  be  such,  since, 
 where  he  liimself  appears  as  the  speaker,  a  book  cannot  be  sup- 
 posed which  was  the  production  of  a  later  author.  But  here  he 
 attempts  what  he  gives  with  one  hand  to  take  away  with  the 
 other.  All  these  passages  give  an  impression,  he  thinks,  as  if 
 Moses  had  the  book  he  mentions  already  before  him,  or  in  liis 
 hand,  and  thus  pointed  it  out  to  the  people.  But  these  discourses 
 could  not  then  be  found  in  the  work  here  described  as  the  book 
 of  the  law.  This  difficulty  has  already  been  noticed  by  the  ear- 
 lier critics.  Mark  observes,  by  way  of  obviating  the  objection, 
 on  ch.  xxix.  19,  quo  pacto  Moses  turn  loqui  jjotuit  oh  scrip- 
 tionem  partim  peractam,  partim  proxime  peragendam  et  com- 
 munem  cognitionem  ac  aestimationem  lihri  illius.  J.  D.  Mi- 
 CHAELis  {Einleitung,  p.  253)  assumes  that  Moses  had  previously 
 written  down  the  discourses  in  ch.  xxviii.  and  xxix.,  and  then  de- 
 livered them,  to  which  an  analogy  may  be  found  in  Exod.  xxiv. 
 4.*  If  these  two  assumptions  (and  no  one  will  assert  of  the  lat- 
 ter that  it  is  altogether  inadmissible)  are  somewhat  doubtful,  yet 
 certainly  no  one  can  object  against  the  third,  that  Moses,  as  w^as 
 certaiuly  done  in  many  other  cases,  in  writing  down  his  discourses, 
 
 *  Havebnick  (p.  IGO)  maintains  that  Deut.  i.  5  contains  an  express  testimony,  that 
 the  Lawgiver  appeared  before  the  assembled  people  with  Deuteronomy  already  written 
 in  his  hand.  He  translates  mstn  rr^inrj-ns  ""Si  n'itt  V'^s'",  "  Moses  began  to  write 
 down  the  following  law."  But  it  has  already  been  shown,  that  "^sn  (vol.  i.  p.  448^  al- 
 ways means  to  make  plain,  and  that  the  meaning  to  urite,  which  is  rejected  by  the  con- 
 text, has  no  foundation.  It  is  not  the  fault  of  modern  lexicogi'aphers  that  they  have 
 not  obtruded  the  ai'bitrarily  affixed  meaning  to  write  on  this  passage,  but  that  they  have 
 rejected  the  meaning  cxplanare  in  ch.  xxvii.  8,  and  Hab.  viii.  2.  In  the  older  lexicogra- 
 phers, the  meaning  is  given  witli  perfect  correctness.  Castell,  for  instance,  has  "-sa* 
 dedaravit,  dclucidavit,  exjrressit,  verbis  aut  characteribus,  Deut,  i.  5  ;  xxvii.  8;  Hab. 
 ii.  a. 
 
136  STATEMENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 
 
 somewhat  modified  the  expressions.  For  us,  the  discourses  exist 
 as  wiitteu  by  Moses,  for  no  one  would  stretch  the  statement  that 
 Moses  uttered  them  to  each  syllable  ;  and  only  what  disproves 
 their  written  composition  by  Moses  can  be  rendered  available  to 
 cast  suspicion  on  their  testimony  relative  to  the  authorship  of  the 
 book  of  the  law. 
 
 It  is  therefore  settled,  that  Moses  must  be  regarded  as  the  au- 
 thor of  the  Pentateuch.  Such  self- testimony  of  the  author  must 
 always  be  treated  with  respect  until  its  untruth  is  shown  on  de- 
 cisive grounds,  and  he  can  be  convicted  as  a  deceiver.  But  here 
 the  importance  of  the  testimony  is  increased  by  the  way  and  man- 
 ner in  which  it  is  given.  On  this  point  J.  D.  Michaelis  perti- 
 nently remarks,  ''  If  he  had  written  at  the  end  something  of  this 
 sort,  And  I  Moses,  icho  led  the  children  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt, 
 have  ivritten  this  hook  with  my  own  hand — it  would  have  been 
 tlie  subscription  of  a  deceiver.  He  says  it  exactly  as  it  would 
 flow  from  the  pen  of  a  writer  who  gave  himself  no  concern  about 
 the  authorship."  Certainly  a  supposititious  waiting  would  bear  no 
 such  marks  of  the  absence  of  all  design. 
 
 Hartmann  {^.  588)  honourably  allows  the  author  of  the  four 
 last  books  intended  to  be  considered  as  Moses;  by  this  admission, 
 it  is  acknowledged  that  a  mutual  connection  exists  between  all  the 
 books.  He  also  recognises  with  us  that  there  is  no  third  supposition 
 between  the  composition  by  Moses  and  a  deceitful  forgery.  For  the 
 latter  he  there  adduces  certain  facts,  intended  to  prove,  that  the 
 part  of  Moses  was  merely  assumed,  which  the  author  knew  not 
 how  to  carry  through.  On  closer  consideration,  the  only  circum- 
 stance in  favour  of  this  opinion  is,  that  the  author  who  wished  to 
 pass  for  Moses  speaks  of  the  Israelitish  lawgiver  in  the  thnd  per- 
 son. For  what  Hartmann  adduces  in  proof  (p.  546),  "  that  the 
 narrator  attributes  a  tone  to  Moses  which  strikes  on  our  ear  as 
 that  of  a  totally  different,  distant  person,"  is  only  a  simple  con- 
 sequence of  it.  But  the  argument  taken  from  the  use  of  the  third 
 person  belongs  only  to  the  infancy  of  the  attacks  on  the  genuine- 
 ness,* and  we  cannot  help  being  sm*prised  to  see  it,  after  it  had 
 
 *  Le  Clerc  ((/(,'  sc.  Pent,  iii.)  has  remarked,  Verum  dud  inn  confulati  sunt, 
 exemjploXt'nojjhoniis,  Caesaris,  Josephl  (?) aHorumquepracstantissimorum  historiconim, 
 qnty  ipsi  de  sc  loquentes,  tertia  pers  na  perpetuo  utuntur. 
 
RESPECTING  ITS  AUTHOR.  137 
 
 long  ago  been  consigned  to  oblivion,  brouglit  forward  again  with 
 such  confidence. 
 
 Those  who,  first  of  all,  started  this  objection,  were  immediately 
 met  by  some  well  known  analogies  from  classical  antiquity. 
 C^SAR  and  Xenophon  (in  his  Anahasis)  speak  of  themselves 
 tlu'oughout  in  the  third  person.  Against  the  applicability  of  the 
 latter  analogy,  it  will  not  avail  to  urge  that  Xenophon,  in  liis 
 Hist.  Graec.m.  1,  2,  attributes  the  Anahasis  toTHEMiSTOGENES 
 the  Syracusan,  and  therefore  he  made  use  of  the  third  person  not 
 as  Xenophon,  but  only  in  the  seiTice  of  a  literary  imposture; 
 for  Xenophon  could  not  have  made  such  an  allegation  in  real 
 earnest.  The  absolute  unanimity  of  antiquity  in  reference  to  his 
 authorship  can  only  be  explained  on  the  ground,  that  he  himself 
 made  no  concealment  of  it ;  so  that  the  allegation  in  reference  to 
 Themistogenes  is  only  a  disguised  declaration,  that  he  studied 
 objectivity  to  the  utmost,  and  thus  proceeds  from  the  same  mo- 
 tive as  the  use  of  the  third  person.  How  a  certain  strangeness  of 
 tone  is  inseparable  from  the  use  of  the  third  person  is  shown  very 
 plainly  by  such  passages  as  Anah.  iii.  i.  §  4,  rjv  Be  rt?  iv  rfj 
 (TTparia  Uevocpcov  A67]valo^,  o?  ovre  aTpaT7]jo<;  k.t.X.,  which  is 
 the  more  remarkable,  since  Xenophon 's  name  had  occurred  be- 
 fore, i.  8,  §  15 ;  ii.  4,  §  15,  which  he  could  not  have  forgotten. 
 How  would  the  discovery  of  such  a  circumstance,  in  one  of  the 
 sacred  books,  be  hailed  by  the  opponents  of  their  genuineness ! 
 But  here  the  critics  take  good  care  not  to  be  misled.  Kruger, 
 for  instance,  (De  Xen.  vita  quaestiones,  p.  15),  remarks  briefly, 
 but  to  the  purpose.  Hie  de  se  tanquam  homine  ctianmum 
 ignoto  loqui  poiuit,  eum  quae  II.  II.  relata  sunt,  fere  plane 
 ignotuni  earn  relinuerint.  This  shows  very  plainly  that  it 
 w^ould  be  well  for  theologians  to  mark  attentively  the  labours  of 
 their  critical  brethren  in  the  department  of  profane  hterature, 
 in  order  that,  wdiere  their  peculiar  prejudices  do  not  come  into 
 play,  they  might  acquire  a  calmer  mood,  and  learn  to  practise 
 a  httle  modesty  and  sobriety.  For  must  it  not  put  those  persons 
 to  the  blush  who  so  confidently  urge  the  use  of  the  third  person 
 in  the  Pentateuch,  to  be  told  that  in  the  whole  discussion  on 
 the  genuineness  of  the  Anahasis,  this  fact  is  not  so  much  as 
 mentioned ;  that  so  httle  weight  is  attached  to  it,  that  it  is  thought 
 supci-fluous  to  assert  its  unimportance  ?     And  in  the  same  man 
 
138  STATEMJBNTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 
 
 ner,  that  it  never  entered  into  any  one's  thoughts  to  attempt  prov- 
 ing from  the  Memorabilia  I.  3,  §  8,  &c.,  where  Xenophon  speaks 
 throughout  of  himself  in  the  third  person,  that  he  could  not  he 
 the  author  of  that  work  ?  And  that,  in  the  ahortive  attempts  to 
 impugn  Caesar's  Commentaries,  wrong-headed  as  those  were  who 
 engaged  in  them,  the  use  of  the  third  person  was  never  made  a 
 handle  of?*  From  the  later  Oriental  hterature  we  shall  only 
 adduce  the  instance  of  Barhebraeus,  who  in  his  autobiography 
 (AssEMANi  ^/^/.  Or.  ii.  ^48),  always  speaks  of  himself  in  the 
 
 •  To  justify  tlie  wish  we  have  expressed  above,  we  woulil  here  introduce  some  ad- 
 ditional instances.  Kruger,  de  authentia  et  integ.  Anab.  Xen.  Halle  1824,  in  refer- 
 ence to  one  passage  which  seems  to  betray  a  gross  ignorance  of  the  localities  in 
 which  Xenophon  had  been,  after  having  given  an  explanation  different  from  the  com- 
 mon and  superficial  one,  remarks  (p,  12) — Caeterum  non  ignoro  huic  explicatione  non- 
 nulla  posse  opponi.  Sed  etiamsi  prorsus  ahjicienda  esse  videatur,  inde  tamen  non  se- 
 queretur  Anabaseos  auctorem  nonfiiisse  testem  oculatum.  Ea  enim  rejecta  totus  locus 
 additamenti  nomine  non,  damnari  non  potest.  The  same  critic  obserres,  in  reference 
 to  the  difference  in  phraseology  of  the  Anabasis  from  Xenophon's  other  writings,  (p. 
 17),  Hoc  argumentandi  genus perquam  luhricum  est.  Si  quid  numerus  valeret,  iirgeri 
 posset,  quod  in  his  libris  amplius  quadrigenta  vocabula  leguntur,  quae  in  reliquis  Xen. 
 operihus  frustra  quaerantur.  But  this  is  of  no  importance;  and  equally  so,  that  many 
 words  are  used  in  a  different  meaning.  Omnino  enim  si  quis  propter  vocabula  alibi  ah 
 hoc  scriptore  vel  alia  potestate,  vel  prorsus  non  usurpater  Anab.  ab  eo  profectam 
 esse  neget ;  hoc  ratione  admissa  quodvis  aliud  ejus  ojms  injuria  ei  tribui  ostendi 
 jwtest.  The  appendices  to  Kanke's  History  of  the  Papacy  contain  some  valu- 
 able antidotes  against  the  critical  fool-hardiness  of  theologians.  One  of  the  best 
 is  his  decision  on  the  Relatione  dello  stato  delV  imperio  e  delta  Gemiania  Jalta 
 da  Monsr.  Carajfa  (iii.  417).  The  difficulties  which  this  work  presents  are  very 
 considerable.  "  The  connection  is  excessively  loose.  We  first  meet  with  the  report  on 
 Bohemia  again  with  some  few  omissions  ;  we  then  find  a  very  remarkable  statement 
 concerning  the  election  of  a  king  of  Hungary  in  1625,  but  inserted  in  its  wi'ong  place  ; 
 aud  lastly,  what  indeed  is  more  important,  a  report  of  the  year  1629  (bnt  in  which 
 there  is  no  trace  that  it  is  Caraffa's),  concerning  Germany,  the  Emperor,  and  the 
 princes,  is  here  given,  somewhat  amplified,  but  otherwise  literally  copied.  Many  other 
 portions  of  this  work  are  evidently  stolen.  King  James  I.  of  England  is  mentioned 
 as  the  presente  re  dinghelterra,  which  could  oiot  he  said  in  1628."  What  book  of 
 Scripture,  which  presented  such  appearances,  would  have  any  favour  shewn  it  at  the 
 tribunal  of  theological  criticism  ?  But  how  different  is  it  with  the  clear-headed  truth- 
 ful historian  !  "  We  should  guess,"  he  says,  "  that  some  compiler  had  put  together 
 these  documents  without  any  system  or  design ;  but  after  further  consideration  this 
 conjecture  does  not  appear  to  be  probable.  Most  important  and  striking  facts  relating 
 to  recent  times,  of  which  no  compiler  would  have  di-eamt,  are  here  added  to  the  Eag- 
 guaglio  of  Caraffa.  Circumstances  are  related  which  could  only  be  known  to  the  ini- 
 tiated. .  .  The  nuntio  also  occasionally  speaks  in  the  first  person.  I  conclude 
 therefore,"  says  Ranke,  "that  this  work  really  proceeded  from  Caraffa,  but  was  not 
 completed  by  him,  owing  either  to  want  of  time  or  inclination,  or  perhaps  of  power  to 
 do  so;  for  his  Bohemian  report  has  somewhat  of  the  same  diffuse  and  formless  charac- 
 ter. He  probably  intended  on  his  return  to  Aversa  to  fill  up  some  of  his  leisure  hours 
 with  tho  arrangement  of  bis  materials." — Mrb  Austin's  translation.  London,  1840. 
 Vol.  iii.  pp.  242,  243. 
 
RESPECTING  ITS  AUTHOR.  139 
 
 third  person.*      In  modern  times  we  may  mention  Frederick 
 the  Great. 
 
 Yet  we  need  not  go  far  in  search  of  analogies.  The  Holy 
 Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  furnish  them  in  abun- 
 dance. In  them  it  is  the  rule  that  the  authors  of  the  historical 
 books  speak  of  themselves  in  the  third  person ;  the  contrary,  as 
 we  find  it  exemplified  in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  is  the  exceiHion. 
 We  have  already  collected  the  facts  on  this  point  in  Lie  Authen- 
 tic des  Daniel,  p.  227,  hence  only  to  remark  further,  that  in  the 
 inquiries  relative  to  the  genuineness  of  John's  gospel,  no  weight 
 is  attached  to  this  circumstance. 
 
 Hartmann  makes  a  show  of  calling  in  question  the  applica- 
 bihty  of  all  these  analogies,  by  talking  of  the  unsuspicious  lan- 
 guage of  nature  among  nomade  tribes,  which  knows  and  allows 
 of  nothing  but  /,  and  thou,  and  ye.  But  where  did  he  gain  the 
 knowledge  of  this  nomade  language  of  nature  ?  If  the  use  of 
 the  thiiTl  person  be  the  product  of  reflection  and  high  mental  cul- 
 ture, how  came  Matthew  the  puhlican,  and  John  thejisherman, 
 to  be  so  famihar  with  it  ? 
 
 Evidently  the  remotest  antiquity  is  here  measured  by  the  stand- 
 ard of  our  times.  In  an  age  of  subjectivity  like  our  own,  a  man 
 who  writes  his  own  history  will,  generally  speaking,  do  violence 
 to  himself  if  he  makes  use  of  the  third  person.  If  counsellor 
 Hartmann,  for  instance,  should  thiuk  of  doing  so,  it  would  sound 
 very  oddly,  and  every  body  would  be  struck  with  the  want  of  ease 
 in  the  composition.  When  a  man  in  whom  the  principle  of  sub- 
 jectivity attained  full  sway,  Weitzel  {Das  Merkw'urdegste  aus 
 
 *  In  anotlier  respect  also  Barhebraeus  forms  a  striking  parallel  to  Moses.  As  the 
 life  of  Moses  falls  into  these  periods  of  equal  extent  (of  forty  years  each),  which  has 
 been  taken  as  a  proof  of  the  mythical  character  of  the  Pentateuch  (compare  NiE- 
 buhr's  R.  G.  i.  p.  2G0),  so  likewise  did  that  of  Barhebraeus.  At  twenty  years  of 
 age  he  bt^came  a  bishop,  at  forty  Mafrian,  or  second  superiutendant  of  the  Jacobites, 
 and  at  sixty  he  died.  Like  Moses  he  cherished  the  certain  expectation  of  his  death, 
 which  he  expresses  in  the  yeai-  he  died  at  the  close  of  his  biography,  and  which,  though 
 all  appearances  were  against  it,  took  place  exactly  at  the  time  he  had  assigned  for  it. 
 As  an  account  of  the  ultima  Mosis  is  annexed  to  the  work  of  Moses  by  another  hand, 
 so  we  also  read  at  the  close  of  the  autobiogi-aphy  of  Barhebraeus,  an  account  of  his 
 death  by  another  person,  liis  own  brother,  which  is  annexed  to  his  own  work  by  the 
 words — qiiiim  ergo  j)(irj)etuo  hunc  annum  mente  revolveret,  tic.  If  such  an  instance 
 had  been  found  in  the  later  Jewish  history,  it  would  have  been  roundly  asserted  by 
 son).'  persons,  that  the  accounts  resp<  cting  Moses  had  been  copied  from  it. 
 
140  STATEMENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 
 
 meinem  Lehen,  Leij^z.  1821.  i.  2)  remarks,  "  Caesar  aod  Fre- 
 derick II.  spoke  of  themselves  in  the  third  person,  perhaps  in 
 order  to  avoid  the  charge  of  Egoisme,  which  the  ever-repeated  / 
 might  very  often  revive  ;  I  doubt,  however,  whether  it  would  be 
 thought  a  mark  of  modesty  in  common  men  to  follow  this  exam- 
 ple. The  modesty  would  look  very  much  like  arrogance  ;" — he  has 
 evidently  referred  a  true  feeling  to  a  false  foundation.  There  are 
 still  in  our  own  age  objective  natures,  whom  the  use  of  the  third 
 person  would  well  become,  and  cost  them  no  trouble.  Only  think 
 of  Goethe  ! 
 
 Certainly  it  might  be  maintained  that  the  farther  we  go  back 
 into  antiquity,  the  greater  the  objectivity.  But  in  the  sacred 
 writers  the  prevalent  objectivity  had  special  grounds.  In  them 
 the  root  of  subjectivity,  namely  vanitij  and  self,  vv^hich  grow  even 
 in  times  and  natures  that  are  relatively  the  most  objective,  were 
 eradicated  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  They  saw  their  own  doings  in 
 no  other  light  than  that  of  all  other  men.  They  stood  on  the 
 level  of  humanity,  and  not  on  an  elevation  from  which  they  could 
 see  it  under  their  feet.  God  alone  occupied  that  elevation,  and 
 if  by  his  Spirit  they  were  raised  to  it,  that  they  might  be  able 
 Avorthily  to  describe  his  mighty  acts,  still  they  always  regai'ded 
 themselves  as  walking  among  the  sons  of  men  below. 
 
 It  is  passing  strange  that  the  use  of  the  third  person  can  be  so 
 rudely  torn  from  its  connection,  and  regarded  as  an  isolated  fact. 
 It  evidently  bears  the  mark  of  being  the  product  of  the  total  cha- 
 racter of  objectivity  ;  with  that  it  stands  or  falls.  Hence  the  at- 
 tack must  be  decided  against  objectivity.  The  use  of  the  third 
 person  is  indeed  not  necessarily  connected  with  objective  repre- 
 sentation. The  main  point  is  that  the  I  has  nothing  lovely  ;  but 
 where  this  is  not  the  case,  the  third  person  is  as  eligible  as  the 
 first,  and  even  more  so,  as  it  is  the  most  suitable  form  for  objec- 
 tivity— it  avoids  also  the  appearance  of  attaching  an  importance 
 to  one's  own  personality,  which  it  represents  also  outwardly  as 
 standing  in  a  Hue  with  other  beings.  There  was  a  special  reason 
 for  the  use  of  it  in  the  case  of  Moses,  that  he  wrote  not  merely 
 his  own  history,  but  that  of  the  earlier  recipients  of  revelation. 
 He  had  spoken  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  so  that 
 nothing  seemed  more  a  matter  of  course  than  to  speak  of  Moses, 
 exactly  as  Xenophon,  in  the  passages  we  have  noticed  of  the  Me- 
 
EESrECTING  ITS  AUTHOR.  141 
 
 morahilia,  where  he  is  an  object  of  history,  places  himself  in  a 
 line  with  the  rest. 
 
 Von  Bohlen  {Einleitiing^  §  4)  lays  a  stress  on  the  circum- 
 stance, that  the  author,  in  the  blessing  of  Moses,  presents  him  ob- 
 jectively, "  Moses  gave  us  a  law."  This  would  only  be  somewhat 
 singular  if '^.^^  stood  in  the  text  instead  oi^^.  But  Moses  speaks 
 in  the  person  of  the  people.  Where  Moses  speaks  to  the  people 
 he  always  uses  the  lirst  person. 
 
 In  proof  that  the  author  merely  assumed  the  person  of  Moses, 
 Von  Bohlen  urges  that  he  speaks  of  him  in  terms  of  praise  and 
 respect.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  only  one  such  passage  can 
 be  found  in  the  whole  w^ork,  namely  that  in  Numb.  xii.  3  ;  for  as 
 to  the  other  which  is  appealed  to  in  Deut.  xxxiv.  10,  we  have 
 already  seen  that  it  belongs  to  the  author  of  the  Appendix.  Thus 
 this  proof  seems  to  establish  the  very  opposite.  It  is  inconceiv- 
 able that  in  the  work  of  a  later  author,  the  reverential  love  of  the 
 nation  towards  their  lawgiver  should  not  have  given  a  more  decided 
 colouring  to  it.  What  appearance  the  whole  work  would  have 
 presented  under  such  circumstances  we  may  conjecture  from  the 
 Appendix. 
 
 That  one  passage  is,  indeed,  of  a  kind  that  must  necessarily 
 give  oflence  to  those  who  are  enthralled  in  the  narrow  limits  of 
 their  own  subjectivity,  and  measure  Moses  by  a  standard  taken 
 from  their  own  self.  Let  us  first  of  all  consider  it  in  its  connec- 
 tion. "  Now  the  man  Moses  was  very  meek  ^^%i  above  all  the  men 
 which  were  upon  the  face  of  the  earth."  The  refei-ence  of  these 
 words  to  the  foregoing  context  may  bo  taken  in  two  ways.  Either 
 it  is  to  be  considered  as  an  answer  to  the  reproach  of  Aaron  and 
 Miriam,  and  is  suggested  by  the  expression — ''  the  Lord  heard  it." 
 "  And  they  said.  Hath  the  Lord  indeed  spoken  only  by  Moses  ? 
 hath  he  not  spoken  also  by  us?  and  the  Lord  heard  it;" — audhe 
 heard  righteously ;  fcu'  the  reproach  was  as  unrigliteous  as  possi- 
 ble ;  or  it  may  be  admitted  that  the  words  arc  intended  to  guard 
 against  a  misconception  of  the  expression,  ''  and  the  Lord  heard." 
 Thus  Calvin  remarks — liaec  parenthesis  inserta  est,  ut  scire- 
 mus  deum  non  fiiisse  commotum  Mosis  querimoiiia  ut  tanto- 
 pere  excandesceret  contra  Aharoneni  et Mariani.  Bictunifuerat 
 deum  audisse,  nempe  ut  pro  judicis  officio  causam  susciperet. 
 Nunc   suhjicitur  ultro  reos  citasse  ad  suum  tribunal,  quum 
 
142  STATEMENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 
 
 nulliis  delator  jus  sihi  dlci  postularet.  Hue  enim  spectat  elo- 
 gium  mansuetudinis  :  quasi  diceret  Moses,  se  wjtiriam  illani 
 taciturn  vorasse,  quod  pro  sua  mansuetudine  patientiae  legem 
 sihi  indiceret.  For  the  latter  interpretation  the  following  reasons 
 appear  decisive.  (1.)  The  ^Yord  'j?  has  always  in  the  Scriptures, 
 like  TTpaiif},  the  meaning  of  meekness^  though  this  cannot  be  sepa- 
 rated from  humility  as  its  root.  But  meekness  belongs  only  to 
 Calvin's  view  of  the  passage.  The  arrogance  with  which  Moses 
 was  charged,  stands  opposed  not  to  meekness,  but  to  humility. 
 Meekness  forms  the  opposite  to  that  passionate  excitement,  which, 
 at  every  opposition  that  it  encounters,  would  move  heaven  and  earth 
 for  vengeance.  Praying  for  another's  death  {das  todt  heten)  stands 
 on  the  same  line  with  perpetrating  it,  {das  todtschlagen) .  (2.) 
 This  view  is  also  supported  by  the  w^ord  '^■'^^!.  Its  use  is  founded 
 on  the  contrast  between  man  and  God.  God  heard : — the  man 
 Moses  was  very  meek ;  he  committed  the  matter  to  Him  w^ho 
 judgeth  righteously ;  he  cried  not  to  Him  for  vengeance.  The 
 same  contrast  between  Jehovah  and  the  man  Moses  occurs  in 
 Exod.  xi.  3.  (3.)  We  find  elsewhere  the  accusation  which  Moses 
 here  meets  by  anticipation  actually  expressed.  In  Num.  xvii.  6 
 (xvi.  41)  it  is  said,  '"all  the  congregation  of  the  children  of 
 Israel  murmiu'ed  against  Moses  and  against  Aaron,  saying,  ye 
 have  killed  the  j)eople  of  the  Lord."  The  reproach  cast  upon 
 them  was,  that  by  their  prayers  they  had  brought  down  the  judg- 
 ments of  the  Lord.  In  practical  refutation  of  this  charge,  Moses 
 prayed  for  those  who  had  wTonged  him.  (4.)  Ver.  13  leads  us  to 
 the  same  conclusion.  Certainly  it  is  not  without  design  that  it 
 is  said  here,  in  reference  to  the  punishment,  simply — "  and  the 
 Lord  heard,"  and  there  '"  and  Moses  cried,  heal  her  now,  O  God, 
 I  beseech  thee !"  The  difference  which  in  this  manner  is  indicated 
 is  in  ver.  3  still  more  expressly  brought  forward. 
 
 By  thus  pointing  out  the  connection  in  which  the  words  stand, 
 the  difficulty  they  present  is  considerably  diminished.  The  re- 
 proach that  was  cast  on  Moses  was  very  exciting.  It  was  not 
 allowable  to  satisfy  himself  with  the  inward  witness  of  a  good  con- 
 science, partly  because  the  cause  of  God  was  involved  with  his 
 own  character;  partly  and  principally,  because  his  example,  if  not 
 rightly  understood,  might  exert  a  very  pernicious  influence. 
 Pharasaical  piety  is  only  too  much  disposed  to  give  free  scope 
 
RESrECTING  ITS  AUTHOR.  M3 
 
 to  revenge  in  prayer,  in  proportion  as  it  feels  itself  compelled  to 
 check  its  practical  outbreakings.  It  flatters  itself  with  satisf)dng 
 the  injunction,  "  Vengeance  is  mine,  I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord," 
 — if  it  only  takes  its  revenge  through  the  medium  of  God,  and 
 thus  joins  with  the  sin  of  revenge  an  act  of  profanity  towards  the 
 Almighty.  The  declaration  that  "  the  man  Moses  was  very  meek," 
 stands  in  contrast  to  this  woeful  error,  this  shocking  delusion. 
 Of  all  the  passages  which  prove  the  falsehood  of  the  current 
 opinion  that  the  Old  Testament  favours  revenge,  this  is  the  most 
 striking.  It  passes  a  practical  condemnation  on  revenge  in  its 
 most  subtile  and  relined  form — a  form  which  we  still  find  it  as- 
 sume among  those  who  fancy  themselves  elevated  far  above  its 
 influence,  as  for  instance  in  Bourtgnon  and  many  other  mystics. 
 Yet  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  this  passage  still  wears  to  us 
 something  of  a  foreign  air.  Even  those  among  us  whose  dispo- 
 sition resembles  that  of  Moses,  would  not  have  expressed  them- 
 selves exactly  thus.  A  feeling  of  this  kind  has  induced  the  older 
 expositors,  some  of  them  following  the  example  of  Luther,  to 
 give  '5-^  the  totally  unfounded  meaning  of  harassed,  ])lagtied 
 {geiilagter,\j3.  LXX.  correctly  vrpau 9.  Vulg.  mitissi??ius),  and 
 others  to  regard  the  passage  as  an  interpolation :  compare  Calo- 
 vius  on  the  passage ;  in  this  latter  view  the  modern  advocates  of 
 the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  EiCHHORN  (ii.  §  440),  and 
 
 KOSENMULLER,  COUCUr. 
 
 But  this  appearance  of  strangeness  vanishes,  if,  laying  aside  our 
 standard,  we  measure  Moses  by  his  own.  "  Comme  il  se  louc" 
 remarks  Calmet,  "  ici  sans  orgueil,  Use  hlamera  ailleurs  avec 
 humilite."  The  more  vain  and  self-complacent  any  one  is,  the 
 l«ss  will  he  be  satisfied  with  this  passage,  just  as  lewd  persons 
 are  the  loudest  in  declaiming  against  the  simple  and  straight- 
 forward manner  in  which  the  Scriptures  speak  of  the  relation  of 
 the  sexes.  But  v/hoever,  without  any  holding  back,  without  the 
 cost  of  a  struggle  with  himself,  without  being  in  a  different  mood 
 from  what  he  would  be  in,  if  speaking  of  another,  can  report  his 
 own  defects  and  offences  as  Moses  has  done  (let  the  reader  only 
 call  to  mind  the  slaying  of  the  Egyptian,  judgment  on  which  is  ex- 
 pressed by  its  consequence,  the  protracted  exile  which  Moses  was 
 obliged  to  submit  to  as  a  purification  for  liis  call — the  liistory  of  his 
 calling,  when  Moses  went  so  far  as  to  kindle  the  anger  of  the  Lord 
 
144  STATEMENTS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 
 
 — liis  deficiency  as  a  speaker — the  occurrences  connected  Avith  bis 
 neglect  of  circumcising  his  children,  Ex.  iv.  24,  &c.  where  we 
 find  to  our  astonishment  that  the  mediator  of  the  Covenant  had 
 not  observed  the  fundamental  law  of  the  Covenant — the  unbelief 
 of  Moses  after  such  abundant  experiences  of  the  power  of  the 
 Lord,  and  its  punishment — likewise  the  absolute  openness  with 
 which  the  misconduct  of  his  progenitor  Levi  is  narrated) — he  who 
 can  give  such  proofs  of  his  objectivity,  can  thus  prove  by  deeds, 
 that  "  To  thee,  O  Lord,  belongeth  honour,  but  to  us  shame  and 
 confusion,"  is  not  merely  the  motto,  but  the  text  of  his  inner 
 life — such  a  man  can  speak  of  what  the  Lord  wrought  in  him, 
 with  an  openness  altogether  different  from  what  we  can  use.  If 
 all  self  commendation  be  blameworthy,  how  was  it  with  Christ? 
 Did  He  not  say  (referring,  as  it  would  seem,  to  the  passage  under 
 consideration),  "lam  meek  and  lowly  of  heart ;"  besides  much 
 stronger  things. 
 
 We  do  not  wish  to  repeat  the  remarks  that  have  already  been 
 made  on  the  same  subject  in  Die  Anthentie  clcs  Daniel,  p.  220, 
 and  which  will  serve  to  fill  up  the  hints  that  are  here  given.  Only 
 one  remark  more.  Goethe  says  (in  Eckermann's  GeHpr.  mil 
 G.  i.  143),  ''  TiECKhas  a  talent  of  high  value.  No  one  can  better 
 understand  his  extraordinary  merits  than  myself ;  but  if  any  one 
 is  disposed  to  exalt  him  above  himself,  and  place  him  on  a  level 
 with  me,  such  a  person  is  in  error.  I  can  say  this  without  reserve, 
 for  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  have  not  made  myself.  It  w^ould 
 be  just  the  same  if  I  meant  to  compare  myself  with  Shakspere, 
 who  also  did  not  make  himself,  and  yet  is  a  being  of  a  liigher 
 kind,  to  whom  I  look  up,  and  whom  I  hold  in  reverence."  This 
 passage  also  contains  praise  of  the  writer's  o^vn  gifts ;  but  who 
 dare  say  that  the  propria  laus  sordet  should  be  applied  to  it  ? 
 The  vanity  which,  on  other  occasions,  not  unfrequently  appears  in 
 those  conversations  with  Eckermann,  had  no  share  in  this  lan- 
 guage. It  shews  itself,  by  the  subordinate  position  which  Goethe 
 clearly  and  firmly  assigned  liimself  in  relation  to  Shakspere,  to 
 be  the  product  of  that  noble  objectivity  which  w^e  often  perceive  in 
 Goethe.  Great  natures,  as  we  learn  from  this  example,  are,  as 
 such,  far  less  subject  to  that  cramped  isolation  of  the  beloved  self 
 which  vanity  often  practises  to  a  ridiculous  degree.  The  greater 
 they  are,  the  more  they  feel  themselves  to  be  part  of  a  great  whole,- 
 
RESPECTING    ITS    AUTHOR.  145 
 
 dependent  on  a  higher  power,  "  hving,  moving,  and  having 
 their  being"  in  a  greater  connection.  But  this  consciousness 
 attains  to  full  and  absolute  supremacy  only  in  those  among 
 great  minds  who  clearly  recognise  the  essence  of  Him  who  con- 
 ditionates  all  other  beings  not  as  an  unknown  quantity  {ein 
 uiibekanntes  X),  or  nature,  but  as  the  living  God.  Other- 
 wise, theij-  greatness  always  has  a  taint  of  littleness.  Goethe 
 felt  this.  If  he  had  not  been  conscious  that  the  objective  position, 
 wliich  lie  here  inwardly  assumed,  was  only  momentary — one  to 
 which  he  must  raise  himself — he  would  not  have  added  the  com- 
 parison with  Shakspere.  To  Moses,  on  the  contraij,  that  ob- 
 jective position  had  become  a  second  nature.  He  lived  so  in  the 
 consciousness  that  he  had  nothing  which  he  had  not  received,  that 
 God  was  ''  all  in  all,"  that  he  did  not  dream  of  making  it  a  dis- 
 tinct object  of  remark.  Here,  also,  the  saying  holds  good,  Qui 
 s  excuse,  s  accuse.  A  reference  to  the  suspicions  of  others  is  first 
 made,  when  a  man  is  conscious  that  these  suspicions  are  found- 
 ed in  reality. 
 
 Thus,  then,  it  is  settled  that  the  Pentateuch  itself  loudly  and 
 repeatedly  claims  Moses  for  its  author,  and  those  "  contradictory 
 appearances, '  to  which  importance  has  been  attached,  on  closer 
 inspection  vanish  like  a  morning  mist. 
 
 VOL.  II. 
 
116 
 
 ALLEGED  TRACES  OF  A  LATEK  AGE 
 
 PENTATEUCH. 
 
 If  the  question  to  be  answered  be — What  relation  does  the 
 historical  character  of  the  Pentateuch  hear  to  its  genuineness  ? 
 we  must,  first  of  all,  investigate  the  anachronisms  it  is  said  to 
 contain.    For  if  here  we  obtain,  on  the  most  palpable  of  all  criti- 
 cal grounds,  which  are  taken  from  the  composition  of  the  work  it- 
 self, a  result  absolutely  unfavourable  to  the  Pentateuch,  we  shall 
 enter  with  great  mistrust  on  an  examination  of  the  positive  histo- 
 rical grounds  for  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  Mosaic 
 age,  and  by  Moses.      On  the  other  hand,  should  the  result  here, 
 and  in  reference  to  the  contradictions  which  run  parallel  with  the 
 anachronisms,  be  absolutely  favourable,  Ave  shall  meet,  without 
 embarrassment,  the  remaining  historical   arguments    against  its 
 genuineness.     On  improbable  and  suspicious  accounts,  and  traces 
 of  a  mythical  character,  much  has  been  controverted  and  argued  on 
 both  sides.  To  be  justified,  therefore,  in  putting  the  worst  construc- 
 tion on  the  author,  he  must,  first  of  all,  be  unmasked  on  gi^ound 
 where  the  opposite  statements  of  truth  and  falsehood  exhibit  them- 
 selves clearly  and  sharply,  and  independent  of  subjective  presup- 
 positions.    This  is  peculiarly  the  case  in  a  work  like  the  Penta- 
 teuch, on  account  of  its  contents,  its  extent,  and  the  veiy  long  in- 
 terval which  separates  Moses  and  the  pseudo-Moses.     It  is  quite 
 inconceivable  that  the  pseudo-Moses  (whether  he  is  taken  as  an 
 individual  or  the  representative  of  several  persons)  should  not  be- 
 trav  himself  bv  anachronisms  (as  well  as  by  contradictions)  ;  and 
 
TRACES  OF  A  LATER  AGE  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH.      147 
 
 these  anacbronisms  must  in  part  be  so  palpable,  tbat  even  the 
 most  adroit  sophistry  could  not  do  more  than  partially  cloak  and 
 conceal  them. 
 
 The  history  of  the  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  shews,  that  from 
 an  early  period,  the  importance  of  the  inquiry  respecting  the  ana- 
 chronisms has  been  felt.  This  point,  and  this  alone,  excited  the 
 doubts  of  Aben  Esra,  if  not  as  to  the  genuineness,  yet  the  integ- 
 rity of  the  Pentateuch.  The  opponents  of  the  genuineness  in  the 
 17th  century,  Peyrerius,  Spinoza,  and  Hobbes,  took  their 
 stand  only  on  this  ground,  although  internally  their  opposition 
 arose  from  a  very  different  quarter ;  for  at  that  time  there  was 
 discernment  enough  to  perceive  that  arguments  and  wishes  were 
 two  very  different  tilings.  And  the  earlier  vindication  attached 
 itself  almost  entirely  to  this  point.  The  treatise  (very  able  for  the 
 time  when  it  was  written)  of  Witsius,  A/i  Moses-  auct.  Pent. 
 Misc.  Sac.  i.  c.  14,  relates  to  it  alone.  Le  Clerc,  de  8cri2)t. 
 Pent.  §  3,  observes,  Dtio  genera  argumentorum  recentioris  Mose 
 aetatis  voliint  esse  in  Pent.  Alia  ex  stylo  totiiis  lihri,  alia  ex 
 singularihus  locis  petita  sunt.  He  quickly  dispatches  the  first 
 argument  as  very  unimportant ;  but  in  reference  to  the  second  he 
 remarks,  Non  ita  solutit  facilia  sunt  omnia  argumenta,  quae  ex 
 vai'iis  locis  Pent,  ducuntur.  These  passages,  eighteen  in  num- 
 ber, which  he  quotes  and  explains,  fall  entirely  under  the  cate- 
 gory of  anachronisms.  Carpzov  also  almost  entirely  occupies 
 himself  with  these  in  his  Vindication  of  the  Genuineness. 
 
 Although  by  later  opponents  the  field  of  argument  against  the 
 genuineness  has  been  considerably  widened,  yet  even  they  have 
 attached  great  importance  to  the  alleged  anachronisms.  Vater 
 (§  73)  has  distributed  them  into  four  classes  ;  (i.)  Cities  are  men- 
 tioned by  names  which,  according  to  the  plain  statement  of  other 
 books,  were  not  given  them  till  after  the  time  of  Moses,  (ii.) 
 Passages  with  explanatory  additions,  especially  names  of  places, 
 such  as  could  not  have  been  expected  in  the  time  of  Moses,  (iii.) 
 Passages  in  which  it  is  said  that  certain  things,  continued  to  this 
 day.  (iv.)  Passages  which  imply  circumstances  which  did  not 
 exist  till  after  the  time  of  Moses.  With  tliis  writer  concur  Ber- 
 THOLDT  (iii.  §  230),  De  Wette  [Einleitung  §  158-100),  Hart- 
 mann  (p.  686),  Von  Bohlen  {Einl.  zur.  Gen.  p.  68). 
 
 An  essential  difference  may  be  noticed  in  reference  to  the  con- 
 
 K  2 
 
148  ALLEGED  TRACES  OF  A 
 
 duct  of  this  argument  between  the  older  and  modern  opponents  of 
 the  genuineness,  inasmuch  as  the  former  confined  themselves 
 sti'ictly  to  the  department  of  historical  investigation.  While  the 
 latter  treated,  in  strange  confusion,  and  without  any  discrimina- 
 tion, things  as  anachronisms,  which,  in  case  they  could  not  be 
 accounted  for,  must,  from  every  point  of  view,  be  considered  as 
 really  such,  and  likewise  things  which  are  only  placed  in  this  class 
 by  their  dogmatical  prepossessions.  The  way  in  which  they  have 
 proceeded  borders  very  closely  on  naivete.  Thus  Vater  remarks 
 (p.  641)  on  Genesis  xlix.  "  It  is  certainly  the  most  natural  (!)  view 
 which  can  be  taken,  after  reading  this  beautiful  song,  that  it  was 
 sung  at  a  time  when  the  Tsraelitish  tribes  were  already  in  posses- 
 sion of  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  had  already  passed  through  those 
 fortunes  which  are  here  so  plainly  described."  And  Ber- 
 THOLDT  says  quite  drily,  "  No  other  object  can  be  kept  in  view  by 
 criticism,  but  to  establish  and  to  bring  to  light  historical  truth. 
 Hence  (!)  for  a  long  time  the  method  has  been  resorted  to  of  ex- 
 plaining all  that  is  contained  in  the  Pentateuch  which  manifestly, 
 according  to  the  ordinary  powers  of  man,  could  not  have  been 
 penned  by  Moses,  as  later  additions  and  interpolations."  To  find 
 such  anachronisms,  forsooth,  requires  neither  skill  nor  sense.  The 
 number  of  passages  which  really  merit  the  name  of  anachronisms 
 has,  in  modern  days,  received  no  important  accessions. 
 
 In  the  most  recent  times,  critical  young  Germany,  of  wliich 
 Vatke  is  here  the  cliief  representative,  has  made  the  attempt  to  en- 
 large the  field  of  anachronisms  by  important  conquests.  He  treats 
 everything  as  an  anachronism  which  will  not  suit  his  mode  of 
 viewing  the  Israelitish  religious  history.  But  till  that  mode  is 
 fixed  on  firmer  foundations,  we  shall  venture  to  consider  what  he 
 calls  anachronism  as  an  argument  against  it.  Fortunately,  the 
 history  continues  to  exist,  though  the  builders  of  historical  castles- 
 iu-tlie-air  have  no  room  for  it  in  their  contracted  heads. 
 
 As  to  the  line  of  conduct  adopted  by  the  defenders  of  the  au- 
 thenticity of  the  Pentateuch  in  reference  to  the  anachronisms,  they 
 have  endeavoured  to  nullify  the  force  of  the  arguments  brought 
 fonvard  by  their  opponents,  but  yet  have  felt  themselves  obliged, 
 some  more,  some  less,  to  make  certain  concessions,  and  thus  to 
 admit  later  intei^olations.  Of  this  class,  Witsius  has  noticed 
 the  mention  of  Dan  in  Gen.  xiv.  14,  and  of  Hebron  ;  the  passage 
 
LATER  AGE  IN  THE   I'ENTATEUCH.  1  11) 
 
 in  Ex.  xvi.  35,  "  And  the  cliikli'en  of  Israel  did  eat  manna  forty 
 years,  until  they  came  to  a  land  inhabited,"  &c. ;  the  expression 
 "  unto  this  day"  in  Deut.  iii.  14  ;  in  all  four  passages.  Le  Clerc 
 goes  considerably  farther.  Jahn  {Einl.  ii.  §  10,  and  Introd.  ed 
 2,  p.  189)  admits  interpolations  in  about  twelve  places,  which,  in 
 part,  consist  of  several  verses.  The  longest  is  that  in  Ex.  vi. 
 13-29,  where  he  considers  the  whole  genealogy  to  be  interpolated. 
 But  among  those  whom  the  history  of  criticism  requires  to  be  no- 
 ticed, EiCHHORN  goes  the  farthest  iq  the  admission  of  interpola- 
 tions. He  calls  in  question  a  whole  chapter  as  a  later  intei'pola 
 tion. 
 
 Le  Clerc  was  so  discreet,  or  so  honourable,  as  to  confess,  that 
 the  traces  of  a  later  age,  which  one  seems  forced  to  acknowledge 
 as  existing,  ai^e  just  so  many  grounds  for  the  spuriousness  of  the 
 Pentateuch,  which  must  be  counterbalanced  by  other  more  weighty 
 grounds  for  its  genuineness — that  the  supposition  of  interpolations 
 is  the  most  far  fetched,  the  justification  of  which  must  be  gained 
 by  arguments  drawn  from  other  quarters.  He  remarks  (§  4),  Si 
 aliunde  certe  nan  constaret  a  Mose  huge  maximum  Pent. par- 
 teum  scriptam,  ut  antea  osteitdimas ;  gravissimae  essent  fateor 
 in  indiciis  illis  aetatis  recentioris  rationes  credendi,  serins  to- 
 tum  illud  opus  conscriptum  fuisse.  On  the  other  hand,  the  mo- 
 dem advocates  of  the  genuineness  speak  of  the  interpolations  as 
 quite  an  insignificant  matter,  as  something  which,  on  the  suppo- 
 sition of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  could  not  be  other- 
 wise, since  no  writer  of  antiquity  has  entirely  escaped  interpola- 
 tions. The  opponents  of  the  genuineness  mostly  exhibit  here  a 
 certain  kind  of  liberality.  Vater  (§  75)  admits  that  one  or  two 
 single  passages  would  prove  nothing.  Bertholdt  is  of  opinion, 
 that,  as  to  all  later  names  of  places,  all  geographical  anachron- 
 isms, all  comparisons  with  the  present — the  admission  of  interpo- 
 lation is  allowable,  and  disclaims  the  use  of  it  for  his  object. 
 
 But  here  we  must  be  more  strict  than  our  opponents.  Every 
 admission  of  a  larger  interpolation  appears  to  us  as  extremely 
 doubtful,  and  even  anachronisms,  which  only  depend  on  a  few  or 
 single  words,  we  do  not  hold  to  be  unimportant,  although,  if  iheir 
 mumber  be  small,  and  one  does  not  support  the  other,  they  may 
 easily  be  outweighed  by  positive  reasons  for  the  genuineness. 
 For  (i.)  it  is  to  be  considered,  that  the  Pentateuch,  if  Moses  was 
 
1^)0  ANACHRONISMS  IN  THE  TENTATE TCH. 
 
 its  author,  must  have  been  the  sacred  book  of  the  nation,  which 
 no  one  would  readily  tamper  with,  (ii.)  The  admission  of  inter- 
 polation in  passages  whicli  appear  to  belong  to  a  later  age,  could 
 only  escape  the  charge  of  arbitrariness,  if  interpolations  of  another 
 kind  could  be  pointed  out  in  the  Pentateuch.  Since  this  is  not 
 the  case,  it  w^ould,  at  all  events,  readily  occur  to  make  use  of  the 
 anachronisms,  as  the  opponents  of  the  genuineness  have  done. 
 
 The  following  investigation  will  show  that  the  advocates  of  the 
 genuineness  have,  in  no  case  whatever,  certain,  or  at  the  most,  in 
 a  single  case  (the  name  of  a  place),  any  probable  occasion  to  take 
 refuge  in  the  suj)position  of  a  later  intei-polation  or  alteration. 
 
 It  is  very  important,  in  this  investigation,  not  to  pass  over  any- 
 thing really  plausible,  and  demanding  a  deeper  examination,  if 
 till  now  such  a  one  has  not  yet  been  made,  and  to  discard  all  mere 
 accidental  suggestions,  which  we  can  never  thoroughly  master, 
 since  they  vanish  like  a  dream.  For  separating  the  two  classes, 
 it  will  be  necessary  to  make  use  of  an  external  as  well  as  internal 
 standard.  Whatever  constantly  makes  its  reappearance,  ah 
 though  it  may  not  strike  our  own  minds  as  important,  must  have 
 something  in  it  whereby  even  the  well-disposed  may  be  pei-plexed. 
 After  these  preliminary  observations,  v/e  shall  now  turn  to  the 
 consideration  of  particulars. 
 
 THE  CANAANITES. 
 
 In  Gen.  xii.  6,  it  is  said,  "  And  the  Canaanite  was  then  in  the 
 land  ;"  xiii.  7,  "  And  the  Canaanite  and  the  Perizzite  dwelled 
 then  in  the  land." 
 
 The  passages  are  found  among  the  eighteen  loci  suspect i  of  Le 
 Clerc.  Both  ancient  and  modern  opponents  of  the  genuineness 
 (Vater,  p.  636  ;  Hartmann,  p.  695)  maintain,  that  they  could 
 only  be  written  at  a  time  when  the  Canaanites  had  been  driven 
 out  of  the  land.  They  allow  themselves  to  interpolate — still 
 {nocli).  The  advocates  of  the  genuineness,  on  the  contrar}%  with 
 whom  also  Ewald  agrees  (Comjms.  218),  allow  themselves  the 
 addition  of — already  {scJwn) ;  and  then  either  with  J.  D.  Mi- 
 CHAELis,  to  explain  the  remark  as  meaning,  that  the  Canaanites 
 must  have  been  settled  eai'lier.  near  the  Eed   Sea,  (see,  on  the- 
 
THE  CANAANITES.  151 
 
 Other  hand,  my  essay,  JJe  Phoenicum  ad  mare  ruhrum  sedihus 
 primis,  in  the  work  ]Je  rebus  Tyriorum,^.  93,  &c.)  ;  or  with 
 EwALD  suppose  an  aUasiou  to  the  dispersion  in  ch.  xi.  That  botli 
 supplementary  expressions,  still  and  already,  are  equally  arbi- 
 trary, is  evident.  That  construction  alone  can  be  correct  which 
 requires  neither  of  them,  and  as  soon  as  tliis  is  discovered,  it  is  at 
 once  seen,  that  these  passages  have  been,  without  reason,  dragged 
 into  the  controversy  on  the  genuineness. 
 
 The  remark  in  ch.  xii.  0,  stands  in  close  relation  to  ver.  7 — 
 "  And  the  Lord  appeared  unto  Abraham  and  said,  Unto  thy  seed 
 will  I  give  this  land."  The  words,  "  The  Canaanites  were  then 
 in  the  land,"  were  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  marking  the  con- 
 trast between  the  present  and  the  future,  the  reality  and  the  idea. 
 Strictly  speaking,  the  v^'ords  contained  nothing  new — (for  in  ch. 
 x.  1 5,  it  had  already  been  noticed  that  the  Canaanites  were  then 
 in  the  land) — but  a  reiteration  of  what  was  already  known  an- 
 swered the  purpose  of  giving  a  more  vivid  representation  of  the 
 relations  into  which  Abraham  had  entered,  that  he  nriaTei  Trapcp- 
 KTjaev  ek  rrjv  yPjv  rn^;  i7rayy6\La<^  &)9  aWorplav,  Heb.  xi.  9. 
 The  terms  already  and  still  are  both  equally  foreign  to  the  pas- 
 sage. It  merely  records  the  fact  that  they  were  there  ;  that  Abra- 
 ham, the  bearer  of  so  great  a  promise,  came  as  a  stranger  and 
 pilgrim  unto  the  land,  with  which  at  that  time  his  relation  was 
 very  limited ;  that  he  had  not  a  foot  of  land  which  he  could  call 
 his  own,  but  was  obliged  to  content  himself  with  what  the  pos- 
 sessors of  the  soil  could  not  make  use  of. 
 
 In  the  second  passage,  also,  the  object  and  meaning  of  the 
 remark  is  known  from  the  connection — "And  the  land  was  not 
 able  to  bear  them,  that  they  might  dwell  together ;  for  their  sub- 
 stance was  great,  so  that  they  could  not  dwell  together.  And 
 there  was  a  strife  between  the  herdsmen  of  Abram's  cattle,  and 
 the  herdsmen  of  Lot's  cattle,  and  the  Canaanite  and  the  Periz- 
 zite  dwelled  then  in  the  land."  Here,  also,  the  remark  merely 
 serves  to  throw  light  on  the  existing  relations  of  the  patri- 
 archs. Had  Lot  and  Abram  possessed  the  land  to  themselves, 
 they  would  not  have  found  themselves  straitened.  But  the 
 space  was  too  narrow  for  them,  for  they  were  hemmed  in  on 
 all  sides  by  the  native  inhabitants.  Besides  the  Canaanites, 
 the  Perizzites  are  also  named,  because  they  were  most  in  contact 
 
152  ANACHRONISMS  IN  THE   PENTATEUCH. 
 
 v;ith  ALralium  ai]d  Lot,  and  had  a  stronger  feeling  of  jealouyy 
 towards  tliem.*  The  Perizzites,  who  do  not  appear  in  the  genea- 
 logical enumeration  of  the  Canaanitish  race,  Gen.  x.  15,  but  only 
 in  the  geographical  description  of  tlic  inhabitants  of  the  land,  as 
 ch.  XV.  20,  Exod.  iii.  8,  Deut.  vii.  1,  Jos.  xi.  3,  and  whom  we 
 find  in  various  parts  of  Canaan;  compare  Eeland,  p.  139,  Ro- 
 SENMULLER  II.  i.  p,  258,  wcrc  the  inhabitants  of  the  lowlands, 
 which  served  for  agriculture  and  pasturage  ;  'l",^  =  ^^"''^^  Vv?  ^-"'^j 
 compare  Ezek.  xxxviii.  11,  "  And  thou  shalt  say,  I  will  go  up  to 
 the  land  of  unwalled  villages,"  ^"^^^^/H^y  "  I  will  go  to  them  that 
 are  at  rest,  that  dwell  safely  (confidently,  Et/(/.  Marg.  B.),  all  of 
 them  dwelling  without  walls,  and  having  neither  bars  nor  gates." 
 Zech.  ii.  8  (4),  "  Jerusalem  shall  be  inhabited  as  towns  without 
 walls  ^'^'^'2^.  for  the  multitude  of  men  and  cattle  therein."  The 
 equivalent  T?  occurs  in  Deut.  iii.  5,  "  All  these  cities  were  fenced 
 with  high  walls,  gates,  and  bars,  besides  unwalled  towns  ""I'f  l?  a 
 great  many."  1  Sam.  vi.  18,  "both  of  fenced  cities  and  of 
 country  villages"  ^!!;!l?  "P.  The  Perizzites,  the  author  intimates, 
 were  in  possession  of  the  best  pasture  lands,  and  Lot  and  Abra- 
 ham only  occupied  what  they  despised.  That  the  observation  in 
 this  connection  was  an  idle  one,  no  person  will  assert.  It  would 
 appeal'  far  more  to  be  such  if  '' stiir  were  arbitrarily  inserted. 
 "  Quis  enim"  Le  Clerc  remarks,  "  eo  tempore  ignora'bat  a  Ca- 
 naanaei  Abrahami  aevo  incaltam  faisse  Palaestinam  T' 
 
 HEBRON. 
 
 The  citv  of  Hebron,  it  has  been  remarked  (compare  Vater, 
 p.  (331,  Hartmann,  p.  691),  which  is  mentioned  Gen.  xiii  18, 
 xxiii.  2,  Numb.  xiii.  23,  received  this  name,  as  is  evident  from 
 Josh.  xiv.  15,  XV.  13,  not  till  after  the  time  of  Moses.  Before  that 
 it  was  called  Kirtath  Area  ;  that  this  latter  name  was  commonly 
 used  in  Abraham's  time  is  directly  confirmed  by  Gen.  xxiii.  2. 
 
 *  Either  the  Cauaanites  ai-e  tlie//t'/(»s  and  the  Perizzites  the  species,  or  the  Canaan- 
 ites  are  specially,  a  jwiiori,  the  civilized  inhabitants  of  towns.  Thus  probably  in 
 Judges  i.  4,  5,  and  Gen.  xxxiv.  30,  so  the  Arabians  distinguish  themselves  into  the 
 people  of  the  towns  and  the  people  of  the  desert.  If  there  had  been  only  the  Canaar- 
 ites,  the  state  of  things  would  not  have  been  so  bad. 
 
HEBRON.  ir)l\ 
 
 This  ditticuUy,  also,  lias  uot  been  first  brought  to  light  by  the 
 opponents  of  the  genuineness,  but  long  ago  has  been  repeatedly 
 canvassed.  To  settle  it,  Bachiene  (II.  2  §  38G)  assumes  that 
 the  name  Hebron,  where  it  occurs  in  the  Pentateuch,  has  been 
 introduced  by  a  later  hand.  Hamelsveld,  on  the  other  hand, 
 maintains  (II.  p.  273)  that  Hebron  was  the  oldest  name  of  the 
 city  ;  that  after  it  had  been  supplanted  in  the  interval  between  the 
 patriarchs  and  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  by  the  new  Kirjath  Arba, 
 it  was  restored  by  the  Israelites.  Among  the  modern  defenders 
 of  the  genuineness,  Jahn  assents  to  the  latter  view  ;  Kanne  in 
 his  Biblisc/te  Untersiichungen,  i.  104,  has  endeavoured  to  esta- 
 blish it  by  a  method  of  his  own,  and  Rosenmuller  has  acquiesced 
 in  his  argumentation.     We  proceed  to  examine  it. 
 
 KiRJATii  Arba,  so  Kanne  concludes,  means  the  city  of  Arba, 
 who,  according  to  Joshua  xiv.  15,  was  a  noted  giant — "  And  the 
 name  of  Hebron  before  was  Kiijath  Arba  (city  of  Arba),  he  was 
 a  great  man  among  the  Anakim,  ^^"  ^'"P,^?^  ^^")l'  ^3^;!.  This  Arba, 
 according  to  ch.  xv.  18,  was  the  father  of  Anak  ;  "And  unto 
 Caleb  he  gave  a  part  among  the  children  of  Judah  .  .  .  the 
 city  of  Arba,  the  father  of  Anak,  Pi?^  "^^.^  J'?^?  i^r?  which  is  Heb- 
 ron." Anak  had  three  sons,  wdio  hved  about  the  time  when  Ca- 
 naan was  invaded  by  the  IsraeUtes  ;  ver,  14,  "  And  Caleb  di"ovc 
 thence  the  three  sons  of  Anak,  X'l''^Tl  '!?=  Sheshai,  and  Aliiman,  and 
 Talmai,  the  children  of  Anak,"  V^"^^  ^l^T.^.  According  to  tliis,  the 
 name  Kirjath  Arba  at  the  time  of  the  invasion  of  the  land  had 
 been  first  used  three  generations  before,  and  therefore  after  Abra- 
 ham. 
 
 On  this  reasoning  we  have  the  following  remarks  to  offer  : 
 That  the  Ene  Anak,  or  Anakim,  was  not  the  denomination  for 
 giants  in  general,  but  a  particular  race  of  giants,  appeal's  li-om 
 Deut.  ii.  11,  21,  where  the  Anakim  are  compared  with  another 
 species  of  giants,  and  are  noticed  as  belonging  to  the  Rcphaim  ; 
 also  from  Num.  xiii.  33,  according  to  which  the  sons  of  Anak 
 were  a  particular  kind  of  Nephilim.  That  the  progenitors  of  this 
 face  of  giants  was  a  man  named  Arba  is  expressly  said  in  Josh, 
 xiv.  15;  the  following  clause  only  suits  an  individual,  "  a  great 
 man  among  the  Anakims."  But  that  an  individual's  name  Anak, 
 a  son  of  Arba,  and  the  second  progenitor  of  this  race  of  gijmts, 
 ■was  intended,  cannot  be  concluded  from  Josh.  xv.  13,  14,  xx.  11, 
 
154  ANACHRONISMS  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 "  And  they  (the  sons  of  Judah)  gave  them  (the  Levites)  the  city 
 of  Arba,  the  father  of  Anak"  F'^?p  ^?^. ;  for  xlnak,  or  Anok,  may 
 stand  collectively  to  denote  the  race  of  the  Anakites,  just  as  Jelide 
 Haraj)/ia/i,  2  Sam.  xxi.  IG,  18,  iov  Jelide  Harej)haim.  As  little 
 does  it  follow,  from  the  other  reasons  adduced  byKANNE,  p.  108, 
 that  by  pi*  ^'a  are  not  to  be  understood  Anakites,  but  really 
 sons  of  Anak,  in  Josh.  xv.  14,  where  a  pecuhar  expression  for 
 sons  in  the  strict  sense  is  added  p3:>n  ^-'h,  which  would  be  a  most 
 idle  addition  if  it  again  stood  for  Anakites.  On  closer  examina- 
 tion, tliis  reason  changes  into  its  exact  opposite.  We  never  find 
 ■^■''?^  in  the  sense  oi  son.  In  Genesis  and  Jeremiah  (ii.  14)  it  oc- 
 curs in  connection  with  ^??  verna.  It  is  also  found  twice  in  2 
 Sam.  xxi.  16,  18,  and  once  in  1  Chron.  xx.  4,  in  connection  with 
 '^'^'^  ;  here  the  meaning  so)is  is  not  admissible,  for  the  ^'^^"^^  ex- 
 isted centmies  before.  If  now  the  phrase  cannot  have  the  mean- 
 ing which  Kanne  assigns  to  it,  since  it  is  at  all  events  incorrect 
 that  -"^r  means  specially  and  more  definitely  son  like  -p  - — it 
 tells  exactly  against  him.  For  it  cannot  stand  there  without  a 
 meaning,  as  Kosenmuller  remarks.  Its  only  use,  therefore,  must 
 be  to  remove  any  ambiguity  in  the  term  ^sa,  to  indicate  that  it  does 
 not  mean  sotis  in  the  proper  sense,  but  only  in  general,  progenies. 
 Proceeding  from  this  we  shall  not  fail  to  notice,  that  in  Num.  xiii. 
 Jelicle  first  stands  in  ver.  22,  and  then  in  ver.  28  B'ne  Haanak, 
 The  following  decisive  reasons  remain  to  be  stated  against  Kanne's 
 view,  (i.)  p3y  almost  always  occurs  with  the  article,  which  in 
 proper  names  is  only  rare  when  they  have  a  plain  and  palpable 
 appellative  meaning.  Kanne  and  Eosenmuller  observe  that 
 when  appellatives  become  proper  names,  they  not  unfrequently 
 have  the  article.  But  in  this  remark  it  is  altogether  left  out  of 
 sight  (which  is  here  of  importance)  the  almost  constant  insertion 
 of  the  article,  (ii.)  The  giants  are  not  merely  called  J  elide  ov 
 B'ne  Haanak,  as  in  Num.  xiii.  22,  but  also  '°yii;?.^_  Deut.  i.  28  ; 
 compare  Deut.  ix.  2,  where  072^  ^sa  stands  first,  and  then  p^y  ^:z, 
 and  Anakim,  Deut.  ii.  10,  11,  21,  Jos.  x.  21,  22.  The  plural 
 in  these  passages  seems  to  be  an  explanation  of  the  singular  in 
 others,  (iii.)  In  Jos.  xiv.  Arba  is  said  to  be  great  among  the 
 Anakims,  which  would  be  unsuitable  if  Anak  was  liis  son.  But 
 even  if  we  were  disposed  to  grant  that  Anak  is  the  proper  name 
 of  a  man,  yet  Kanne's  chronological  reckoning  would  be   inad- 
 
HEBRON.  155 
 
 missible.  For  we  have  uo  reason  lor  maintainiug  that  the  three 
 so-called  sons  of  Anak  were  so  in  a  strict  sense,  and  not  rather 
 liis  descendants.  The  three  ai'e  evidently  not  individuals,  but 
 whole  generations.  For  it  can  hardly  he  supposed  that  these 
 three  individuals,  whom  the  spies  found  in  the  second  year  of  the 
 Exodus,  were  still  living  when  Caleb  took  the  city 
 
 We  cannot,  therefore,  in  the  way  marked  out  by  Kanne 
 prove,  from  the  name  Kirjath  Area  itself,  its  post-patriar- 
 chal origination,  and  hence  the  earlier  existence  of  the  name 
 Hebron.  But  this  result  may  be  obtained  on  other  grounds, 
 namely  the  following  :  (i.)  That  Hebron  was  the  earlier  and 
 Kirjath  Area,  a  later  one,  must  be  at  once  admitted,  (as  soon 
 as  there  are  not  decisive  grounds  for  the  opposite,  on  which 
 afterwai'ds),  simply  from  the  occurrence  of  the  name  Hebron  in 
 the  Pentateuch,  compared  with  the  account  of  the  Books  of  Joshua 
 and  Judges  (i.  10),  that  the  town  at  the  time  of  the  invasion  of 
 Canaan  by  the  Israelites  was  called  Kirjath  Arba.  For  only  by 
 this  easy  and  natural  supposition  can  the  Pentateuch  be  freed  from 
 the  suspicion  of  an  anachronism  proceeding  from  ignorance  ;  but 
 this  is  peculiarly  improbable  in  reference  to  Hebron,  since  the 
 author  shows  the  most  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  history  of 
 this  city.  Let  any  one  observe  the  passing  notice  in  Num.  xiii. 
 22,  "  And  they  (the  spies)  ascended  by  the  south,  and  cjmie  into 
 Hebron,  where  Aliiman,  Sheshai,  and  Talmai,  the  children  of 
 Anak,  were ;  now  Hebron  was  built  seven  years  before  Zoan  in 
 Egypty  How  exactly  must  he  have  been  acquainted  with  histo- 
 rical relations,  if  he  Avas  not  a  mere  braggart  by  profession,  who 
 ventured  to  meddle  with  such  definite  remarks  ?  The  impression 
 wliich  this  passage  is  adapted  to  make  even  on  opponents,  in  an 
 unprejudiced  moment,  is  shown  by  Studer's  language  (on  Judges 
 i.  10),  "  The  notice  respecting  the  antiquity  of  this  city  is  very 
 remarkable.  *  If  this  account  is  well  founded,  what  consequences 
 may  be  drawn  only  from  the  circumstance,  that  so  exact  a  com- 
 putation was  possible  !"  2,  The  city  of  Arba  the  giant  retains  the 
 name  Kiiuath-Arba.  But  in  the  time  of  the  Patriarchs  there  are 
 no  traces  of  a  race  of  giants  in  and  about  Hebron,  and  yet,  in  the 
 history  of  Abraham  there  are  many  occasions  for  mentioning 
 them;  for  example,  in  ch.  xxiii.,  in  the  narrative  of  the  expedi- 
 tion of  the  kings  from  Eastern  Asia,  ka.     In  the  remaining  books 
 
156  ANACHRONISMS  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 of  the  Pentateuch,  in  Joshua  and  Judges,  giants  are  alluded  to  in 
 almost  every  mention  of  Hebron.  The  recollection  of  them 
 seems  to  be  most  intimately  associated  with  the  recollection  of  the 
 city.  3.  In  the  name  Hebron,  there  is  no  reference  to  the  time 
 of  Joshua,  though  it  might  he  expected,  if  the  Israelites  had  not 
 merely  revived  the  name,  but  had  imposed  it  entirely  as  a  new 
 one.  Compare  analogical  instances  such  as  Kadesh,  En  Mishpal, 
 Hormah,  Hermon,  Meribah,  Shiloh,  Sec.  The  name,  according 
 to  the  most  probable  derivation  by  Hamelsveld  (ii.  273)  and 
 others,  alludes  to  the  first  origin  of  the  city,  "  from  associating, 
 acting  together,  since  they  here  formed  themselves  into  a  civic 
 dwelhng  together."  4.  The  name  Kirjath-Arba  imphes  like 
 Jebus  (Judges  xix.  11),  and  the  city  of  David,  the  existence  of 
 a  pecuhar  proper  name.  It  stands  altogether  in  a  similar  relation 
 to  the  name  Mamre  =  city  ^/Mamre,  which  the  city  bore  in 
 the  patriarchal  times.  Only  instead  of  this  latter  name,  that  of 
 Kirjath-Arba  was  probably  substituted,  and  the  Israelites  used  the 
 name  Hebron,  which  had  been  so  dear  to  them  from  the  history 
 of  the  Patriarchs,  not  absolutely  to  revive  it,  but  they  only  aided 
 its  sole  use  when  Kirjath-Arba  had  become  a  nomen  vanum. 
 
 Against  our  view,  which  is  supported  by  such  substantial  rea- 
 sons, nothing  can  be  urged  but  the  passage  in  Genesis  xxiii.  2,  in 
 which  it  is  assumed  that  it  is  settled,  that,  in  Abraham's  time,  the 
 usual  name  was  Kirjath-Arba.  It  is  there  said,  "  And  Sarah 
 died  in  Kirjath-Arba,  the  same  is  Hebron  in  the  land  of  Ca- 
 naan." The  assertion  rests  only  on  this,  that  the  name  mentioned 
 primo  loco  must  always  be  the  older  and  original  one.  But  ch. 
 xxxv.  27  is  decisive  to  the  contrary,  "  And  Jacob  came  unto  Isaac 
 his  father  unto  Mamre,  unto  Kirjath-Arba,  that  is  Hebron." 
 Here  Mamre  is  nvim^di  jwimo  loco.  But  Mamre  cannot  have 
 been  the  original  name  of  the  city  ;  for  Hebron  was  built  long 
 before  Abraham,  but  Mamre  was  liis  contemporary.  Moreover, 
 whatever  weight  this  passage  can  have,  is  certainly  outweighed  by 
 the  circumstance,  that  the  author,  when  he  first  mentions  the  city 
 in  Gen.  xiii.  18,  calls  it  Hebron  without  any  further  addition, 
 which  sufficiently  marks  this  name  as  the  unchangeable  original 
 one.  The  author,  when  in  a  subsequent  passage  ch.  xxiii.  2, 
 mentions  the  city  under  several  names,  designedly  says,  not  Heb- 
 ron, that  is,  Mamre,  or  Kirjath-Arba,  but  always  Mamre,  or 
 
DAN.  157 
 
 Kirjath-Arba,  that  is,  Hebron."  He  thus  indicates,  that  Heb- 
 ron was  and  continued  to  be  at  the  time  he  was  wiiting  the  legi- 
 timate name.  That  w^here  he  only  uses  one  name,  as  in  Gen.  xiii. 
 18,  and  Num.  xiii.  22,  he  calls  the  city  Hebron,  and  that  when 
 he  cites  other  names,  they  are  always  followed  by  pnn  sin  rests  on 
 the  same  grounds.  We  have  here  another  example  of  intention- 
 ality  descending  to  the  most  minute  particulars. 
 
 dan. 
 
 A  place  called  Dan  is  mentioned  in  the  appendix  to  the  Pen- 
 tateuch, Deut.  xxxiv.  1,  and  in  Gen.  xiv.  11.  If  this  Dan  be 
 identical  with  that  mentioned  in  Joshua  xix.  47,  Judges  xviii.  29, 
 it  will  occasion  no  small  difficulty  to  the  advocates  of  the  Mosaic 
 authorship.  For,  according  to  the  books  of  Joshua  and  Judges, 
 the  city  at  an  earher  period  was  called  Latsh  or  Leshim,  and  re- 
 ceived the  name  Dan  not  till  the  post-Mosaic  times  from  the  Iril/e 
 of  Dan,  who  had  captured  it.* 
 
 Some  of  the  advocates  of  the  genuineness  (Prideaux,  Wit- 
 sius,  Eeland,  Bachiene,  ii.  4,  §  758)  allow  the  identity,  and 
 maintain  that  the  name  Laish  was  afterwards  altered  to  Dan.  If 
 this  be  done,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  Dan  furnishes  an  ar- 
 gument against  the  Mosaic  authorsliip  of  the  Pentateuch,  which 
 must  be  overcome  by  stronger  counter- arguments,  (see  p.  183.) 
 Yet  the  alteration  here  is  so  inconsiderable,  that  much  labour  is 
 not  requisite  in  order  to  justify  its  admission.  Others,  as  Jahn 
 and  Eichhorn,  maintain  the  diiference. 
 
 The  resemblance  of  Hituation  is  a  stronger  proof  of  identity 
 than  the  resemblance  of  name.  The  Dan  of  Genesis  lay,  like 
 that  of  the  books  of  Joshua  and  Judges,  in  the  most  northern 
 part  of  Canaan.  That  two  cities  w^ere  situated  there,  which  bore 
 the  same  names  independently  of  one  another,  is  antecedently 
 
 *  The  event  took  place  soon  after  the  death  of  Joshua;  compare  Studer,  p.  3G0. 
 According  to  Konig  {Alttest.  Stud.  i.  84)  it  belonged  to  the  times  of  Joshua.  But 
 this  view  is  opposed  by  the  contrast  of  the  state  of  religion  which  tliis  narrative  pre- 
 sents to  us  to  that  which  existed  under  Joshua,  and  by  the  passage  in  Judges  xvii.  6, 
 according  to  which  it  happened,  when  there  was  no  king  in  Israel,  but  every  one  did 
 thut  which  ivas  r'Hjht  in  his  own  ej/cs  ;  this  latter  expression  does  not  apply  to  the  times 
 of  Joshua. 
 
158  ANACHRONISMS  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 improbable.     Yet  such  an  accidental  concurrence,  though  rare,  is 
 not  without  example,  and  the  authority  of  the  Pentateuch  required 
 only  some  support  by  traces  elsewhere  of  the  existence  of  two 
 Dans  in  those  parts,  completely  to  outweigh  that  improbabihty. 
 Now  such  a  trace,  the  older  critics  supposed  they  had  found  in 
 JosEPHUs,  Antiq.  i.  10,  §  1,  where  in  reference  to  Gen.  xiv.  14, 
 it  is  said,  "irepl  Advov  ovt(o<^  fyap  r]  erepa  rov^Iop^dvov  irpooray- 
 opeverai  irri^r].     But  Gesenius  (in  his  translation  of  Burck- 
 hardt's  Travels,  i.  49G)  remarks  on  the  contrary,  that  the  source 
 of  the  Jordan  obtained  the  name  Dan  without  doubt  from  the 
 settlement  of  the  Danites  and  the  erection  (?)  of  the  town  of  Dan 
 m  its  neighbourhood;  and  if  any  one  will  compare  tlie  description 
 of  the  situation  of  the  town  of  Dan  which  received  its  name  from 
 the  Danites  in  ver.  3,  §   1,  and  viii.  8  §  4   {iqZk  ecm  7rpo<;  rat? 
 TTrjyal^  rod  fiiKpov  'lophdvov),  it  is  certainly  probable  that  the 
 name  was  transferred  from  the  town  to  the  fountains.     On  the 
 other  hand,  the  passage  in  2  Sam.  xxiv.  6.     (''  Then  they  came 
 to  Gilead,  and  to  the  land  of  Tahtim-hodshi,  and  they  came  to 
 Dan-Jaan  and  about  to  Zidon,")  fm-nishes  an  argument  for  two 
 Dans,  wliich  we  cannot  see  how  to  dispose  of.     It  is  difificult  to 
 suppose  that  the  Dan  that  commonly  occurs,  is  here  intended. 
 For  of  Dan-Laish  there  occurs  nowhere  a  more  exact  description. 
 It  is  mentioned  before  in  ver.  2,  and  after  in  ver.  15,  without  any 
 addition.     For  what  purpose  is  the  Jaan  here,  unless  it  served  to 
 distinguish  the  place  from  the  other  Dan  which  would  most 
 readily  occur  to  any  one  when  he  heard  the  name?     That  Dan- 
 Jaan  lay  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Dan-Laish  or  Dan  simply,  is 
 apparent  from  the  description.     For  it  stood  between  Gilead  and 
 the  country  round  about  Zidon. 
 
 Yet  we  do  not  mean  to  deny  that  the  argument  drawn  fr^om  the 
 occurrence  of  the  name  Dan,  might  again  acquire  some  weight,  if 
 it  were  accompanied  by  a  number  of  similar  instances.  But  this 
 is  so  little  the  case,  that  of  all  the  alleged  anachronisms  the  worth- 
 lessness  of  this  may  be  most  strictly  proved.  But  to  suppose  that 
 with  Dan  alone,  anything  can  be  done,  would  be  as  absurd,  as  to 
 imagine  that  a  breach  would  be  made  in  a  well-built  fortress  by  a 
 single  musket- shot. 
 
MORIAH.  159 
 
 MORTAH, 
 
 It  is  probable — Vater  remarks  (p.  G31),  that  the  author  of 
 Gen.  xxii.  14,  deduced  the  name  Mount  Moriah  from  an  event  in 
 Abraham's  hfe,  because  on  a  mountain  of  this  name,  Solomon  had 
 built  his  temple.  In  propounding  this  argument,  he  had  the  older 
 opponents  of  the  genuineness,  as  Spinoza  and  Le  Clerc  (in  his 
 Sentiments,  &c.  p.  131,)  for  his  predecessors,  and  later  ones  as 
 Schumann  and  Von  Bohlen  (who  asserts  it  with  still  greater 
 confidence)  have  been  his  followers. 
 
 Some  have  endeavoured  to  set  aside  this  argument,  by  denying 
 the  identity  of  the  two  places  which  has  been  decidedly  acknow- 
 ledged by  the  great  majority,  and  have  maintained  that  the  Moriah 
 of  Genesis  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Mountain  of  the  Temple. 
 So,  first  of  all,  which  must  have  produced  an  unfavourable  im- 
 pression, OuTHOV,  in  an  essay  in  the  Biblioth  Breni.  ii.  261,  then 
 Jahn,  lastly  Bleek  on  the  mention  of  Moriah  in  Gen.  xxii.  2. 
 (in  Contrihutions  to  inquiries  on  the  Pentateuch.  Stud.  u.  Krit 
 1831.  p.  520),  whose  reasoning  has  gained  the  approval  of  De 
 Wette.  He  thinks,  that  by  the  Moriah  in  Genesis  is  to  be  un- 
 derstood a  district  in  Sichem,  which  in  Gen.  xii.  0  ;  Deut.  xi. 
 30;  and  Judg.  vii.  1,  is  designated  Moreh.  Probably  n-i'itan-ps 
 originally  stood  here  in  the  text.  The  present  reading  was  pro- 
 bably brought  into  the  text  at  rather  a  late  period,  perhaps  not 
 before  the  introduction  of  points. 
 
 The  latter  supposition,  to  mention  no  other  reasons,  is  proved 
 to  be  untenable  by  a  passage  in  Josephus  I.  13,  §  2,  where  it  is 
 said  of  Abraham, — irapafyiveTai  eh  to  opo^,  icj)  ov  to  lepov 
 Aa^i^r}<^  6  /Saackev^  vaTepov  IBpveTat.  At  all  events  this  shows 
 that  in  the  time  of  Josephus,  Moriah  stood  in  the  text. 
 
 But  we  cannot  reconcile  om'selves  to  the  whole  hypothesis,  wdaich 
 destroys  the  connection  of  the  Moriah  of  Genesis  and  that  of  the 
 Mountain  of  the  Temple.  The  chief  reason  urged  in  its  favour 
 by  Bleek  is  the  following.  Nothing  is  said  in  Genesis  of  a 
 Mount  Moriah  ;  only  the  land  of  Moriah  is  named  in  ver.  2, 
 and  if  this  designation  occurs  as  known  to  Abraham  and  at  once 
 intelligible  to  him,  the  mountain  must  have  been  so  designated  at  a 
 later  period.  When  it  is  afterwards  said  in  ver.  14,  that  Abraham 
 had  given  to  the  mountain  the  name  of  Jehovah  J  ireh,  it  would 
 
160  ANACHRONISMS  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 be  perfectly  arbitrary  and  unnatural  to  suppose  that  the  author 
 wished  it  to  be  so  understood,  that  Abraham  had  not  given  it  this 
 name,  but  the  name  of  Moriah,  which  in  ver.  2,  is  used  as  the 
 name  of  the  land  or  district  where,  this  mountain  or  hill  was  situ- 
 ated with  several  others.  But  this  argumentation  loses  its  impor- 
 tance as  soon  as  the  fleeting  nature  of  nomina  jrroj^ria  in  the 
 remotest  antiquity,  and  especially  in  Genesis,  is  understood.  That 
 MoiiiAH  in  ver.  2,  is  a  prolej^tsis,  the  author  himself  afterwards 
 explains.  It  follows  fi'om  its  etymology.  We  have  shown  in 
 vol.  i.  pp.  274,  275,  that  the  only  legitimate  explanation  of  the 
 name  is  that  furnished  by  the  appearance  of  the  Lord.  It  is 
 also  shown  that  the  name  was  first  occasioned  by  the  event  nar- 
 rated in  Gen.  xxii.,  and  therefore,  in  ver.  2,  must  be  used  pro- 
 leptically.  If  the  name  denotes  the  appearing  of  the  Lord,  it  must 
 belong  primarily  to  the  mountain  on  which  this  manifestation 
 took  place ;  and  was  then  transferred  to  the  whole  district  to  which 
 the  mountain  belonged.  On  account  of  this  close  connection 
 between  the  mountain  and  the  district,  the  name  in  its  peculiar 
 form,  after  it  had  been  used  in  ver.  2,  might  be  presumed  to  be 
 known.  On  this  account,  in  ver.  14,  an  explanatory  paraphrase 
 is  substituted  for  it,  "?'?'?  '^'T\  such  as  is  usual  in  Genesis  ;  not  a 
 strict  etymological  derivation,  but  only  an  allusion  to  the  ety- 
 mology. The  Jehovah  -  Jireh  bears  the  same  relation  to 
 MoRiAH  as  the  T'?P^'^  to  Cain, — the  ^=!="-2;^!  in  ch.  ver.  29,  to 
 Noah,  the  ^^^^s  "nt^s  n^ns  to  Jehovah.  The  form  shows  that  it  is 
 not  strictly  a  nom.  j^ropr.  but  merely  a  paraphrase  of  one. 
 
 Other  things  alleged  by  Bleek  will  be  noticed  elsewhere  in 
 another  connection.  On  the  contrary,  there  are  the  following 
 reasons  for  the  identity — (i.)  The  situation.  Abraham  comes  on  the 
 third  day  from  Beershebah  to  Mount  Moriah.  The  distance 
 between  Beershebah  and  Jerusalem  is  reckoned  at  fourteen 
 hours,  equal  to  as  much  as  an  ass  w^ould  travel  over  a  mountainous 
 tract  in  the  time  mentioned,  (ii.)  The  name.  This  argument,  of 
 peculiar  importance,  lies  precisely  in  the  peculiarity  of  the  name. 
 It  is  hardly  conceivable  that  there  should  be  two  Moriah's  inde- 
 pendent of  one  another.  Then  again  (iii.)  a  theological  reason, 
 which  we  do  not  expect  to  be  universally  acknowledged.  It  can 
 scarcely  be  supposed  that,  while  so  many  places  in  Canaan  were 
 hallowed  by  transactions  of  the  patriarchal  age,  that  precisely  the 
 
MORIAH.  jg^ 
 
 most  sacred  pJace  in  later  times  should  be  altogether  without  anv 
 uch  sacred  associations.  Ti:is  would  be  atlibuting  „  e  "o 
 01  ance  than  to  the  secret  guidance  of  Divine  Providence  which 
 we  percerve  everywhere  else  in  this  reference.  Hence  if" 
 th,s  theolog,cal  point  of  view,  we  find  only  a  slight  tral  of  sr^. 
 
 f^reXTf  GoT'T'  f  p'r  '^''^^-  ''^--^^  ^^ 
 
 the  glory  oi  God,  and  where  he  made  himself  known  to  his 
 people,  we  shaU  be  disposed  to  follow  it.     In  addition,  there 
 the  typical  connection  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  with  th    sax^rifice 
 of  Chnst,  to  w  noh  the  New  Testament  alludes,  Rom.  v^  S 
 God  s  command  to  Abraham  to  offer  his  son.  was  a  prediction  of 
 
 ZrZ'r'  uT''  ""  '"  '°"  "'  *^''^-  ^<i  deiires  nothing 
 which  he  himself  does  not  also  give.  But  revelation  delights  in 
 mdicating  the  internal  harmony  by  external  similarities.  HeneT 
 If  there  are  other  grounds  for  .asserting  the  identity  of  the  place 
 of  these  events-the  type  and  the  antitype  between  which  the 
 remple  with  itssacrificial  system  forms  an  admirable  hnk-w  shd^ 
 with  greater  confidence  maintain  it  from  this  point  of  view 
 
 But  while  we  admit  the  identity  of  the  place,  we  utterly  deny 
 he  correctness  of  the  conclusion  which  our  opponents  draw  from 
 >t.  Ihey  have  no  positive  argument  in  its  favour.  For  who  will 
 mamtain,  that  when  two  important  transactions  are  stated  to  have 
 passed  at  one  and  the  same  place,  that  one  must  always  be  fei™  c 
 on  account  of  the  other  ?  Could  not  the  Divine  Providence  bring 
 about  this  coincidence  as  it  effected,  at  a  later  period,  the  coinci 
 
 S:  '7cT- 1  "'■ ',  T'l'-^My  --  "-P-<-t  eCent.  the  s" 
 cufice  of  Christ,  with  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  ?     To  be  loricallv 
 consistent,  must  it  not  be  maintained,  that,  in  all  probability 
 the  author  had  mvented  the  whole  histoi7  of  the  sacrifice  of 
 Isaac  m  the  land  of  Moruh  in  order  to  form  a  typical  represen- 
 tation of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  ?     And  then,  who  will  say,  that 
 the  ancient  historical  consecration  of  the  place  was  not  an  induce- 
 ment to  David  and  Solomon  for  erecting  the  temple  on  that  pre- 
 cise spot  !     It  IS  no  argument  against  this,  diat  the  immediate 
 occasion  of  selecting  that  site  for  the  temple  was  a  Divine  appear- 
 ance to  David;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  1,  &c;   1  Chron.  xxi.  28  ;  xxii    1 
 J^  or  this  appearance  was  in  fact  only  a  revival  of  the  remembrance 
 of  the  earlier  one  a  corroboration  of  the  invitation  contained  in 
 that  to  fix  upon  tins  spot.     The  following  reasons  may  be  alleged 
 
1C2  ANxiCimONISMS  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 against  the  view  of  our  opponents,  (i.)  Analogies  are  against  it. 
 In  all  other  places,  in  which  a  later  consecration  coincides  with 
 one  of  an  earlier  age,  as,  for  instance,  at  Bethel,  Beershebai-i, 
 GiLGAL,  it  is  quite  impossible  to  regard  the  latter  as  the  product 
 of  the  former ;  the  relation  of  the  two  is  exactly  the  reverse. 
 Even  Vatke  (p.  457)  is  forced  to  acknowledge  that  ''^  the  typical 
 consecration  which  the  patriarchal  worship  imparted  to  these 
 places,  which  were  regarded  as  profone  by  the  Jewish  prophets  of 
 the  eighth  century,  indicate  an  early  age  for  the  narratives  relat- 
 ing to  them  in  Genesis."  That  a  presumption  very  unfavourable 
 to  the  views  of  our  opponents  arises  from  these  analogies,  is  evi- 
 dent, (ii.)  The  name  Moriah,  compounded  of  Jah  =  JeJiovah, 
 and  the  hophal  particijde  of  the  verb  ^^^,  cannot  belong  to  a 
 later  period,  since  the  hophal  of  the  verb  r:sn  occurs  only  in  the 
 Pentateuch.  (See  vol.  i.  p.  S75.)  (iii.)  The  supposition,  that 
 the  sanctity  which  Mount  Moriah  obtained  from  being  the  site  of 
 the  temple  had  given  birth  to  a  legend  of  which  the  name  Moriah 
 forms  the  centre,  implies  that  this  name,  as  that  of  the  mountain 
 of  the  temple,  was  in  common  use,  and  also  that  the  circumjacent 
 countr}'  received  from  it  the  name  of  the  land  of  Moriah.  But 
 the  exact  contrary  proves  to  be  the  foct.  Reland  has  remarked 
 (p.  854),  Certe  in  sacris  litter  is,  quiim  de  templo  sermo  est, 
 quod  Moriae  ijieuhuisse,  nemo  est  qui  ner/et,  illud  Siou  solet 
 trihiii,  quo  spectant  Id  modi  loquendi,  deuni  elegisse  Sionem, 
 hahitare  in  Sione,  dec.  As  the  name  of  a  district,  Moriah 
 occurs  in  not  a  single  passage  of  the  later  books ;  as  the  name 
 of  the  mountain  of  the  Temple  only  in  2  Chron.  iii.  1.  From 
 our  point  of  view,  the  explanation  of  the  fixct  has  no  difficulty. 
 That  the  name  Moriah  proceeded  from  an  event  in  Abraham's 
 life,  and  remained  enclosed  within  the  limits  of  the  family  of  the 
 Patriarchs,  is  self-evident.  If  the  Israelites,  at  the  invasion  of 
 the  land  under  Joshua,  had  at  once  obtained  tliis  district  for  an 
 abiding  possession,  the  name  Moriah,  like  so  many  others, 
 Beersheba,  Bethel,  Gilead,  Mahanaim,  Penuel,  Hebron, 
 would  soon  have  come  into  general  use.  In  connection  with  the 
 total  change  in  all  the  relations  of  the  country,  the  new  name 
 very  easily  expehed  the  old,  and  in  the  pious  zeal  which  animated 
 the  people,  w^e  may  presume  that  they  would  as  soon,  and  as  com- 
 pletely as  possible,  substitute  sacred  for  profane  names.     But 
 
BETHEL.  103 
 
 ZiON  remained  till  David's  time  in  the  possession  of  the  Jebusites, 
 (2  Sam.  iv.  7),  and  the  Israehtes  had  been  accustomed  for  a  long- 
 time not  less  to  this  name  than  the  original  inhabitants,  Avith 
 whom  they  dwelt  together  in  Jeuusalem.*  Thus  they  neglected 
 to  drive  out  the  ancient  name  from  its  stronghold,  though  every 
 body  knew  that  Zion  was  the  Moriah  of  the  ancient  sacred  his- 
 tory.  After  the  captivity,  when  the  national  relations  underwent 
 a  fresh  revolution,  the  name  Moriah  first  obtained  its  rights,  yet 
 not  so  as  to  abrogate  the  name  Zion,  with  which  so  many  heart- 
 felt recollections  were  combined,  but  only  as  aj^phed  to  that  par- 
 ticular spot  on  which  the  Temple  was  situated,  though  it  belonged 
 originally  to  the  whole. 
 
 BETHEL. 
 
 ''  The  name  Bethel,"  Vatke  remarks,  "  most  evidently 
 proves  the  use  of  a  post-Mosaic  name.  This  name  is  very  often 
 employed ;  Abraham  dwelt  near  the  town  of  Bethel,  Gen.  xii. 
 8  ;  Jacob  gives  the  place  which  before  was  called  Luz,  the  name 
 of  Bethel,  Gen.  xxviii.  19,  xxxv.  15,  though  the  place  was 
 still,  in  the  time  of  Joshua,  called  Luz,  as  is  plainly  shewn  by 
 Josh,  xviii.  13. 
 
 But  the  apparent  anachronism  vanishes  on  a  closer  examina 
 tion.  Jacob  called  first  of  all,  not  the  town,  but  the  place  in  its 
 vicinity,  where  he  had  seen  the  angels  of  God  ascending  and 
 descending.  Bethel,  Gen.  xxxv.  15.  They  are  distinguished 
 from  one  another  in  Josh.  xvi.  1,2,  "  And  the  lot  of  the  chil- 
 dren of  Joseph  goeth  out  from  Bethel  to  Luz."  By  his  descen- 
 dants the  name  was  transferred  to  the  town;  compare,  for  in- 
 stance. Gen.  xxxv.  6,  ''  So  Jacob  came  to  Luz,  which  is  in  the 
 land  of  Canaan,  that  is  Bethel."  That  the  Canaanitish  inhabi- 
 tants of  the  town  still  persisted  in  calling  it  as  before  Luz,  and 
 that  the  name  Bethel  had  only  a  prophetic  importance,  was 
 perfectly  natural,  and  needed  not  to  be  expressly  noticed.  Not 
 till  the  Israehtes  captm^d  the  town  would  the  name  Luz  be 
 superseded  by  the  name  Bethel. 
 
 »  That  the  name  of  Zion  ^yu^  us.  d  by  i\:e  origiual  iuliaLitants,  app;  ju-s  from  1 
 
 BiUU.  IT.  9. 
 
 t   2 
 
164  ANACHRONISMS  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 That  this  naiae  (Bethel)  was  already  in  existence  appears  from 
 its  being  given  by  the  Israelites  to  Liiz  as  soon  as  it  was  taken. 
 It  stands  in  no  relation  to  any  event  of  that  time  ;  it  only  points 
 to  the  fact  recorded  in  Genesis ;  and  the  fact  to  which  the  name 
 refers  lies  far  beyond  the  period  of  the  invasion  of  the  land ;  and 
 from  the  internal  connection  between  names  and  things,  this  must 
 also  be  true  of  the  name. 
 
 How  powerfully  the  minds  of  the  Israelites  w^ere  impressed  by 
 the  transaction  in  which,  according  to  the  Book  of  Genesis,  the 
 name  Bethel  originated,  w^e  may  learn  from  the  circumstance,  that 
 during  the  war  against  tlie  Benjamites,  the  Ai-k  of  the  Covenant 
 was  in  Bethel;  there  also,  after  the  war  w^as  over,  the  gathering  of 
 the  people  was  held,  before  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant;  Judges  xx. 
 18,  26  ;  likewise  from  the  fact  that  Bethel  belonged  to  the  num- 
 ber of  the  places  consecrated  by  the  recollection  of  past  time,  at 
 wdiich  the  people  of  the  Ten  Tribes  rendered  their  self-chosen 
 worship  to  the  Lord.  (See  vol.  i.  p.  142.)  Jeroboam  trusted 
 so  much  to  the  ancient  sanctity  of  this  place,  that  he  considered 
 it  suited,  in  preference  to  all  others,  to  be  the  rival  of  Jerusalem ; 
 and,  accordingly,  there  he  erected  his  sanctuary.  (See  vol.  i.  p. 
 210.)  Certainly  as  early  as  Samuel's  time  it  was  the  seat  of  a 
 private  worship.     1  Sam.  x.  3. 
 
 Gesenius  gives  as  his  opinion,  in  the  Thesaurus,  p.  194,  ah 
 his  sanctuariis  (in  the  time  of  the  Judges  and  Jeroboam)  haec 
 n7'bs  domns  dei  nomen  facile  sortiri  potuit.  But  the  question 
 arises,  how  came  these  sanctuaria  there  ?  That  the  author  of 
 the  Book  of  Judges  places  the  ground  of  the  choice  of  Bethel  for 
 a  temporary  seat  of  the  Ark,  in  the  transactions  of  past  time,  has 
 been  already  shown  (p.  88).  And  thus  the  name  of  Bethel  is,  at 
 all  events,  earlier  than  these  sanctuaria.  Or  must  the  passages 
 in  the  Book  of  Joshua,  and  the  minute  narrative  in  Judges  i.  22, 
 be  rejected  ?  How  could  the  name  Bethel  have  been  current  in 
 the  kingdom  of  Judah,  if  it  had  not,  at  a  time  wdien  the  name  and 
 the  actual  character  of  the  place  were  strikingly  contrasted,  alto- 
 gether abrogated  the  former  name,  and  obtained  absolute  supre- 
 macy ?  That  the  name  Bethel  is  deduced,  in  Hosea  iv.  15,  xii.  5, 
 from  the  transactions  recorded  in  Genesis,  has  been  already  point- 
 ed out.      (Vol.  i.  p.  114,  129.) 
 
GENESIS  XXXVI.  81.  l6o 
 
 BEFORE  THERE  REIGNED  ANY  KING  OVER  THE  CHILDREN  OE 
 
 ISRAEL. 
 
 It  is  said  in  Genesis  xxxvi.  31,  "  And  these  are  the  kings  that 
 reigned  in  the  land  of  Edom,  hefore  there  reigned  any  king  over 
 the  children  of  Israel." 
 
 This  passage  is  regarded  by  Le  Clerc  as  a  later  addition.  Va- 
 TER  (p.  643)  maintains  that  it  could  not  have  been  written  till 
 Israel  had  a  Idng.  Von  Bohlen  {E'uileitum/,  p.  09)  remai'ks, 
 the  author  is  acquainted  with  kings  in  Gen.  xvii.  6,  16  ;  xxxv.  11 ; 
 xxxvi.  31 ;  xhx.  20  ;  Deut.  xvii.  14,  xxviii.  36.  "  In  many  of 
 these  passages"  (a  proof  of  the  almost  inconceivable  inaccuracy  of 
 this  writer)  "  it  is  said,  '  before  kings  ruled  over  Israel,'  as  if  in 
 the  times  of  Charlemagne  it  was  said,  '  tliis  happened  before  the 
 Reformation.'  " 
 
 The  doubts  which  arise  at  the  first  view  of  this  passage  vanish 
 entirely,  when  the  reference  it  so  palpably  contains  to  the  pre- 
 ceding promises  to  the  patriarchs  of  a  kingdom  among  their 
 posterity  is  borne  in  mind,  especially  the  passage  in  the  preced- 
 ing chapter  (xxxv.  11),  where  God  says  to  Jacob,  "  I  am  God 
 Almighty ;  be  fruitful  and  multiply ;  a  nation  and  a  company  of 
 nations  shall  be  of  thee  ;  and  kings  shall  come  out  of  thy  loins." 
 
 This  reference  has  been  perceived  by  the  older  expositors.  J. 
 H.  MiCHAELis  remarks,  Antequani  imjjleretur  promissio,  c. 
 xxxv.  11,  mysterium  crucis.  And  Calvin  gives  an  excellent  com- 
 mentary on  this  short  but  pregnant  intimation :  Memoria  tenen- 
 dum est,  quod  paulo  ante  dixinnus,  subito  excellere  reprohos, 
 ut  statim  concidant,  sicut  herha  tectorum,  quce  radice  caret, 
 2)raecocein  hahet  vigorem,  sed  citius  arescit.  Duohus  Jiliis 
 Isaac  j)/'omissa  fiierat  haec  dignitas,  quod  oriundi  essent  ah 
 ipsis  reges ;  priores  incijnunt  regnai'c  Idumaei ;  ita  videtur 
 deterior  esse  Israelitarum  conditio.  ISed  tandem  successus 
 tempores  docuit,  quanta  melius  sit  humi  reytando  alias  agere 
 radices,  quam  praeposteram  cxcellentiam  momento  acquirere, 
 quae  statim  evanescat."^ 
 
 *  L'oinpai'e  also  Wixsius,  Misc.  i.  p.  IZb.   Jacobo  facta  crat  ile  regibus  promissio, 
 Esavo  uon  Merito  ergo  observat  Moses,  taiKjuam  r.m  memorabilem,  ct  in  qua  iugeiis 
 
166  ANACHRONISMS  IN  THE   PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Tlius  all  peculiar  difficulty  is  removed  from  tins  passage. 
 It  stands  in  a  similar  position  with  the  rest,  in  which  tlie 
 erection  of  a  kingdom  is  regarded  as  a  necessary  step  in  the  de- 
 velopment of  the  people  of  God.  If  persons  are  disposed  to 
 consider  these  passages  collectively  as  marks  of  a  later  age,  let 
 them  do  so.  But  then,  let  them  also  strike  out  of  history  all 
 other  events,  which  tell  us  that  to  spirits  of  a  high  order  a  far- 
 reaching  glance  into  the  ftiture  has  ofttimes  heen  permitted; 
 let  them  wTth  an  unintelligent  consistency  hlot  out  from  the  re- 
 cords of  humanity  whatever  transcends  the  comprehension  of  theii* 
 ow^n  httle  minds. 
 
 Von  Bohlen  could  not  have  appealed  to  a  worse  example  than 
 that  of  the  Eeformation.  He  has  no  perception  that  the  pre- 
 announcements  of  it,  hoth  in  name  and  character,  were  made  for 
 centuries  before  it  took  place.  Compare  the  copious  collections 
 in  LoscHBR,  Reformatio)isacta,  i.  145.  Weikhmann,  de  vati- 
 cini'is  in  genere,  S2)eciatimque  de  vaticmiis  Lutlieriy  Witten. 
 1755,  p.  24.  (Luther's  own  predictions,  p.  30,  &c.),  and  other 
 writings  there  quoted ;  in  reference  to  Joachim,  at  the  end  of  the 
 12th  century,  Eudelbach's  Life  of  Savonarola,  p.  297.  St 
 Brigitta,  in  the  14th  century,  p.  300,  &c.  Savonarola  himself,  p. 
 302,  &c.  What  remarkable  glimpses  of  the  future  Bengel  had, 
 when  his  mind  was  h'eed  from  the  fetters  of  his  apocalyptic  sys- 
 tem, are  collated  by  Buek  in  his  Life  of  Bengel,  p.  S95.  "  Let 
 us  only  observe,"  he  writes,  "  whether  the  King  of  France  will 
 not  become  Emperor."  "  The  German  bishoprics  and  abbeys 
 will  become  secularised."  "  The  Latin  language  will  no  longer 
 continue  in  current  use,  as  it  is  at  present.  Generally  literatm'e  will 
 become  quite  a  new  and  different  thing."  "  The  doctrine  of  the 
 inner  word  will  do  immense  mischief,  if  once  the  philosophers 
 begin  to  make  use  of  it.  They  will  want  to  have  (to  speak 
 humanly),  the  kernel  without  core,  husk,  or  shell;  that  is,  Christ 
 without  the  Bible,  and  so,  from  vvdiat  is  most  subtile,  advance  to 
 what  is  gi'ossest,  without  knowing  what  they  are  doing,"  &c. 
 
 Nor  ought  we  to  omit  noticing  the  natural  foundations  which 
 the  presentiment  of  the  erection  of  a  kingdom  had  in  Israel. 
 
 esset  fidei  exercitiiim,  quod  anteqiiam  liaec  promissio  impleritur  in  posteritate  Jacohi, 
 Esavitae  tot  jam  reges  liabuerint.  Nou  est  uecesse  propheticum  hie  quicquam  fiiigtre. 
 Omnia  Listorica  sunt. 
 
EXODUS  VI.  2G,  27.  167 
 
 First  of  all,  as  regards  the  people.  In  tliis  respect  the  phrase, 
 "  as  all  the  nations,"  in  the  law  respecting  the  king,  Dent.  xvii. 
 14,  and  the  longing  which  the  people  expressed  to  Samuel,  1 
 Sam.  viii.  4,  show  the  strong  desire  and  leaning  of  the  people 
 towards  a  kingly  government.  Surrounded  on  all  sides  by  nations 
 who  had  kings,  how  could  they  repel  the  influence  of  the  mon- 
 archical spirit  of  the  age  ?  That  this  would  sooner  or  later  decid- 
 edly and  inevitably  assert  its  power,  every  intelhgent  person  could 
 foresee,  especially  when  the  defects  of  the  existing  polity  were  so 
 apparent.  Then,  as  regards  God — whoever  was  aware  of  the 
 defects  of  the  existing  polity,  and  perceived  how  injmious  it  was 
 that  the  invisible  king  was  not  regularly  represented  by  a  visible 
 ruler,  and  had  learned  by  daily  experience  the  truth  of  the  maxim — 
 
 ouK  aya^rdif  iroXvKOipavi^)'  els  Koipavo'S  'i<TT<a, 
 
 eIs  /SacriXeOs —  II.  ii.  201. 
 
 and  at  the  same  time  that,  on  account  of  the  sinful  w^eakness  of 
 the  people,  the  unity  of  the  heavenly  ruler  was  not  alone  suffi- 
 cient to  meet  the  exigency — for  such  a  person,  the  expectation  of  the 
 future  institution  of  a  regal  government  would  be  a  simple  result 
 of  the  conviction  that  the  Israelites  were  the  chosen  people,  since  it 
 is  regarded  as  a  consequence  of  their  election,  in  all  the  passages 
 relating  to  the  subject  in  Genesis. 
 
 THESE  ARE  THAT  AARON  AND  MOSES. 
 
 Exod.  vi.  26,  27.  It  is  said  at  the  close  of  the  genealogy  of 
 Aaron  and  Moses,  "  these  are  that  Aaron  and  Moses,  to  whom 
 the  Lord  said,  Bring  out  the  children  of  Israel  from  the  land  of 
 Egypt,  according  to  their  armies.  These  are  they  which  spake  to 
 riiaraoh  king  of  Egypt,  to  bring  out  the  children  of  Israel  from 
 Egypt,  these  are  that  Moses  and  Aaron,"  This  passage  is  one  of 
 the  eighteen  suspected  by  Le  Clerc.  No?i  uvfjetur guidem — he 
 remarks — tertia  perso)ia,  sed  iwonomen  demonstr.  s'n  ct  tsn, 
 quod  a  viveiite  Mose  et  dc  se  ipso  scrihode  vix  adhihcrljiotiiisse 
 videtur.  He  then  tries  to  remove  the  difficulty,  but  in  a  very 
 unsatisfactory  manner.  Vater  remarks,  "  We  should  only  write 
 thus  of  individuals  after  a  considerable  lapse  of  time." 
 
 Kanne  (ii.  82)  has  remarked,  that  the  words,  even  from  the 
 
168  .'^NACHRONISiMS  IN  THE  PKNTATEUCH. 
 
 point  of  view  taken  by  our  opponents,  cannot  possibly  Lave  for 
 their  object,  to  distinguish  Moses  and  Aaron  precisely  as  the  indi- 
 viduals, by  \Yhom  God  effected  the  departure  of  the  Israehtes  from 
 Egypt,  so  that  it  might  be  known  that  they  and  no  others  were 
 the  persons.  At  what  time  would  this  have  been  necessary  ? 
 Every  child  knew  it.  And  it  was  sufficiently  expressed  in  the 
 preceding  context. 
 
 If  the  real  object  and  the  true  meaning  of  the  words  can  be 
 ascertained,  their  singular  appearance,  and  every  difficulty  con- 
 nected with  it,  will  vanish. 
 
 Ver.  13,  and  ver.  26,  27,  the  beginning  and  the  close  of  the 
 Genealogy  contained  in  ver.  14-25,  have  one  common  object — 
 to  show  why  it  was  inserted  at  all,  and  why  at  this  particular  place. 
 They  were  the  persons  to  whom  God  spoke,  whom  he  sent  to 
 Israel  and  to  Pharaoh,  and  who  performed  what  this  commission 
 involved.  In  their  dignity  as  the  messengers  of  God,  who  were 
 now  entering  on  pubhc  life,  lay  the  importance  of  their  genealogy 
 in  a  work  which  was  intended  to  describe  the  Divine  leadings  of 
 Israel.  "  These  are  that  Aaron  and  Moses,"  in  this  connection  is 
 equivalent  to  saying,  this  is  the  genealogy  of  Aaron  and  Mosee  ; 
 or  these  are  Aaron  and  Moses  according  to  their  genealogical  re- 
 lations.* We  obtain  a  reason  for  justifying  this  more  exact  des- 
 cription from  wdiat  immediately  proceeds ;  "  these  are  the  heads 
 of  the  fathers  of  the  Levites,  according  to  their  families."  We 
 obtain  the  same  result  from  comparing  ver.  27  with  ver.  13, 
 the  end  reverts  with  undeniable  design,  and  a  verbal  coincidence, 
 to  the  beginning — "  to  Pharaoh  king  of  Egypt,  to  bring  out  the 
 children  of  Israel  from  Egypt."  So  also  the  expression  "  these 
 are  that  Aaron  and  Moses,''  at  the  close  in  ver.  26,  coiTesponds 
 to  '*  these  be  the  heads  of  their  fathers'  houses,  in  ver.  14,  at  the 
 commencement  of  tlie  genealogy.  At  the  beginning  we  have, 
 "  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  and  unto  Aaron,"  whose  gene- 
 alogy follows ;  at  the  end,  this  is  the  genealogy  of  Moses  and 
 Aaron  to  whom  God  spake. 
 
 *  The  words  are  repeated  at  the  end  of  ver.  27,  in  order  to  mark  precisely  the  close  of 
 the  genealogy  and  the  resumption  of  tlje  history.  They  here  perform  the  same  service 
 as  the  phrases  of  transition  in  more  connected  historical  writings.  At  the  beginning  the 
 genealogical  reference  predominates,  and  Aaron  stands  as  the  elder, — at  the  end,  tJie  his- 
 torical point  of  view  is  taken,  and  Moses  is  named  first  as  the  mostimportant  personage  ; 
 just  as  in  ver.  13,  Moses  is  first,  where  the  author  passes  from  history  to  genealogy. 
 
ExoDUb  XVI.  iJ3-85.  169 
 
 EXOD.  XVI.  i33-85. 
 
 It  is  liere  said,  at  the  close  of  the  accoiiut  of  the  Mannah,  vei'. 
 88,  ''And  Moses  said  imto  Aaron,  Take  a  pot,  and  put  an  omer 
 full  of  manna  therein,  and  lay  it  up  before  the  Lord,  to  be  kept 
 for  your  generations  ;"  ver.  84,  "  As  the  Lord  commanded  Moses, 
 so  Aaron  laid  it  up  hefore  the  Testimony,  to  be  kept;"  ver.  85, 
 "  And  the  chilcben  of  Israel  did  eat  manna  forty  years,  until  they 
 came  to  a  land  inhabited;  they  did  eat  manna,  until  they  came 
 unto  the  borders  of  the  land  of  Canaan." 
 
 Most  of  the  inferences  which  have  been  drawn  from  this  pas- 
 sage (see  Vater  p.  445,  44C),  can  only  be  of  force  agcxinst  those 
 defenders  of  the  genuineness  who  maintain  the  successive  com- 
 position of  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form.     These  persons 
 indeed  are  here  thrown  into  extreme  perplexity,  and  the  means 
 which  they  use  to  free  themselves  from  it,  only  serve  to  make  it 
 more  visible.     Particularly  this  is  the  case  in  reference  to  the 
 n^nyn  ^3£5  i^  ver.  34,  according  to  the  common  interpretation:  "  be- 
 fore the  testimony"  =  the  tables  of  the  law;  this  is  incompatible 
 with  the  supposition  of  the  account  being  recorded  at  this  place 
 and  time  ;  for  the  tables  of  the  law  were  not  constructed  till  after- 
 wards, and  the  account  of  their  being  laid  in  the  Ark  of  the  Cove- 
 nant is  in  ch.  xl.  20.     Following  Scheibel  (i.  120),  Kanne 
 (ii.  82),  denies  that  n^-iy  denotes  the  tables  of  the  law.     According 
 to  him  the  testimony  means  the  place  where  God  testified  of  him- 
 self to  the  Israehtes,  a  holy  place  in  the  camp  where  God  mani- 
 fested himself  before  the  erection  of  the  Tabernacle.    This  supposi- 
 tion which  has  lately  been  adopted  by  Bauer  (Die  Bel.  des  A.  T. 
 Berk  1838,  i.  300)  is  just  as  arbitrary  as  the  attempt  of  Yatke, 
 (p.  409),  to  understand  by  the  word  nn:>  in  2  Kings  xvii.   15,  a 
 passage  irreconcileable  with  his  hypothesis— not  the  law  but  some 
 of  the  royal  ensignia  no  longer  known.     Hertz  (in  his  Sjmrem 
 des  Pent,  in  den  BB.  der  Konirje    GO),  has  noticed  that  r.^-.:}  in 
 more  than  a  hundred  passages  where  it  occurs  has  never  any  other 
 meaning  than  that  of  Testimonies  =  Laic :  *    Kanne's  intei-preta- 
 
 *  Even  the  two  passages,  Ps.  Ix.  l.aud  Ixxx.  I,  are  not  (as  Rosenmuller  thinks) 
 to  he  excepted.     We  can  scai'cely  conceive  Iiow  any  person  can  explain  myr:  ^:t:i 
 
170  ANACHRONISMS  IN  THE   PENTATEUCH. 
 
 tion  is  the  less  admissible,  since  the  law  hears  the  name  of  rii-is^  not 
 as  testifying  the  will  of  God,  in  which  sense  it  would  he  equivalent 
 to  Revelation,  hut  as  testifying  against  the  transgTcssions  of  the 
 people.  This  is  evident  from  Deijt.  xxxi.  21,  2G,  "Take  this 
 book  of  tlie  law,  and  put  it  in  the  side  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant 
 of  the  Lord  your  God,  that  it  may  be  there  for  a  witness  against 
 thee."  This  meaning  is  also  supported  by  the  relation  of  ^~^.  to 
 ^!:^?  IXaaTrjpiov;  compare  Exod.  xxv.  21,  "And  thou  shalt  put  the 
 Cajiporeih  above  upon  the  ark;  thou  shalt  put  the  Ednth  that  I 
 shall  give  thee."  Betv^een  the  Ediith,  which  accused  the  people 
 of  their  sins,  and  the  Lord,  the  holy  and  the  righteous,  the  CajJ- 
 jmreth  was  placed,  which  was  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  Atone- 
 ment; compare  Lev.  xvi.  13,"  that  the  cloud  of  the  insence  (the 
 symbol  of  prayer  that  founds  itself  on  the  blood  of  atonement) 
 may  cover  the  Cajiporeth,  that  is  upon  tlio  EdiitJi,  that  he  die 
 not."     Num.  vii.  89. 
 
 But  as  soon  as  it  is  felt  necessary  on  many  other  grounds,  par- 
 ticularly by  the  artistic  composition,  to  refer  the  final  digesting  of 
 the  Pentateuch  to  the  latter  days  of  Moses,  all  difficulties  vanish. 
 We  have  here  the  locus  classimis  on  the  manna  ;  Num.  xi.  7,  is 
 only  a  supplementary  notice.  That  the  author  here  introduces  an 
 account  of  the  manna  which  belongs  to  a  latter  time,  is  quite  natural 
 and  agreeable  to  his  constant  practice,  as  for  instance  in  Genesis, 
 that  every tlnng  belonging  to  one  patriarch  might  be  told  together, 
 his  death,  &c.,  although  it  might  be  considerably  beyond  the 
 following  time.  A  similar  method  occurs  in  the  other  histori- 
 cal books.  Thus  in  1  Sam.  xvii.  54,  in  the  narrative  of  David's 
 victory  over  Goliath,  it  is  mentioned  that  he  brought  his  head  to 
 Jerusalem,  wdiich  did  not  happen  till  fe)ur  years  later;  Luke,  in 
 ch.  ii.  19,  20,  adds  to  the  narrative  of  the  public  appearance  of 
 John  the  Baptist,  the  account  of  his  imprisonment. 
 
 But  the  statement  in  ver.  35,  that  the  Israelites  eat  manna  forty 
 years,  till  they  came  to  an  inhabited  country,  to  the  borders  of 
 
 otbenvise  tliau  of  tlie  law,  if  tliey  only  compare  tlie  four  passages,  Exod.  xxv.  IG,  22  ; 
 xxxi.  18;  xxxii.  15.  Not  witliout  design,  moreover,  is  tbe  law  here  called  r\''-'j. 
 The  testimony  of  God's  grace  towards  his  people,  strengthening  the  accusation,  must 
 stand  h  side  the  other  testimonies  against  the  transgi-essions  of  liis  people.  That  the 
 lav/  under  this  character  is  called  T\'ny  we  shtdl  afterwards  prove  more  fully  than  has 
 he^n  done  above,  in  the  disputation  on  the  theology  of  the  Pentateuch. 
 
EXODUS  XVI.  33-35.  171 
 
 Canaan,  appears  to  go  beyond  the  time  of  Moses,  particularly  if 
 compared  with  Josh.  v.  11,  12,  according  to  which  the  manna 
 lasted  some  time  after  the  death  of  Moses.    Le  Clerc,  with  whom 
 RoSENMULLER  agrees,  knows  no  other  expedient  than  to  explain 
 the  verse  as  a  gloss,  a  supposition  which  is  so   much  the  more 
 doubtful,  because  the  verse  stands  in  so  strict  a  connection  with 
 the  foregoing  statements,  which  likewise  relate  to  the  later  history 
 of  the  manna.     Resjwndent  quidcm  nonnulU,  observes  Le  Clerc 
 (de  scr.  Pent.  No.  VZ)—schisse  Moscn,  tit  liquet  ex  Num.  xiv. 
 33,  Mannampost  quadra yinta  aniio.s,  ivf/redicntihas  Israelltis 
 terram  Cananaem  cessaturam,  sed  hoc  iiarratur  hie,  non  prae- 
 dicitur,  ideoqae praeterito  iititur  Moses.     Itaque  hunc  versiim 
 Kara  TrapevOijici^v  additiim  dicere  hialini,  ex  occasione  antece- 
 dentium,   uhi  de    Gomero  Manna  pleno   ad  avcam  ponendo 
 scomo  est. 
 
 But  on  looking  at  the  passage  more  closely,  it  appears  to  con- 
 tain nothing  which  goes  beyond  the  time  of  Moses,  or  which  he 
 could  not  have  written.     He  informs  us  that  the  manna  was  not 
 imparted  to  the  Israehtes  as  a  transient  benefit,  to  meet  a  sudden 
 emergency,  but  was  continued  through  the  whole  time  of  their 
 march  from  the  first  to  the  fortieth  year,  when  they  reached  the 
 borders  of  an  inhabited  country.     Nothing  is  said  about  what 
 happened  afterwards  (compare  the  remarks  on  ly  in  the  Introduc- 
 tion to  Daniel),  though  it  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  is 
 intimated  by  the  expression,  "  to  a  land  inhabited,"  that  the  manna 
 could  now  be  continued  no  longer.      The  author  does  not  forestall 
 the  later  historical  development,  and  its  expected  record.    That  the 
 -y  must  be  understood,  as  we  have  taken  it,  that  the  author  means 
 only  to  state    the  time  when  the  manna  still  continued,  not  to 
 determine  the  point  of  time  when  it  ceased,  appears  from  Josh.  v. 
 11.  12.     According  to  this  passage,  which,  agreeably  to  the  con- 
 stant relation  of  tl^e  Book  of  Joshua  to  the  Pentateuch,  can  con- 
 tain no  contradiction  to  the  one  before  us,  the  manna  lasted  for 
 some  time   after  the  Israehtes  had  entered  the  inhabited  land. 
 Let  any  one  compare  this  passage,  which  annexes  itself  to  the 
 other  exactly  as  a  continuation,  how  entirely  different  it  is  con- 
 structed :—  "  And  they  did  eat  of  the  okl  corn  of  the  land— and 
 the  manna  ceased  on  the  morrow  after  they  bad  eaten  of  the  old 
 c  orn  of  the  land,  neither  had  the  children  of  Israel  manna  any 
 
172  ANACHRONISMS  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 more,  but  tliey  did  eat  of  the  fruit  of  the  hiud  of  Canaan  that 
 year."  What  is  here  narrated  really  happened  at  a  time  when 
 Moses  had  closed  his  work. 
 
 OMER. 
 
 Vatke  remarks  (p.  038),  In  Exod.  xvi.  3G,  Num.  iii.  47, 
 xviii.  6,  it  is  written,  "  an  Omer  is  the  tenth  part  of  the  Ephah ;" 
 this  explanation  is  remarkable,  if  it  was  not  rendered  necessary  by 
 the  changes  of  time. 
 
 In  the  first  place,  here  is  an  oversight  to  be  corrected,  which  we 
 would  pass  over  in  silence,  if  it  did  not  show  how  our  opponents 
 pick  up  whatever  may  serve  their  object,  without  previously  sub- 
 jecting it  to  rigid  proof,  like  persons  whose  great  aim  is  truth. 
 The  observation  is  found  only  in  Exod.  xvi.  3G  ;  in  the  two  latter 
 passages  there  is  nothing  of  the  kind  but  only  the  remark  that 
 "  the  shekel  is  twenty  gerahs."  Very  far  from  connecting 
 the  passages  in  the  original,  Vatke  only  takes  them  at  second- 
 hand from  Le  Clerc,  de  scr.  Pent,  where  (No.  13.  p.  28)  the 
 words  occur  which,  very  slightly  glanced  at,  gave  occasion  to  his 
 mistake:  similia  occurriint  de  nummo,  Num.  iii.  47;  xviii.  6, 
 that  the  observation  by  wliich  Le  Clerc  endeavours  to  obviate 
 the  objection  against  the  genuineness  taken  from  Exod.  xvi.  3G — 
 {tioii  constat  unquam  Judaeos  inter  se  aliis  mensnris  in  Pa- 
 laestina  usos  esse,  tit  ea  de  causa  vetcres  mensuras  dejiniri 
 oporteret) — is  past  over  without  notice,  is  justwdiat  might  be  ex- 
 pected. 
 
 J.  D.  Michaehs  first  pointed  out  the  way  for  completely  re- 
 moving the  difficulty  {Sujyjjl  p.  1929),  w^hen  he  gave  up  the 
 current  supposition  that  ^-o-j  is  the  name  of  a  measure.      He 
 
 compares  the  Arabic  j-^  catini  sive  poculi  parvi  genus  om- 
 nium minimum;  and  remarks,  iwojme  ergo  nomen  jwculifuit, 
 quale  secum  gestare  so  lent  Or  lent  ales  per  desert  a  iter  facientes, 
 ad  hauriendam  si  quani  rirus  velfous  offerret  aquam — hoc  in 
 j)oculo,  alia  vasa  non  hahentes,  et  mannam  collegerunt  Israel- 
 itae.  Kanne  also,  independently,  as  it  would  seem,  of  Michaelis, 
 aiTived  at  the  same  result,  (ii.  77).  He  thinks  that  the  Omer 
 was  a  common  earthen  vessel  which  was  generally   about  the 
 
OMKll.  178 
 
 same  size  as  for  instance  the  copper  mug  (Kttfferkrugc)  among 
 us,  so  that  it  could  be  easily  used  as  a  measure. 
 
 With  this  result  we  also  agree,  and  would  here  attempt  to  raise 
 it  above  a  mere  conjecture;  which  cannot  be  effected  by  appeal- 
 ing to  the  Arabic,  to  which  Kanne  confines  himself.  Against 
 this  method  many  objections  present  themselves;  for  instance, 
 that  it  separates  ^'^^  from  the  meaning  of  its  root  in  Hebrew, — 
 Omer,  in  the  sense  of  a  ressel,  is  separated  in  an  unallowable 
 manner  from  O/f/er  in  the  sense  of  a  skeaf.  However,  the  iso- 
 lated comparison  could  only  acquire  importance  on  the  ground 
 of  a  comprehensive  investigation  respecting  the  root  ^^'j  in  the 
 Semetic  dialects ;  and  this  presents  so  many  difficulties,  that  the 
 question  at  once  arises  whether  it  is  suited  to  form  a  sohd  basis 
 for  any  other. 
 
 Far  more  important,  as  it  appears  to  us,  is  the  following  reason. 
 The  word  0?ner  occurs  in  ver.  IG,  18,  22,  23.  At  the  close  of  the 
 whole  section  in  which  it  is  used  so  often,  stands  the  observation 
 which  determines  its  relation  to  the  Ephah.  It  occurs  nowhere 
 else  in  the  Pentateuch,  nor  in  the  rest  of  the  Sacred  writings. 
 This  must,  indeed,  appear  strange ;  we  can  hardly  suppose  that 
 Omer  was  the  name  of  a  measure.  In  that  case,  it  w^ould  seem 
 that  there  must  have  been  other  occasions  for  mentioning  it ;  and 
 if  we  were  disposed  to  attribute  this  to  accident,  such  an  explana- 
 tion is  quite  negatived  by  the  fact,  that  a  measure  exactly  of  the 
 size  here  attributed  to  the  Omer,  appears  in  a  great  many  passages 
 of  the  Pentateuch,  without  being  called  an  Omer.  In  some  places 
 it  is  merely  described  appellatively  as  the  tenth  of  an  Ephah  ^^T"^.?. 
 ^f*'.^  just  as  in  the  passage  before  us,  compare  Lev.  v.  11 ;  Num. 
 V.  15;  xxviii.  5.  Very  frequently  (above  twenty  times  in  the 
 Pentateuch)  it  is  mentioned  by  the  name  'r''^?^-  If  t/ie  Omer 
 had  been  tlie  name  of  a  measure,  let  it  be  explained  why  it  never 
 appears  in  these  passages,  as  little  as  in  this  chapter  "p'i's*  is  inter- 
 changed with  it.  t 
 
 To  this  must  be  added  the  improbability  that  every  Israelitish 
 
 *  Winer  errout  ousl y  says,  mcnmra  I'mnhlonna  instvful  i){ (iridorinn.  Jt  is  always 
 used  for  dry  tliiiigs. 
 
 +  From  tLis  it  may  be  judged  with  what  right  (Jtscnius  {llus.  v.  s.  rz)  remarks, 
 (trausfen-ing  to  the  rz  what  at  best  could  be  only  true  of  the  Ephidi,)  devima  Buthi  pais 
 "^•J  dh-thutia. 
 
174  ANACHFcONISMS  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH.      ~ 
 
 ftxmily,  even  to  the  least,  possessed  a  measure.  Even  witli  us, 
 such  a  thing  is  not  found  in  the  majority  of  househokls.  On 
 the  other  hand,  every  one  must  have  some  kind  of  cup  or 
 bowL  And  if  this  was  generally  of  about  the  same  size  among 
 tlie  Israelites,  it  lay  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case  that  it  was  not 
 always  so ;  and  the  fixing  of  its  contents  by  a  statement  of  the 
 proportion  to  a  fixed  measure,  which  was  determined  by  the  legal 
 authorities,  was  altogether  regular. 
 
 SIN-OFFERINGS  AND  TRESPASS-OFFERINGS. 
 
 "  The  obscure  distinction  of  sin-oftering  and  trespass-offering, 
 Lev.  c.  iv.-vii.,"  it  is  asserted  (see  De  Wette,  Einleitimg^  §  149)j 
 "  must  be  put  to  the  account  of  a  writer  who  knew  the  Mosaic 
 legislation  only  fi-om  practice."  This  alleged  anachronism  can 
 only  therefore  be  disposed  of,  by  our  showing  that  the  distinction 
 in  question  was  clearly  defined  and  understood. 
 
 Sin  may  be  contemplated  under  a  two-fold  aspect ;  first,  as  an 
 indwclhng  faulty  disposition,  by  which  the  harmony  of  the  indi- 
 vidual soul  is  disturbed,  so  that  man  falls  out  with  himself,  in  a 
 kind  of  internal  distraction  nnd  self-apostacy ;  and,  secondly,  as 
 an  outrage  against  the  holy  God,  a  violation  of  his  law,  which 
 man  is  bound,  as  a  bearer  of  the  Divine  image,  to  keep,  as  an  act 
 of  sacrilege  which  demands  restitution  and  penitence,  in  short, 
 as  demerit  and  guilt.  Tliis  latter  mode  of  contemplating  it  is 
 the  more  grave,  and  places  in  a  clearer  light  the  detestable  nature 
 of  sin :  while  the  former  is  conceivable  on  the  gTound  of  deism, 
 or  even  of  atheism ;  Ms  can  only  exist  where  man  recognises  a 
 living  and  holy  God.  From  the  point  of  view  occupied  by  a  true 
 and  vital  godliness,  it  is  said  in  1  John  iii.  4,  Tra?  o  ttoloov  rrju 
 dfjLaprlav,  koX  ttjv  avo/jblav  irotel,  /cal  rj  dfiaprca  iarlv  rj  dv- 
 ofjbla,  and  our  Lord  teaches  us  to  pray  for  the  forgiveness  of  our 
 debts,  6(j>6tk7]fxaTa,  by  which  we  are  deo  ohstrictl^  ohnoxii. 
 
 This  distinction  is  expressed  in  Hebrew  by  the  terms  ^^^l^  and 
 isj"?.  That  the  latter  has  been  erroneously  defined,  that  to  the 
 verb  and  noun  the  meaning  of  sinning  and  sin,  instead  of  heing 
 indehted  and  debt,  is  the  cause  that  the  distinction  has  not  been 
 clearly  understood  between  a^«  and  !^Kr3ri,when  they  are  used  respect- 
 
SIN-OFFERINGS  AND  TRESrASb-OFFLlllINGS.  175 
 
 ing  offerings.  Also,  in  reference  to  the  Arabic  ^S'\  lexicographers 
 have  fallen  into  the  same  error;  it  means  only  cul^mni  contraxit, 
 not  pcccavit. 
 
 That  '^r?  docs  not  mean  deUquit,  that  tlie  primary  meaning 
 cannot  he  that  of  neglifjoitia,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  a'rs 
 everywhere  appears  as  a  consequence  of  sin.  Only  compare 
 Leviticus  iv.  18,  ''  And  if  the  whole  congregation  of  Israel  sin, 
 ....  and  they  have  done  some  thing  against  any  of  the  com- 
 mandments of  the  Lord,  concerning  things  which  should  not  be 
 done,  ^'2':r*fy'  ver.  22,  "  When  a  ruler  hath  sinned,  and  done  some- 
 what through  ignorance,"  &c.   .   .   .  '=r^l. 
 
 But  the  passage  in  Num.  ver.  0,  is  peculiarly  important  for 
 determining  the  meaning  of  Q'i's,  where  that  is  called  a'i's  which  a 
 person  had  unjustly  taken  away  from  another,  and  for  which  he 
 was  bound  to  make  reparation ;  ver.  7,  "  Then  they  shall  confess 
 their  sin  which  they  have  done,  and  he  shall  recompense  his 
 Asham,  ''''=^_^,  with  the  principal  thereof,  and  add  unto  it  the  fifth 
 part  thereof,  and  give  it  unto  him  against  whom  he  hath  tresjiassed., 
 "^'^^ ;  ver.  8,  '*'  But  if  the  man  have  no  Goel  to  recompense  the 
 atL's  unto,  let  the  Asham  be  recompensed  unto  the  Lord,  even  to 
 the  priest ;  beside  the  ram  of  the  atonement,  whereby  an  atone- 
 ment shall  be  made  for  him."  This  passage  serves  so  much  the 
 more  to  determine  the  meaning  of  fi':;s  in  the  locus  classicus, 
 Lev.  ch.  v.,  since  it  stands  in  undeniable  relation  to  it.  Num.  v. 
 0-8  is  the  complement  of  Lev,  v.  20-26 ;  that  this  is  its  true 
 character  we  may  perceive,  if  we  notice  that  the  precept,  as  far 
 as  it  is  a  repetition  of  the  earher,  has  the  form  of  a  verbal  epi- 
 tome, with  wliich  the  supplementary  matter  is  combined;  the 
 epitome  is  contained  in  ver.  5-7,  the  complement  in  ver.  8. 
 Originally  the  case  was  left  unnoticed,  when  the  injured  person 
 was  no  longer  hving,  and  had  no  heir.  The  natural  heir  was 
 then  the  Lord,  who  was  wronged  in  the  person  of  the  brother. 
 The  Lord  received  in  such  a  case  a  double  a'i-s. 
 
 Now,  if  the  meaning  of  ars  is  thus  defined,  as  we  have  shown, 
 the  passage  in  Lev.  v.  16  will  be  explained.  "  He  shall  bring 
 for  his  Asham  to  the  Lord,  a  ram  without  blemish  out  of  the 
 flocks,  with  this  estimation  by  shekels  of  silver,  after  the  shekel 
 of  the  sanctuary,  '^til  for  an  Asham"  Kosenmuller  would 
 here  supply  -s  vcl ;  is  vel  offerat  in  sacrijicium  irro  peccaio  il/o 
 
176  ANACHRONISMS  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 arietem  integrum  vel  >iiclos  argenteos  recti  et  jastl  jwnderis, 
 qiiantos  sacerdos  aestimahit,  sire  const  it  net.  But  it  is  clear 
 that  this  is  not  allowable.  The  ram  of  the  a'rs  receives  an  imagi- 
 nary value  according  to  the  estimate  of  the  priests.  This  ram, 
 (it  is  intended  to  say),  which  N.  N.  jjresented  as  a  compensation 
 for  his  sacrilege,  must  he  equivalent  to  the  amount  of  the  sacri- 
 lege. The  ram  which  was  presented  as  a  compensation  for  the 
 spiritual  o^elXrjiia,  was  taxed  as  high  as  the  sum  which  was  given 
 for  the  compensation  for  the  outward  material  o^elXrjfjba.  By  this 
 symhohc  act  the  idea  of  debt  was  most  vividly  impressed,  the  ne  • 
 cessity  of  making  a  settlement  with  God  was  clearly  exhibited. 
 
 It  is  also  deserving  of  notice,  that  the  circumstance  is  so  dis- 
 tinctly marked  that  the  a-rs  was  to  be  put  to  death  at  the  holy 
 place,  Hke  the  rst:h  and  the  W?'rj ;  compare  Lev.  vii.  1  ;  xiv.  13. 
 This  implies  that  there  was  something  in  the  nature  of  the  a'rs 
 which  might  lead  to  an  opposite  conclusion,  and  to  suppose  that 
 it  was  not  to  be  reckoned  among  the  other  sacrifices,  which  it 
 could  be  only  according  to  our  interpretation. 
 
 Our  views  also  serve  to  explain  the  difference  which  existed  in 
 reference  to  the  a*ijs  and  nst:h  in  the  selection  of  animals  for  sacri- 
 fice. Compare  Carpzov  (Ajypar.  p.  708).  Ad  a-rs  arietes  sem- 
 j^er  agnive  masculi,  ad  ^^'dn  i^tlane  nulli  usurpantur.  This  im- 
 pHes  that  a^rs  was  the  more  valuable  ;  for  no  one  will  agree  with 
 Venema  {Dissertatt.  p.  324),  who,  on  the  supposition  that  ars 
 was  the  least  considerable,  remarks — Qiio  anteni graving  est pec- 
 catiim,  vilior  erat  ohlatio.  That  the  J^Ktsn  was  the  least  heavy, 
 appears  also  from  the  circumstance  that  lepers  in  cases  of  poverty 
 were  allowed  to  substitute  two  doves  for  it,  while  for  the  a'rx  this 
 was  inadmissible. 
 
 After  the  preceding  arguments,  the  cases  may  be  now  consi- 
 dered in  which  atws  occurs  without  ns-jh  — such  namely  in  which 
 a  Divine  law  was  transgressed  without  knowledge  and  intention, 
 and  others  in  which  a  person  shared  in  the  debt  contracted  by  the 
 sins  of  those  with  whom  his  own  existence  was  closely  imphcated. 
 Compare  Lev.  iv.  3,  "  If  the  priest  that  is  anointed  do  sin  accord- 
 ing to  the  sin  of  the  people,"  i=^C  ^^^'f?^.  >^:-p;  ^^P^l'  1!?=!?-=?.  On 
 the  other  hand  there  is  no  case  conceivable  in  which  nsiah  is  found 
 without  B'i?s ;  every  sin  is  at  the  same  time  a  debt.  This  is  shown 
 very  plainly  in  Lev.  oh.  iv.  and  ver.  1-13,  where  the  nstafi  is  spo- 
 
SIN-OFFERINGS  AND  TRESPASS-OFFERINGS.  177 
 
 ken  of.  Everywhere  the  ns-jM  is  spokeu  of  at  the  same  time  as 
 an  t2'rs%  so  that  several  expositors  have  erroneously  referred  the 
 section  v.  1-13  to  trespass- offerings  instead  of  sin- offerings. 
 Compare  for  instance  Lev.  v.  5-7,  "And  it  shall  be,  when  he 
 shall  he  guilty  '^'^^'?r''?  in  one  of  these  tilings,  that  he  shall  confess 
 that  he  hath  sinned  ^"^*:;  in  that  thing.  And  he  shall  bring  his 
 fresjjass-ojferuir/  ^^'i'^~^^.  unto  the  Lord  for  his  sin  '^'^^'^fj  ^?  which 
 he  hath  sinned,  a  female  from  the  flock,  a  lamb  or  a  kid  of  the 
 goats  for  a  sin-offerhifj,  '^^'f^'^^.  And  if  he  be  not  able  to  bring  a 
 lamb,  then  he  shall  bring  for  his  trespass  '''^'^^.  which  he  hath 
 sinned  ^'^'^j  two  turtle-doves,  or  two  young  pigeons  unto  the 
 Lord,  one  for  a  sin  offering  ^^'^'j/!,  and  the  other  for  a  burnt- 
 offering." 
 
 But  although  all  sin-offerings  were  at  the  same  time  trespass- 
 offerings,  and  there  are  good  reasons  for  holding  up  this  fact  to 
 notice,  yet  to  give  a  stronger  impression  of  the  peculiarity  of  the 
 latter,  there  was  one  particular  class  of  trespass-offerings,  for  of- 
 fences, in  which  the  idea  of  debt  was  peculiarly  prominent.  That 
 such  was  really  the  case,  may  be  plainly  pointed  out  in  the  three 
 instances  mentioned  in  Lev.  v.  14-26,  (v.  14-19;  vi.  1-7),  in 
 w^hich  an  ashani  was  to  be  presented. 
 
 A  \?^o-io\()i  genus  of  n^rs  is  distinguished  in  Lev.  v.  20  (vi.  1), 
 by,  "  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  saying."  Just  as  in  ver. 
 14,  the  transition  from  nsa!-i  to  tars*  is  marked  by  the  same  expres- 
 sion. The  two  cases  in  ver.  14-16,  and  ver.  17-19,  so  far  agree, 
 that  in  them  the  trespass  is  committed  immediately  against  God,- 
 and  belongs  to  him  alone.  Hence  the  second  case  is  joined  to 
 the  first  with  an  or.  The  third  case  of  the  a-rs,  on  the  contrary,  in 
 ch.  V.  20-26  (vi.  1-7)  is  one  in  w4iich  God  is  only  injured  me- 
 diately. "  If  a  soul  sin,  and  commit  a  trespass  against  the  Lord, 
 and  lie  unto  his  neighbour  in  that  which  was  delivered  him  to 
 keep,"  &c. 
 
 In  ver.  14-16  the  idea  of  incurriny  a  debt  is  not  merely  pro- 
 minent, because  sin  is  directly  against  God,  but  rather  because  it 
 here  relates  to  an  injury  aganist  God  in  the  grossest  sense,  a  vio- 
 lent seizure  of  what  peculiarly  belonged  to  him.  This  is  conveyed 
 in  the  clause  '^i?  ''^'^-P.  "=.  %?.  The  '?«  '"?'?  always  denotes  faithless- 
 ness, and  that  of  the  most  secret  kind.  In  Num.  v.  12-27,  it  is 
 used  respecting   the  secret  infidelity  which  a  woman  practised 
 
 VOL.  II.  IvI 
 
178  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 against  her  husband.  In  Jos.  vii.  1  it  is  said  *=;"-  ^'^^  ^^-■^-  •  Also 
 merely  ^?^  with  7^  occurs,  as  for  instance  1  Chron.  v.  25.  Hence 
 J.  D.  MiCHAELis  and  others  erroneously  render  the  passage  cam 
 deliquerit  delicto.  Because  there  had  been  breach  of  trust  there 
 must  be  compensation.  Achan  had  defrauded  God  in  a  two-fold 
 respect,  as  owner,  as  one  of  the  injured  parties,  and  as  the  living 
 moral  governor  of  tlie  world.  The  first  respect — according  to  which 
 God  had  a  share  in  the  same  compensation  as  Achan's  injured 
 brethren — was  peculiarly  Israelitish,  a  consequence  of  the  theo- 
 cracy. God  as  king  had  his  crowai-rights.  We  only  remark 
 further,  that  the  ^i^^^'f  ?  "^'f  v^  in  ver.  1 5  does  not  mean  some  specific 
 offence,  but  what  is  common  to  all  sins  w^hich  could  be  atoned 
 for  by  sacrifices.  It  stands  parenthetically  (it  being  supposed 
 that  the  sin  is  one  of  inadvertence).  The  opposite  is  expressed 
 by  "5^  T^.,  manu  elata,  Num.  xv.  30,  31  =  i/covaioy^;  in  Heb. 
 X.  2G.      The  specific  oflence  is  expressed  by  Vys  Vy^n  ^5. 
 
 In  the  second  case,  v.  17-19,  the  emphasis  rests  on  ^"C*^'';; 
 "  And  if  a  soul  sin,  and  commit  any  of  those  things  which  are 
 forbidden  to  be  done  by  the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  though 
 he  wist  it  not  (viz.,  the  commandment,  or  that  he  had  violated 
 it),  yet  is  he  guilty,  and  shall  bear  his  iniquity."  That  the  idea  of 
 debt  is  here  peculiarly  intended,  appears  evident  fi^om  what  has 
 been  akeady  remarked.  Satisfaction  must  be  rendered  to  the  law 
 of  the  holy  God,  even  when  it  has  not  been  recognised  as  such. 
 The  '="'i;*t  ^'^^  reus  est  omnino  domino,  stands  in  contrast  to  the 
 very  probably  opposite  opinion,  in  which  a  tender  conscience,  wdien 
 brought  into  such  a  situation,  would  never  rest,  but  would  rather 
 seek  forgiveness  for  the  sin  of  wdiich  it  was  unconscious  at  the 
 time.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  how^  sharply  distinctions  are  mai'k- 
 ed  in  the  Mosaic  law,  that  wdiat  is  common  is  expressed  in  the 
 same  words,  and  then  what  constitutes  the  difference  is  added. 
 As  in  ver.  14,  the  great  leading  word  is  \-)^  V^'^n,  so  here  it  is  sVi 
 y-v  This  is  wanting  in  iv.  22,  ''When  a  ruler  hath  sinned,  and 
 done  somewhat  through  ignorance  against  any  of  the  command- 
 ments of  the  Lord  his  God,"  &c.  Where  v^  ^^  does  not  occur, 
 there  is  ris'jh.  Then  in  this  case  it  plainly  appears  that  a'rx  in 
 relation  to  rs-jn  is  only  of  greater  w^ eight  in  ahstracto,  not  in 
 concreto.  Circumstances  might  occur  which  would  be  the  occa- 
 sion of  rendering  prominent  the  importance  of  the  tx)&  even  in  pro- 
 
HORMAII.  179 
 
 portionably  lighter  violations  of  the  law.  The  selection  of  more 
 valuable  victims  for  the  ta-rs  must  be  referred  to  the  idea  of  n-rs,  not 
 to  the  concrete  case. 
 
 The  third  case,  ver.  20,  &c,  {inter versio  rei  alienae  vel  concre- 
 clitae,  vel  casu  repertae,  vel  vi  extortae  et  jurato  ahiegatae, 
 MiCHAELis),  may  be  explained  by  the  first,  from  which  it  is  only 
 distinguished  in  this  pai'ticular,  that  here  the  robbery  was  mediate, 
 committed  on  God  in  the  person  of  a  neighbour,  while  there  it 
 was  immediate.  Every  laesio  irroximi  is  strictly  and  equally  an 
 B^K ;  but  primarily  the  idea  of  o-i-s  is  connected  with  a  material 
 breach  of  trust. 
 
 HORMAH. 
 
 It  is  said  in  Num.  xxi.  1-3,  *'  And  when  king  Arad  the  Ca- 
 naanite,  which  dwelt  in  the  south,  heard  tell  that  Israel  came  by 
 the  way  of  the  spies,  then  he  fought  against  Israel,  and  took  some 
 of  them  prisoners.  And  Israel  vowed  a  vow  unto  the  Lord,  and 
 said,  if  thou  wilt  indeed  deliver  this  people  into  my  hand,  then 
 will  I  indeed  utterly  destroy  their  cities.  And  the  Lord  hearkened 
 unto  the  voice  of  Israel,  and  deHvered  up  the  Canaanites,  and  they 
 utterly  destroyed  them  and  their  cities,  and  he  called  the  name  of 
 the  place  Hormah,"  -^^^i- 
 
 The  earher  critics  have  found  considerable  difficulties  in  this 
 narrative.  Thus  Eeland,  Videtur  ilia  victoria  contigisse  cum 
 duce  Josua  et  trajecto  Jordane  triumj)harunt  de  reye  Arad. 
 Jos.  xii.  14,  illic  {Num.)  per  prolepsin  narrata.  Cur  enimex 
 terra  exiissent,  in  qua  jam  triumphahant  .^  (Pal.  p.  721.) 
 The  view  that  the  event  is  narrated  per  prolepsi7i  is  also  adopted 
 by  Bachiene,  ii.  2  §  306.  The  translator*  sets  aside  the 
 euphemism,  and  remarks,  in  this  case  Moses  could  not  have  writ- 
 ten this  section,  and  Numb.  xxi.  2,  3,  must  have  been  interpo- 
 
 *  Bachiene's  work  was  originally  wTitten  in  Dutcli,  and  translated  into  German  by 
 G.  A.  Maas,  under  the  title,  "  Histor.  iind  f/eorjr.  Besrhrcihuncj  vnn  Palesthia,  nach 
 seinem  ehemalhjen  n,  geijcniiart.  Zustande,  m.  Charten,  a.  d.  Hollaud.  m.  Amn." 
 Lpzg.  17G6-177S,  2  Thlein  5  Bdn.  gr.  8.     [Tr.] 
 
 M  2 
 
180  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 lated  by  a  later  hand,  Besides  the  reasons  adduced  by  Reland, 
 it  cannot  be  supposed  that  Israel  could  leave  the  southern  part  of 
 the  land,  if  at  that  time  they  had  gained  the  victory  over  the  Ca- 
 naanites ;  he  appeals  also  to  Judges  i.  17,  according  to  which  the 
 place  which  hitherto  had  been  called  Zephath  was  first  under 
 Joshua,  or,  according  to  others,  after  Joshua's  death,  by  Simeon, 
 in  connection  with  Judah,  taken,  placed  under  a  curse,  and  called 
 Hormah.  Rosenmuller  agrees  with  this  writer.  (Alt.  ii.  2,  p. 
 313.)  That  by  the  later  opponents  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pen- 
 tateuch this  passage  is  confidently  regarded  as  in  their  favour,  is 
 self-evident. 
 
 But  the  whole  objection  rests  upon  ignorance  of  the  locality, 
 and  may  be  regarded  as  completely  set  at  rest,  by  the  hght  which 
 the  researches  of  modern  travellers  have  cast  upon  it. 
 
 The  southern  boundary  is  formed  by  a  mountain  range  which, 
 in  the  Pentateuch  (Deut.  i.  7,  19,  20,  42,  &c.),  is  mentioned  un- 
 der the  name  of  the  mountain  of  the  Amorites.  (Compare  Rau- 
 mer.  Pal.  p.  41.)  Seetzen,  when  he  travelled  from  Hebron  to 
 the  mountains  of  Madarah,  which  lie  to  the  south-w^est  of  the 
 Dead  Sea,  descended  by  a  rocky  declivity  to  a  fearfully  wild,  deep, 
 and  barren  valley  (xvii.  134).  Legh  and  his  companions,  when 
 they  travelled  from  Hebron  towards  the  southern  parts  of  the 
 Dead  Sea,  saw,  from  the  high  western  shore  of  the  Sea,  the  great 
 plain  to  the  south  of  the  Sea,  and  were  descending  for  two  hours 
 into  this  plain  by  a  path  so  steep  that  they  were  obliged  to  lead 
 their  horses.     (See  Raumer,  p.  42.) 
 
 Now,  according  to  Numb.  xiv.  45  ("  Then  the  Amalekites 
 came  down,  and  the  Canaanites  which  dwelt  in  that  hill,  and 
 smote  them,  and  dirscomfited  them,  even  unto  Hormah"),  Hor- 
 mah was  situated  on  tliis  side  tlie  southern  mountain  range.  The 
 attempt  of  the  Israelites  to  take  possession  of  the  mountain  did 
 not  succeed  ;  they  were  driven  back,  and  now  the  Amalekites  and 
 Canaanites  "  came  down,  and  smote  them,  even  unto  Hormah." 
 According  to  Deut.  i.  44,  Hormah  and  its  vicinage  belonged, 
 strictly  speaking,  not  to  Canaan,  but  to  Seir.  "And  destroyed 
 you  in  Seir,  even  unto  Hormah."  Reland,  in  a  previous  pas- 
 sage, remarks  (p.  574),  "  8ed  Canaanaei  se  diffuderant  jam 
 eo  tempore  extra  limites  terrae  Canaan  inoprie  sic  dicfae,  quod 
 ei  in  Emoraeis  trans  Jordanem  videri  potest !' 
 
HORMAII.  181 
 
 Hence,  when,  at  a  later  period,  Hormali  and  the  surrounding 
 phxces  were  taken  and  put  under  a  curse  by  the  Israelites,  their 
 principal  object  was  not  yet  gained.  The  chief  power  of  the  kings 
 of  Arad  remained  unconquered  ;  the  mountain  boundary  was  in- 
 surmountable. Hence  in  Num.  xxxiii.  40,  41,  the  march  of  the 
 Israelites  from  the  Ked  Sea  is  properly  put  in  causal  connection 
 with  the  report  that  reached  the  kings  of  Arad,  "  And  the  Ca- 
 naanitish  king  of  Arad,  who  dwelt  in  the  south  of  the  land  of 
 Canaan,  heard  of  the  coming  of  tlie  cliildren  of  Israel.  And  they 
 departed  from  Mount  Hor,  and  pitched  in  Zalmonah." 
 
 The  event  has  been  correctly  represented  by  Leake  in  tlie  pre- 
 face to  Burkhaedt's  Traveh  llirougli  Hijria  and  Palestine,  i. 
 21  (of  the  German  translation).  "  During  their  sojourn  in  the 
 neighbourhood  of  Kadesh,  the  Israelites  gained  some  advantages 
 over  the  neighbouring  Canaauites  ;  but  when  they  gave  up,  at 
 last,  all  hope  of  penetrating  through  the  boundaries  which  lie  be- 
 tween Gaza  and  the  Eed  Sea,  they  turned  eastward  with  the  de- 
 sign of  making  a  circuit  through  the  countries  on  the  southern 
 and  eastern  side." 
 
 Admitting  this  to  have  been  the  fact,  that  the  Israelites  again 
 withdrew  from  this  tract  of  country,  and  that  the  power  of  the  Ca- 
 naanites  remained  unbroken,  it  is  evident,  even  vvithout  the  infor- 
 mation conveyed  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  that  Hormah  soon  again 
 became  Zephath,  and  that  it  was  reserved  for  a  later  age  to  change 
 it  again  into  Hormah.  Joshua,  indeed,  made  his  way  into  these 
 parts  (Josh.  x.  41)  ;  and  the  king  of  Hormah  is  in  the  catalogue 
 of  the  kings  conquered  by  him,  xii.  14.  But  it  does  not  appear 
 that  he  took  the  city  itself,  or,  if  he  did  so,  that  the  capture  had 
 any  abiding  consequences.  Not  till  the  expedition  which  the  tribe 
 of  Simeon  (to  whom  the  city  had  been  allotted  in  the  division  of 
 the  land,  Josh.  xix.  4)  undertook  in  conjunction  with  Judah,  did 
 Zephah  permanently  become  Hormah.  That  the  name  of  the 
 city  was  then  altered,  shows  how  vivid  the  recollection  was  of 
 what  had  happened  there  in  the  days  of  Moses,  and  far  from  con- 
 tradicting the  narrative  in  the  Pentateuch,  serves  to  confirm  it. 
 
 Still  one  difficulty  remains,  that  the  name  Hormah  appears  in 
 Num.  xiv.  45,  while  yet,  according  to  ch.  xxi.  1-31,  that  name 
 was  first  given  to  the  place  from  the  event  there  recorded.  But 
 this  is  an  intentional  and  significant  prol(>psis.  intimating  that 
 
182  ANACHEONISiSIS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 both  events  stood  under  the  same  idea  ;  that  the  place  had  already 
 become  devoted  by  judgment  on  the  house  of  God,  before  it  re- 
 ceived its  name  from  the  judgment  on  the  world.  Tlie  nominal, 
 points  to  the  real,  prolepsis. 
 
 THE  BOOK  OF  THE  WARS  OF  THE  LORD. 
 
 The  citation  in  Num.  xxi.  14,  "  Wherefore  it  is  said  in  the  Book 
 of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord,"  &c.,  has  already  been  eagerly  applied 
 to  their  purpose  by  the  older  opponents  of  the  genuineness,  such 
 as  Peyrerius  and  Spinoza  ;  and  by  the  moderns,  it  has  been 
 reckoned  as  a  principal  passage  among  the  alleged  traces  of  a  later 
 age.  (i.)  A  book,  it  is  maintained  (Vater,  p.  643),  in  which  the 
 Wars  of  the  Lord  are  described,  is  very  hard  to  be  imagined  in 
 the  time  of  Moses,  when  the  wars  of  God's  people,  some  early 
 victories  over  the  Amalekites  excepted,  had  only  begun  a  few 
 months  before.  But  (ii.)  it  is  absolutely  inconceivable,  that  a 
 book  composed  at  that  period,  could  be  quoted  as  a  voucher  for 
 the  geographical  notices  which  are  contained  in  the  preceding 
 verses. 
 
 Several  advocates  of  the  genuineness  have  allowed  themselves 
 to  be  so  pressed  by  these  difficulties,  that  they  have  considered 
 ver.  14  and  15  as  a  later  gloss.  Thus  Kosenmuller,  who,  in 
 unison  with  the  opponents  of  the  genuineness,  defines  the  object 
 of  the  citation  to  be,  ut  prohetiir  Aiiioiiem  tangere  Moahitarum 
 fines,  vel  ...  ut  Israelitas  ad  Arnonem  usque  victricia 
 arma  protulisse  testimonio  fide  digno  confirmetur.  We  wish 
 at  once  to  set  aside  this  solution.  The  two  analogical  expressions 
 in  ver.  17  and  ver.  27,  both  oppose  the  notion  of  a  gloss.  There 
 is  also  an  agreement  in  the  form  of  citation,  particularly  in  the 
 use  of  the  future,  here  ^.r?.?  in  ver.  17  "^""'f^,  in  ver.  27  'i^^^\ 
 
 Others  attempt  to  weaken  the  force  of  the  second  argument  by 
 supposing  that  the  book  was  written  by  an  Amorite  or  a  Moabite. 
 Thus  J.  D.  MiCHAELis,  who  is  of  opinion,  that  Moses  appealed, 
 on  account  of  foreigners,  with  whom  his  assertion  would  have  no 
 weight,  to  a  foreign  authority.  But,  to  set  aside  this  unfortunate 
 explanation,  the  use  of  the  name  Jehovah  is  sufficient.  An  at- 
 tempt to  force  the  truth  of  the  history  on  doubters,  and  moreover 
 
THE  BOOK  OF  THE  WARS  OF  THE  LOr.L).  183 
 
 heathens,  is  altogether  foreign  to  the  Pentateuch.  That  the  course 
 of  the  Arnon  was  on  the  horders  of  the  Moabites,  was  a  fact  which 
 required  no  laborious  proof;  the  analogy  also  of  the  two  other 
 citations  is  against  it,  &c.  Sec. 
 
 Let  us  begin  with  the  second  argument,  to  which  alone  our  op  - 
 ponents  themselves  attribute  decisive  weight.  We  must  reject,  as 
 altogether  unfounded,  the  assumption  to  which  it  owes  all  its 
 force,  that  the  object  of  the  citation  is,  to  verify  a  geographical 
 notice.  That  its  object  is  a  different  one  may  be  confidently  in- 
 ferred from  the  analogy  of  the  two  other  poetical  pieces  in  ver.  1 7, 
 18,  and  in  ver.  27.  These  represent  the  impression  which  the 
 leadings  of  the  Lord  had  made  upon  his  people.  We  obtain  the 
 same  result  from  the  consideration  of  the  passage  itself,  if  its  sense 
 is  correctly  determined.  ''  Wherefore  (since  Israel,  by  the  help 
 of  the  Lord,  conquered  the  country  adjacent  to  the  Arnon)  it  is 
 said  in  the  book  of  the  wars  of  the  Lord, 
 
 Valieb  (he  took)  in  a  storm 
 And  the  streams  of  Arnon 
 And  the  lowlands  of  the  streams 
 Which  tiu-n  to  the  dwelling  of  Ar, 
 And  incline  to  the  border  of  Moab."* 
 
 as'itt  h''a>h  "j^'i-pn 
 
 The  complement  "  Jehovah  took  "  is  borrowed  from  Hj'^^  ^"^'^H^'^  ; 
 Vaheb  we  are  justified  in  taking  as  iiomen  j^i'oj))'.  by  the  form 
 which,  in  Hebrew,  has  very  seldom  "^  at  the  beginning,  (only  two 
 appellations  with  ^  in  the  Pentateuch,  (see  Ewald's  Smaller 
 Grammar,  §  223;  Nicholson's  Trans,  p.  Ill  ;  compare  IT.  as 
 nom.  propr.  of  a  place  in  Arabia,  Ezek.  xxvii.  19  ;  '^r"?  has  its 
 analogy  in  Nali.  i.  3,  "  Jehovah  hath  his  way  in  the  storm." 
 According  to  this  construction,  the  passage  is  a  voice  from  the 
 congregation  of  Israel,  acknowledging  what  the  Lord  had  done 
 for  them.     Under  his  leodership,  they  pressed  forwards,  without 
 
 *  The  LXX.  give  essentially  the  same  sense  ;  oia  tovto  \iytTai  tv  fil(B\iif  iroXt- 
 /ios  Kvpiov  TtjV    Zoo/3  E(f>\6yiar£,  Kai  tous  X'^V^«r^oi"  'Apvwu. 
 
184  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 stopping,  from  place  to  place.  Whatever  withstood  them,  he 
 overthrew  it.  The  citation  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the 
 narrative  as  the  verses  of  Korner,  wdiich  a  historian  of  the  War 
 of  Freedom,  who  himself  took  a  part  in  it,  might  perhaps  intro- 
 duce in  his  narrative.  Who  w^ould  imagine  that  the  Arabian  his- 
 torians, wdien  they  so  frequently  quote  verses  which  their  heroes 
 uttered  in  the  tumult  of  battle,  intended,  by  so  doing,  to  prop  their 
 doubtful  credibility  ? 
 
 Let  us  now  turn  to  the  first  argument.  At  the  time  when 
 Moses  wTote  this,  a  succession  of  wars  of  the  Lord,  in  a  peculiar 
 sense,  had  akeady  taken  place,  which  might  be  celebrated  in  the 
 book  of  the  wars  of  the  Lord,  (not  exactly  a  folio) .  The  Ama- 
 lekites  were  conquered — the  king  of  Arad — the  Midianites — Si- 
 hon,  king  of  the  Amorites — Og,  king  of  Bashan.  But  the  idea 
 of  the  wars  of  the  Lord  is  of  much  wider  extent,  according  to  the 
 phraseology  of  the  Pentateuch.  This  has  been  quite  overlooked  ; 
 but  any  person  may  be  convinced  of  it  by  examining  the  follow- 
 ing passages  :  Ex.  xiv.  14,  "  The  Lord  shall ^"^Z*^  for  you,  and 
 ye  shall  hold  your  peace  ;"  ver.  25,  "  For  the  Lord  Jighteth  for 
 them  against  the  Egyptians ;"  xv.  3,  "  The  Lord  is  a  man  of 
 wai\"  Also  ch.  xii.  41,  51,  and  Num.  xxxiii.  1  ;  for  when  it  is 
 said  in  the  last  mentioned  passage,  that  "  the  children  of  Israel 
 went  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  accordwrj  to  their  armies^' 
 arsn".i-?y^  such  a  representation  imphes  that  the  Lord  went  at  their 
 head  as  leader  of  the  host.  Such  an  idea  of  the  wars  of  the  Lord 
 being  admitted,  instead  of  a  deficiency  of  objects  for  a  book  of  the 
 wars,  there  is  the  greatest  abundance.  Not  merely  the  victories 
 which  the  Lord  granted  to  his  people  over  a  hostile  w^orld,  ofwdiich 
 the  plagues  of  Egypt  formed  a  part — but  every  thing  else  by  which 
 the  leader  evinced  his  care  for  his  host  when  first  led  against  their 
 chief  enemies,  the  Canaanites,  events  such  as  the  finding  of  the 
 well,  recorded  in  ver.  16.  Nor  can  we  doubt  that  the  song  quoted 
 in  ver.  17  and  18  was  taken  out  of  the  book  of  the  wars  of  the 
 Lord.  The  citation  at  the  beginning  will  apply  to  the  two  fol- 
 lowing pieces.  The  song  in  ver.  27  is  certainly  not  that  of  an 
 Amorite.  What  Sihon  had  been  to  the  Moabites,  Israel  w^as  to 
 the  latter.  If,  therefore,  such  abundant  materials  existed  for  the 
 book  of  the  w^ars  of  the  Lord,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they 
 were  used  and  put  in  order  for  that  purpose.     The  victory  of  the 
 
ITAVOTII-JAIR.  IST) 
 
 idea  over  the  reality  will  always  eall  forth  poetry.  It  might  be 
 assumed  beforehand,  that  the  period  of  the  war  of  freedom  would 
 have  its  Korners  and  Schenkendorfs.  The  writiug  down  of  poe- 
 tical productions,  and  then  being  united  in  one  collection,  is  in 
 perfect  unison  with  what  we  know  in  other  respects  of  the  mental 
 progress  of  the  people,  and  particularly  of  the  use  of  writing 
 among  them.  Thus,  then,  the  subjective  in  the  book  of  the  wars 
 of  the  Lord  harmonizes  with  the  objective  representation  in  the 
 Pentateuch.  We  may  perceive  their  mutual  relation  not  only  from 
 the  passages  we  have  been  considering,  but  also  from  the  loth  ch. 
 of  Ex.  in  its  connection  with  the  preceding  historical  details. 
 
 HAVOTH-JAIR  ("^'^"^^V.) 
 
 In  the  first  place,  there  is  a  difficulty  in  reference  to  their  num- 
 ber. In  the  Pentateuch  (Deut.  iii.  4),  sixty  Havoth-Jairs  are 
 spoken  of;  on  the  other  hand,  in  1  Chron.  ii.  21,  their  number 
 appears  to  be  limited  to  tw^enty- three.  But  this  difficulty  vanishes 
 when  the  passages  in  Chronicles  is  correctly  understood  with  the 
 necessary  complements.  It  is  as  follow^s  :  ver.  21,  "  And  af- 
 terwards Hezron  went  in  to  the  daughter  of  Machir  the  father  of 
 Gilead,  whom  he  married  when  he  was  threescore  yeai's  old,  and 
 she  bare  him  Segub.  Ver.  22,  And  Segub  begat  Jair,  who  had 
 three  and  twenty  cities  in  the  land  of  Gilead.  Ver.  23,  And  Ge- 
 shur  and  Ai'am  took  Havoth-Jair  from  them  (the  descendants  of 
 Jair),  with  Kenath  and  her  daughters  (the  towns  thereof,  Etir/. 
 Auth.  Vers.),  threescore  cities  (in  all)."  The  passage  has  this 
 meaning,  or  it  has  no  meaning.  The  total  sum,  therefore,  was 
 sixty ;  but,  if  these  twenty-three  were,  in  a  stricter  sense,  Hav- 
 oth-Jair, the  remaining  thirty- seven,  Kenath  and  her  daughters, 
 belonged,  indeed,  to  the  same  circuit  {complexus) ,  but  yet,  in 
 some  respects,  were  distinguished  from  them. 
 
 Let  us  now  examine  whether  we  cannot  find  in  the  Pentateuch 
 traces  of  such  a  division  of  sixty  towns.  In  Num.  xxxii.  40 
 it  is  said,  "  And  Moses  gave  Gilead  unto  Machir,  the  son  of 
 Manasseh,  and  he  dwelt  there;  ver.  4,  And  Jair,  the  son  of 
 Manasseh,  went  and  took  '='!^^ni}j-^s  their  (the  enemies'),  Havoth 
 (small  towns,  Eng.  Auth.  Vers.),  and  called  them  Havoth-Jair, 
 
186  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 ver.  42,  And  Nobali  went  and  took  Kenath  and  lier  daughters 
 v'^r^^"^?^,  and  called  it  Nobah,  after  his  own  name."  The  ques- 
 tion arises,  in  what  relation  Kenath  and  her  daughters,  which 
 are  here  distinguished  from  Havoth-Jair,  stand  to  the  Havoth- 
 Jair  mentioned  in  Deuteronomy.  The  answer  is,  they  formed 
 a  constituent  part  of  them.  The  Nobah  whose  name  occurs 
 in  the  Book  of  Numbers  must  have  been  subordinate  to  the 
 Jair,  after  whom  he  is  mentioned,  so  that  the  towns  taken  by 
 him  were  reckoned  along  with  those  of  Havoth-Jair  in  a 
 wider  sense.  There  is,  besides,  no  room  left  for  Nobah.  For, 
 according  to  Deut.  iii.  14,  15,  "Jair,  the  son  of  Manasseh, 
 took  all  the  country  of  Argob,  unto  the  coasts  of  Geshuri  and 
 Maachathi,  and  called  them  after  his  own  name,  Bashan- Havoth- 
 Jair,  unto  this  day.  And  I  gave  Gilead  unto  Machir."  The 
 whole  portion  of  the  tribe  of  Manasseh.  had  only  two  chief  pos- 
 sessors, Jair  and  Machir.  The  Havoth  possessed  by  the  former 
 formed  the  region  of  Argob.  That  this  was  identical  with  Bashan, 
 and  did  not  merely  form  a  part  of  it  (besides  ver.  14),  is  as  dis- 
 tinctly as  possible  said  in  ver.  4,  "  all  the  regions  of  Argob  the 
 kingdom  of  Og  in  Bashan ; "  and  ver.  13,  "  and  the  rest  of  Gilead 
 and  all  Bashan,  the  kingdom  Og,  gave  I  unto  the  half-tribe  of 
 Manasseh,  all  the  region  of  Ai'gob  or  all  Bashan."*  (T^5^~^3^). 
 We  obtain  the  same  result  from  the  situation  of  Nobah,  compared 
 with  the  circuit  which  is  marked  out  for  Jair's  district.  In  the 
 modern  Dsholan,  on  the  borders  of  Dshadur,  is  a  j)lace  of  con- 
 siderable size,  with  ruins  called  Nobah.  (Burkhardt's  Travels 
 p.  443,  Germ.  Trans.  Eaumer  on  East-Jordanic  Judea,  in 
 Tholuck's  Auzeiger,  1835,  p.  7).  Nobah,  accordingly,  lay 
 within  Bashan,  but  all  Bashan  fell  to  the  lot  of  Jair. 
 
 It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  twenty-three  towns  in  the  books 
 of  Chronicles  are  those  which  Jair  captured,  and  that  the  sixty 
 towns  which  owned  his  supremacy  included  those  which  Nobah 
 possessed  under  him.  The  new  element  which  the  passage  in 
 Chronicles  contains,  is  only  the  account  of  the  number  of  the 
 sub- division  of  Havoth-Jair,  which  is  as  good  as  mentioned  in 
 
 *  The  identity  of  Havoth-Jair,  the  region  of  Argob,  and  Bashan,  was  acknowleged 
 by  the  ancients,  uuto^l  'laelp-  auTtj  fio-rii/  /;  Bdaav.  EusEBius,  Argoh,  regio  Og,  regis 
 Basan  snper  Jordanem  ;  Jerome. 
 
HAVOTH-JAIK.  187 
 
 the  Pentateuch.  Moreover,  in  the  passage  in  Chronicles,  Gilead 
 is  taken  in  the  wider  sense,  including  Bash  an,  in  which  it  often 
 occurs  in  the  later  hooks;  see  Eeland,  p.  19i.  Yon  Raumer, 
 Geog.  p.  100  ;  Studer,  z.  B.  der  Richter,  p.  209.  The  expedient 
 which  Von  Raumer  proposes  for  reconciUng  the  passage  iii 
 Chronicles  with  the  Pentateuch  (Tholuck's  Auzeiger,  p.  11), 
 that  Jair  possessed  sixty  towns  in  Bashan,  hut,  besides  these, 
 had  twenty-three  towns  in  Gilead,  is  destitute  of  all  foundation. 
 This  explanation  is  not  reconcileahle  even  with  the  passage  in 
 Chronicles ;  and  a  possession  of  Jair's  in  Gilead  in  a  narrower 
 sense,  of  which  the  part  lying  nearest  to  Bashan  was  allotted  to 
 Machir,  the  remainder  to  Reuben  and  Gad,  cannot,  according  to 
 the  Pentateuch,  he  thought  of;  compare  particularly  Deut.  iii.  12, 
 a  passage  which  is  as  distinct  as  possible;  also  Num.  xxxii.  39, 
 40.  The  collective  relations  of  the  region  on  the  other  side  Jor- 
 dan were  as  follows.  Reuben  and  Manasseh  possessed  the 
 southern  part  of  Gilead  ;  the  half- tribe  of  Manasseh  occupied 
 the  northern  part,  with  all  Bashan  or  Argob ;  of  this  district  the 
 northern  part,  Gilead,  was  allotted  to  Machir,  and  Jair  possessed 
 Bashan,  of  which  one  part  was  held  under  his  own  immediate 
 jimsdiction,  the  other  part  Nobah  governed  under  him. 
 
 After  having  removed  this  difficulty,  another  awaits  us,  which 
 in  former  times  has  been  much  discussed.  As  it  is  generally  re- 
 garded as  much  more  important  than  the  first,  we  have  placed 
 the  examination  of  it  in  the  section  on  the  alleged  traces  of  a 
 later  age.  It  is  said  in  Judges  x.  3-5,  "  And  after  him  rose  Jair 
 a  Gileadite,  and  judged  Israel  twenty  and  two  years.  And  he  had 
 thirty  sons  that  rode  on  thirty  ass-colts,  and  they  had  thirty  cities, 
 which  are  called  Havoth-Jair,  which  are  in  the  land  Gilead.  And 
 Jair  died  and  was  buried  in  Canaan.  The  identity  of  this  Jair 
 with  the  Mosaic  Jair  (it  is  maintained),  is  evident,  because  the  im- 
 probable supposition  of  a  double  Jair  is  wholly  excluded,  by  the 
 circumstance  that  the  origin  of  the  name  Havoth-Jair  is  deduced 
 exactly  in  the  same  way  from  the  Jair  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  the 
 Jau'  of  the  Book  of  Judges ;  not  to  say  that  we  cannot  imagine 
 that  the  younger  Jair  possessed  exactly  the  same  place  which  the 
 elder  had  captm-ed.  But,  if  this  identity  be  established,  it  is  the 
 commonly  received  opinion  that  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch 
 must  have  transferred   a  person  who   lived  much  later  into  the 
 
188  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCIJ. 
 
 Mosaic  age.  Studer,  indeed,  {z.  B.  d.  Rlchter,  p.  274,  4  74), 
 acquits  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  of  all  blame,  and  would  lay 
 it  on  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges.  According  to  him,  a  Jair, 
 who  was  already  living  in  the  time  of  Moses,  must  have  continued 
 to  the  time  of  the  Judges  who  governed  Israel  after  Joshua. 
 
 If  the  case  were  really  so,  that  we  must  give  up  either  the  au- 
 thor of  the  Book  of  Judges,  or  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  we 
 should  unquestionably  decide  for  the  former.  For  the  arguments 
 which  are  urged  against  the  accounts  of  the  Pentateuch  respect- 
 ing Jair,  amount  to  nothing.  The  assertion,  that  a  particular 
 expedition  of  Jair's  would  not  be  in  its  right  place  in  the  last 
 months  of  Moses,  we  may  fairly  pass  over  in  silence.  The  ques- 
 tion, could  so  many  towns  be  given  as  a  possession  to  a  single 
 great  grandson  of  Manasseh,  receives  its  plain  answer  from  Num. 
 xxxii.  41,  and  Deut.  iii.  14.  Jair,  a  valiant  warrior,  held  what 
 he  had  gained  with  his  sword  and  his  bow  ;  the  right  fairly  fol- 
 lowed the  possession.  Objections  such  as,  "  The  account  respect- 
 ing Jair  is  rendered  improbable  by  the  genealogy,  1  Chron.  ii. 
 21,  in  which  Machir  is  the  father  of  Gilead,  the  grandfather  of 
 Segub,  who  was  the  father  of  Jair ;  but  Moses  must  have  given 
 Gilead  to  Machir,  and,  at  the  same  time,  must  also  have  made 
 his  great-grandson  leader  of  that  expedition,  and  have  called  the 
 conquered  places  after  his  name" — could  only  perplex  a  person 
 w^ho  has  paid  as  little  attention  as  he  who  started  them.  Machir 
 stands,  according  to  numberless  analogies,  for  liis  race,  his  des- 
 cendants in  a  direct  line.  For  this  we  need  not  appeal  to  Josh, 
 xiii.  81,  where,  instead  of  Machir,  it  stands  the  sons  of  Machir 
 '^''=^"'!?=? ;  nor  to  Numb.  xxvi.  29,  where  Machir's  genealogy  is 
 given  at  length  down  to  his  great-grandson  Zelophehad,  who 
 stands  in  the  same  relation  to  him  as  Jair,  and  who,  when  he  died 
 in  the  wilderness,  had  daughters  grownup  (compare  xxvii.  1,  &c.) 
 The  passage  in  Num.  xxxii,  39,  40,  is  sufficient  by  itself  not  only 
 to  refute  but  to  confound  our  opponents  ;  ver.  39,  "  And  the  sojis 
 of  Machir,  the  son  of  Manasseh,  went  to  Gilead  and  took  it. 
 Ver.  40,  And  Moses  gave  Gilead  to  Machir  !  I"  So  much 
 for  modern  criticism  !  Then  Vater  urges  that  the  region  of 
 Argob,  with  its  cities,  which,  according  to  Deut.  iii.,  were  cap- 
 tured by  Jair,  is,  in  1  Kings  iv.  13,  expressly  distinguished 
 fi'om  the  towns  of  Jair.     Here  we  have  very  palpable  evidence  of 
 
HAVOTH-JATK,  189 
 
 the  fragmentary  quality  of  tlie  book  of  Vater,  and  for  the  plu- 
 rality of  its  authors.  For  on  Deut.  iii.  4,  vol.  ii.  p.  218,  we  read, 
 "  The  passages  in  ver.  14  are  plainly  of  Argob,  and  particularly 
 1  Kings  iv.  IS,  according  to  which  this  region  and  its  towns  are 
 exactly  the  same  which  are  elsewhere  called  the  towns  of  Jair." 
 Is  it  possible  that  one  and  the  same  author  could  so  directly  con- 
 tradict himself,  as  in  the  second  passage  totally  to  forget  what  he 
 had  written  in  the  first  ?  Lastly,  the  assertion  that  no  harmony 
 exists  between  the  passages  in  Numbers  and  Deuteronomy,  but, 
 on  the  contrary,  much  that  is  perplexing,  scarcely  deserves  that 
 we  should  waste  a  word  upon  it.  That  man's  mind  must  be 
 strangely  confused  who  can  find  confusion  where  the  harmony  is 
 as  clear  as  day.  In  Numbers  it  is  said,  "  And  Moses  gave 
 Gilead  unto  Machir,  the  son  of  Manasseh,  and  he  dwelt  therein. 
 And  Jair,  the  son  of  Manasseh,  went  and  took  their  Havoth 
 ^rpThr\-r^\f,  (the  small  towns  thereof,  Eng.Auth.  Vers.),  and  called 
 them  Havoth- Jair  ;"  in  Deuteronomy,  ''Jair,  the  son  of  Manas- 
 seh, took  all  the  country  of  Argob  ....  and  called  them 
 after  his  own  name  Bashan- Havoth- Jair,  even  imto  this  day.  And 
 I  gave  Gilead  unto  Machir."  Does  it  require  extraordinary  skill 
 to  harmonize  these  two  passages  ? 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  in  favour  of  the  correctness  of  the  state- 
 ments of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  existence  of  a  Mosaic  Jair, 
 there  are  the  following  positive  reasons.  Firs  I,  The  name  Ha- 
 voth points  to  an  older  age  than  that  of  the  Judges,  as  likewise 
 the  word  ^?v  (^^^^''S  Deut.  iii.  4,  13,  14),  which  afterwards  is 
 found  only  once  in  poetry  in  the  sense  of  re(/iofi  or  country ;  Zeph. 
 ii.  5.  6,  ^'^^f^  is  connected  with  ^T^  Evah;  see  Gesenius,  Thes.  p. 
 451  ;  its  derivation  a  vivendo  alicuhi  had  been  already  proposed 
 by  Serrarius  ;  the  original  more  general  name  was  lost  at  a 
 later  period  out  of  the  language  as  an  appellative  out  of  the  lan- 
 guage, and  then  became  the  proper  name  of  those  particular  towTis. 
 It  is  not  essentially  different  from  '^T-  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  13  ^1^ 
 ^Tf?f,  for  which  we  have  in  1  Chron.  xi.  15,  '=T'f?p -.^r.^.*  And  if 
 with  ScHMiD,  ad.  I.  Jud.  p.  978,  we  take  Havoth  to  be  an  Ara- 
 
 *  The  meaning  viUaije  or  boromjh  ( Durf,  Fleckeu)  given  to  r:*,l-i  is  forced.  Accord- 
 ing to  Deut.  iii.  5,  the  "  three  score  cities"  were  "fenced  with  high  walls,  gates,  and 
 bars." 
 
1*«^0  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PKNTATEIJCH. 
 
 inaic  word,  for  ^Yhich  it  may  certainly  be  argued  that  already  in 
 the  Mosaic  age  the  forms  n'ti  and  r^^'n  were  almost  entirely  sup- 
 planted by  the  forms  n^h  and  n^n,  we  obtain  the  same  result.    For 
 the  foreign  appellativiim  could  only  maintain  itself  a  longer  time 
 by  its  connection  with  the  7iomen  propr.    That  the  Mosaic  Jair 
 found  it  and  retained  it,  is  perfectly  natural ;  certainly  it  would 
 not  have  reached  to  the  Jair  of  the  Book  of  Judges.     Secondly, 
 The  genealogy  of  Jair  in  1  Chron.  ii.  21,  &c.,  is  particularly  im- 
 portant, by  which  we  have  a  testimony  perfectly  independent  of 
 the  Mosaic  for  the  age  of  Jair.     "  If  this  genealogy  be  correct" 
 — (Steuder  remarks,  p.  274) — "  and  why  should  we  doubt  its 
 credibility  ?    Jair  was  certainly  not  contemporary  with   Moses, 
 but  his  age  falls  not  long  after  Joshua,  and  at  all  events  a  con- 
 siderable time  before  the  Jair  of  the  Book  of  Judges."    The  "  cer- 
 tainly not,"  &c.  is  only  supposed,   in   order  to  obtain  what  is 
 advantageous  for  the  friends  of  the  Book  of  Judges,  but  not  for 
 the  friends  of  the  Pentateuch.     That  the  Jair  of  the  Chronicles 
 falls  within  the  Mosaic  age,  admits  of  very  simple  proof     Jair 
 and  Zelophehad  were  both  great-grandsons  of  Macliir ;  the  for- 
 mer through  a  daughter  of  Macliu',  of  whom  Hezron,  a  descend- 
 ant of  Judah,  begat  Segub,  the  father  of  Jair  ;  the  latter  by  direct 
 male  descent.     Now  Zelophehad  died  during  the  journey  through 
 the  Wilderness,  and  at  a  very  advanced  age,  for  he  left  behind 
 him  children  grown  up.     How  then  can  it  be  affirmed  that  Jair 
 lived  beyond  the  time  of  Joshua  ?    Thirdly,  Independently  of  the 
 Pentateuch,  and  undesignedly,  there  is  also  an  indnect  confirma- 
 tory statement  in  the  Book  of  Joshua,  to  which,  for  this  very  rea- 
 son, we  give  the  precedence  before  the  direct  evidence.    It  is  said 
 in  Joshua  xix.  34,  in  the  account  of  the  boundaries  of  the  tribe 
 of  Naphthali,  ''  The  coast     ....     reached  to  Judah  upon 
 Jordan,  toward  the  sun  rising."     What  are  we  to  understand  by 
 "  Judah  upon  Jordan  ?"      Nothing  else,  as  Von  Eaumer  has 
 pointed  out,  than  Havoth-Jair.    Jair  descended,  according  to  the 
 genealogy  in  the  Chronicles,  on  the  mother's  side  from  Manasseh, 
 and  on  the  father's  side  from  Judah  ;  but  commonly  he  was  called 
 Manasseh  from  the  maternal  ancestors,  perhaps  because  his  father 
 was  a  bastard  (compare  Judges  xi.  1,  2),  and  because  his  posses- 
 sion lay  divided  by  the  tribe  of  Judah,  or  for  some  other  reason 
 with  which  we  are  not  acquainted.     What  is  expressly  said  in  the 
 
HAVOTH-JAIK.  1  <H 
 
 Olironicles  respecting  Jair's  descent,  is  implied  in  the  Pentateuch. 
 But  hence  it  appears  why  Jair  is  called  the  Manassite,  and  yet  is 
 descended  from  the  posterity  of  Machir,  the  only  son  of  Manas- 
 seh,  and  set  in  opposition  to  them,  and  does  not  appear  in  the 
 genealogy  of  Manasseh.  If  now  a  "  Judah  upon  Jordan  toward 
 the  sun-rising,"  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
 was  in  existence  at  the  division  of  the  Cis-Jordanic  land,  then  must 
 Jair,  in  whom  that  existence  was  founded,  have  belonged  to  the 
 Mosaic  age.  Indeed,  only  grant  in  general,  that  there  was  a  Judah 
 eastward  of  Jordan,  and  we  arrive  at  the  same.  For  since  there 
 were  no  later  alterations  in  the  possessions  of  the  tribes,  and  the 
 respective  apportionments  remained  as  they  were  at  first  determin- 
 ed, there  was,  if  at  all,  even  in  Moses'  time,  a  Judah  on  the  east 
 of  Jordan.  Foxirthhj,  The  existence  of  a  Mosaic  Jair  is  also  con- 
 firmed by  the  direct  testimony  of  the  Book  of  Joshua.  It  is  said 
 in  Joshua  xiii.  30,  81,  in  the  description  of  the  territory  of  the 
 half  tribe  of  Manasseh,  ''And  their  coast  was  from  Mahanaim, 
 all  Bashan,  all  the  kingdom  of  Og,  king  of  Bashan,  and  all  Ha- 
 voth-Jair  (all  the  towns  of  Jair,  Eng.  Autli.  Vers.)  which  are  in 
 Bashan,  threescore  cities.  And  half  Gilead,  and  Ashtaroth,  and 
 Edrei,  cities  of  the  kingdom  of  Og  in  Bashan  [were  pertaining] 
 unto  the  cliildren  of  Machir,  the  son  of  Manasseh."  According  to 
 this  account,  even  in  the  Mosaic  division,  Havoth- Jair  was  situated 
 in  the  trans- Jordanic  tract.  It  appears  fi^om  this  passage,  in  proof 
 of  its  independence,  that  two  cities  were  taken  from  the  kingdom  of 
 Og  and  assigned  to  Machir ;  the  w/iole  of  Bashan,  both  here  and 
 in  the  Pentateuch,  receives,  therefore,  a  limitation.  Fiftlihj,  It 
 is  said  in  1  Kings  iv.  13,  in  giving  the  hst  of  Solomon's  twelve 
 officers,  "  Ben  Geber  in  Kamoth-gilead  ;  to  him  pertained  the 
 Havoth-Jair  of  the  son  of  Manasseh,  which  are  in  Gilead  ;  to 
 him  also  pertained  the  region  of  Argob,  which  is  m  Bashan,  three 
 score  great  cities,  with  walls  and  brazen  bars."  The  author  can 
 by  no  means  intend  to  say  that  Ben  Geber  possessed,  besides 
 Havoth-Jair,  the  region  of  Argob.  The  verbal  coincidence  with 
 Deut.  iii.  4,  5,  which  is  so  striking  that  it  cannot  have  been  ac- 
 cidental, is  against  such  a  supposition.  In  that  chapter  it  is  ex- 
 pressly said,  in  ver.  14,  that  Jair  the  son  of  Manasseh,  took  all 
 the  counti'y  of  Argob,  and  called  it  after  his  name  Havoth-Jair. 
 If  the  second  V?  "  to  him,"  as  well  as  the  first,  be  refeiTed  to  Ben 
 
192  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Geber,  we  must  suppose  that  the  author  began  afresh  the  des- 
 cription of  his  territory,  as  if  he  had  said,  "  to  make  use  of  an- 
 other geographical  denomination,  he  had  the  countiy  of  Argoh," 
 &c.  But  we  may,  with  ELinne,  ii.  122,  refer  the  second  "h  to 
 J  air.  Ben  Geber  liad  the  Havoth  of  Jair,  to  whom  belonged  the 
 country  of  Argob.  The  verbal  coincidence  with  Deuteronomy 
 forbids  our  supposing  that  by  Jair,  the  son  of  Manasseh,  any  other 
 can  be  understood  than  the  Mosaic.  But  this  verbal  coincidence 
 with  Deuteronomy  prevents  this  testimony  from  standing  on  an 
 equality  with  the  rest. 
 
 We  have  hitherto  shown,  that  if  the  passages  in  the  Pentateuch 
 and  in  the  Book  of  Judges  are  not  reconcileable,  the  decision 
 must  necessarily  depend  on  the  former,  which  has  the  evidence 
 from  other  quarters  in  its  favour,  while  the  notice  in  the  Book  of 
 Judges  stands  quite  solitary  and  unsupported.  But  it  now  re- 
 mains for  us  to  show  that  the  passage  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  so 
 far  from  contradicting  the  statements  of  the  Pentateuch,  serves 
 rather  to  confirm  them. 
 
 The  occurrence  of  two  Jairs  in  one  and  the  same  district,  both 
 having  the  jurisdiction  of  cities,  could  only  create  a  difficulty  if 
 they  were  totally  independent  of  one  another.  But  here  it  can  be 
 shewn  that  the  existence  of  the  second  Jair  stands  in  causal  con- 
 nection with  the  first  to  whom  it  conducts  us.  It  is  in  the  nature 
 of  things,  and  hence  occm^s  among  all  nations,  that  the  names  of 
 distinguished  ancestors,  particularly  when  (as  in  the  case  of  Jair, 
 the  resjylendent,  the  f/lorious  one),  they  are  titles  of  honour,  are 
 transferred  to  their  descendants.  A  wish  arises  that  they  should 
 live  again  in  their  grand -children,  that  by  them  the  family  may 
 again  attain  the  splendour  which  was  shed  on  it  by  their  illus- 
 trious progenitor.*  Among  us  the  natural  tendency  is  gratified 
 by  surnames  ;  among  the  Hebrews  the  whole  department  of  pro- 
 per names  stood  open,  and  there  was  more  eagerness  in  taking 
 
 *  SiMONis,  Onom.  p.  17,  remarks — "  Inter  rationes  uomimim  et  liaec  obtimiit,  ut 
 obhonorem  alicujus  viri  iiitantem  eoclem  nomine  cohonestarent,  ut  Machli  Alius 
 Muschi  cohonestatur  nomine  Machli  avunculi  sui.  Lightfoot,  0pp.  ii.  494.  Maxi- 
 ma vero  nepotibus  nomina  avorum  reddita  leguntur,  ut  Jojada,  Korali,  &c.  Idem  apud 
 Graecos  et  Latinos  obtinuit.  {Citate).  Talis  imposito  nominum  vel  memoriae  et 
 exempli,  vel  similitudinis  ergo  fiebat.  .  .  Similiter  Christiani  primi  et  V.  T,  Pa- 
 riarchai-um,  ex  N.  T.  Apostolorum  aliorumqne  sanctorum  nomina  liberis  indidere. 
 
iiAvoTH-jAiK.  iy;3 
 
 advantage  of  this  circumstance,  in  proportion  as  tlie  feeling  of 
 family  connection  was  more  vivid.  The  relations  of  Zechariah 
 could  not  imagine  that  he  would  choose  a  name  for  his  son,  which 
 had  not  already  heen  used  in  the  family,  Luke  i.  Gl.  We  have  a 
 very  notable  instance  in  an  ancestor  of  Jair's,  Tola  the  son  of 
 Puah  (^5'is-')i  yVin)^  Judg.  x.  i.  Both  names,  his  own  and  his 
 father's,  are  found  in  Gen.  xlvi.  13,  "  And  the  sons  of  Issachar, 
 Tola  and  Puah"  (^0^!}  '-^T^).  As  now  Tola  the  son  of  Puah  fur- 
 nishes a  confirmation  for  the  existence  of  a  Tola  and  Puah  in 
 Genesis  xlvi.*  so  the  Jair  of  the  Book  of  Judges  corroborates  the 
 existence  of  a  Mosaic  Jair.  No  doubt  many  a  time  besides,  the 
 name  Jair  was  repeated  in  the  family,  but  only  on  this  occasion 
 was  the  wish  fulfilled  that  was  expressed  by  the  imposition  of  the 
 name. 
 
 It  now  only  remains  to  notice  that,  according  to  the  Book  of 
 Judges,  Havoth-Jair  were  named  from  the  Jair  mentioned  in 
 that  book,  while  according  to  the  Pentateuch  they  were  named 
 from  the  Mosaic  Jair.  But  the  difficulty  that  is  found  here  pro- 
 ceeds only  from  an  incapacity  to  enter  into  the  nature  of  the  an- 
 cient oriental  mode  of  giving  names.  See  vol.  i.  p.  280,  281. 
 By  means  of  the  second  Jair  who  inherited  the  prowess  of  his  an- 
 cestors, the  name  Havoth-Jair  bloomed  afresh,  which  perhaps 
 had  akeady  become  obsolete,  but  no  doubt  was  more  and  more  a 
 nomen  vanum,  a  mere  nomcn  proprium  which  called  up  no  recol- 
 lections, although  not  in  all  the  cities  (for  he  did  not  succeed  in 
 recovering  the  whole  of  his  ancestral  domains),  yet  at  least  in  one- 
 half.  The  rest  might  still  be  called  Havoth-Jair  (the  passage 
 in  the  Book  of  Kings  leads  us  to  suppose  so),  but  they  had  ceased 
 to  he  the  towns  of  Jair. 
 
 HERMON. 
 
 In  Deut.  iii.  9,  it  is  said,  "  Hermon  the  Sidonians  call  Sirion  (V"?) 
 and  the  Amorites  call  it  Shcnir"  i^^t-i),  ch.  iv.  48,  '*'  From  Aroer, 
 
 *  Especially  since  Tola  is  described  as  n-!ir:-ia,  son  of  his  inicle.  LXX.  utos 
 <bova  vLu^  iraTpaoiXc^ov  avTov,  probably  because  be  was  reckoned  as  his  uncle's  son 
 according  to  the  Levirate  law.  In  him  tlie  two  brothers  became  one,  and  this  it  seems 
 was  indicated  by  the  choice  of  the  name. 
 
 VOL.  II.  N 
 
I  94  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 which  is  by  the  bank  of  the  river  Anion,  even  unto  Mount  Sihon 
 (I's-'p)  which  is  Hermon." 
 
 Following  Calmet,  Jahn  considers  the  passage  Deut.  iii.  9  as 
 a  gloss.  The  various  denominations  of  Hermon,  he  thinks,  must 
 have  been  generally  known  in  the  time  of  Moses,  so  that  he  could 
 not  have  any  occasion  to  mention  them.  Vater  remarks,  p.  633, 
 in  reference  to  Deut.  iv.  48,  that  such  explanatory  additions  trans- 
 port him  who  writes  them  down  into  a  time  when  the  explanatory 
 name  was  the  cmTent  one,  not  the  other  which  is  given  as  the 
 name  of  the  place  at  the  time  of  the  event  spoken  of. 
 
 We  wish  first  of  all  to  show  that  the  supposition  of  a  gloss  in 
 Deut.  iii.  9  is  inadmissible.  Ch.  ii.  and  iii.  have  this  peculiarity, 
 that  we  meet  in  them  with  a  succession  of  parentheses  which  break 
 the  continuity  of  the  composition.  Ch.ii.  10-12,20-23;  ch.  iii. 
 9,  11.  From  the  manifest  similarity  of  these  parentheses,  it  is 
 evident  that  they  must  either  stand  or  fall  together.  Hence  if 
 we  are  successful  in  proving  that  any  one  of  them  forms  an  integ- 
 ral part  of  the  composition,  the  supposition  of  either  of  the  rest 
 being  a  gloss  will  appear  untenable. 
 
 In  ch.  ii.  10-12,  it  is  said,  "  The  Emims  dwelt  therein  in  times 
 past,  a  people  great  and  many,  and  tall  as  the  Anakims  ;  which 
 also  w^ere  accounted  giants,  as  the  Anakims,  but  the  Moabites 
 call  them  Emims.  The  Horims  also  dwelt  in  Seir  beforetime, 
 but  the  children  of  Esau  succeeded  them,  when  they  had  de- 
 stroyed them  from  before  them,  and  dwelt  in  their  stead,  as 
 Israel  did  unto  the  land  of  his  2)ossessio7i,  which  the  Lord  gave 
 unto  them!'  In  these  last  words  the  design  of  the  parenthetical 
 portions  plainly  appears.  They  were  evidently  intended  not 
 merely  for  the  purpose  of  gratifying  historical  curiosity.  It  was 
 rather  intended  to  show  Israel  by  these  examples,  that  existing 
 thinsfs  were  not  unalterable.  What  in  the  common  course  of 
 things  had  already  happened  frequently,  under  the  guidance  of 
 the  Lord,  might  it  not  also  again  occur  where  the  special  provi- 
 dence of  God  was  at  work  ?  This  object  was  perfectly  suitable 
 to  the  condition  of  the  Israelites  under  Moses.  It  would  not 
 enter  the  thoughts  of  a  later  interpolator. 
 
 The  same  object  is  also  apparent  in  vcr.  20,  &c.,  "  That  also 
 was  accounted  a  land  of  giants  (Ammonitis)  ;  giants  dwelt  therein 
 in  old  time  ;  and  the  Ammonites  called  them  Zamzummims  ;  a 
 people  great  and  many,  and  tall  as  the  Anakims ;  but  the  Lord 
 
HEllMON.  195 
 
 destroyed  them  before  them,  and  they  succeeded  them  and  dwelt 
 in  their  stead,  as  he  did  to  the  children  of  Esau,  which  dwelt  in 
 Seir,  wdien  he  destroyed  the  Horims  from  before  them,  and  they 
 succeeded  them,  and  dwelt  in  their  stead  even  unto  this  day. 
 And  the  Avims  which  dwelt  in  villages  (^^T:?!!!^,  Hazerim,  Eng. 
 A.  V.)  even  unto  Gaza  C^;?,  Azzah,  Bug.  A.  V.)  the  Caphtorims, 
 which  came  out  of  Caphtor,  destroyed  them,  and  dwelt  in  their 
 stead."  Even  the  giants,  a  people  great  and  many,  and  tall, 
 could  not  retain  their  ancient  seats  when  the  Lord  willed  to  drive 
 them  out.  The  expression  "  as  the  Anakim  "  is  not  to  be  over- 
 looked. The  apprehensions  which  these  details  were  intended  to 
 obviate  are  stated  shortly  before  in  ch.  i.  27,  "  Whither  shall  we 
 go  up  ?  our  brethren  have  discouraged  our  heart,  saying,  The 
 people  is  greater  and  taller  than  we  ;  the  cities  are  great  and 
 w^alled  up  to  heaven  ;  and  moreover  we  have  seen  the  sons  of  the 
 Anakims  there  ;"  compare  Num.  xiii.  28,  where  the  spies  say, 
 "  Nevertheless,  the  people  is  strong  that  dwell  in  the  land,  and 
 the  cities  are  walled  and  very  great ;  and  moreover  we  saw  the 
 children  of  Anak  there  ;"  ver.  31,  "  We  be  not  able  to  go  up 
 against  the  people,  for  they  are  stronger  than  we ;"  ver.  33, ''  And 
 there  we  saw  the  Nephilim  (giants,  Ftig.  A.  V.)  the  sons  of  Anak 
 which  come  of  the  Nephilim,  and  we  were  in  our  own  sight  as 
 grasshoppers,  and  so  we  were  in  their  sight."  To  root  out  the 
 prejudices  wdiich  are  here  expressed,  and  by  which  the  older  ge- 
 neration was  excluded  from  possessing  the  promised  land,  was  the 
 condition  of  victory  for  the  succeeding  one.  Moses  met  them  by 
 reasoning  a  ?nifiori  ad  majus.  What  God  did  for  the  Moabites, 
 Ammonites,  Edomites,  and  Caphtorites,  will  he  not  also  do  for  his 
 own  people  ?  Thus  it  appears,  that  these  passages  only  outwardly 
 break  the  connection — that  they  were  exactly  suited  to  the  state 
 and  disposition  of  the  persons  to  whom  Moses  primarily  addressed 
 himself.  The  reason,  by  no  means  unimportant,  which  others  have 
 adduced  for  the  Mosaic  origin  of  these  parenthetical  portions,  that 
 the  historical  notices  considered  in  themselves,  the  exact  know- 
 ledge of  the  earhest  times  which  they  contain,  carry  us  back  to  the 
 times  of  Moses,  now  assumes  only  a  subordinate  position.* 
 
 *  From  the  preceding  remarks,  it  plainly  apppars  what  is  to  be  thought  of  Geddes' 
 attempt  (Vater,  iii.  213)  to  explain  ver.  10-12,  and  ver.  20-23,  as  interpolations  ;  like- 
 
 N    2 
 
19C  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Thus  we  have  shown,  that  the  supposition  of  an  interpolation 
 in  ch.  iii.  9  is  not  admissihle.  But  neither  can  we  understand 
 what  emergency  could  mislead  to  laying  hold  of  this  refuge 
 from  perplexity.  For  how  do  we  know  that  the  Sidonian  and 
 Amoritish  name  of  Hermon  was  current  among  the  Israelites  in 
 the  time  of  Moses  ?  According  to  the  nature  of  things  this  was 
 much  less  Hkely  to  be  the  case  then,  than  later,  so  that  the  remark 
 is  still  more  difficult  to  be  explained  as  a  gloss.  Are  we  justified 
 in  naiTOwly  examining  every  such  notice  whether  it  was  absolutely 
 necessary  for  the  contemporaries  of  the  historian  ?  Why  should 
 not  the  words  be  attacked,  (in  the  passages  which  have  been  al- 
 ready justified  as  Mosaic,  Deut.  ii.  11),  "  The  Moabites  call  them 
 Emims  ;"  ver.  20,  ''  The  Ammonites  call  them  Zamzummims," 
 which  are  exactly  in  the  same  class  with  the  notice  under  consi- 
 sideration.  If  we  view  these  notices  collectively,  we  shall  find 
 ourselves  transported  to  a  time  when  information  came  to  the  Is- 
 raehtes  in  the  midst  of  their  new  position,  which  precisely,  by  its 
 novelty,  excited  an  interest,  and  appeared  memorable  and  worthy 
 
 wise  of  Vater's  observation,  that  it  is  far  less  credible  that  such  notices  should  be  in- 
 troduced by  Moses  than  by  a  foreign  narrator.  The  positive  evidence  for  the  Mosaic 
 origin  of  these  passages  is  so  strong,  that  it  will  be  no  longer  urged  as  evidence  of  a 
 post-Mosaic  date,  which  some  have  imagined  in  the  preterite  nby  in  the  former  pas- 
 sage, ("  as  Israel  did  unto  the  land  of  his  possession.")  This  r;r:>  may  be  exidained 
 by  Deut.  iii.  21,  22,  where  Moses  says  to  Joshua,  "  Thine  eyes  have  seen  all  the  Lord 
 your  God  hath  done  ri'i-y  unto  these  two  kings  ;  so  shall  the  Lord  do  unto  all  the  king- 
 doms whither  thou  passest.  Ye  shall  not  fear  them ;  for  the  Lord  your  God,  he  shall 
 fight  for  you."  Properly  it  should  have  been  said,  "  hath  done  and  will  do."  But  the 
 future  had  such  a  firm  foundation  in  the  past,  that  the  beginning  and  end  are  here 
 combined  in  one.  Le  Clerc  (Dissert,  de  script.  Pentat.  iii.  15)  would  erroneously  re- 
 fer the  remai-k  merely  to  the  trans-Jordanic  laud  ;  and  Eosenmuller  likewise  explains 
 it  erroneously ;  in  co  est  vtfaciuf.  The  i)reterite  is  only  prophetic  for  one-half.  It 
 would  not  have  been  used  if  the  trq^ns- Jordan! c  land  had  noi  already  been  talten.  The 
 preterite  must,  moreover,  on  the  supposition  of  the  post-Mosaic  composition  of  the 
 Pentateuch,  have  been  construed  as  we  have  taken  it.  For  such  a  direct  mistake,  in 
 a  connection  where  everything  was  designed  to  rouse  the  courage  of  the  Israelites  for 
 taking  tlie  promised  land,  cannot  be  admitted.  But  certainly  a  later  writer  would  not 
 have  expressed  himself  so  ambiguously  and  obscurely.  He  would  purposely  have 
 avoided  everything  which  could  excite  suspicion.  The  manner  in  which  Vater  treats 
 (p.  638)  the  passage  before  us,  furnishes  a  specimen  of  the  accuracy  and  confidence  of 
 our  opponents.  Instead  of  Deut.  ii.  12,  he  cites  ii.  15,  and  maintains  that  it  is  there 
 told,  how  Israel  liad  driven  out  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan,  an.l  ai-gues  from  this  text 
 of  his  own  creation,  against  Le  Clerc's  supposition,  which  he  designates  as  very  forced, 
 "since  those  eastern  countries  were  not  properly  reckoned  as  belonging  to  Canaan  I !" 
 
HERMON.  107 
 
 of  being  recorded,  though  it  certainly  soon  after  became  famihai;, 
 and  lost  all  its  charms. 
 
 It  now  only  remains  to  justify  the  passage  in  Dent.  iv.  48,  in 
 which  a  twofold  Israehtish  name  of  a  mountain,  Sihon  and  Hermon, 
 occults.  That  a  name  should  become  obsolete  and  make  room 
 for  another,  commonly  requires  a  long  interval.  But  we  can  for- 
 tunately show,  that,  even  in  the  Mosaic  age,  such  a  change  was 
 effected. 
 
 Sihon  the  exalted  =  ''(^''''^.\  (compare  ^''^  elatio  in  Job  xx.  G) 
 is,  as  it  were,  the  natural  name  of  the  mountain,  which  it  must 
 have  received  from  the  Israehtes  as  soon  as  they  caught  sight  of 
 it,  if  it  was  not  already,  as  is  probable,  already  in  existence.  In 
 fact,  this  name  agrees  with  the  Sidonian  and  Ammonitish.  (On 
 their  meaning,  see  Simonis  Onom.  p.  91.) 
 
 In  reference  to  Hermon,  the  remark  of  Hilary  (from  whom 
 otherwise  on  such  topics  there  is  not  much  to  be  learnt),  on  Ps. 
 cxxxiii.  (in  Reland,  p.  323)  is  in  the  right  direction.  Hermon 
 mons  est  in  Phoenice,  citjiis  interpretaAio  anathema  est.  For 
 this  explanation,  the  following  reasons  may  be  urged :  (i.)  That 
 it  alone  is  agreeable  to  the  Hebrew  usus  loqiiendi,  while,  for  the 
 cin'rent  one,  recourse  must  be  had  to  the  Arabic,  (ii.)  The  evi- 
 dent reference  to  the  meaning  devoted,  accursed,  in  the  first  pas- 
 sage where  the  name  Her7no7i  occurs,  Deut.  iii.  G-8,  "  And  we 
 DEVOTED  them,  ^r'*^  ^Tf.,  as  we  did  unto  Sihon,  king  of  Hesh- 
 bon,  when  we  devoted  all  the  men  in  the  cities,  with  the  women  and 
 children.  And  we  took  at  that  time  out  of  the  hand  of  the  two 
 kings  of  the  Amorites,  the  land  that  was  on  that  side  Jordan,  from 
 the  river  of  Arnon  unto  mount  Hermon,"  X^^"!!}.  That  Hermon 
 itself  belonged  to  the  devoted  land  appears  from  Josh.  xii.  5,  where 
 it  is  expressly  described  as  belonging  to  the  territory  of  Og,  king 
 of  Bashan.  (iii.)  The  remarkable  parallelism  between  Hormah, 
 the  beginning  of  the  devoted  district,  and  Hermon,  its  termina- 
 tion, so  that  the  express  derivation  of  the  name  ^'^"'^  from  the  de- 
 votement,  certainly  apphes  also  to  V^'^^..  The  name  was  applied 
 to  both  extremities  of  the  devoted  land,  (iv.)  There  is  probably 
 an  allusion  to  the  connection  of  T^a-^n  with  a-'i-;  in  1  Chron.  v.  ?3, 
 ''  And  the  children  of  the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh  dwelt  in  the  land 
 from  Bashan  unto  Baal-Hermon  and  Senir  (=  which  is  Senir) 
 and  mount  Hermon — they  became  numerous."     The  nomen  was, 
 
198  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 in  this  case,  not  the  omen.  Afterwards,  in  ver.  25,  20,  "  And 
 they  transgi'essed  against  the  God  of  their  fathers,  and  went  a 
 whoring  after  the  gods  of  the  people  of  the  land,  whom  God  de- 
 stroyed before  them.  And  the  God  of  Israel  stirred  up  the  spirit 
 of  Pill  king  of  Assyria,  and  the  spirit  of  Tiglath-pileser,  king  of 
 Assyria,  and  he  carried  them  away,"  &c.  Here  we  have  nomen  et 
 omen.^  We  are  not  to  imagine  a  mere  play  upon  the  words. 
 The  name  of  the  mountain  was  really  a  prediction.  If  Israel  he- 
 came,  hke  the  heathen,  then  the  Q"^h,  the  ban,  fell  upon  them,  as  is 
 so  often  denounced  in  the  Pentateuch.  In  Hermon,  the  relation 
 in  which  Hormah  stood  was  reversed,  which  at  first  was  rendered 
 sacred  by  the  ts'^h  of  Israel,  and  then  by  the  Q'^n  of  the  heathen,  (p. 
 223).  (v.)  If  fa^O  =  0.;^,  then  t^^^M^.  in  Judg.  iii.  3,  1  Chron. 
 V.  23  may  be  explained.  It  simply  means  the  possessor  or  hearer 
 of  the  ban.  Compare  ■'^'^-^,  the  possessor  of  good  fortune,  in 
 Josh.  xii.  7. 
 
 After  these  investigations,  we  venture  to  believe  that  we  have 
 untied  the  knot.  The  name  Hermon  could  not  have  been  brought 
 into  use  till  after  the  event  to  which  it  refers.  That  along  with 
 it  the  name  that  had  hitherto  been  usual  should  be  given,  and 
 that  prinio  loco,  must  appear  to  be  quite  natural.  In  ch.  iii.  9,  it 
 was  otherwise  ;  there  the  explanation  of  the  name  was  given. 
 
 THE  BEDSTEAD  OF  KING  OG. 
 
 In  Deut.  iii.  11,  it  is  said  after  the  mention  of  the  victory  over 
 Og  king  of  Bashan,  and  the  conquest  of  his  land  :  "  For  only  Og 
 king  of  Bashan  remained  of  the  remnant  of  the  Kephaim ;  behold, 
 his  bedstead  was  a  bedstead  of  iron,  is  it  not  in  Rabbath  of  the 
 children  of  Ammon  ?  nine  cubits  was  the  length  thereof  and  four 
 cubits  the  breadth  of  it,  after  the  cubits  of  a  man." 
 
 This  passage  was  long  ago  made  a  handle  of  by  the  opponents 
 of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch.  Spinoza  remarks,  that 
 only  things  of  remote  antiquity  are  spoken  of  in  this  manner,  of 
 
 *  We  have  exactly  a  similar  instance  in  1  Chron.  xxiii.  17,  "  And  Eliezer  had  none 
 other  sons  (besides  Eehabiah),  hut  the  sons  of  Eehabiah  were  veiy  many  nV>'to^  '.3"i" 
 so  that  the  name  Eehabiah  verified  itself  as  true, 
 
THE  BEDSTExVD  OF  KING  OG.  199 
 
 wliicli  the  credibility  is  supported  by  referring  to  their  remains, 
 and  thinks  that  this  bed  was  first  known  from  the  time  of  David, 
 who,  according*  to  2  Sam.  xii.  30,  captured  this  city.  Peyre- 
 Rius  adds,  that  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  in  the  Mosaic  age 
 the  bed  was  brought  from  Bashan  to  Ammonitis.  Geddes 
 repeats  Spinoza's  assertion,  that  the  account  was  probably 
 given  after  David's  capture  of  the  city ;  and  Vater  remarks, 
 that  though  this  is  going  too  far,  yet  it  could  not  have 
 been  written  by  Moses,  since  he  died  in  the  year  of  this  cam- 
 paign, and  that  there  can  at  all  events  be  no  doubt  that  this  no- 
 tice must  have  been  of  later  date  than  the  Mosaic  age.  Many 
 advocates  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  (Calmet,  Dathe, 
 who  remarks  justly  in  Vatke's  opinion,  p.  219,  that  Moses  died 
 just  about  that  time,  and  could  have  had  no  information  on  the 
 subject;  Jahn,  p.  63,  and  Rosenmuller)  have  been  so  timid 
 that  they  have  given  up  the  passage  as  a  gloss. 
 
 It  must  indeed  be  admitted  that  remarks  lil^e  this  might  have 
 been  added  afterwards  by  Moses,  when  committing  his  discourses 
 to  writing,  on  which  account  the  verse  may  properly  be  enclosed 
 (as  by  De  Wette)  in  brackets.  But  then  all  doubt  vanishes. 
 The  most  plausible  objection  left  is,  that  Moses  could  not 
 think  it  necessary  to  adduce  such  a  voucher  for  Og's  gigantic 
 stature,  since  it  was  known  to  all  his  contemporaries.  But  how 
 many  of  his  contemporaries  had  actually  seen  Og  ?  and  who  can 
 assure  us  that  Moses  wrote  only  for  his  contemporaries  ?  He 
 himself  everywhere  asserts  the  contrary ;  compare,  for  instance, 
 Exod.  xvii.  14,  Deut.  xxxi.  20,  &c.,  20,  and  particularly  in  the 
 liistorical  parts  of  his  work,  it  is  in  the  very  nature  of  things 
 that  they  were  not  so  much  intended  for  the  present  as  for  pos- 
 terity. The  most  distinguished  classical  writers  expressly  declare 
 that  they  wrote  principally  for  posterity.  Tacitus  (Hist.  i.  1) 
 laments  a  defect  in  the  cura  iiosteritatis  among  his  predecessors. 
 In  Ids  Ayricola  he  says,  "  Glarorum  virorum  facta  moresque 
 posteris  tradere  antiquitus  usitatum.  Ajnid  priores,  ut  agere 
 memoratii  digna  lyroniun,  magisqne  in  aperto  erat,  ita  celeherri- 
 miis  quisque  ingenio  ad  prodendam  virtutis  memoriam  sine 
 gratia  aiit  amhitionc,  honae  tantiun  conscientiae  iwetio  duce- 
 hatur.  Thucydides,  in  his  introduction,  says  of  liis  history, 
 KTrjfid  re  e?  ael  fxaKkov,  rj  cuyoiVKJiia  e?  to  TTapa-)(^pri[xa  aicovuv 
 
200  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH; 
 
 ^uyKetraL.  Herodotus  describes  it  as  the  object  of  his  work,  w? 
 fji'^re  ra  yevo/jueva  ef  avOpwircdv  tS  XP^^V  ^^^'^V^  yivrjraL,  /jLtjre 
 €pyd  fjLeydXa  re  kol  dcdVjJbaard  dtckea  yevTjraL.  Will  any  person 
 lay  it  down  as  a  principle  that  Moses  could  only  write  what  be- 
 longed to- his  contemporai'ies,  why  then  object  to  this  little  harm- 
 less notice  ?  why  not  object  to  the  whole  narrative  of  the  war 
 against  Sihon  and  Og,  which  passed  under  the  eyes  of  that  gene- 
 ration to  whom  Moses  committed  his  work;  and  why  not  object 
 to  ever  so  many  other  things  ?  But  what  would  become  of  every 
 contemporai'y  history,  if  brought  to  the  test  of  tliis  canon  ? 
 Moreover,  the  author's  object  was  not  to  give  a  pledge  to  sceptical 
 readers,  of  the  truth  of  his  history,  by  refemng  to  the  bed.  This 
 could  only  be  admitted,  if  in  other  passages  any  sure  traces  could 
 be  found  of  such  an  endeavour.  But  such  a  design  is  totally 
 foreign,  not  only  to  the  Pentateuch,  but  to  the  whole  of  sacred 
 history,  including  the  Evangelists.  The  authors  always  write  in 
 the  consciousness  of  their  veracity,  and  with  the  motto,  '"'  Wliat 
 have  I  to  do  with  those  that  are  without?"  (1  Cor.  v.  12.) 
 The  object  liere  was  rather  to  give  a  striking  representation  of 
 the  greatness  of  the  conquered  enemy,  and  likewise  of  the  great- 
 ness of  God's  grace,  which  secured  the  victory ;  the  inten'ogative 
 ^"!^.  indicates  that  the  fact  was  otherwise  already  known,  so  that 
 it  was  only  necessary  to  call  it  to  mind.  There  is  a  parallel  pas- 
 sage in  Deut.  xi.  30,  "Are  they  not  (the  mountains  Ebal  and 
 Gerizim),  on  the  other  side  Jordan,  by  the  way  w^here  the  sun 
 goeth  dow^n?"   compare  a]so  Judg.  vi.  13. 
 
 Objections  such  as  these,  that  we  cannot  make  out,  how  the 
 bed  reached  Eabbath  Ammon,  or  how  Moses  should  know  that  it 
 was  there,  are  really  downright  absurdities.  Had  Moses,  instead 
 of  a  history  of  God's  people,  been  writing  a  history  of  Og's  iron 
 bedsteads,  a  precise  answer  to  such  questions  might  have  been 
 expected  from  him.  But  it  is  doing  these  cavils  too  much  honour 
 to  enter  on  an  enumeration  of  the  various  possible  ways  by  which 
 the  bedstead  might  get  thither,  and  the  account  of  it  to  Moses. 
 Whoever  wishes  for  it  may  read  Le  Clerc  on  the  passage, 
 Varenius  in  Carpzov,  p.  138  ;  Michaelis,  who  changes  the 
 bedstead  into  a  coffin,  and  others. 
 
 In  the  accoimt  itself  there  is  certainly  nothing  suspicious. 
 Gigantic  races  from  whom  kings  have  proceeded,  are  still  found 
 
TflE  LAW  01'  THE  KiN(J  IN   DECT.  XVII.  201 
 
 among  many  savage  tribes,  as  in  Australia.  Calmet  gives  a 
 number  of  instances  of  iron  bedsteads  in  ancient  times.  The  size 
 need  not  astonish  us,  for  the  Hebrew  cubit  is  only  one  foot  and 
 a  half,  (see  Gesenius,  s.  v.,  n^s) ;  the  bedstead  is  always  larger 
 than  the  man ;  and  Le  Clerc  has  conjectiu:ed  that  Og  de- 
 signedly caused  it  to  be  made  larger  tlian  was  necessary,  ut  jws- 
 tcrltas  ex  lecti  magnitudine  de  statnra  ejus,  qui  in  co  ciihare 
 solitus  erat,  magiiijicentius  sentiret :  compare  the  remarkable 
 instances  of  similar  conduct  which  tliat  critic  has  adduced  ii-om 
 the  history  of  Alexander.  It  is  very  frequently  found  that  people 
 of  more  than  common  size  are  inclined  to  make  themselves 
 appeal'  still  larger  than  they  really  are.  We  may  not  perhaps 
 conclude  respecting  remote  antiquity  from  our  own  times,  and 
 yet  the  giant  Gilli,  whom  Michaelis  himself  saw,  was  four 
 ells  high,  and  so  was  the  door  keeper  of  the  King  of  Persia,  men- 
 tioned bv  Malcolm. 
 
 the  law  of  the  king  in  DEUT.  XVII. 
 
 The  objections  (Vater  remarks,  iii.  257)  which  have  been 
 made  against  the  genuineness  of  this  regulation  respecting  the 
 choice  of  a  king,  are  not  unimportant.  It  is  not  in  accordance 
 with  the  whole  Mosaic  constitution  ;  and  especially  Samuel  could 
 not  have  resented  the  choice  of  a  king  so  strongly,  as  a  defect  in 
 grateful  attachment  to  Jehovah,  if  an  express  law  respecting  the 
 choice  of  a  king  existed  in  the  Mosaic  writings.  The  law,  he 
 maintains,  could  not  have  existed  till  after  Solomon,  since  "So- 
 lomon had  a  numerous  cavalry,  and  a  large  seraglio,  and  would 
 not  have  had  both,  in  the  face  of  a  law  that  literally  forbade  them." 
 It  was  directed  precisely  against  that  line  of  conduct  which  was 
 bui'densome  to  the  people  under  the  kings  after  Solomon,  and  had 
 been  reproved  by  the  prophets.  Hartmann  also  (p.  714)  adopts 
 the  same  arguments,  and  remarks  that  Samuel  knew  nothing  of 
 this  law  and  of  the  promise  in  Gen.  xvii.  0,  and  the  Israelites  as 
 little,  "  Since  otherwise,  as  a  foundation  for  their  demand,  they 
 would  not  have  appealed  alone  to  the  example  of  the  neighbour- 
 ing nations."  How  could  God,  he  asks,  in  contradiction  to  him- 
 self, have  expressed  so  much  disapprobation  at  the  desire  of  liis 
 
202  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 chosen  people  ?  The  hiw  of  the  king,  lie  thinks,  was  evidently 
 an  imitation  of  the  constitution  framed  by  Samuel,  and  of  later 
 occurrences.  1  Kings  xi.  1.  Compare  Ilgen  de  notione  tituli 
 Jllii  del  in  Paulus  Memorah.  7  §  7.  De  Wette  dissert,  in 
 Deut.  p.  15,  and  Beitr.  i.  152,  andBoHLEN  Einleitung,  p.  69. 
 
 Before  we  proceed  to  scrutinize  these  reasons  against  the 
 law,  we  wish  to  see  whether  it  does  not  contain  internal  positive 
 grounds  of  genuineness.  Herbst  has  appealed  to  the  introduc- 
 tion— '^  When  thou  art  come  unto  the  land  which  the  Lord  thy 
 God  giveth  thee  ;"  and  so  much  it  certainly  proves,  that  the  writer 
 of  the  law  wished  to  he  considered  as  Moses.  But  against  those 
 who  are  determined  to  regard  the  Pentateuch  as  a  work  of  deceit 
 (like  BoHLEN,  who  remarks;  (p.  70),  "  To  ask,  with  Jahn,  why 
 in  that  law  there  is  nothing  said  about  the  division  of  the  king- 
 dom, or  the  idolatry  of  the  kings,  is  to  require  of  a  fiction  that  it 
 should  wantonly  betray  itself")  it  is  of  no  use  to  argue.  Yet  even 
 against  such  persons  the  passage  furnishes  a  weapon.  It  is  said 
 in  ver.  10,  ''But  he  shall  not  multiply  horses  to  himself,  nor 
 cause  the  people  to  return  to  Egypt,  to  the  end  that  he  should 
 multiply  horses  ;  forasmuch  as  the  Lord  hath  said  unto  you,  Ye 
 shall  henceforth  return  no  more  that  way."  The  apprehension 
 here  expressed,  that  the  king's  desire  to  multiply  horses  might  at 
 last  lead  to  the  return  of  the  whole  people  to  Egypt,  was  indeed 
 in  Moses'  time  not  out  of  place,  when  the  fasteniug  anew  of  the 
 broken  bond  did  not  appear  impossible — when  the  people  on  the 
 slightest  occasion  expressed  their  longing  after  Egypt,  or  rather 
 thek  resolution  to  return  thither — compare  Exod.  xiv.  1 1 ;  Num. 
 xi.  5-20  ;  xxi.  5,  7 — but  not  in  the  time  of  Solomon  and  the 
 later  kings,  never,  indeed,  in  Joshua's  day  ;  when  the  people  had 
 attained  to  a  full  consciousness  of  their  national  individuahty, 
 every  thought  of  the  possibility  of  a  reunion  with  Egypt  vanished. 
 If  we  look  at  the  ratio  legi  adjecta  it  will  appear  that  Solomon 
 might,  with  some  reason,  consider  the  regulation  as  transitory, 
 and,  in  his  own  times,  obsolete.  In  lianc  legem,  Le  Clerc  re- 
 marks, peccavit  quideni  Salomo  sed  minus  jyericulose,  qinimpec- 
 casset  rex  qui  fuisset  electus  paulo  post  mortem  Mosis,  cum 
 periciilum  erat,  ne  redeundi  in  Aegyptum  cupido  populum  He- 
 hraeum  invaderet,  quod  tempore  Salomonis  non  fuit  timendum. 
 How  our  opponents  can,  in  any  plausible  manner,  satisfy  them- 
 
THE  LAW  OF  THE  KING  IN  DEUT.  XVII. 
 
 203 
 
 selves  with  this  argument,  we  are  unable  to  perceive.  It  also  ill 
 accords  with  the  origination  of  the  law  in  the  later  period  of  the 
 ^lugs,  that  Egypt  here  appears  as  the  only  place  for  breeding 
 horses,  a  cn^cumstance  to  which  J.  D.  Michaelis  has  diwn  at- 
 tention m  an  appendix  to  Part  iii.  of  his  Mosaisches  Recht  p 
 257-359.  -  It  really  looks  as  if  Egypt  was  then  considered  as 
 the  native  country  of  the  horse,  and  Palestine  was  regarded  as  un- 
 smted  for  breeding  that  animal."  In  Solomon's  time,  when  the 
 breechng  of  horses  in  Palestine  was  at  its  height,  no  one  imagined 
 that  a  long,  if  he  wished  for  a  large  supply  of  horses,  must  needs 
 go  to  Egypt. 
 
 Let  us  now  turn  to  the  reasons  against  the  genuineness.    These 
 require  to  be  thoroughly  sifted.     The  argument  drawn  from  the 
 opposition  of  Solomon's  conduct  to  the  law,  will  be  destitute  of 
 all  force  to  those  persons  who  know  any  thing  of  the  human  heart 
 and  of  history,     (Compare  vol.  i.  p.  209.)     How  easily  he  could 
 dispose  of  the  regulation  respecting  horses  we  have  already  seen  • 
 and  as  to  the  prohibition  of  multiplying  wives,  he  could  certainly 
 as  easily  reconcile  his  conduct  with  it,  as  Mahommedan  grandees 
 who  love  wine  can  evade  the  stringent  law  of  the  Koran  against 
 wme-drmking.    Nor  need  we  trouble  ourselves  with  the  objection 
 that  precisely  those  things  are  prohibited  which  were  afterwards 
 most  m  vogue  under  the  kings.     Certainly  this  need  not  be  con- 
 sidered as  a  singular  coincidence  if  the  Pentateuch  proceeded  from 
 Moses.    The  proliibition,  and  the  entrance  of  what  was  prohibited, 
 had  rather  one  common  root— the  universal  tendency  of  royalty 
 m  the  ancient  East,  from  which  it  would  have  been  very  difficult 
 for  a  king  of  Israel  to  keep  himself  free  (who  still  must  belono-  to 
 the  order  of  kings),  even  if  nothing  of  a  personal  disposition  had 
 existed  m  him,  which  first  of  all  called  forth  this  tendency.     To 
 possess  many  wives  and  a  numerous  stud,  belonged  pecuhai'ly  to 
 the  royal  dignity,  and  is  still  one  of  its  characteristics.     Thus  we 
 have  only  two  arguments  left— the  assertion  of  its  irreconcileable- 
 ness  with  the  whole  Mosaic  constitution,  and  the  alleged  irrecon- 
 cileableness  with  the  conduct  of  Samuel  and  the  people  at  the  first 
 election  of  a  king.      We  will  consider  the  latter  first  as  being  the 
 most  plausible. 
 
 We  begin  then  with  adducing  positive  proof  that  the  transaction 
 presupposes  the  existence  of  the  Pentateuch  in  general,  and  es- 
 
204  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 pecially  of  the  law  of  the  king,  and  shall  then  proceed  to  rebut 
 the  assertions  of  our  opponents,  of  which  the  nullity  will  at  once 
 appear  after  the  adduction  of  the  positive  proof.  This  rests  on 
 the  numerous  references  to  the  section  in  question  in  the  Book  of 
 Samuel  to  the  Pentateuch  generally  (and  we  must  recollect  that 
 owing  to  its  unity  what  relates  to  a  part  is  available  for  the  whole, 
 and  this  for  all  the  other  parts),  and  especially  and  directly  to 
 Deut.  xvii.  The  indication  of  these  references  will  at  the  same 
 time  contribute  to  throw  light  on  the  confident  assertion  of  De 
 Wette  (i.  152),  and  Bohlen,  p.  150,  that  the  Books  of  Samuel 
 are  destitute  of  any,  even  the  slightest,  reference  to  the  Penta- 
 teuch. We  place  at  the  head  the  most  palpable,  and  in  its  iso- 
 lation most  convincing. 
 
 First  of  all,  our  attention  is  drawn  to  a  very  strildng  reference 
 in  Samuel's  address  to  Gen.  xxi.  10.  In  the  latter  place  we  read, 
 "Wherefore  she  (Sarah)  said  unto  Abraham,  cast  out  this  bond- 
 woman and  her  son  ;  for  the  son  of  this  bondwoman  shall  not  be 
 heir  with  my  son,  even  with  Isaac;  ver.  12,  And  the  thing  was 
 very  grievous  in  Abraham's  sight,  because  of  his  son  T??^  ^^^^v}^!}!" 
 °C;:=?  ;  ver.  12,  And  God  said  unto  Abraham.  .  .  in  all  that 
 Sarah  hath  said  unto  thee,  hearken  unto  her  voice,"  '^'?^*"^  '^''$?*.  ^= 
 rtV-.pa  jJtt^  rnv  tj-^^s.  Jq  1  Sam.  viii.  6,  we  read,  "  But  the  thing  was 
 evil  in  the  eyes  of  Samuel,"  '^^'^  T.?P  ""^T-  ^T. ;  ver.  7,  "And  the 
 Lord  said  unto  Samuel,  hearken  unto  the  voice  of  the  people,  in 
 all  that  they  say  unto  thee,"  "V??  ^"^f^^-^tl  ^'^^  '°l'^^  ^Tp  ^^f  ;  ver.  9, 
 "  Now  therefore  hearken  unto  their  voice."  Also  ver.  22,  "  And 
 the  Lord  said  to  Samuel,  hearken  unto  their  voice."  Ch.  xii.  1, 
 "And  Samuel  said  unto  all  Israel,  behold,  I  have  hearkened  unto 
 your  voice,  in  all  that  ye  said  unto  me."  The  agreement  in  words 
 is  too  close  with  the  agreement  in  facts,  for  any  one  with  a  good 
 conscience  to  consider  it  as  purely  accidental.  Sarah's  demand 
 proceeded  from  a  sinful  motive.  Abraham  looked  only  at  this, 
 and  therefore  scrupled  to  comply  with  it.  The  command  of  God 
 made  it  clear  to  him  that  Sarah  w^as  only  an  instrument  in  his 
 hand,  that  her  subjectively  sinful  desire  agreed  objectively  with 
 his  will ;  that  what  she  desired  must  come  to  pass  if  the  Divine 
 plan  was  to  be  reaUzed.  Exactly  so,  as  the  relation  of  Abraham 
 to  Sarah  (which  God  indicated  to  Samuel,  Samuel  to  the  people, 
 and  the  historian  to  us  by  the  verbal  agreement  with  the  passage 
 
THE  LAW  OF  THE  KING  IN  DEUT.  XVII.  205 
 
 in  Genesis)  was  the  relation  of  Samuel  to  the  people.  We  here 
 obtain,  at  the  same  time,  a  prehminary  hint  for  the  explanation  of 
 Samuel's  opposition.  If  the  people  were  =  Sarah,  and  Samuel 
 =  Abraham,  then  Samuel's  zeal  was  directed  not  against  the 
 object  of  their  desire,  but  the  disposition  by  which  they  were 
 prompted. 
 
 Equally  undeniable  is  the  reference  in  1  Sam.  viii.  5,  where  the 
 people  say  to  Samuel,  "Now  make  us  a  king,  to  judge  us  like 
 all  the  nations,"  a-^nr.n-bss  ^-dtf^  ^)^  ^5^  nio^v  to  the  beginning  of  the 
 law  of  the  king;  Deut.  xvii.  14,  "  When  thou  shalt  say,  I  will 
 set  a  king  over  me,  like  as  all  the  nations  that  are  about  me" 
 a:i;n-V53  ^^^  ^>^  n^^bs.  This  reference  would  in  itself  deserve  the 
 first  place,  because  it  specially  points  to  the  law  of  the  king. 
 But  we  have  allowed  the  reference  to  Genesis  xxi.  to  take  the 
 lead,  because  the  curious  subterfuge  cannot  be  applied  to  that 
 which  has  been  employed  here,  that  the  words  in  the  Pentateuch 
 were  copied  from  the  narrative  in  the  Books  of  Samuel.  In  the 
 verbal  appeal  to  the  law,  the  people  exhibited  the  authority  for 
 their  proceeding.  When  they  asked  Samuel  to  set  a  king  over 
 them,  they  wished  to  satisfy  the  requirement  in  Deut.  xvii.  15, 
 "  Thou  shalt  in  any  wise  set  him  king  over  thee  whot?i  the  Lord 
 thy  God  shall  choose!'  To  this  latter  passage — the  third  prin- 
 cipal reference — Samuel  expressly  refers  in  ch.  x.  24,  "  And 
 Samuel  said  to  all  the  people,  see  ye  whom  Jehovah  hath  chosen," 
 ^"IT:  '^'='~'^^'^  ^%  the  same  as  in  Deut.     '^=  ~"^?'^^  -:^':  ^f?;^  "^t*?. 
 
 In  connection  with  these  references  (which  considered  in  them- 
 selves, as  well  as  by  their  mutual  support,  are  so  certain),  the  fol- 
 lowing also  will  be  more  readily  acknowledged,  since  we  shall  set 
 aside  all  general  references  to  the  history  of  the  Pentateuch,  all 
 cases  in  which  the  verbal  agreement  is  not  borne  out  by  agree- 
 ment in  matter  of  fact.  We  follow  the  order  of  the  naiTative  in 
 the  Books  of  Samuel. 
 
 Ch.  viii.  3  contains  a  description  of  the  conduct  of  Samuel's 
 sons  contrasted  with  the  ideal  of  a  good  judge,  as  given  in  the 
 Pentateuch,  Deut.  xvi.  19,  with  ver.  7,  "  For  they  have  not  re- 
 jected thee,  but  they  have  rejected  me  that  I  should  not  reign 
 over  them ;"  compare  Exod.  xvi.  7,  "  Ye  shall  see  the  gloiT  of 
 the  Lord;  for  he  hath  heard  your  murmmings  against  the  Lord, 
 and  what  are  we  that  ye  murmur  against  us  ?"  with  ch.  ix.  10, 
 
206  ANACHIIONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 "  For  I  have  looked  upon  my  people,  because  their  cry  is  come 
 unto  me  ;"  compare  Exod.  ii.  23-25  ;  iii.  7,  "  I  have  surely  seen 
 the  afflictions  of  my  people  which  were  in  Egypt,  and  have  heard 
 their  cry,"  iv.  31.  By  the  allusion  it  is  estimated  that  the  history 
 was  a  prophecy,  and  thus  furnished  a  support  to  the  weak  in  faith  ; 
 it  was  as  if  he  had  said,  "  As  certainly  as  I  heard  and  saw  in  be- 
 foretime,  when  my  people  groaned  under  the  oppression  of  the 
 Egyptians,  so  do  T  now  hear  and  see  when  the  Philistines  act 
 towards  them  as  did  the  Egyptians."  In  1  Sam.  x.  25,  ''  And 
 Samuel  told  the  people  the  manner  of  the  kingdom,  and  wrote  it 
 in  a  book,  and  laid  it  up  before  the  Lord."  The  phrase  ''  man- 
 ner of  the  kingdom,"  "^^.'^^  ^?'^?  may  be  compared  with  Deut.  xviii. 
 3.  *'The  priests'  due"  ^l^i?^^ -js'r^ .  j^^t  compare  the  matter  of 
 fact  with  Deut.  xvii.  as  Calvin  has  done,  Satie  non  duhium  est 
 quill  jus  illud  regni  desumtmn  sit  ex  Deut.  ch.  xvi.  xviii,  lonffe 
 scifie  aliud  ah  eo  cap.  viii.,  quod  tyrcutnis  potius^  quam  jus 
 regni  merito  dicendum  erat.  .  .  Hie  vero  juris  regni  jit 
 mentio  ad  mutuani  ohligationeni  inter  regeni  et  jwjndum,  et 
 contra  vicissim  ostendendum.  The  expression  '^^"'l  ^fr^  '^i!!, 
 "  and  laid  it  up  before  the  Lord,"  is  taken  word  for  word  from 
 Num.  xvii.  7.  Samuel,  the  author  intimates,  took  the  conduct 
 of  Moses  for  his  model,  who  had  done  the  same  thing  for  a  simi- 
 lar object.  {In  sanctuario,  quod perinde  fuit,  acsi  Detis  testis 
 eoriim,  quae  dicta  et  facta  fuer ant,  vocaretur.  Calvin.)  Had 
 not  the  law  of  the  Lord  been  laid  up  before  the  Ark  of  the  Cove- 
 nant, Samuel  would  hardly  have  thought  of  depositing  such  a 
 document  there.  With  ch.  xii.  3,  where  Samuel  says  to  the  peo- 
 ple, "  Witness  against  me  before  the  Lord,  and  before  his  anointed, 
 whose  ox  have  I  taken,  or  whose  ass  have  I  taken  ?  or  whom 
 have  I  defrauded  ■'nptay  ?  whom  have  I  oppressed  ?  or  of  whose 
 band  have  I  received  any  bribe,  to  blind  my  eyes  therewith  ?  and 
 I  will  restore  it  to  you."  Compare  first  of  all  Num.  xvi.  15, 
 "  And  Moses  was  very  wroth,  and  said  unto  the  Lord,  Eespect 
 not  thou  their  offering,  I  have  not  taken  one  ass  from  them,  nei- 
 ther have  I  hurt  one  of  them."  As  then  the  people  had  been 
 refractory  towards  Moses,  so  now  they  were  towards  Samuel.  But 
 he  could  also  venture,  in  attesting  his  own  innocence,  to  copy  the 
 same  illustrious  example.  There  are,  besides,  several  other  pas- 
 sages of  the  Pentateuch  deser\dng  of  notice,  in  which,  by  the  use 
 
THE  LAW  OF  THE  KING  IN  DEUT.  XVII.  207 
 
 of  the  same  words,  those  offences  are  denounced  of  which  Samuel 
 here  dechires  himself  innocent.  In  reference  to  the  VH  and  the 
 offer  of  making  restitution,  compare  Lev.  v.  23  (vi.  4),  ''Because 
 he  hath  sinned,  and  is  guilty,  that  he  shall  restore  that  which  he 
 took  violently  away  P^'^  "*?'?.  P'^.^'^"''^^. ;  in  reference  to  receiving  a 
 hribe  '^^.=  ,  Num.  xxxv.  31,  "Ye  shall  take  no  satisfaction  ^'^P.^  ^^ 
 '^p  for  the  life  of  a  murderer.  .  .  .  but  he  shall  surely  he  put 
 to  death."  Ver.  32,  "  And  ye  shall  take  no  satisfaction  '^'^P  for 
 him  that  is  fled,"  &c. ;  in  reference  to  blinding  the  eyes,  Lev.  xx.  4, 
 "  And  if  the  people  of  the  land  do  anyways  hide  their  eyes  '^'^''^^,1 
 ^v]T?r*^^.  from  the  man.  .  .  .  then  I  will  set  my  face  against 
 that  man."  In  both  passages  the  hiding  of  the  eyes  is  in  refer- 
 ence to  shedding  innocent  blood.  That  very  pecuhar  phraseology 
 in  ch.  xii.  14,  "  rebel  against  the  mouth  of  Jehovah"  ^?-^^.  ^!;;'?t' 
 '^i"p  is  found  also  in  the  following  passages  with  which  it  is  closely 
 alhed,  Deut.  i.  2G,  43  ;  ix.  7,  23  ;  xxxi.  27.  By  the  reference 
 to  the  language  of  Moses  in  Deut.  i.  43,  "you  would  not  hear, 
 but  rebelled  against  the  mouth  of  the  Lord."  Samuel  gives  a 
 peculiar  emphasis  to  his  own  words,  "  if  ye  will  obey  his  voice, 
 and  not  rebel  against  the  mouth  of  the  Lord."  If  in  former  times 
 the  opposite  had  existed,  and  brought  severe  punishment  on  the 
 people,  there  was  now  inducement  enough,  not  to  treat  the  mat- 
 ter lightly,  but  to  "work  out  their  salvation  with  fear  and  trem- 
 bling." Compare  Ps.  xcv.  8,  "  Harden  not  your  heart  as  at  Me- 
 ribah  ^^'''?f?  (in  the  provocation,  F9i(/.  A.  V.)  as  in  the  day  of 
 Massa  ^^5*^  (temptation,  E?/(/.  A.  V.)  in  the  wilderness,"  Heb. 
 iii.  7.  We  find  a  parallel  to  ch.  xii.  19,  20,  ("  And  all  the  people 
 said  unto  Samuel,  pray  for  thy  servants  unto  the  Lord  thy  God, 
 that  we  die  not.  .  .  And  Samuel  said  unto  the  people,  fear 
 not,"  &c.)  in  Exod.  xx.  19,  20,  "And  they  said  unto  Moses, 
 speak  thou  with  us  and  we  will  hear,  but  let  not  God  speak  with 
 us  lest  we  die.     And  Moses  said  unto  the  people,  fear  not.'' 
 
 After  having  laid  this  firm  foundation,  let  us  now  apply  our- 
 selves to  remove  the  apparent  contradiction  in  wliich  the  narra- 
 tive in  the  first  Book  of  Samuel  stands  to  Deut.  xvii.  We  must 
 here  reject  the  solution  attempted  by  several  critics,  that  the 
 lawgiver  contemplated  the  election  of  a  King,  only  as  a  necessary 
 evil ; — that  Samuel  knew  this ; — hence  he  wished  first  to  see 
 whether  this  evil  was  necessary,  as  Mich ae lis   has  remarked, 
 
208  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 {Mosaisches  Recht.  i.  §  54),  it  seems  Moses  had  wished  that  the 
 people  might  continue  to  retain  the  pohtical  form  of  a  free  repuh- 
 Hc,  and  hy  that  regal  law  a  concession  was  made  to  the  inclina- 
 tion of  the  people  only  to  prevent. a  total  apostacy  from  Jehovah. 
 Against  this  view  Calvin  has  suggested  :  Celehre  est  vaticinium 
 Jacob ;  noil  exihit  sccptriira  e  Juda,  donee  veniat  Siloh.  XJnde 
 apparet  regem  incoinparahilis  henejicii  loco  Jiliis  Ah\  faisse 
 promissum.  The  Pentateuch  is  so  far  from  considering  the  regal 
 government  as  a  necessary  evil,  that  it  looks  upon  its  establish- 
 ment as  an  immutable  part  of  the  national  destinies,  as  the  goal 
 to  which  its  whole  development  tended.  The  regal  government 
 among  their  descendants  forms  a  prominent  object  of  promise  to 
 the  Patriarch;  compare  Gen.  xvii.  6,  where  the  Lord  says  to 
 Abraham,  "And  I  will  make  thee  exceedingly  fruitful,  and  I  will 
 make  nations  of  thee,  and  kings  shall  come  out  of  thee ;"  also 
 ver.  16  ;  "And  I  will  bless  her,  and  give  thee  a  son  also  of  her  ; 
 yea  I  will  bless  her,  and  she  shall  be  a  mother  of  nations,  kings 
 of  people  shall  he  of  her;"  ch.  xxxv.  1 J ,  the  Lord  says  to  Jacob, 
 "  I  am  God  Almighty  ;  be  fruitful  and  multiply ;  a  nation  and  a 
 company  of  nations  shall  be  of  thee  ;  and  kings  shall  come  out 
 of  thy  loins ;"  a  passage  which  shows  that  the  promises  of  a  king- 
 dom to  Abraham,  refer  only  to  his  descendants  in  a  strict  and 
 full  sense,  (compare,  "  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called,"  Gen. 
 xxi.  12) ;  as  they  also  stand  in  immediate  connection  with  the  pro- 
 mise of  Isaac's  birth,  they  cannot  be  considered  as  referring  to  the 
 kings  among  the  Ishmaelites  and  the  descendants  of  Keturah.  The 
 promise  reached  its  highest  point  in  the  passage  Gen.  xhx.  10, 
 already  quoted  by  Calvin,  in  which  the  origin  of  the  typical  ruler 
 and  his  antitype  is  attributed  to  Judah.  Here  the  regal  govern- 
 ment came  into  connection  with  the  idea  of  the  Messiah.  Only 
 in  the  king  fr'om  Judah  could  the  destiny  of  Israel  as  connected 
 with  that  of  the  world  be  reahzed,  to  which  his  progenitors  fr'om 
 the  beginning  of  their  leadings  were  referred.  In  this  king  Israel 
 would  be  all-blessing  and  all-ruhng.  If  we  look  at  the  history, 
 it  appears  that  it  would  injure  the  chai-acter  of  Moses  as  a  Divine 
 messenger,  to  attribute  to  him  the  view  of  a  regal  government  as 
 a  necessary  evil.  The  kingdom  of  God  under  the  Old  Covenant 
 reached  its  highest  splendour  under  David,  and  during  the  whole 
 period  of  the  kings,  the  religious  condition,  notwithstanding  the 
 
THE  LA\Y  OF  THE   KING  IN   DEUT.  XVII.  '^09 
 
 national  clegenemcy,  was  on  the  whole  always  better  than  during 
 the  time  of  the  Judges.  In  Christ,  at  last,  the  regal  government 
 in  Israel  was  arrayed  in  its  full  glory. 
 
 The  correct  solution  is  the  following.  Samuel's  opposition  was 
 directed  not  against  the  regal  government  in  itself,  but  only  against 
 the  disposition  with  which  the  people  sought  for  it.  This  dispo- 
 sition contained  in  two  respects  an  element  of  impiety,  (i.)  They 
 desired  not  a  king  instead  of  a  judge  in  txhstiyxcto,  but  a  king 
 instead  of  Samuel,  the  Judge  appointed  and  specially  approved  by 
 God.  It  was  the  same  as  if  the  Israelites  had  required  a  king 
 in  the  time  of  Moses  or  Joshua.  They  condemned  themselves, 
 since,  by  requesting  that  Samuel  would  give  them  a  king,  they 
 recognised  his  dignity.  If  they  had  been  truly  godly,  they  would 
 have  perceived  that  now  was  not  the  time  to  make  use  of  the  per- 
 mission that  had  been  granted  them — that  a  thing  in  itself  good, 
 was  under  these  circumstances  a  sin.  In  the  narrative  itself  there 
 is  a  reference  to  this  view  of  the  transaction.  The  attempt  is 
 marked  as  an  act  of  injustice  towards  Samuel,  and  therefore  as  a 
 sin  against  the  Lord  who  sent  him.  Compare  for  instance  ch.  viii. 
 7,  8,  "  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Samuel,  hearken  unto  the  voice 
 of  the  people  in  all  that  they  say  unto  thee ;  for  they  have  not 
 rejected  thee,  but  they  have  rejected  me,  that  I  should  not  reign 
 over  them.  According  to  all  the  works  which  they  have  done 
 since  the  day  that  I  brought  them  up  out  of  Egypt,  even  unto 
 this  day,  wherewith  they  have  forsaken  me,  and  served  other  gods  ; 
 so  do  they  also  unto  thee."  (ii.)  At  the  foundation  of  this  long- 
 ing for  a  king,  there  was  the  impious  notion  that  God  was  power- 
 less to  aid  them ;  the  primary  idea  was  not  sinful,  but  there  was 
 a  culpable  notion  that  the  regal  government  was  auxiliary  to 
 the  divine.  This  view  of  the  transaction  appears  more  frequently 
 in  the  naraative  than  the  former.  Thus  it  is  said,  for  example, 
 in  ch.  X,  18,  10,  *' And  (Samuel)  said  to  the  children  of  Israel, 
 Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  I  brought  up  Israel  out  of 
 Egypt,  and  delivered  you  out  of  the  hand  of  the  Egyptians,  and 
 out  of  the  hand  of  all  kingdoms  of  them  that  oppressed  you. 
 And  ye  have  this  day  rejected  your  God,  who  himself  saved  you 
 out  of  all  your  adversities  and  your  tribulations,  and  ye  have  said 
 unto  him,  Nay,  but  set  a  king  over  us."  Compare  viii.  19,  20. 
 But  this  point  of  view  appears  peculiarily  in  ch.  xii.     Samuel  first 
 
 VOL.  II.  o 
 
210  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 said  to  the  people,  that  the  Lord  had  ahvays  cared  faithfully  for 
 tlieni — had  raised  up  for  them  deliverers  and  leaders,  when  they 
 had  hccn  faithful,  or  returned  to  him  with  penitent  hearts,  so  that 
 they  had  no  reason  to  fear  hefore  their  enemies,  unless  from  con- 
 scious guilt.  He  then  goes  on  to  say  in  ver.  12,  "And  when  ye 
 saw  that  Nahash,  the  king  of  the  children  of  Ammon,  came  against 
 you,  ye  said  unto  me,  Nay,  hut  a  king  shall  reign  over  us  ;  when 
 the  Lord  your  God  was  your  king."  A  regal  govei'nment  longed 
 for  with  such  dispositions  was  not  the  revealed  form  of  royalty, 
 but  an  opponent  of  it. 
 
 This  solution  has  already,  in  its  essential  points,  been  given  by 
 Calvin  in  his  Commentary,  p.  117.     His  exposition,  wliich  may 
 serve  to  complete  our  own,  we  are  more  inclined  to  quote  here, 
 since  his  Commentary  on  the  first  Book  of  Samuel  is  among  the 
 least  known  of  his  writings,  and  is  certainly  in  the  hands  of  few 
 of  our  readers.     Quaestio  non  levis  occurrit,  qiiomodo  peccase 
 dicantiii\  qui  ex  Dei  concilio  rerjem  petiisse  videntur.     Na7n 
 Deus,  Deut.  xvii.  sic  jwr  Moses  olini  locutus  erat  etc.    Resjjoude- 
 miis,  habendam  illis  fuisse  rationem  temporum  ^l  conditionis, 
 quam  Deus  presc7'ipserat,  fore  nimirum,  ut  tandem  in  populo 
 regia  potestas  emineret.     Quare  licet  nondum  stahilita  esset, 
 dehehant  a  Deo  praefixum  tempus  patient er  exspectare  ;  non 
 uutem  suis  consiliis  et  rationihus  praeter  Dei  verhum  locum 
 dare.     Non  dehuerunt  igitur  Dei  consilium praevertere  sed  tan- 
 tisper  exspectare,  diim  ipse  Dominus  non  duhrig  signis  osten- 
 deret,  tempus  advenisse  praefinitum,  et  consiliis  ipsorum  p)raes- 
 set.     Porro  licet  Sam.  prophetam  corjnoscerent,  non  modo  ex 
 eo  non  sciscitati  sunt  an  rcgem  habit uri  essent,  necne  ;  sed  etiam 
 suae  volentati  ilium  in  exsequendo  hoc  negotio  voluerunt  obe- 
 dire.     .     .     .     Sane  poterant  illi  quidem  Samneli  senium  ob- 
 jicere,  quo  ad  res  gerendas  minus  aptus  redderetur  et  Jiliorum 
 avaritiam  ac  judiciorum  corruptionem  ;    denmque  rogare,  ut 
 viros  idoneos  sufficeret,  a  quibus  regerentur  ejusque  voluntati 
 rem  totam  permittere.     Quod  si  factum  esset  ab  illis,  minime 
 dubium  est,  quin  responsum  a  Deo  gratum  et  sibi  commodum  ac- 
 cepturifuissent.    Sed  de  Deo  invocando  non  cogitant,  regem  sibi- 
 dari postulant,  aliarum  gentium  mores  et  instituta prof e runt. "^ 
 
 *  The  coiTect  y\e\s  is  also  takeu  by  Quenstedt,  Theol.  d'uLjjol.  p.  iv.  p.  420.    Nou 
 improbatur  Deo  per  sc  postulatio  regis,  multo  minus  status  et  officium  regium. 
 
THE  LAW  OV  THE  KING  IN  DEUT.   XVII.  21  I 
 
 It  is  of  great  importance  that,  besides  perceiving  that  the  rod- 
 populi  ohjectively  considered  was  also  the  vox  iJc'l^  we  should 
 not  neglect  to  notice  the  sinful  character  of  the  demand  made  by 
 the  people,  subjectively  considered.  As  the  people  regarded  the 
 king,  so  he  would  regard  himself.  The  correct  view  ought  to  be 
 as  it  were  settled  at  the  threshold.  In  earlier  times,  Gideon,  keep- 
 ing in  view  the  latter  aspect  of  the  transaction,  had  rejected  the 
 kingly  dignity  which  was  offered  him  in  opposition  to  the  Divine 
 sovereignty  ;  compare  Judges  viii.  2^,  23,  "  Then  the  men  of 
 Israel  said  to  Gideon,  rule  thou  over  us,  both  thou  and  thy  son, 
 and  thy  son's  son  also,  for  thou  hast  delivered  us  from  the  hand 
 of  Midian.  And  Gideon  said  unto  them,  I  will  not  rule  over 
 you,  neither  shall  my  son  rule  over  you  ;  Jehovah  shall  rule  over 
 you."  Samuel,  on  the  contrary,  complies  wdth  the  desire  of  the 
 people,  since  he  knew  that  God's  time  was  now  come ;  but  he  like- 
 wise presents  every  consideration  that  might  tend  to  convince  the 
 people  of  their  sin. 
 
 If  the  view  of  our  opponents  were  the  correct  one,  that  Samuel 
 regarded  the  regal  government  in  and  for  itself  as  incompatible 
 with  the  theocracy,  how  very  differently  must  he  have  acted  !  He 
 must  then,  while  all  the  people,  terrified  at  his  address,  and  the 
 Divine  signs  by  which  it  was  confirmed,  said,  "  Pray  for  thy 
 servants  to  the  Lord  thy  God,  for  we  have  added  to  all  our  other 
 sins  llie  wickedness  of  asking  for  a  king,"  have  insisted  on  the 
 restoration  of  the  earlier  form  of  I'-overnment  without  delav.  Ch. 
 xii.  19.  But  nothing  seemed  further  liom  his  thoughts.  He 
 rather  admonished  the  people  from  this  time  to  be  faithful  to  the 
 Lord  ;  so  w^ould  he  glorify  himself  in  them  and  their  king. 
 
 The  history  that  follows  is  also  in  harmony  with  our  view.  The 
 people  were  destined  to  experience  in  the  king  whom  they  asked 
 for,  (Saul,  whom  Calvin  very  aptly  dcvsignates  ^'///a^  abort inis) 
 that  the  regal  government  in  itself,  without  God,  was  no  blessing, 
 and  in  David  whom  God  in  prevenient  love  bestowed  upon  them, 
 that  the  regal  government  in  itself  was  not  o^^posed  to  the  theo- 
 cracy, but  with  God  was  a  rich  source  of  blessing. 
 
 sed  ex  acculcnti  quia  iirocedebat  rx  iiriucijiio  jicssimo  et  conjuncta  erat  cum  pcssiniis 
 Htcidfutibus,  quuliu  sunt  KaKc^i/Xia  geutiliuui  fustidium  et  coutcmtus  diviime  ordina- 
 tiouis,  temeraiiu  audaoia  in  nova  regiuiiuis  forma  liraescribenda. 
 
 o  2 
 
212  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATIKXH. 
 
 It  still  remains  to  obviate  the  objection  that  tlie  regal  govern- 
 ment was  not  in  harmony  with  the^Yllole  Mosaic  constitution.  It 
 is  certainly  a  presumption  against  it  that  it  must  unavoidably  be 
 extended  to  the  passages  in  Genesis,  in  which  the  setting  up  of 
 the  kingly  government  is  rej)resented  as  one  of  the  greatest  bless- 
 ings of  the  future.  We  must  also  form  an  unfavourable  judgment 
 of  it  from  the  position  taken  by  the  most  faithful  friends  of  the 
 Mosaic  constitution  towards  the  kingly  government.  If  it  was 
 throughout  favourable,  regarding  the  founding  of  the  kingly  go- 
 vernment as  the  greatest  mercy  that  God  could  bestow  on  his  peo- 
 ple, then  its  contrariety  to  the  theocracy  must  have  been  merely 
 apparent.  Compare  for  example  Lamentations  iv.  20,  "  The 
 breath  of  our  nostrils,  the  anointed  of  the  Lord  was  taken  in  their 
 pits,  of  whom  we  said.  Under  his  shadow  we  shall  live  among 
 the  heathen."  According  to  the  view  we  are  combating,  the 
 priests  and  prophets  must  rather  have  rejoiced  at  the  overthrow  of 
 royalty. 
 
 But  if  we  examine  the  assertion  more  closely,  it  will  soon  ap- 
 pear, that  it  rests  on  an  extremely  superficial  acquaintance  with 
 the  nature  of  the  Mosaic  constitution,  on  a  confused  mixture  of 
 theocracy  and  hierarchy,  which  w^e  have  noticed  on  so  many  other 
 occasions.  When  it  is  asserted,  that  royalty  stood  in  opposition 
 to  the  Mosaic  constitution,  it  is  insinuated  that  it  arrogated  rights 
 which  belonged  to  the  high  priest.  But  of  these  rights  that  are 
 assumed  to  belong  to  the  high  priest,  not  a  trace  is  to  be  found  in 
 the  Pentateuch  ;  his  position  was  not  political,  but  purely  and 
 solely  religious.  Eoyalty  trenched  not  on  the  priesthood,  but  on 
 powers  which  were  given  to  certain  persons  by  the  course  of  events, 
 and  not  by  the  law,  and  who,  in  Samuel's  time,  from  a  sense  of  their 
 inadequacy,  were  anxious  for  their  partial  limitation  by  the  kingly 
 power.  The  office  of  the  high  priest  was  to  administer  the  ser- 
 vice of  the  Lord,  Exod.  xxviii.  1  ;  he  had  the  oversight  of  the 
 house  of  the  Lord  ;  Lev.  xxi.  10.  Josephus  enumerates  as  the 
 functions  of  Aaron,  "  to  wear  the  vest  that  was  sacred  to  God, 
 to  take  care  of  the  altar,  and  provide  the  sacrifices,  and  to  offer  up 
 prayers  for  the  people."*     Herwerden,  Be  pontif.  max.  Gron. 
 
 *  tis  OiJtOS  IvOVaZTai  (TToXijV  TM  GeOJ  Ka^'WaLCO/J.iviJV  Kid  (Bui/UiCOV  klTLfXtXELaV  £^£i 
 KUL  TTpOVOLaV     LEpZLODV,  KOL  TaS     Virkp   V/JLCOlf     IVX_(1^    TTOil/CTETat     TTyOOS     TOV   QtOU.        K.T.X. 
 
 Antiq.  iii.  8,  §  1. 
 
THE   LA'vY  OF  THE  KING  IN  DEUT.  XVII.  213 
 
 1822,  p.  8.     Only  fi  certain  part  of  tlic  judicial  power  is,  in  Dout. 
 xvii.  2,  12,  assigned  to  the  liigh  priesthood ;  but  tliough  this  was 
 not  altogether  foreign  to  it,  since  the  religions  code  was  also  the 
 civil  code,  yet  it  is  expressly  added,  that  this  part  was  not  neces- 
 sarily so — that  it  also  belonged  to  the  jndge,  and  therefore  might 
 be  transferred  to  the  king.     "  And  the  man  that  will  do  presump- 
 tuously, and  will  not  hearken  unto  the  priest  that  standeth  to  mi- 
 nister there  before  the  Lord  thy  God,  or  unto  the  judge,  even  that 
 man  shall  die  ;"  so  scrupulously  was  the  line  draw^n  between  the 
 theocracy  and  the  hierarchy,  and  so  perfectly  free  was  left  the 
 course  of  historical  development.     There  Avas,  independently  of 
 the  priests  and  Levites,  an  organized  court  of  judicature  ;   compare 
 Exod.  xviii.  25,  2G  ;  Deut.  i.  15.     To  these  non-Levitical  judges 
 it  is  said,  ver.  17,  "  You  shall  not  be  afraid  of  the  face  of  man, 
 for  the  judgment  is  God's  ;"  a  plain  proof  that  God  could  also  have 
 civil  re2)resentatives  and  organs.     The  priests  were  in  general  only 
 the  teachers  of  the  law,  of  whom  the  judges  themselves  might  take 
 counsel.     To  this  Deut.  xxi.  5,  compare  Lev.  x.  11.     They  were, 
 moreover,  present  at  judicial  transactions  wdthout  taking  any  part 
 in  them,  merely  to  heighten  the  solemnity;  Deut.  xix.    17,  18. 
 If  we  look  at  the  history,  there  are  not  wanting  examples,  indeed, 
 of  political  influence  on  the  part  of  the  high  priests,  but  this  they 
 exercised  not  ^6^  high  priests.     Aakon  did  many  things  not  as 
 high  priest,  but  as  the  brother  and  assistant  of  Moses      Eli  was 
 at  one  and  the  same  time  high  priest  and  judge,  I  Sam.  iv.  1^-^  ; 
 as,  at  a  later  period,  Abiathar  was  chosen  by  David  to  be  judge, 
 1  Chron.  xxvii.  33,  34.     It  lay  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  the 
 person  who  was  invested  with  the  highest  spiritual  dignity,  acquired 
 also  a  certain  political  influence,  just  as  afterwards  the  civil  posi- 
 tion of  the  king  gave  him,  in  consequence,  a  certain  eccle.siastical 
 authority.     But  this  political  influence  of  the  high  priest  might  be 
 lost  without  doing  injury  to  his  ofiice,  and  moreover  VN^as  not  ex- 
 cluded by  a  kingly  government;  indeed,  during  the  latter  (for 
 Samuel  belonged  not  to  it),  more  traces  of  it  might  be  seen  than 
 before.     In  the  wdiole  period  from  Phinehas  to  Eli,  not  a  trace  is 
 to  be  found  of  the  high  piiest's  influence  on  civil  afl*airs. 
 
214  ANACIIKONISMS  OF  THK  rENTAl  i:  (  (  fl 
 
 GEOGRAPHICAL  ANACHROxXISMy. 
 
 It  is  asserted  that  such  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  country 
 in  its  physical  pecuharities,  its  localities,  and  its  liistorical  and 
 geographical  relation,  proves  that  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch 
 must  necessarily  have  been  a  native,  and  therefore  that  its  compo- 
 sition hy  Moses,  who  never  crossed  the  Jordan,  must  be  a  fiction. 
 Vater,  p.  047  ;  Hartmann,  p.  707  ;  Yon  Bohlen,  p.  59. 
 
 On  this  subject  we  shall  first  make  some  general  remarks. 
 Even  where  access  to  a  particular  branch  of  knowledge  is  difficult, 
 a  vivid  interest  will  greatly  aid  its  acquisition.  It  lets  no  oppor- 
 tunity pass  unimproved,  and  anxiously  seeks  out  every  opportu- 
 nity ;  it  invigorates  the  memory,  so  that  a  thing,  when  once  heard, 
 is  never  lost ;  it  stimulates  the  learner  to  be  constantly  occupied 
 in  digesting,  sifting,  and  comparing  the  materials  he  receives  from 
 without,  and  in  formiug  from  the  scattered  features  a  finished  like 
 ness.  But  who  will  deny  that  Moses  was  animated  by  such  an 
 interest  in  refei'ence  to  this  subject  ?  Canaan  was  "  the  object  of 
 his  thoughts  by  day,  and  of  his  dreams  by  night."  To  him  it 
 stood  in  the  same  relation  as  the  heavenly  Canaan  stands  to  us. 
 But  how  manifold  were  the  sources  which  fed  this  interest !  Even 
 when  they  went  down  into  Egypt,  the  Israelites  brought  thither  a 
 considerable  knowledge  of  the  promised  land,  and  that  this  was 
 not  lost  in  the  course  of  time  would  be  secured  by  that  attachment 
 to  the  promise  wliich  formed  the  heart  of  the  nation's  hfe.  That 
 the  curi^nt  representation  of  the  secluded  state  of  EgA^pt  in  ancient 
 times  is  incorrect,  that  that  country  maintained  a  manifold  inter- 
 course with  the  neighbouring  lands,  has  already  been  proved  in  vol. 
 i.  p.  424.  During  the  longtime  that  Moses  dwelt  among  theMidian- 
 ites,  whose  caravans  were  the  medium  of  commercial  intercourse 
 between  Asia  and  Africa,  and  during  the  forty  years'  sojourn  in 
 the  wildnerness,  of  which  a  considerable  part  was  spent  at  Kadesh, 
 close  on  the  borders  of  the  promised  land  (compare  Deut.  i.  46), 
 a  multitude  of  fresh  particulars  would  come  under  his  notice  to 
 render  his  knowledge  more  complete.  The  sending  of  the  spies 
 (Num.  ch.  xiii.)  would  produce  an  abundance  of  materials.  Moses 
 spent  his  last  days  in  the  country  beyond  Jordan,  which  possessed 
 the  same  physical  pecuharities  as  Canaan  Proper,  and  from  its 
 
GEOGEArHICAL  ANACHKONISMS.  <>  1  5 
 
 heights  an  extensive  view  was  presented  of  a  district  inhahited  by 
 Cauaanites.  The  passage  (Deut.  xi.  11)  in  which  the  most  exact 
 knowledge  of  the  physical  condition  of  Canaan  is  shown,  is  pre- 
 cisely in  those  discourses  which  he  delivered  in  this  (Hstrict.  In 
 Deuteronomy  also,  those  special  ethnographical  notices  occur  re- 
 specting the  country  beyond  Jordan,  and  the  statements  of  the 
 different  names  of  the  localities  in  that  part,  &c. 
 
 If  we  now  turn  to  particulars,  our  attention  is  drawn  to  Hart- 
 mann's  assertion,  that  the  description  in  Num.  xx.  5,  wdiere  the 
 Israelites  in  the  desert  complain,  "  Wherefore  have  ye  made  us 
 to  come  out  of  Egypt,  to  bring  us  in  unto  this  evil  place  ?  It  is 
 no  place  of  seed,  or  of  figs,  or  vines,  or  of  pomegranates ;  neither 
 is  there  any  water  to  drink" — is  not  what  we  should  expect,  an 
 enumeration  of  the  chief  productions  of  Egypt,  but  of  the  most 
 noted  fruits  of  Palestine.  We  cannot  help  here  indulging  a  sus- 
 picion of  an  attempt  not  altogether  worthy  of  a  man  of  sound 
 learning,  when  we  see  that  in  the  parallel  passage,  ch.  xi.  5,  (*' we 
 remember  the  fish  which  we  did  eat  in  Egypt  freely  ;  the  cucumbers, 
 and  the  melons,  and  the  leeks,  and  the  onions,  and  the  garhck") 
 exactly  such  productions  are  named  (see  vol.  i.  p.  410)  which 
 every  one  knows,  Egypt,  and  especially  that  part  of  Egypt  which 
 was  occupied  by  the  Israelites,  produced  in  perfection  ;  see  Hart- 
 mann's  Aegypten,  p.  180.  This  suspicion,  on  closer  examination, 
 becomes  a  certainty.  Wheat  and  water,  no  one  will  deny,  were  to 
 be  found  in  Egypt.  The  water  of  the  Nile  was,  and  is,  famed  far 
 and  wide.  Fig  trees  are  now  found  in  Lower  Egypt  (see  Sox- 
 NiNi  in  Rosenmuller's  Allerth.  iv.  1,  p.  2'J2),  and  in  ancient 
 times  figs  formed  one  of  the  exports  ;  Bruns'  Afrika,  i.  99.  Of 
 the  Egyptian  pomegranates,  Abdollatiph  says  that  they  are  ex 
 cellent.  Sonnini  found  pomegranates  in  the  gardens  about  Den- 
 derah,  and  the  Emir  of  Denderah  sent  a  present  of  the  fruit ;  com- 
 pare RosENMULLER,  p.  275,  and  Hartmann,  p.  194,  who  men- 
 tions the  Egyptian  pomegranate  trees  as  among  those  which  are 
 noted  for  their  excellent  fruit.  Moreover,  the  Egyptian  wine  was 
 highly  valued  by  the  ancients.  That  the  vine  was  cultivated  in 
 Egypt  from  early  times,  appears  from  Gen.  xl.  9,  10;  Ps.  Ixxviii. 
 47 ;  cv.  33.  Even  now,  where,  in  conse(pience  of  the  prohibition 
 of  drinking  wine  in  the  Koran,  tlie  cultivation  of  the  vine  is  very 
 much  lessene  1,  the  vines  flourish  exceedingly.     In  Abulfeda's 
 
216  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 time,  the  country  round  Alexandria  was  planted  with  vines  ;  and 
 in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Lake  Moeris,  modern  travellers  have 
 found  the  roots  and  stumps  of  vines  that  formerly  grew  there  in 
 abundance.  Compare  Bruns,  p.  99;  Hartmann,  p.  187;  Ko- 
 SENMULLER,  p.  219.  Lastly,  supposing  tliat  of  the  productions 
 named,  all  were  not  peculiar  to  Egypt,  but  belonged  in  part  to 
 Palestine  exclusively,  what  would  that  prove  ?  As  in  ch.  xx.  5, 
 the  Israelites  complained  of  the  loss  of  wdiat  they  formerly  posses- 
 sed, so  might  they  not  here  complain  of  the  withholding  of  what 
 had  been  promised  ?  might  they  not  on  one  occasion  complain  on 
 account  of  what  Moses  had  deprived  them,  and  on  another,  of 
 what  he  had  not  given  them  ? 
 
 It  is  further  asserted,  that  in  the  Pentateuch  the  promised  land 
 is  described  according  to  the  boundaries  which  it  had  long  after 
 the  time  of  Moses,  in  the  splendid  era  of  David  and  Solomon. 
 An  appeal  is  made,  on  this  point,  to  Gen.  xv.  18,  "  In  that  same 
 day  the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham,  saying.  Unto  thy 
 seed  have  I  given  this  land,  from  the  river  of  Egypt  unto  the 
 great  river,  the  river  Euphrates."  No  one  before  David,  it  is  as- 
 serted, could  use  such  language,  since  he  first  had  advanced  as 
 far  as  the  Euphrates.  But  that  tliis  passage  is  not  to  be  taken  in 
 a  strictly  geographical  sense,  is  proved  incontestably  by  the  men- 
 tion of  tlie  river  of  Egj/pt.  That  by  this  we  are  to  understand  the 
 Nile,  may  now  be  considered  as  universally  admitted.  It  can  only 
 be  su])posed  to  be  the  stream  near  Rhinocorura,  if  the  appellation 
 ^r.^?  ''i^^,  which  is  certainly  given  to  this  stream,  is  confounded 
 with  ^'^T^'?  ^V},  a  mistake  which  Jerome  has  avoided,  but  into  which 
 all  later  writers  fell  (even  Iken,  whom  Rosenmuller  acquits  of  it) 
 till  Eaber  (on  Harmer,  ii.  p.  228)  exposed  it.*  But  at  no  pe- 
 liod  did  the  Israelites  extend  their  boundaries  to  the  Nile,  and 
 never  even  thought  of  doing  it.  And  what  is  true  of  one  bound- 
 ary may  also  be  asserted  of  the  other.      The  tract  between  the 
 
 *  The  mistake  origiuatofl  iu  neglecting  to  notice  the  rhetorical  character  of  the  whole. 
 This  iilaiuly  appears,  for  instance,  in  Iken,  De  finib.  terrae  jvom.  dissertt.  ii.  p.  08. 
 Among  the  reasons  for  taking  a'^'^U'^  "^ni  to  he  the  stream  near  Rhinocornra,  this  holds 
 tlie  first  place,  "  quod  nunquam  terra  sancta,  aut  rectius  loqnendo  regio  aut  iraperium 
 posterorum  Jacobi  ad  Nihim  usque  extensa  sit."  Compare  p.  101,  Qui  vero  eos  dem 
 unquam  ad  Nilum  usque  prolongates  fuisse  ostendat,  nae  is  nobis  magum  Apollo  erit^ 
 p.  107.  Neque  unquam,  ubi terra  Isr.  promissa  ejusve  termini  describuntur,  aut  occu- 
 patio  CjUs  memoratur,  vel  verbnio  terrae  Egj-pti  ulliusve  ejus  pai-tis  mentio  iujicitur. 
 
GEOGllAFHICAL  ANACHRONISMS.  217 
 
 Euphrates  and  Canaan  \Yas  as  little  thought  of,  since,  for  the  most 
 part,  It  was  a  barren  waste.    A  second  reason  for  a  rhetorical  ele- 
 ment m  the  promise,  lies  in  ver.  19-21  ;  here,  where  the  division 
 of  the  promised  whole  into  its  parts  follows,  only  the  Canaanitish 
 nations  are  mentioned.      Eut  these,  according  to  the  distinct  and 
 repeated  statements  of  the  Pentateuch,  were  as  far  from  extending 
 to  the  Euphrates  as  to  the  Nile.     Moreover,  in  the  Pentateuch, 
 the  Israehtes  are  constantly  spoken  of  as  the  successors  of  one 
 race,  the  Canaanitish  ;  therefore,  even  if  ver.  19-21  were  wanting, 
 yet  ver.  18  would  only  refer  to  them.     Lastly,  between  the  Nile 
 and    the  Euphrates,    nations    such   as  the  Ammonites  and   the 
 Moabites  dwelt,  whose  extinction  or  expulsion  was  expressly  and 
 strictly  forbidden  to  the  Israelites.       It  tlierefore  appears  that 
 David  s  conquests  in  the  direction  of  the  Euphrates  have  nothing 
 to  do  with  this  passage  ;  and  that  only  an  accidental  coincidence 
 exists,  by  which,  indeed,  many  of  the  earher  critics  have  been 
 misled— yet  not  all.     Le  Clerc  took  the  correct  view.      Laxius 
 (he  remarks)  nohiUssimus  fiuvius  terminus  constituitur,  quia  ad 
 deserta,  quae  ad  eum  extendehantur,  pertinehat  Israelitarum 
 ditio. 
 
 A  secondTj)rincipal  passage  is  Exod.  xxiii.  31,  ^^  And  I  will 
 set  thy  bounds  from  the  Red  Sea  even  unto  the  sea  of  the  Phihs- 
 tines,  and  from  the  desert  unto  the  river  ;  for  I  will  deliver  the 
 inhabitants  of  the  land  unto  your  hand,  and  thou  shalt  drive  them 
 out  before  thee."     Here  also  scholars  who  were  believers  in  Reve- 
 lation Jiave  laid  the  foundation  for  rationalist  attacks  on  the  ge- 
 nuineness, since  they  have  almost  unanimously  gone  on  the  pre- 
 sumption that  the  limits  were  given  with  geographical  exactness.  ' 
 Thus,  one  of  the  latest.  Von  Raumer  remarks   {Fal.  p   23), 
 *'  This  prediction  obtained  its  fulfilment  under  Solomon.    David 
 had  already  taken  Damascus  and  made  the  Syrians  triljutary,  2 
 Sam.  viii.  0,  but  Solomon  gained  possession  of  EzrongebertElath 
 on  the  Red  Sea  (1  Chron.  ix.  2C  ;  2  Chron.  viii.  17),  fortified 
 Hamath-Zobah  (probably  Epiphania),  built  Tadmor  (that  is  Pal- 
 myra) in  the  desert ;  2  Chron.  viii.,  in  short,  his  dominion  ex- 
 tended from  Tirlpsah  on  the  Euphrates  (Thapsakus)  to  Gaza,   I 
 Kings  iv.  24,"     But  if  the  connection  of  the  passage  under  con- 
 sideration had  been  closely  examined,  persons  would  have  been 
 convinced  that  all  those  accessions  of  territory  in  later  times  had 
 
218  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 notliing  to  do  with  it,  excepting  perhaps  so  far  as  they  indicated 
 that  the  Israehtes  stood  at  the  head  of  the  nations  within  the  pre- 
 scribed boundaries;  but  those  later  conquests  were  reactions  against 
 the  attempt  to  rob  Israel  of  this  dignity.  Previously  only  the 
 Canaanitish  nations  had  been  spoken  of,  not  of  their  being  merely 
 subject  and  tributary,  as  the  people  conquered  by  David  were  ren- 
 dered, but  of  their  entire  expulsion,  as  in  this  verse  itself.  The 
 exclusive  reference  to  the  Canaanites  is  also  apparent  in  the  fol- 
 lowing verses  32,  38,  "  Thou  shalt  make  no  covenant  with  them, 
 nor  with  their  gods.  They  shall  not  dwell  in  thy  land,  lest  they 
 make  thee  sin  against  me." 
 
 Having  made  good  our  inteq)retation  so  far,  we  shall  at  once 
 perceive  the  meaning  of  the  third  principal  passage  in  Deut.  xi. 
 22-24,  "  For  if  ye  shall  dihgently  keep  all  these  commandments, 
 .  then  will  the  Lord  drive  out  all  these  nations  fi'om  before 
 you,  and  ye  shall  possess  greater  nations  and  mightier  than  your- 
 selves. Every  pLace  whereon  the  soles  of  your  feet  shall  tread 
 shall  be  yours,  from  the  wilderness  and  Lebanon,  from  the  river, 
 the  river  Euphrates,  even  unto  the  uttermost  sea,  shall  your 
 coast  be." 
 
 The  TTpcoTov  -rlrevSo^  in  the  current  explanation  of  these  and  si- 
 milar passages  is,  that  it  has  not  been  perceived,  that  according 
 to  their  nature  as  promises  they  coukl  not  be  geograpliically  exact. 
 How,  for  example,  would  it  strike  us,  if  instead  of  the  Euphrates, 
 Salchah  had  been  named,  or  "  the  point  where  the  Nahar  Amman 
 falls  into  the  Zerkah  ?"  The  promise  can  only  bear  the  same 
 relation  to  a  strictly  geographical  statement,  as  a  marble-block  to 
 a  statue. 
 
 Had  this  been  perceived,  all  the  strictly  geographical  passages 
 in  the  Pentateuch  would  have  been  investigated,  in  order  to  ob- 
 tain from  them  a  standard  for  measuring  the  rhetorical  ones  ; 
 especially  since  the  measurements  eV  TrXdret  are  found  not  less  in 
 the  simple  historical  narratives  than  in  other  parts  of  the  Sacred 
 Scriptures.  Thus  in  reference  to  the  current  mode  of  stating  the 
 houndmies,  /ro??i  Dan  even  to  Becrslieha,  Reland  says,  p.  113 
 —  Ultra  Gazam  et  Bersahen  se  extendit  terra  Israelitarum 
 ad  austrum,  sed  a  locis  notioribus  videntur  fines  Israelitariini 
 ita  dicti.  Thus  it  is  said  in  1  Chron.  xiii.  5,  ''  So  David  gath- 
 ered all  Israel  together  from  Sihor  (the  Nile)   of  Egypt,  even 
 
GEOGRAPHICAL  ANACHRONISMS.  219 
 
 iiiiio  tli;3  entering  of  Haiuutli."     Compare   1   Kings  viii.  C.");  2 
 (Jliron.  vii.  8. 
 
 But  here  we  are  met  by  the  /ocus  classicifs  in  Num.  xxxiv. 
 1-15,  where  directly  ex  professo  as  the  prescription,  by  which  the 
 Israelites  were  to  be  guided,  the  boundaries  of  the  Promised  Land 
 as  it  would  be  conquered  and  divided  are  laid  down.  To  this  pas- 
 sage, which  only  relates  to  Canaan  in  a  narrower  sense,  ch.  xxxii. 
 ^3-42,  may  be  considered  as  an  appendix  or  complement,  in  refer- 
 ence to  the  country  already  taken  on  tlie  other  side  Jordjin. 
 
 Now  in  these  geographical  sections  not  a  word  is  said  of  the 
 Nile,  the  Euphrates,  or  the  Red  Sea.  They  have  only  in  common 
 with  the  rhetorical  passages,  the  western  boundary,  the Mediteria- 
 nean  Sea,  and  the  northern  boundary,  Lebanon.  The  souihem 
 boundai'y,  according  to  Num.  xxxiv.  3-5,  reach  only  to  "  the  out- 
 most coast  of  the  Salt  Sea,"  and  not  to  the  river  (-n:)  of  Egypt, 
 but  only  to  the  torrent  bn:  of  Egypt,  which  empties  itself  near  the 
 ancient  Rhinocorura,  the  modern  El  Arish  (Yon  Bohlen  speaks 
 of  the  torrent  El  Arish  near  Ehinocorura! !)  On  the  other  side 
 Jordan  no  enlargement  of  the  boundaries  is  mentioned  beyond 
 the  territories  of  the  two  Ammonitish  kings. 
 
 If  we  now  keep  in  view  these  statements  of  the  actual  bound- 
 aries given  in  the  Pentateuch,  it  certainly  will  appear,  that  in  many 
 points  the  promise  contained  in  them  first  attained  its  complete 
 fulfilment  in  the  most  flourishing  period  of  the  nation.  Not  till 
 David's  name  were  the  Canaanites  in  the  inland  parts  fully  con- 
 ^  (juered.  But  how  little  we  should  be  justified  in  drawing  from 
 these  circumstances  conclusions  unfavourable  to  the  genuineness  of 
 »>  the  Pentateuch,  may  be  shown  by  numberless  historical  analogies, — 
 cases  in  which  for  centuries  claims  have  been  asserted  in  vain,  till 
 at  last  they  were  realised  by  a  conjunction  of  favourable  circum- 
 stances. From  a  multitude  of  examples  of  wdiich  many  will  recur 
 to  every  reader — to  adduce  only  one — ^the  Moabites  founded  a 
 claim  to  its  possession  on  the  circumstance  that  the  land  between 
 the  Jabbok  and  the  Arnon,  which  the  Israehtes  had  taken  from  the 
 Amorites,  had  been  taken  from  them  by  the  hitter.  After  centuries 
 had  passed  by,  a  strenuous  though  vain  attempt  was  made  to  re- 
 alise it,  in  the  time  of  the  Judges ;  (see  Judg.  xi)  ;  that  the  Am- 
 monites only  came  forward  as  advocates  of  the  Moabites,  the  de- 
 scendants of  a  common  progenitor,  appear  from  ver.  15.     Finally, 
 
220  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  lENTATEUCH. 
 
 when  the  IsraeUtish  power  was  broken  hy  the  Assyrians,  who  car- 
 ried away  captive  the  tribes  beyond  Jordan,  they  succeeded  in  re- 
 estabhshing  themselves  in  the  land  to  which  they  laid  claim. 
 EosENMULLER  I.  iii.  52.  That  the  case  was  really  so,  that  the 
 principle,  the  claim  of  right,  which  the  Israelites  made  to  the  ter- 
 ritory of  the  Canaanites  in  its  whole  extent,  was  already  in  opera- 
 tion in  the  Mosaic  period,  that  the  stream  was  then  flov/ing  in 
 this  channel,  is  evident  from  the  tendency  to  gain  possession  of  the 
 whole  of  this  territory,  which  pervaded  the  whole  period  from 
 Moses  to  David.  The  Canaanites  are  everywhere  the  only  people 
 that  were  attacked  without  provocation ;  all  other  wars  were  only 
 defensive.  The  conflict  for  Jerusalem,  David's  chief  conquest, 
 never  ceased. 
 
 But  there  is  a  reason  which  makes  it  simply  impossible  that 
 the  boundaries  as  stated  in  the  Pentateuch  could  be  copied 
 from  the  relations  existing  in  the  age  of  David  and  Solomon. 
 For  within  the  boundaries  of  the  Promised  Land,  as  stated  in  the 
 Pentateuch,  is  the  whole  Phoenician  territory.  Compare  Kaumer 
 p.  22.  Eosenmuller  ii.  78.  But  in  reference  to  this,  the  pro- 
 mise of  which  the  realisation  depended  on  certain  conditions,  was 
 7iever  verified.  In  the  period  of  David  and  Solomon  these  pre- 
 tensions were  for  a  long  time  given  up,  and  were  never  reasserted. 
 Had  the  standard  been  taken  according  to  the  times  of  David  and 
 Solomon,  Tyrus  and  Sidon  would  have  been  mentioned  rather 
 than  Damascus,  which  David  captured,  2  Sam.  viii.  5,  C. 
 
 Von  Bohlen  {Einleit'img,  p.  59)  thinks  it  of  importance,  that 
 in  the  Pentateuch,  Num.  xxi.  13,  it  is  said  thatArnon  formed  the 
 borders  of  the  Moabites,  wdiich  was  not  the  case  till  after  David's 
 conquests.  Such  assertions  should  not  be  made  at  random.  To 
 those  who  are  inclined  to  be  deceived,  a  man  may  pass  off  coun- 
 ters for  gold ;  but  let  him  be  sure  that  the  parties  he  deals  with 
 are  sufficiently  credulous. 
 
 The  assertion  that  David  first  made  Anion  the  northern  bound- 
 ary of  the  Moabites  is  perfectly  gratuitous ;  there  is  not  a  word  re- 
 specting it  in  2  Sam.  viii.  2,  wdiich  contains  the  account  of  David's 
 war.  On  the  other  hand,  not  only  all  the  passages  in  the  Penta- 
 teuch agree  that  Arnon,  even  in  the  age  of  Moses,  was  the  south- 
 ren  boundary  of  the  Israelites,  (compare  besides  Num.  xxi.  15  ; 
 xxxii.  o4  ;  Deut.  iii.  8,  IG,  iv.  48,  and  other  places),  but  there 
 
GEOGRAPHICAL  ANACHRONISMS.  221 
 
 is  the  important  testimony  of  the  Book  of  Judges,  of  which  the 
 narrative  in  ch.  xi.  carries  in  itself  the  pledge  of  its  credibility. 
 In  reference  to  the  fact,  that  Anion  was,  in  the  time  of  Moses,  the 
 southern  boundary  of  the  Israelitish  territory,  both  parties — 
 Jephthah  and  the  Ammonites — are  unanimous.  That  Israel  took 
 "  Heshon  and  her  daughters"  away  from  the  Ammonites,  who  had 
 expelled  the  Moabites  to  the  north  of  the  Arnon,  is  stated  by 
 Jephthah  as  afiict  undisputed  by  his  enemies,  ver.  27.  The  only 
 debateable  point  was  the  quid  juris.  In  Joshua  xiii.  10,  Aroer, 
 a  city  on  the  banks  of  the  Arnon,  among  the  cities  of  the  southern 
 boundary  of  the  tribe  of  Eeuben.  And  thus  we  might  adduce  a 
 multitude  of  counter-proofs,  if  those  already  given  were  not 
 abundant  almost  to  superfluity. 
 
 Among  the  alleged  geographical  anachronisms  may  be  reckoned 
 the  assertion  of  Hartmann,  that  the  accounts  respecting  the  land 
 of  the  Moabites  approximate  so  closely  to  those  of  Jeremiah  in 
 ch.  xlviii.  that  no  great  interval  of  time  can  be  imagined  between 
 them.  With  the  same  intention  a  parallel  has  been  drawn  be- 
 tween the  names  of  the  numerous  places  in  Num.  xxxii.  xxxiii. 
 and  those  mentioned  by  Jeremiah.  Likewise  the  names  of  the 
 towns  which  the  tribes  of  Gad  and  Reuben,  who,  in  the  time  of 
 Moses,  wandered  about  with  their  herds  as  nomads,  according  to 
 Num.  xxxii.  34-38,  {''so  carhj T)  must  have  built,  borrowed 
 in  part  from  the  latter  reality,  which  Jeremiah  likewise  explains  in 
 the  aforesaid  chapter. 
 
 We  deem  it  impossible  that  the  originators  of  this  argument 
 could  really  feel  confidence  in  its  soundness.  The  agreement 
 with  Jeremiah  only  amounts  to  this,  that  there  a  very  consider- 
 able number  of  towns  are  named,  which  also  occur  in  the  Penta- 
 teuch. But  where  in  all  the  world  is  there  a  country  in  which 
 the  like  is  not  to  be  found  !  and  particularly  the  east,  in  which 
 the  ancient  names  of  cities  have  been  retained  for  the  greater 
 part  to  this  day,  and  even  their  ruins  yet  remain !  Burkhardt 
 and  others  have  found,  especially  in  the  country  beyond  Jordan, 
 a  multitude  of  names  of  towns  which  occur  in  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
 tures. And  throughout  the  agreement  in  reference  to  the  names 
 is  only  partial.  In  Jeremiah  a  great  number  of  cities  are  men- 
 tioned which  do  not  occur  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  of  the  towns 
 
222  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 in  the  Pentateuch  Ataroth  is  wantiDg  in  Jeremiah,  whieli  is 
 nowhere  found  except  in  Num.  xxxii.  3  ;  Medebah  also,  which  yet 
 in  his  time  must  have  been  still  in  existence. 
 
 But  with  this  unessential  and  easily  ex^^licable  agreement,  there 
 is  an  essential  difference,  namely,  that  in  Jeremiah,  as  also  in 
 Isaiah,  ch.  xv.  and  xvi.,  the  same  towns  which  in  the  Pentateuch 
 are  enumerated  as  belonging  to  the  territory  taken  from  the  Amo- 
 rites,  ajDpear,  without  any  intimation  that  in  respect  a  change  had 
 taken  place  in  later  times,  as  a  constituent  part  of  the  Moabitish 
 territory.  (Rosenmuller  II.  i.  p.  2G6).  This  renders  it  im- 
 possible to  admit  that  the  former  are  copied  from  the  latter. 
 
 The  suspicion  cast  on  the  account  of  the  cities  built  by  the 
 tribes  on  the  other  side  Jordan,  may  be  easily  proved  to  be  un- 
 just. The  term  huilding  not  unfrequently,  when  cities  are  spoken 
 of  that  have  been  long  built,  receives  from  the  connection  the 
 sense  (the  seiisus,  not  the  HUjuiJicatio)  oifortlfjjing.  Compare  for 
 example,  1  Kings  xv.  17,  wliich  is  also  very  common  ni  Syriac. 
 That  the  word  is  used  so  here  there  can  be  no  doubt.  For  the 
 same  places  were  before  named  as  standing,  and.taken  from  the 
 Amorites,  ver.  3 ;  so  that  the  expression  "  they  built,"  in  ver. 
 34,  is  to  be  connected  with  "  fenced  cities"  and  "  sheep-folds," 
 in  ver.  36.  They  restored  tlie  fortifications  which  had  been 
 injured  when  the  cities  were  captured,  (for  they  were  previ- 
 ously fortified,  see  Deut.  iii.  5,  "  All  these  cities  were  fenced  with 
 high  walls,  gates,  and  bars,  besides  unwalled  towns  a  great 
 many,")  in  order  that  they  might  pass  over  Jordan  with  their 
 brethren,  without  the  apprehension  of  hostile  sur2}risals.  Their 
 work  might  be  accomplished  in  a  very  short  time.  The  astonish- 
 ment conveyed  in  the  exclamation  w^e  have  quoted,  {''so  early  f) 
 is  therefore  misplaced. 
 
 EBOM. 
 
 Our  design  is  to  collect  every  thing  in  the  accounts  of  this  people 
 which  has  a  reference  to  the  investigations  on  the  genuineness  of 
 the  Pentateuch,  not  merely  what  relates  most  directly  to  that 
 question — the  pretended  marks  of  a  later  age — but  also  the  real 
 traces  of  the  Mosaic  age,  as  well  as  the  assumed  contradictions ; 
 we  shall  begin  with  the  latter. 
 
KDOM.  223 
 
 I.  We  begin  Avith  the  apparent  contradictions  wliicli  occur  in 
 Genesis  in  reference  to  the  wives  of  Esau. 
 
 (i.)  Tlie  father  of  his  first  wife  is  called,  in  ch.  xxvi.  34,  Beeri; 
 in  ch.  xxxvi.  2,  Anah.     But  the  latter  passage  gives  us,  in  ver. 
 24,  the  ]cey  for  the  solution  of  the  contradiction,  since  it  informs 
 us  of  the  event  from  which  Anah  obtained  the  surname  of  Beeri. 
 It  is  there  said,    ''  this  w^as  that  Anah   that  found  the  warm 
 sj^ruif/s,  =;^l''-''^«,  {muics,  Eng.  Auth.  Vers.)  in  the  wilderness,  as 
 he  fed  the  asses  of  Zibeon,  his  father."     All  modern  expositors 
 agree  tliat  "'?1  means  warm  sjrrings.    The  reasons  drawn  from  the 
 language  for  this  interpretation  are  supported  by  focts.    In  the  dis- 
 trict inliabited  by  the  Chorites,  to  the  south-east  of  the  dead  sea, 
 are  the  warm  sj)riugs  of  Callirhoe,  which  have  been  described  by 
 Legh  in  remarkable  agreement  wdth  the  account  of  the  ancients, 
 (JosEPHUs,  Pliny).  This  traveller  speaks  of  the  "  enclosed  situa- 
 tion of  the  place" — At  the  edge  of  a  precipice  was  hewn  out,  a 
 narrow  zigzag  path^  which  led  to  a  thicket  of  reeds,  thorns,  and 
 palms,  growing  out  of  the  clefts  of  the  rocks,  and  here  bubbled 
 forth  the  numerous  warm  springs  which  they  sought,  (see  Eosen- 
 MULLER,  Alt.  II.  i.  2 1 8) .    The  pecuhar  locality  accounts  for  the  use 
 of  the  word  ^'^'i.    And  if  the  treasure  was  so  hidden,  it  is  explained 
 more  easily  why  Anah,  from  the  discovery,  obtained  the  name  of 
 Beeri,  ^???7,  man  of  the  spri/igs,   {fontaniis,  Gesenius),  wdiich 
 indicated  the  value  of  the  discovery — (Joseph us  says  expressly 
 that  the  waters  were  remarkable  for  sweetness) — and  the  high 
 importance  that  was  generally  attached  to  springs ;  compare  Gen. 
 xxi.  19,  xxvi.  18.     In  the  narrative  we  find  the  name  by  which 
 the  man  was  commonly  called  by  his  neighbours  ever  after  that 
 most  imjoortant  event  of  his  life,  wdiich,  in  a  certain  sense,  formed 
 its  essence — whoever  saw  him  w^as  reminded  of  the  warm  springs ; 
 on  the  contrary,  in  the  genealogy  in  ch.  xxxvi.,  his  proper  name 
 Anah  appears,  which,  genealogically,  could  never  be  supplanted 
 by  any  other.     From  this  example  we  may  learn  how  ill-advised 
 it  is  precipitately  to  admit  the  notion  of  a  contradiction.     That 
 short  notice,  w^hich  fully  removes  the  appearance  of  contradiction, 
 might  have  been  wanting;  the  author,  in  communicating  it,  per- 
 formed an  opus  supererogation  is.     And,  in  similar  cases,  it  is 
 too  often  not  made  use  of,  as  even  here ;  it  is  remail^able  that  it 
 never  occurred  to  any  one  to  make  use  of  that  notice  for  remov- 
 
224  ANACHRONISMS  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 ing  the  contradiction.  Let  it  then  be  marked  liow  the  confirma- 
 tion  which  the  name  receives  hy  means  of  the  notice,  (vvithout 
 both  being  brought  into  connection  by  the  author  himself,)  and 
 which  this  again  receives  by  the  name,  and  at  the  same  time 
 by  the  nature  of  the  locahty,  proves  the  author  trustworthy  in  the 
 smallest  j)articulars,  (even  such  as  are  most  remote  from  his  main 
 object),  and  how  his  distinguishing  between  what  belonged  to  the 
 narrative,  and  what  to  the  genealogy,  is  a  proof  of  his  attention 
 and  accuracy. 
 
 (ii.)  Anah,  called  Beeri,  is  assigned  to  three  different  nations. 
 According  to  Gen.  xxxvi.  2,  he  was  a  Hivite  C^'?)  ;  according  to 
 ver.  2  of  the  same  chapter,  a  Horite  (^?")  ;  and  according  to  xxvi. 
 34,  a  Hittite  (T^').  To  obviate  the  first  difficulty,  Ch.  B.  Mi- 
 CHAELis  (in  his  dissert,  de  nominn.  muUehr.  in  virilia  versis.  p. 
 28)  maintains,  that  the  Anah  in  ch.  xxxvi.  20,  is  different  from 
 the  Anah  in  ver.  2.  Against  this  violent  supposition  J.  D.  Mi- 
 chaelis  {Comm.  de  Troglodytis  Seireis,  195)  remarks,  that  Anah 
 in  both  passages  has  Zibcon  for  his  father,  and  Aholibamah  for 
 his  daughter  ;  and  it  cannot  be  imagined  why  the  author,  contrary 
 to  his  usual  practice,  should  interweave  the  genealogy  of  the  con- 
 quered and  ruined  people  the  Horites  in  the  Edomite  genealogy, 
 when,  in  so  doing,  he  would  break  the  thread  by  Vv^hich  they  were 
 connected  with  Esau  and  his  race.  But  an  easy  and  unforced  so- 
 lution of  the  contradiction  offers  itself.  Anah  belonged  to  that 
 division  of  the  Canaanitish  race  the  Hivites,  who,  from  their  dwel- 
 ling places,  obtained  the  name  of  Horites,  or  Troglodytes.  Since 
 the  term  Horites  is  manifestly  appellative,  and  implies  the  exist- 
 ence of  another  name  of  the  race  ;  and  since,  certainly,  we  cannot 
 so  easily  admit  that  the  author  would  grossly  contradict  himself  in 
 a  closely  connected  section,  no  one  would  scruple  to  adopt  this 
 method  of  reconciUng  the  passages.  At  first  sight,  the  recon- 
 ciling of  ch.  xxvi.  34,  and  xxxvi.  2,  appears  more  difficult.  J. 
 D.  Michaelis  felt  this  so  strongly,  that  with  every  disposition  to 
 untie  the  knot,  he  seemed  forced  to  cut  it.  In  the  latter  passage, 
 since  the  Hittites  and  Hivites  are  two  different  Canaanitish  na- 
 tions, he  would  for  ^T;  read  "'^°.  But  on  closer  examination  we 
 may  obtain  here,  also,  a  very  simple  solution.  The  name  Hittites, 
 like  that  of  Amorites  (see  Gesenius,  p.  122),  although  originally 
 it  denoted  a  single  Canaanitish  nation,  yet  was  likewise  used  setisti 
 
KDOM.  225 
 
 tiori,  to  designate  the  whole  race.  Thus  it  is  found  iu  Josh.  i. 
 4,  where  '=T*?L'Vr?  (as  Gesenius  acknowledges,  Thes.  p.  511)  de- 
 notes all  Palestine ;  2  Kings  vii.  0,  where  the  Syrians  speak  of 
 ''  the  kings  of  the  Hittites/'  <=Ti:^  ^sV^a-^x ;  and  1  Kings  x.  29, 
 where  "  all  the  Idngs  of  the  Hittites"  are  spoken  of,  though  the 
 Hittites  in  a  narrower  sense  prohahly  had  not,  at  that  time,  even 
 o?ie  king,  and  certainly  not  several.  Besides  these  three  perfectly 
 sure  and  demonstrative  passages,  Ezekiel  xvi.  3,  may  be  adduced 
 in  favour  of  a  more  general  use  of  the  name  ;  "  thy  nativity  is  of 
 the  land  of  Canaan,  thy  father  was  an  Amorite^  and  thy  mother 
 was  an  Hittite."  The  three  general  designations  are  here  united. 
 It  appears,  therefore,  that  one  and  the  same  man  might  properly 
 be  at  once  a  Hittite  and  a  Hivite.  In  the  genealogy  we  find,  not 
 only  the  proper  name  given,  but  also  the  more  exact  designation 
 of  the  people  ;  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  historical  narrative,  the 
 latter  is  described  in  more  general  terms,  since  not  the  -sjpecies  but 
 the  genus  was  the  important  point ;  and  of  the  more  general  de- 
 signations this,  wliich  was  relatively  less  common,  was  chosen, 
 since  the  other  Canaanitish  wdfe  of  Esau,  who  also,  in  ch.  36,  is 
 described  as  a  Hittite,  was  a  Hittite  in  the  narrower  sense.  That 
 in  this  narrative,  the  Hittites  could  only  be  noticed  as  Canaanites, 
 is  most  evident.  After  both  his  wives  had  been  described  as  Hit- 
 tites in  ch.  xxvi.  34,  it  is  said  in  xxvii.  46,  "  And  Rebecca  said 
 to  Isaac,  I  am  weary  of  my  life  because  of  the  daughters  of  Heth ; 
 if  Jacob  take  a  wife  of  the  daughters  of  Heth,  such  as  these  which 
 are  of  the  daughters  of  the  land,  what  good  shall  my  life  do  me  ?" 
 That  the  repugnance  here  expressed  was  not  specially  directed 
 against  the  Hittites,  that  they  were  only  regarded  as  pars  pro  toto, 
 is  veiy  apparent,  and  may  be  inferred  also  from  the  phrase  used 
 here  as  synonymous,  '■C5^J  ^'"^2='.  Thus  also  Isaac  understood  liis 
 wife  (ch  xxviii.  1),  ''And  Isaac  called  Jacob,  and  blessed  him, 
 and  charged  him,  and  said  unto  him.  Thou  shalt  not  take  a  wife 
 of  the  daughters  of  Canaan."  And  thus  Esau  knew  that  his 
 wives  were  disliked  by  his  parents,  simply  as  Hittites  ==  Canaan- 
 ites. Ch.  xxviii.  8,  "  And  Esau  seeing  that  the  daughters  of 
 Canaan  were  evil  in  the  eyes  of  his  father  Isaac,"  &c. 
 
 (iii.)  The  wives  of  Esau  have  different  names  in  different  pas- 
 sages. The  one  who  in  ch.  xxvi.  34,  is  called  Jehudith,  in  ch. 
 xxxvi.  2,  is  called  Aholihamah ;  the  one  who  in  ch.  xxvi.  34  is 
 
 VOL.  II.  p 
 
226  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 called  Bashemath,  in  ch.  xxxvi.  2  is  called  Adah ;  his  third  wife, 
 Ishmael's  daughter,  who  in  ch.  xxviii.  9  is  called  Mahalath,  in 
 ch.  xxxvi.  8,  4,  13,  is  called  Bathshetnath.  It  is  here  worthy  of 
 notice,  that  all  three  receive^new  names  in  ch.  xxxvi.  This  allows 
 us  far  less  to  seek  for  the  cause  of  the  difference  in  an  uncertainty 
 of  tradition,  than  if  there  had  been  only  two  or  one.  We  are  led 
 to  conclude  that  all  three  received  new  names  on  their  marriage, 
 an  event  which,  moreover,  separated  them  from  their  kindred.  It 
 is  well  known  what  a  strict  connection  subsists  in  the  East  be- 
 tween new  circumstances  and  new  names.  Compare  on  the  in- 
 constancy and  mutabihty  of  Oriental  names,  vol.  i.  p.  279.  Ko- 
 SENMULLER,  A.  u.  N.  Morrjenl.  i.  63.  Eanke,  p,  247.  Char- 
 din  says,  ^'  The  w^omen  change  their  names  more  frequently  than 
 the  men.  Women  w^ho  marry  again,  or  bind  themselves  to  any 
 fresh  engagement,  commonly  alter  their  names  on  such  changes." 
 That  the  names  in  ch.  xxxvi.  are  the  later  ones,  lies  in  the  nature 
 of  the  case,  since  to  the  genealogy  only  those  names  belong  which 
 were  pecuhar  to  them  as  female  ancestors,  and  is  confirmed  by 
 ver.  41,  where  Aholibamah  occurs  as  the  name  of  a  jilace.  The 
 place  which  received  this  name  in  honour  of  one  of  Esau's  wives, 
 would  not  be  named  after  her  maiden  but  her  wedded  name. 
 
 11.  Under  the  category  of  contradictions  belong  also  the  histo- 
 rical errors  which  Von  Bohlen,  p.  341,  has  tried  to  point  out  in 
 the  genealogy  of  Esau. 
 
 (i.)  Anah  and  Ahohbamah  are  at  first  spoken  of  as  women ; 
 but  the  foimer  is  mentioned  as  a  man  in  ver.  24.  According  to 
 Von  Bohlen's  translation,  such  an  unfortunate  quid  j^ro  quo 
 would  certainly  exist.  He  translates  ver.  2,  *'  Aholibamah, 
 daughter  of  Anah,  daughter  of  Zibeon  the  Hivite  (according  to  p. 
 301)  =  who  again  was  a  daughter  of  Zibeon  the  Hivite."  But 
 this  translation  is  palpably  false.  We  must  translate  it,  Ahohba- 
 mah, daughter  of  Anah,  daughter  (grand-daughter)  of  Zibeon. 
 Ver.  39  is  quite  analogous  ;  as  here  the  second  tnn  is  co-ordi- 
 nate with  the  first,  so  in  ver.  3  is  Jriris  co-ordinate  with  na ;  the 
 meaning  grand- daughter  is,  in  the  case  of  the  second  s^a,  deter- 
 mined by  the  connection. 
 
 (ii.)  The  sister  of  Lotan  is  Timna,  ver.  22  ;  on  the  contrary, 
 according  to  ver.  40,  Timnah  was  the  district  and  residence  of 
 an  Edomite  sheick.     But  why  should  not  the  place  have  received 
 
EDOM.  227 
 
 its  name  from  his  wife?  How  many  analogies  may  there  not  be 
 adduced  for  it !  Tahpenes  ssrhn,  for  example,  is  at  once  the  name 
 of  a  goddess,  a  city,  and  a  queen  ;  compare  Champollion,  Precis^ 
 tableau  general.  No.  '(V<>,  p.  6  ;  Greppo,  Essai  s.  le  si/steme 
 hierogl.  p.  221,  sqq.  On  the  origination  of  names  of  places  from 
 names  of  persons,  see  Simonis,  Onomasticon,  p.  19. 
 
 (iii.)  Timna,  who,  in  1  Chron.  i.  80,  is  described  precisely  as 
 the  son  of  Eliphaz,  is,  at  the  same  time,  the  concubine  of  Eli- 
 phaz,  the  son  of  Esau.  Although  this  apparent  contradiction  be- 
 tween the  Pentateuch  and  the  Chronicles  belongs,  strictly  speaking, 
 not  to  this  part  of  our  work,  but  to  the  investigations  respecting 
 the  latter,  yet  we  are  disposed  to  enter  upon  it  here,  particularly 
 since  some  persons  would  find  in  our  genealogy  Timna,  like  Aho- 
 libamah,  as  a  man's  name  ;  compare,  for  instance,  Rosenmuller 
 on  ver.  40,  Ceterum  Thimnah  hoc  versii  et  n^^^'^Vni?  v.iwox.  vix 
 dubium  est  esse  virorum  nomina  non  muUerum  ut  ver.  2,  5,  22. 
 It  is  (we  would  first  of  all  notice)  simply  impossible  that  even 
 the  most  ignorant  Israelite  could  have  used  the  name  yston,  the  3 
 flit,  fern.,  from  ya^a  as  the  name  of  a  man.  We  have,  moreover, 
 the  masculine  ysa^  in  1  Chron.  vii.  35.  Timna  means,  the  coy 
 one.  If  we  turn  now  first  to  the  Chronicles,  it  appears  that  the 
 exposition  which  would  make  it  contradict  Genesis  must  be  false, 
 since  it  is  certain,  that  the  author  of  the  Chronicles  took  the  ge- 
 nealogy from  Genesis,  in  which  there  could  not  possibly  be  a 
 misunderstanding.  The  "  and  Timna  and  Amalek  "  in  Chronicles 
 is  equivalent  to,  "  and  besides  of  Timna,  Amalek."  This  bre- 
 vity v/as  allowable,  since  Timna  was  nomen  femin.  besides, 
 the  design  of  the  author  was  only  a  review  ;  he  had  no  intention 
 to  supersede  the  account  in  Genesis.  The  older  commentators 
 took  the  right  v^iew.  Kimchi  says,  "  Matrem  cumfiUa  brevi- 
 tatis  causa  hie  conjunctam,  quod  nota  satis  res  ex  liistoria  Ge- 
 neseos  essct."  Lavater,  "  Ego  in  I.  Paral.  puto  defectionaui 
 orationeni  esse,  quae  in  sacris  Uteris  sunt  crebrae  huncque  esse 
 sensum  ;  Timnah  et  Amalek  h.  e.  ex  Timnah  etiam  Amalekum 
 sustulit,  Haec  enum  verba  ex  Genesi  interpretanda 
 sunt,  unde  omnia,  quae  de  familia  Esau  h.  I.  leguntur,  viden- 
 ttir  fere  verbatim  transcrijyta  esse."  In  reference  to  the  passage 
 in  Genesis,  that  in  ver.  40-43,  not  the  names  of  men,  but  of 
 p2 
 
^28  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 places,  are  given,  appears  from  tlie  circumstance,  that  two  female 
 names,  Timna  and  Aholibamah,  appear  in  the  hst.  Yet  it  might 
 he  proved  on  other  gromids.  The  words  in  ver.  40,  "  these  are 
 the  names  "  (that  is,  "  this  is  the  hst,"  compare  ch.  xxv.  13)  "  of 
 the  princes  of  Esau,  according  to  their  families,  their  places,  their 
 names,"  ti^'^'f^i  '°i'^?f?  '°V^'^^^}  ^H  ^^^"^^  ^'^'^'f  ^???^  by  no  means  inti- 
 mates, that,  in  what  follows,  all  these  things  are  specified,  but  only 
 that  the  a^?^^?  had  each  one  his  particular  tribe,  dwelling  place, 
 Bnd  name.  This  is  shown  by  the  parallel  passage  in  Gen.  xxv, 
 13,  "  These  are  the  names  of  the  sons  of  Ishmael  by  their  names, 
 according  to  their  generations  ;"  then  in  ver.  1 6,  at  the  end  of  the 
 genealogy,  "  These  are  the  sons  of  Ishmael,  and  these  are  their 
 names,  according  to  their  villages,  and  their  encampments," 
 ("  by  their  towns  and  by  their  castles,"  Fn//.  Auth.  Vers.)  (the 
 villages  and  the  encampments  are  not  given,  but  only  the  bare 
 names)  ;  ch.  x.  5,  "By  these  were  the  isles  of  the  nations  divided 
 according  to  their  lands,  every  one  after  his  tongue,  after  their  fa- 
 milies, in  their  nations,"  ver.  20  and  31.  Races  and  names 
 were  given  in  ver.  15.  For  these  latter  lists,  nothing  remained 
 but  the  account  of  places.  That  these  and  only  these  are  here 
 noticed,  is  expressly  said  in  the  last  clause,  "  These  are  the 
 princes  of  Edom,  according  to  their  habitations,"  ^l^^^f^K 
 
 (iv.)  The  name  of  Mount  Seir  w^as  transferred  to  the  father  of 
 a  tribe  from  whom  descended  the  Horites  or  dwellers  in  caves  ; 
 Lotan  was  his  first  son,  and  from  him  descended  again  Hori 
 the  Traglodyte.  But  nothing  is  more  natural  than  that  Mount 
 Seir  should  receive  its  name  from  the  first  Canaanitish  emigrant 
 who  occupied  it,  exactly  as  afterwards  the  same  mountain  was 
 called  the  mountain  of  Edom  (Idumea),  from  Edom  ;  that  Seir 
 begat  the  Horites  is  not  said  ;  rather  he  was  himself  called  the 
 Horite  ;  that  among  the  Troglodytes  one  should  receive  the  name 
 of  Troglodyte  as  nomen  propr,  (•>^h  without  the  article)  cannot 
 be  thought  strange  ;  the  designation  of  the  individual  and  of  the 
 whole  tribe  sprang  from  the  same  root.  As  for  the  rest,  we  re- 
 mark, in  order  to  obviate  other  similar  objections,  that  the  seven 
 persons  named  in  ver.  20,  21,  were  not  considered  by  the  author 
 as  the  sons  of  Seir  in  a  strict  sense,  but  his  descendants  in  various 
 degrees  of  affinity,  who  raised  themselves  to  the  dignity  of  inde 
 
KDOM.  229 
 
 pendent  chiefs,  This  is  supported  by  the  following  recasons  :  1 . 
 No  doubt  can  be  felt,  that  the  Zibeon  and  Anah  in  ver.  20  are 
 identical  with  the  Zibeon  and  Anah  in  ver.  2  and  in  ver.  24. 
 How  otherwise  should  they  be  found  together  in  all  the  three  pas- 
 sages ?  The  Anah  in  ver.  25  can  be  no  other  than  the  Anah  in 
 ver.  20,  otherwise  the  family  of  the  latter  would  be  altogether 
 wanting,  while  it  belongs  to  the  author's  plan  to  give  it  as  he  has 
 done  in  the  case  of  the  other  six.  But  equally  must  the  Anah  in 
 ver.  25  be  identical  with  the  Anah  in  ver.  2,  for,  hke  the  latter, 
 he  is  said  to  be  the  father  of  Aholibamah,  consequently  he  must 
 be  identical  with  the  Anah  in  ver.  24  ;  for  the  father  of  Aholi- 
 bamah is,  according  to  ver.  2,  the  son  of  Zibeon.  Thus  we  evi- 
 dently have  in  the  list  a  father  and  son,  and  therefore  only  the 
 sons  of  Seir  in  a  wider  sense  can  be  intended.  The  one  line 
 through  Ajah  bore  the  name  of  his  father  Zibeon  ;  Anah  founded 
 an  independent  ftxmily.  2.  Timnah  is,  in  ver.  22,  called  the  sis- 
 ter of  Lotan.  If  the  seven  had  been  brothers,  she  would  have 
 been  the  sister  of  all,  and  would  have  been  so  designated.  But 
 her  name  appears  at  the  end  of  the  list  of  Lotan's  sons.  3.  It  is 
 not  conceivable  that  Timnah,  the  concubine  of  Elipihaz,  was  the 
 daughter  of  Seir.  The  father  (Esau)  would  then  have  married 
 the  great -grand- daughter,  and  the  son  the  daughter. 
 
 (v.)  In  Gen.  xxxvi.  21,  the  chiefs  of  the  Horites  are  given, 
 and  they  appear  to  have  maintained  their  sovereignty  down  to  the 
 latest  times  near  the  Idumaeans  in  the  southern  mountain  range 
 of  Seir.  This  is  at  variance  Vvdth  Deut.  ii.  12,  according  to  which 
 the  Horites  were  exterminated  by  the  Edomites,  and  even  in  the 
 time  of  Moses  had  ceased  to  exist.  So  Von  Bohlen,  172,  341. 
 But  Gen.  xxxvi.  furnishes  no  ground  for  supposing  that  the  Ho- 
 rites continued  for  a  long  period  after  as  an  independent  people. 
 The  genealogy  of  a  tribe  with  which  the  Israelites  never  came  in 
 collision,  and  to  whom  they  were  not  related,  was  solely  introduced 
 on  account  of  Aholibamah  and  Timnah.  Its  latest  members  are 
 contemporary  with  Esau  and  Eliphaz.  About  the  time  when 
 Esau  established  himself  in  Seir,  seven  principal  families  existed 
 there.  Further  the  author  tells  us  nothing,  and  nothing  more 
 could  he  intend  to  tell,  in  accordance  with  his  object.  But  we 
 may  go  further;  Gen.  xxxvi.,  so  for  from  contradicting  Deut.  ii. 
 
230         ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 12,*  to  wliicli  may  be  added  ver.  22,t  rather  furnishes  an  express 
 confirmation  to  its  statements.  Ehphaz  had  a  female  belonging 
 to  one  of  the  principal  famihes  of  the  Horites  as  his  concubine, 
 while  Esau  had  a  Horite  as  his  wife.  The  concubines  whom  we 
 read  of  in  the  Pentateuch  were  of  the  class  of  handmaids,  and 
 that  Timnah  was  a  female  slave  appears  particularly  from  the  cir- 
 cumstance that  her  son  is  numbered  in  ver.  12,  15,  with  the  sons 
 of  Adah.  Trihuitur  Adae,  tit  dominae  filius  ancillae  s.  concu- 
 hinae,  tit  siqyra.  c.  xxx.  6,  8.  Ban  et  Naphtali,  qitos  Bilha 
 pe2)e2)erat.  Jilii  Bachelis  dicuntur.  Kosenmuller.  This  fact, 
 of  which  we  are  informed  in  Genesis,  that  a  female  of  a  governing 
 family  of  the  Horites  was  not  esteemed  worthy  to  be  the  wife  (in 
 the  proper  sense)  of  Esau's  son,  implies,  that  even  then  the  powers 
 of  the  Horites  w^as  completely  broken,  and  that  the  catastrophe 
 narrated  in  Deut.  ii.  12  had  already  taken  place.  Let  the  reader 
 notice  the  remarkable  confirmation  which  the  express  statements 
 of  the  Pentateuch  receive  from  such  undesigned  notices,  often  in 
 passages  widely  apart,  which  are  only  explicable  on  the  supposi- 
 tion of  their  correctness.  Also  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  the  Edomites  ap- 
 pear as  the  only  possessors  of  the  land  ;  compare  ver.  43.  Nor 
 let  it  be  objected  that  the  ELorites  could  not  have  been  extermi- 
 nated till  a  time  when  Esau's  family  were  multiplied.  This  objec- 
 tion could  only  be  raised  on  the  ground  of  a  manifestly  false 
 representation,  that  the  Edomites  were  all  hneal  descendants  of 
 Esau,  as  from  a  similar  false  representation  objections  have  been 
 raised  against  the  increase  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt.  Where  then 
 were  the  descendants  of  the  four  hundred  men  with  whom  Esau 
 could  march  against  Jacob  ?  Moreover,  we  are  to  bear  in  mind 
 that  not  the  least  trace  afterwards  appears  of  the  Horites,  which 
 also  militates  against  Von  Bohlen's  opinion  that  they  were  flour- 
 ishing at  a  later  period. 
 
 III.  A  number  of  apparent  contradictions  are  presented  in  the 
 accounts  of  the  relation  of  the  Edomites  to  the  Israehtes  in  their 
 
 *  "  The  Horims  also  dwelt  in  Seir  aforetiine  (a^SiV),  but  tLe  diildren  of  Esau  suc- 
 ceeded them,  when  they  destroyed  them  from  before  them,  and  dwelt  in  their  stead." 
 
 +  "  As  he  did  to  the  children  of  Esau,  which  dwelt  in  Seir,  when  he  destroyed  the 
 Horims  from  before  them,  and  they  succeeded  them  and  dwelt  in  theii'  stead,  even  unto 
 this  day." 
 
EDOM. 
 
 231 
 
 march  through  the  desert.     We  here  present  the  tabular  view  in 
 wliich  Vater  attempts  to  exhibit  them. 
 
 In  Deut.  ii.  29,  it  is  nar- 
 rated that  the  Edomites 
 and  Moahites  furnished  the 
 Israelites  with  food  and 
 water,  for  money,  on  their 
 march  from  Egypt,  and 
 granted  them  a  passage 
 through  their  country. 
 
 In  Deut.  xxiii.  4-5,  it  is 
 stated  that  the  Ammonites 
 and  Moahites  refused  to 
 supply  the  Israelites  with 
 hread  and  water  on  their 
 march  from  Egypt.  Of  the 
 Edomites,  who  are  men- 
 tioned immediately  after- 
 wards, it  is  not  said. 
 
 In  Num.  XX.  18,  it  is 
 mentioned  that  the  Edom* 
 ites  peremptorily  refused  a 
 passage  to  the  Israelites 
 through  their  land,  and 
 in  conseq^uence_  they  were 
 obliged  to  malce  a  gi-eat 
 circuit.  On  the  part  of  the 
 Moahites,  such  a  refusal  is 
 not  mentioned  in  this  hook, 
 nor  of  the  Ammonites* 
 Compai-e  chap.  xii.  11-24. 
 
 (i.)  We  begin  with  the  contradiction  between  Num.  xx.  and 
 Deut.  ii.,  which  Gesenius  also  {on  Isaiah  ch.  xxxiv.  p.  904) 
 regards  as  irreconcileable.     In  the  first  passage  we  are  told  that 
 the  Edomites  refused  a  thoroughfare  to  the  Israelites,  and  in  the 
 second  that  they  granted  it.     Eosenmuller,  on  Deut.  ii.  29, 
 (compare  also  Alt.  liii.  68),  attempts  to  obviate  this  contradic 
 tion  in  the  following  manner,    De  quihus,  Num.  xx.    14-21, 
 agitur  Idumaei   ni-s    diversi  sunt   ah  Us  qui   hie  memoran^ 
 tU7'  Jiliis   Esavi  qui   in    Seire    habitant >      Hi    igitur 
 Esavitae,  qui  montani  in  australihus  Palaestinae  Jinihus  ho- 
 die  ^kU..^  dicta  tenehant.     Isi-aelitis  transitmn  coneesserunti 
 But  this  solution  is  quite  inadmissible.     In  Gen.  xxxvi.  31,  there 
 is  not  the  slightest  intimation  that  the  kings  ruled  only  over  a 
 part  of  Idumaea ;  the  Edomites  and  the  sons  of  Esau  are  every- 
 where the  same.     But  the  contradiction  vanishes  as  soon  as  the 
 difference  of  time  and  place  is  taken  into  account,  and  those  illus- 
 trations of  the  localities  are  applied  which  modern  travellers  have 
 furnished.     Leake  remarks,  in  his  preface  to  Burkhardt's  Tra- 
 vels, i.  p.  23   (German  translation),  '*  The  aforesaid  people  who 
 opposed  with  success  the  advance  of  the  Israelites  through  their 
 strongly  fortified  western  boundaiy  with  success,  were  now  alarmed 
 when  they  saw  that  they  took  a  ckcuit  and  had  reached  the  un- 
 protected boundaiy  of  the  land."     They  now  therefore  made  a  vir- 
 tue of  necessity,  and  tried  to  turn  it  to  their  advantage,  by  the 
 sale  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  "in  the  same  manner  as  now  the 
 caravans  of  Mecca  on  their  pilgrimages  are  supplied  by  the^inha- 
 
232  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 bitants  of  tlie  moimtains."  Von  Eaumer  {Zk//  cler  Israeliten 
 durch  die  Wiiste.  Leipz.  1837.  p.  44,  45)  says,  ''Some  hours 
 from  Akabali  and  from  the  ancient  Ezeon  Geber,  a  valley,  Getum, 
 (of  which  Laborde  gives  the  first  certain  account)  opens  into 
 the  Wady  Araba.  In  this  valley  the  caravans  go  up  by  Ameime, 
 and  so  on  to  Maan,  and  thus  come  to  the  great  desert  of  Arabia 
 Deserta,  which,  as  we  have  mentioned,  lies  100  feet  higher  than 
 the  valley  El  Tih.  Though  the  Edomite  mountains  fall  with  a 
 precipitous  deep  descent  westward  towards  Ghor  and  Wady  Araba, 
 yet  on  the  eastern  side  they  were  but  httle  above  the  Arabian  de- 
 sert. The  Edomites  might  confidently  meet  in  arms  any  attack 
 of  the  Israelites  from  Ghor  ;  but  when  they  saw  the  host  of  Is- 
 rael, after  going  round  the  mountains  of  Seir  to  the  east,  on  the 
 weakest  side  of  their  mountainous  frontier,  their  courage  failed 
 them,  and  they  gladly  sold  them  food  and  water."  In  this  man- 
 ner the  apparent  contradiction  is  completely  obviated.  We  only 
 remark  further,  that  the  first  refusal  of  the  Edomites  is  mentioned 
 in  Judges  xi.  IG,  &c.,  and  would  point  out  that  in  Deuteronomy 
 it  is  by  no  means  stated  that  the  Edomites  granted  the  Israelites 
 a  thoroughfare  freely  and  kindly.  It  is  on  the  contrary  said  in 
 so  many  words,  "  Ye  are  to  pass  through  the  coast  of  your  breth- 
 ren the  children  of  Esau,  which  dwell  in  Seir,  and  they  shall  he 
 afraid  of  ijou,"  Deut.  ii.  4.  Had  the  Israelites  obtained  the 
 pennission  they  asked  for,  they  would  have  marched  through  the 
 land  of  the  Edomites,  probably  through  the  Wady  Ghoeyr,  the 
 only  one  of  the  two  narrow  Wadys  which  intersect  the  Edomitish 
 mountains  from  west  to  east,  which  affords  a  thoroughfare  suited 
 for  a  large  multitude.  (See  Leake  as  above.)  Afterwards  thev 
 passed  without  entering  through  the  eastern  border.  They  did 
 not  enter  the  main  part  of  the  country.  Indirectly  the  account  of 
 Num.  XX.  is  contained  also  in  Deut.  i.  Why,  according  to  this 
 passage,  did  the  Israelites  go  round  Mount  Seir — a  longer  and 
 more  difficult  route,  if  the  Edomites  had  not  refused  to  grant  a 
 thoroughfare  ?  The  way  which  the  Israelites  took  is  exactly  the 
 same  both  according  to  Numbers  and  Deuteronomy. 
 
 (ii.)  It  is  urged,  that  in  Numbers  no  intimation  is  given  that 
 the  Ammonites  and  Moabites  refused  the  Israehtes  a  thorough- 
 fare. But  in  Deuteronomy  there  is  as  little  of  anything  of  this  sort. 
 The  way  of  the  Israelites  lay  not  through  the  Ammonitish  terri- 
 
EDOM.  233 
 
 tory.  That  the  king  of  Moab  actually  refused  to  grant  a  thorough- 
 fare, we  see  from  Judges  xi.,  according  to  which,  the  Israelites 
 sent  messengers  from  Kadesh,  both  to  the  king  of  Edom  and  the 
 king  of  Moah.  The  refusal  of  the  latter  was  of  no  consequence, 
 and  the  whole  embassy  might  have  been  passed  over  in  silence. 
 For  if  the  Israehtes  could  not  pass  through  the  land  of  Edom, 
 the  permission  of  the  Moabites  would  have  been  of  no  service. 
 It  was  only  eventualiter  that  it  was  sought  for.  The  transaction 
 first  comes  to  hght  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  where,  owing  to  cir- 
 cumstances, it  obtains  an  importance  which  otheiivise  would  not 
 belong  to  it. 
 
 (iii.)  In  Deut.  ii.  29,  we  are  told,  it  is  narrated  that  the  Edomites 
 and  Moabites  supplied  the  Israehtes  with  bread  and  water ;  and  in 
 Deut.  xxiii.,  that  the  Ammonites  and  Moabites  refused  to  grant 
 them  either.    But  the  apparent  contradiction  is  resolved  into  har- 
 mony, when  we  look  at  the  two  passages  more  closely.     In  Deut. 
 ii.  27,  it  is  said  in  the  embassy  to  Sihon,  king  of  Heshbon,  ''  Let 
 me  pass  through  thy  land ;  I  will  go  along  by  the  highway ;  I 
 will  neither  turn  to  the  right  hand  nor  unto  the  left.    Thou  shalt 
 sell  me  meat  for  7noney,  that  I  may  eat;  and  give  me  water  for 
 money,  that  I  may  drink,  .   .   .  As  the  children  of  Esau,  which 
 dwelt  in  Seir,  and  the  Moabites,  which  dwelt  in  Ar,  did  unto  me:' 
 In  Deut.  xxiii.  5,  (4)  it  is  said,  "  Because  they  met  you  not  'I'anp-s? 
 ^=?.^?  vdth  bread  and  water  in  the  way,  when  ye  came  forth  out 
 of  Egypt,  and  because  they  hired  against  thee  Balaam  the  son  of 
 Beor  of  Pethor,  in  Aram  Naharaim,  to  curse  thee."     Only  let  its 
 proper  force  be  allowed  to  i)3-p,  and  all  will  be  right.     The  pur- 
 chase of  food  and  water  for  money,  is  so  far  from  being  inconsis- 
 tent with  not  heing  met  ivith  bread  and  water,  that  it  rather 
 involves  it.    The  Israelites  desired  from  the  tribes  with  whom  they 
 were  connected  by  tlie  bond  of  a  common   descent,  the  same 
 kindly  recognition  of  their  affinity  which  they  showed  themselves. 
 This  recognition  would,  agreeably  to  the  spirit  of  antiquity,  of 
 which  we  have  an  example  in  the  conduct  of  IMelchizedek,  who 
 brought  out  bread  and  wdne  to  Abraham,  have  shewn  itself  by  a 
 hospitable  entertainment  of  the  huugi7  ^^^^l   thirsty.     But  the 
 opportunity  of  evincing  love  was  perverted  into  an  occasion  of 
 gTatifjung  selfishness,  and  thus  even  water  was  made  an  article 
 of  traffic.     Isaiah's  prophecy  against  the  tribes  of  Arabia,  in  ch. 
 
284  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 xxi.  13-17,  very  much  elucidates  this  subject,  especially  as  the 
 expression  '^v??  °^i^.  occurs  in  ver.  14. 
 
 The  inliabitants  of  tlie  land  of  Tema 
 
 Broiiglit  water  to  him  that  was  thii-sty, 
 
 They  prevented  with  tlieir  bread  him  that  fled. 
 
 Isaiali  probably  had  Deut.  xxiii.  5  in  his  eye.  Gesenius  re- 
 marks on  the  passage,  *'  The  merchant  caravans  of  the  Dedan- 
 ites,  hitherto  undistiu:bed  on  their  peaceful  journeys,  were  obliged 
 to  hide  themselves  in  the  woods  from  their  enemies,  and  the  other 
 kindred  tribes  brought  the  fugitives  food  and  drink  for  their  re- 
 freshment," p.  670.  And  again,  "  This  friendly  tribe  receives 
 the  fugitives,  as  Melchizedek  formerly  received  the  victorious 
 Abraham  ;  we  may  contrast  with  this  the  hostile  conduct  of  the 
 Edomites  and  Ammonites,  &c.,  who  refused  the  Israehtes  tliis 
 duty  of  humanity."  But  would  the  Temaites  have  ftilfilled  their 
 duty,  would  they  not  rather  have  violated  it,  if  they  had  sold  bread 
 and  water  to  tlieir  unfortunate  brethren  ? 
 
 (iv.)  According  to  Deut.  ii.,  the  Edomites,  not  less  than  the 
 Moabites,  violated  the  claims  of  hospitality  towards  the  Israehtes. 
 How  comes  it  to  pass,  that  the  same  reproach  is  not  cast  upou 
 them  in  Deut.  xxiii.  ?  The  answer  is  as  follows.  That  the  same 
 guilt  is  not  charged  on  the  Edomites  in  ver.  8,  9,  is  explained  by 
 the  circumstance  that  theirs  was  only  the  smaller  offence,  which 
 acquired  importance  first  in  connection  with  the  gTcater,  (which 
 was  not  chargeable  on  the  Edomites),  that  of  hiring  Balaam  to 
 curse  Israel.  In  itself  alone  it  was  not  fitted  to  break  the  bonds 
 of  relationship.  Let  it  not  be  objected,  that  their  bonds  were 
 declared  to  be  broken  in  reference  to  the  Ammonites,  who  had  only 
 taken  a  part  in  the  smaller  sin  of  omission,  and  not  in  the  greater 
 of  commission.  We  cannot,  with  Le  Clerc  and  others,  refer 
 the  ^^'i,  in  Deut.  xxiii.,  to  the  Moabites  alone,  so  that  only  the 
 first  offence  should  be  charged  to  the  Ammonites  with  them.  As 
 in  Judges  xi.,  where  the  Ammonites  themselves  consider  the 
 cause  of  the  Moabites  without  reservation  as  their  own,  so  here 
 the  two  nations  are  considered  as  one,  as  the  descendants  of  Lot, 
 and  percisely  on  account  of  this  inseparable  connection,  is  the  sin- 
 gular ^5':;  used.  If  the  unkindness  which  the  Israelites  suffered  from 
 the  Edomites  was  not  enough  to  break  the  bond  of  kindred  love, 
 
EDOM.  235 
 
 then  it  was  not  likely  to  be  mentioned  in  this  connection,  when  it 
 was  of  importance  to  awaken  the  feehng  of  love.  If  conclusions 
 are  to  he  drawn  from  mere  silence,  then  it  may  he  inferred  that 
 the  author  knew  nothing  of  all  that  the  Egyptians  had  done  to 
 Israel :  for  to  them,  as  well  as  to  the  Edomite,  is  the  right  given 
 of  admission  into  the  congregation  of  the  Lord,  ver.  8,  9. 
 
 After  thus  disposing  of  the  contradictions,  we  now  turn  to  the 
 alleged  traces  of  a  later  age.  These  may  he  classified  under 
 the  two  heads  of  historical  and  prophetical  anachronisms.  We 
 begin  with  the  former.  They  are  to  be  found  in  the  genealogy 
 of  the  Edomites,  in  Gen.  xxxvi. 
 
 I.  We  begin  with  the  grossest  of  all.  The  fourth  Edomite 
 king,  says  Von  Bohlen  (p.  342),  was  a  contemporary  of 
 Solomon,  1  Kings  xi.  14,  and  since  the  historian  is  acquainted 
 with  several  family  details  of  Hodai  as  the  last,  without,  at  the 
 same  time,  informing  us  of  his  death,  it  is  natural  to  suppose 
 that  he  was  a  contemporary,  or  that  this  account  came  down 
 from  that  time.  By  this  argumentation  it  is  assumed  as  cer- 
 tain that  the  Hadad  of  Genesis  (compare  xxxvi.  35,  ''  And 
 Husham  died,  and  Hadad,  the  son  of  Bedad  (w^ho  smote  Midian 
 in  the  field  of  Moab),  reigned  in  his  stead ;  and  the  name  of  his 
 city  was  Avith  ")  was  the  contemporary  of  Solomon.  But  the 
 following  reasons  lead  to  a  difierent  decision — (i.)  The  Hadad  of 
 Solomon  was  a  king's  son,  but  the  Hadad  of  Genesis  was  not, 
 for  his  j^redecessor  was  Husham,  and  he  was  the  son  of  Bedad  ; 
 besides,  he  was  of  a  difierent  city  from  his  predecessor ;  not  one 
 of  the  eight  Edomitish  kings,  w^iose  names  are  given  in  ch. 
 xxxvi.,  was  the  son  of  liis  predecessor.  (ii.)  The  Hadad  of 
 Genesis  was  a  king;  the  Hadad  of  Solomon  merely  an  aspirant 
 to  a  crown.  For  that  his  enterprise  was  unsuccessful,  that  he 
 was  only  a  thom  in  Solomon's  side,  is  evident  from  the  silence 
 of  the  author  of  the  Books  of  Kings,  who,  agreeably  to  his  ob- 
 ject— to  shew  how  Solomon  w^as  punished  for  his  sins — would 
 necessarily  have  mentioned  the  success  of  Hadad's  attempt,  had 
 it  occurred ;  of  Rezon  it  is  expressly  said,  that  he  was  king  over 
 Syria.  The  difi'erence  between  him  and  Hadad,  in  tliis  respect, 
 is  distinctly  shown  in  ver.  25.  Moreover  we  find  the  Edomites, 
 at  a  considerable  later  period,  the  vassals  of  Judah. 
 
 (iii.)   It  is  said  of  the  Mosaic  Hadad,  that  he  smote  the  Mi- 
 
236  ANACHRONISMS  OF  Tills  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 dianites  in  the  field  of  Moab.  But  the  Midiauites,  after  Gideon's 
 time,  vanish  from  history.  That  the  event  could  be  at  no  very 
 great  distance  fi'om  the  Mosaic  age,  appears  from  Num.  xxii., 
 where  we  meet  tlie  Mi  dianites  as  aUies  of  the  Moabites,  who  lived 
 in  their  neighbourhood.  The  booty  taken  from  the  Midianites 
 was  brought  together  on  the  plains  of  Moab,  according  to  Num. 
 xxxi.  11,  12.  How,  too,  can  it  be  supposed,  that,  in  Solomon's 
 time,  the  country  of  Moab,  an  Israelitish  domain,  could  be  a  bat- 
 tle-field for  Midianites  and  Edomites  ?  not  to  say  that  it  is  very 
 improbable  that  the  Hadad  of  the  Books  of  Kings  would  seek  for 
 other  enemies  besides  Solomon,  and  make  war  on  Ms  natural  al- 
 lies. (This  notice  shows  that,  with  the  whole  line  of  kings, 
 we  cannot  venture  to  go  beyond  the  Mosaic  age.)  (iv.)  The 
 author  expressly  remarks,  that  all  the  kings  mentioned  by  him 
 had  reigned  over  Edom  before  Israel  had  any  kings.  How  then 
 could  the  fom'th  among  them  be  a  contemporary  of  Solomon  ? 
 (v.)  As  early  as  the  Mosaic  age,  there  w^ere  Edomite  kings, 
 Moses  sent  messengers  to  the  king  of  Edom ;  Num.  xx.  14.  The 
 kings  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  follow  one  another  in  an  unbroken  line  :  it 
 
 is  always  said  after  the  death  of  one  king,  "  and reigned  in 
 
 liis  stead."  How  then  can  the  fourth  king  be  brought  down  to 
 the  times  of  Solomon  ?  These  are  the  arguments  against  Von 
 Bohlen's  assertion  ;  while /br  it,  nothing  can  be  urged  beyond 
 the  identity  of  the  name — a  most  futile  ground,  for,  if  it  were  va- 
 lid, then  we  must  set  dow^n  the  three  Ben-hadads,  kings  of  Syria, 
 as  one  and  the  same  person.  Compare  on  the  most  usual  names, 
 Yperen,  Hist.  Edom.  et  Amalek.,  p.  69  ;  Gesenius,  Thes.  p. 
 218,  365. 
 
 II.  Not  to  separate  a  notable  pair  of  brothers,  let  us  here 
 take  in  hand  another  anachronism  debated  by  Yon  Bohlen. 
 At  the  close  of  the  genealogy,  he  maintains,  p.  343,  that  the 
 author,  with  self-satisfaction  that  Israel  had  conquered  such  a 
 people,  exclaims.  So  great  ivas  Edom  !  Therefore  the  genealogy 
 must  belong  to  the  times  of  David  !  But  it  is  Von  Bohlen  who 
 exclaims.  So  great  was  Edom!  the  writer  of  the  genealogy  says. 
 This  was  Esau  the  father  of  Edom.  ^'''f  ^?^.  ^^  ^''^  ;  and  the 
 ground  and  meaning  of  this  concluding  expression,  on  closer  in- 
 spection, may  be  obtained  with  certainty.  The  35th  chapter  ends 
 with  the  words,  "  And  Isaac  gave  uj)  the  ghost  and  died,  and  was 
 
EDOM.  287 
 
 gathered  unto  his  people,  okl  and  full  of  days ;  and  his  sons  Esau 
 and  Jacob  buried  him."  The  position  of  the  two  names  (Esau's 
 first),  points  to  the  arrangement  of  the  narrative  that  follows. 
 Tt  begins  with  Esau.  "  Now  these  are  the  generations  of  Esau, 
 who  is  Edoni,"  Gen.  xxxvi.  1.  That  the  writer  has  done  with 
 him,  and  intends  now  to  go  on  to  Jacob,  is  what  is  meant  by 
 "  This  is  Esau,  the  father  ofEdom."  Then  follows  in  ch.  xxxvii. 
 1,  2,  '' And  Jacoh  dwelt  in  the  la7id  wherein  his  father  was 
 a  stranger,  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  These  are  the  generations 
 of  Jacob."  "  These  are  that  Moses  and  Aaron,"  in  Exod.  vii. 
 is  a  perfectly  analogous  expression.  Seb.  Schmid  de  Paschate, 
 p.  102,  has  pointed  out  similar  comprehensive  and  concluding  ex- 
 pressions in  the  doctrinal  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.  Compare 
 for  instance  Lev.  iv.  21.  ''  This  is  the  sin-offering  for  the 
 congregation"  ^^^^  ^v^^!  s^Nt:rt  =  xhus  far  relates  to  the  sin-offer  ■ 
 ing  for  the  congregation.  It  follows  immediately— '^  when  ^<5 
 Ruler  Imih.  sinned,"  (Lev.  i.  9,  L3 ;  ii.  6,  15). 
 
 III.  At  the  first  glance,  it  seems  as  if  the  transactions  nai'- 
 rated  in  Gen.  xxxvi.,  relating  to  the  history  of  the  Edomites, 
 could  not  find  a  place  in  the  interval  between  Esau  and  Moses. 
 We  shall  state  the  difficulty  that  exists  on  this  point,  in  the  words 
 of  Ch.  B.  Michaelis,  who  has  ably  endeavom^ed  to  remove  it. 
 {De  Antiquissima  Iduniaeorum  hist,  reprinted  in  Pott's  Sijlloge 
 §  17).     Altera  eaque  hand  duhie  major  difficultas  est,  quo- 
 modo  Moses  sua  aetate  in  texenda  historia  Idumaeicaprinio  in- 
 tegram  14,  Idumaeorum  duorini  consecutionem,  deinde  8  regum 
 sihi  invicem  succedentimn  ordinem,  turn  vero  rursus  11  duorum, 
 qui  rehus  Idum.  iwst  7'eges praefuerunt,  concatenatani  scrihere 
 potuerit  seriem.     We  begin  the  removal  of  this  difficulty  with  a 
 review  of  the  contents  of  Gen.  xxxvi.     In  ver.  1-8,  is  an  account 
 of  Esau's  family  during  their  residence  in  Canaan  and  their  settle- 
 ment.    In  ver.  9-14,  is  a  sketch  of  Esau's  family  in  the  land  of 
 Seir.     In  ver.  1 5-1 9,  are  the  names  of  the  tribes  of  the  Edomites, 
 which,  Hke  the  tribes  of  the  Israelites,  take  their  names  fi'om  the 
 nearest  decendants  of  Esau,  and  each  of  which  has  its  '^^^,  the 
 Alluph  of  the  tribe  Teman,  &c.     In  ver.  20-30,  is  the  genealogy 
 of  Seir  the  Horite.     In  ver.  31-39,  the  Edomitish  kings.     In 
 ver.   40-43,  the  localities  of  the  Edomitc  Phylarchs.     By  this 
 review,  wliich  agrees  in  the  main  with  that  of  Ewald,  Compos. 
 
238  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 der  Gen.  254,  (only  that  in  vcr.  40-43,  he  thinks  that  overseers 
 are  intended,  whom  Esau  himself  placed  over  his  widely  extended 
 possessions) — the  chief  difficulties  are  at  once  removed.  The 
 fourteen  Alhq)him  who  are  named  before  the  kings  do  not  form 
 a  succession,  hut  ai'e  contemporaneous ;  and  after  the  kings,  no 
 new  line  of  Phylarchs  is  given,  but  the  localities  of  the  Phylarchs 
 who  were  before  named.  But  the  last  vestige  of  difficulty  van- 
 ishes, by  the  information  that  the  kingly  power  among  the  Edom- 
 ites  was  not  raised  on  the  ruins  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Phylarchs, 
 so  as  to  render  it  necessary  to  allow  for  the  latter  a  considerable 
 interval,  at  the  close  of  which  the  first  line  of  eight  kings  might 
 begin — but  both  existed  together.  The  Edomites  had  at  the 
 same  time  Phylarchs  and  Kings.  For  this  view  there  are  the 
 following  reasons,  (i.)  In  the  catalogue  of  the  kings,  it  is  always 
 said,  N.  N.  "  died,"  and  N.  N.  "  ruled  in  his  stead."  Such 
 phraseology  forbids  the  notion  of  revolutions  effected  by  force. 
 A  violent  death  would  in  any  case  be  differently  spoken  of.  How 
 did  it  happen  that  in  all  cases  the  kings  terminated  their  hves  at 
 the  same  time  as  their  sovereignty  ?  Every  thing  indicates  an 
 elective  monarchy,  besides  the  circumstance,  that  we  do  not  find 
 a  king's  son  succeeding  to  the  throne.  But  in  an  elective  mon- 
 archy, there  must  needs  be,  besides  the  kingly,  another  estate  which 
 forms  its  foundation.  Thus  we  are  naturally  led  to  the  contem- 
 poraneous existence  of  c-'e-'ps  along  with  the  kings.  Among  the 
 Idumaeans  that  same  necessity  early  showed  itself,  which 
 among  the  Israelites  first  obtained  satisfaction  under  Samuel. 
 The  power  of  the  hereditary  chiefs  sought  support  in  the  institu- 
 tion of  a  common  superior,  who  might  watch  over  the  general 
 interests,  and  repair  the  mischiefs  which  arose  fi'om  splitting  the 
 nation  into  separate  tribes.  From  the  motive  of  self-preservation, 
 they  were  impelled  never  to  chuse  a  son  in  his  father's  stead,  (ii.) 
 On  account  of  ver.  40-43,  the  contemporaneousness  of  the  ts-^s^.Vs 
 and  the  kings  must  be  admitted.  For  what  purpose  is  the  fist  of 
 the  kings  followed  by  an  account  of  the  localities  of  the  tr^vh^,  if 
 they  had  been  pushed  off  the  stage  by  the  kings  ?  In  that  case  this 
 account  must  have  stood  before  the  list  of  the  kings,  (iii.)  The  co- 
 existence of  Phylarchs  and  kings  during  the  journeyings  of  the 
 Israelites  through  the  desert  is  undeniable.  The  king  of  Edom  ap- 
 pears in  Num.  xx.  4,  the  chief  of  the  tribes  in  the  Song  of  Moses, 
 
EDOM.  239 
 
 Exod.  XV.  15,  where  it  is  said  that  "fear  and  dread  \YOuhl  fall 
 upon  them,"  when  they  heard  of  the  passage  of  Israel  through  the 
 Eed  Sea.  (iv.)  Even  Ezekiel  speaks  of  the  princes  of  Edom,  with 
 her  kings,  ch.  xxxii.  20,  v"?"'^'?.  That  he  did  not  use  the  term  a-^r.^s, 
 although  he  knew  the  thing  intended  by  it,  was  probably  not  ac- 
 cidental. That  this  title  was  no  longer  current  among  the  Edomites 
 appears  fi'om  Zech.  ix.  7,  xii.  5,  6,  where  the  title  originally  given  to 
 the  Edomite  chiefs  is  applied  to  the  chief  of  the  chosen  people. 
 {Christologie,  ii.  282.)  It  seems  that  such  a  change  could  not 
 have  taken  place  if  the  term  had  still  been  in  actual  use  among  a 
 neighbouring  people.  According  to  the  explanation  we  have  given, 
 the  difficulty  is  entirely  removed.  From  the  death  of  Jacob  (we 
 do  not  know  the  yeiu-  of  Esau's  death)  to  the  departure  from 
 Egypt  were  413  years ;  and  to  the  time  when  Moses  sent  an  em- 
 bassy to  the  eighth  king  of  Egypt,  who,  bych.  xxxvi.  39,  appears 
 to  be  still  alive,  435  years.  If  we  allow  200  years  for  eight  kings 
 in  succession,  or  strictly  for  seven,  as  the  eighth  was  still  hving 
 (which  is  certainly  a  liberal  computation,  especially  in  an  elective 
 monarchy),  there  yet  remains  time  enough  for  the  increase  of  a 
 family  into  a  nation,  while  we  must  not  forget  Esau's  four  hundred 
 men,  and  that  Jacob,  in  relation  to  Esau,  felt  as  an  inferior  to- 
 wards a  superior.  Compare  Gen.  xxxiii.  1,  &c.,  and  on  the  origi- 
 nal sole  government  of  the  Alhq)Jdm,  see  Michaelis,  Einlei- 
 tung,  i.  161. 
 
 If,  in  tliis  manner,  the  alleged  Historical  Anachronisms  are 
 fully  disposed  of,  we  shall  approach  the  Frophetical  ones  w^ith  a 
 ver}'  favourable  opinion  of  the  author.  For  since  no  one,  without 
 leaving  the  gi'ound  of  historical  criticism,  can  assume  that  the 
 passages  in  question  contained  no  prophecy,  he  must,  as  a  neces- 
 sary prehminary,  shew  that  the  author  elsewhere,  even  in  ordinaiy 
 narrative,  evidently  views  things  from  the  position  of  a  later  age. 
 The  Prophetical  Anachronisms  are  the  following  : — 
 
 1.  In  Num.  xxiv.  17,  18,  in  the  Song  of  Balaam,  the  conquest 
 of  Edom  by  the  Israelites  is  spoken  of,  wliich  is  at  variance  with 
 other  representations  of  the  Pentateuch,  particularly  Deut  ii.  2-5, 
 wdiere  Israel  is  forbidden  to  make  w^ar  on  Edom.  Must  not  tliis 
 song,  at  least  in  its  present  form,  belong  to  the  time  of  David, 
 who  had  actually  conquered  Idumea  ?  Vater,  p.  037,  49G  ; 
 Hartman,  p.  720,  721  ;  Boiilen,  p.  205.     Let  us  first  remove 
 
;<J40  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 the  contradiction  which  serves  to  support  the  anachronism.  In 
 Deuteronomy  ch.  ii.  Israel  is  commanded  not  to  fight  against  the 
 Edomites;  in  Numbers  cli.  xxiv.,  it  \s>  prophesied  that  Israel  shall 
 one  day  conquer  Edom.  The  two  passages  are  easily  reconciled. 
 Israel  was  to  hold  sacred  the  bond  of  brotherhood ;  but  if  ever 
 Edom,  which  liitherto  he  had  not  done,  should  wantonly  break  it 
 asunder,  then  in  the  conflict  that  would  ensue,  the  name  of  Israel 
 would  preserve  its  meaning.  Israel  is  not  to  attack,  but  when 
 attacked  will  be  the  victor.  How  little  the  prohibition  of  war  with 
 Edom  was  absolute — which  would  have  been  quite  absurd — the 
 proceedings  against  Amalek  sufficiently  show.  Against  that  peo- 
 ple, though  the  descendants  of  Esau,  a  strenuous  opposition  was 
 made  when  they  w^ere  the  aggressors  ;  and  the  promise  of  what 
 would  one  day  happen  to  the  whole  of  Edom,  had  a  firm  founda- 
 tion in  what  had  already  in  part  happened  to  them  ;  at  the  same 
 time,  Israel  was  authorised  to  make  war  upon  them  in  the  future, 
 and  the  promise  of  victory  over  them,  a  promise  which,  in  its  in- 
 tention, applied  to  the  rest  of  the  Edomites,  took  effect  in  reference 
 to  them  as  soon  as  they  practically  evinced  their  hatred  to  Israel 
 in  the  same  manner.  If  we  now  view  the  pretended  anachronism 
 deprived  of  this  support,  we  do  not  see  how  any  one  can  maintain 
 that  Num.  xxvi.  1 8 — 
 
 "  And  Edom  shall  be  a  possession, 
 Seir  also  shall  be  a  possession  for  her  enemies" — 
 
 was  not  uttered  before  David's  time,  without  also  maintaining  that 
 Obadiah,  ver.  17,  18, 
 
 "  But  upon  Mount  Zion  shall  be  deliverance, 
 And  there  shall  be  holiness, 
 
 And  the  house  of  Jacob  shall  possess  theii-  possessions. 
 And  the  house  of  Jacob  shall  be  a  fire, 
 And  the  house  of  Joseph  a  flame, 
 And  the  house  of  Esau  for  stubble, 
 And  they  shall  kindle  in  them,  and  devour  them, 
 And  there  shall  not  be  any  remaining  of  the  house  of  Esau." 
 
 was  not  composed  before  the  times  of  John  Hyrcanus.  It  is  flag- 
 rantly inconsequential,  when  particular  passages  are  so  treated  ; 
 and  when,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  attempted  to  explain  away,  with 
 EiCHHORN,  all  predictions  as  veiled  liistorical  delineations.  This 
 consequence  can  only  be  avoided  if  the  idea  here  expressed  in  in- 
 
EDOM.  2  1  I 
 
 dividual  distinctness,  if  the  special  circumstances  of  the  contpiest 
 of  Edom  were  sketched  in  agreement  with  the  later  history.  Pnit 
 this  is  hy  no  means  the  case.  The  announcement  in  ver.  17-21, 
 is  nothing  but  an  application  of  the  idea  of  the  election  of  Israel, 
 in  wliich  its  wdiole  dignity  consisted,  to  existing  relations.  The 
 victory  of  God's  people  over  the  world  is  the  fundamental  thought. 
 The  nations  who  here  represent  the  world,  the  Moabites,  the 
 Edomites,  the  Amalekites,  the  Canaanites  (as  whose  representa- 
 tives the  Kenites,  who  dwelt  the  nearest,  appear),  had  already  suf- 
 ficiently manifested  their  hostile  disposition  against  Israel.  A  er. 
 1 7  refers  not  to  any  individual  king,  but  to  the  supreme  power 
 which  arose  in  Israel — the  regal  government,  to  which  tlie  devel- 
 opment of  Israel  tended  from  the  beginning  of  its  existence  as  a 
 nation.  But  the  idea  lying  at  the  basis  so  completely  pervades 
 the  Pentateuch,  that  it  can  be  denied  to  belong  to  the  Mosaic 
 age  only  by  destroying  every  historical  foundation.  What  indeed 
 would  be  left,  if  the  idea  of  God's  covenant  with  Israel,  its  elec- 
 tion, its  exaltation  over  the  world,  belonged  only  to  a  later  age  ? 
 Moreover,  exactly  that  point  in  Balaam's  prophecies,  which  at 
 least  is  a  simple  deduction  from  the  idea  of  Israel's  election,  which 
 even  the  boldest  criticism  cannot  refuse  to  the  Mosaic  age — the 
 announcement  expressed  in  ver.  24,  that  at  a  future  day  the  West 
 should  be  victorious  over  the  East,  lies  beyond  the  historical  ho- 
 rizon of  the  author,  however  late  his  age  may  be  placed.  If  any 
 one,  on  account  of  ver.  17,  18,  would  fix  the  date  of  the  Penta- 
 teuch later  than  David,  then  much  more  on  account  of  ver.  24,  he 
 must  place  it  lower  than  the  times  of  Alexander,  through  whom 
 the  anticipations  there  expressed  began  to  be  fulfilled.  Generally 
 the  most  remarkable  predictions  of  the  Pentateuch  (such  as,  be- 
 sides the  one  now  before  us,  that  of  all  the  nations  of  the  cartli 
 being  blessed  in  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  that  of  Shi  1  oh)  are 
 exactly  those  of  which  a  more  natural  explanation  could  not  be 
 given,  even  if  the  later  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  were  main 
 tained. 
 
 II.  The  declaration  that  Esau  would  one  day  throw  off  his 
 brother's  yoke  in  Gen.  xxvii.  10,  could  not  have  been  made  before 
 Joram,  in  whose  reign  the  Edomites  regained  their  freedom  ;  com- 
 pare Gesenius  on  Isaiah  xxxiv.  p.  905;  Schumann  on  Genesis  ; 
 BoHLEN;  205,  and  others.     The  point  of  the  first  importance  here 
 
 VOL.  ir.  Q 
 
242  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  I'ENTATEUCH. 
 
 is  to  dotermiDe  the  sense  of  the  passage.     This  depends  on  the 
 meaning  of  the  verb  -^n,  "  And  hy  the  sword  thou  shalt  hve,  and 
 shalt  serve  thy  brother;  and  it  shall  come  to  pass  '''>!?  ^''J*??  thou 
 shalt  break  his  yoke."     We  translate  '^T  "$^?,  "  Even  as  thou 
 shalt  shake,"  since  we  appeal  to  the  Arabic  nst/s  loquendi,  in 
 which  ^J     =  ■:",-i  is  used,   de   motu  recij))'ocato,  quo  quid  hue 
 illuc  agitatur  nltro  citroqiie  mo ta  fait  res.     The  phrase  is  fre- 
 quent      ^^$^\  ^V   ^'^^^^0  citroque  ar/itatus  est  ramus,   quando 
 vento  hue  illue  imjiellitur.     Compare  Schroder  Ohss.  seleetae 
 ad  origines  Hehr.  p.  1,  kc.     In  Hebrew,  Kal  occurs  in  the  sense 
 oimovi)}g  itself,  moving  about,  Jerem.  ii,  31  ;  Hos.  xii.  1  (xi. 
 12).     Schroder  translates  Gen.  xxvii.  40,  following  the  same 
 meaning  p.  %,  jiet  autem  i^'out  hue  vel  illuc  vagari  amas,  ut 
 abriimjjas  jugum  ejus  de  eollo  tuo.     But  Hiphil  is  thus  taken 
 improperly  in  the  sense  of  Kal.     We  take  T^^h  transitively,  and 
 refer  it  to  the  yoke.     Also  in  Ps.  Iv.  3,  Hiphil  must  be  tat  en 
 transitively,  to  cause  to  move  about  =  to  give  the  thoughts  free 
 course.     It  is  hardly  to  be  conceived  how,  after  the  rational  treat- 
 ment of  the  root,  such  as  is  found  in  Schroder,  in  the  present 
 day  such  crude  empiricisms  could  again  be  practised  upon  it. 
 Most  modern  expositors,  appealing  to  the  Arabic,  give  to  n^,^  the 
 sense  of  desiring,  wishing.     Only  Lette   (in  the  8ymb.  Brem. 
 iii.  576),  has  pointed  out  that  this  meaning,  of  which  in  the  He- 
 brew no  trace  is  found,  is  merely  a  secondary  one  in  Arabic,  which 
 is  still  more  clearly  shown  by  Schroder.     Having  settled  the 
 meaning,  it  remains  for  us  to  make  it  appear  that  here  also  the 
 announcement  of  the  fature  had  a  basis  in  the  present.     That  the 
 Idumeans  would  make  the  attempt  to  regain  their  independence, 
 might  be  foreseen  without  any  special  illumination.     Josephus, 
 (Bell.  Jud.  iv.  14)  describes  the  Idumeans  as  Oopv/Sc^Se^;  KoXaraK- 
 Tov  eOvo^,  aei  re  fjuerecopov  7rpo<;  ra  Kovrjfiara  kol  fieTa^oXah 
 Xalpov,  and  this  character  of  the  nation,  which  the  author  of  the 
 Pentateuch  already  had  before  his  eyes,  is  only  a  reflection  of  the 
 character  of  their  forefathers.      (Compare,  on  the  internal  connec- 
 tion of  national  character  with  the  individuality  of  the  founders, 
 Mohler's  excellent  remarks,  Sgmbolik.  p.  3G2,  4th  ed.)     But  as 
 the  attempt,  so  likewise  its  attainment,  has  a  natural  basis.     The 
 presentiment  of  it  is  the  result  of  an  insight  into  the  covenant  na- 
 ture of  God's  relation  to  Israel, — (the  dependance  of  the  promises 
 
EDOM.  21  P> 
 
 on  the  faithfulness  of  the  covenant),  and  into  the  character  of  Is- 
 rael. That  the  backsliding  of  Israel  formed  the  foundation  of  the 
 necessity  of  Edom's  undertaking  was  perceived  by  Onkelos,  who 
 paraphrases  the  passage,  et  erit  cum  transr/ressi fuerint  Jllii  eji/s 
 verba  legis.  Who  will  deny  that  the  idea  which  here  is  only  ex- 
 pressed in  individual  application,  is  as  old  as  Israel  itself?  In 
 the  Pentateuch  it  occurs  in  numerous  passages,  as  for  instance 
 Lev.  xxvi.  3,  7,  and  follovdng  verses,  "  If  ye  walk  in  my  statutes, 
 .  ye  shall  chase  your  enemies,  and  they  shall  fall  before 
 you  by  the  sword,      .     .     but  if  ye  will  not  hearken  unto  me, 
 
 .  I  will  set  my  face  against  you,  and  ye  shall  be  slain  before 
 your  enemies ;  they  that  hate  you  shall  reign  over  you,  and  ye 
 shall  flee  when  none  pursueth  you,"  Deut.  xxviii.  1,  &c.  Balaam 
 was  quite  aware  that  the  only,  but  also  absolutely  certain  method 
 to  reverse  the  relation  of  Israel  to  the  heathen,  was  this,  to  seduce 
 Israel  into  apostacy  from  the  Lord,  and  this  means  he  employed 
 with  success.  That  the  history  corresponded  to  the  pre-announce- 
 ment,  is  here,  as  elsewdiere,  a  simple  consequence  of  the  fact,  that 
 Moses  and  even  the  Patriarchs  had  made  themselves  masters  of 
 the  leading  principles  of  the  history. 
 
 III.  The  announcement  of  the  dependence  of  the  Edomites  on 
 the  Israelites  in  Gen.  xxv.  23,  has  also  been  treated  as  an  ana- 
 chronism. But  this  assertion  is  refuted  by  what  has  been  already 
 remarked. 
 
 We  now  pass  on,  after  fully  disposing  of  the  apparent  argu- 
 ments against  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  which  have  been 
 drawn  from  its  notices  respecting  Edom,  which,  in  case  it  had 
 been  spurious,  would  certainly  not  have  been  possible — to  the 
 positive  arguments  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch. 
 
 First,  The  position  which  the  Pentateucli^  assigns  to  the  Is- 
 raelites in  relation  to  the  Edomites,  forms  a  striking  contrast  to 
 the  relation  actually  existing  and  alloAved  by  all  the  prophets,  of 
 Israel  to  Edom  in  later  times.  Two  passages  are  here  deser\ing 
 of  special  notice.  Deut.  ii.  4-6,  "  And  command  thou  the  peo- 
 ple saying.  Ye  are  to  pass  through  the  coast  of  your  brethren  the 
 children  of  Esau,  which  dwell  in  8eir,  and  they  shall  be  afraid  of 
 you ;  take  ye  good  heed  unto  yourselves,  therefore.  Meddle  not 
 with  them,  for  I  will  not  give  you  of  their  land,  no,  not  so  much 
 as  a  foot  breadth,  because  I  have  given  Mount  Seir  unto  Esau 
 
 q2 
 
244  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 for  a  possession.  Ye  shall  buy  meat  of  them  for  money,  that  ye 
 may  eat,  and  ye  shall  also  buy  water  of  them  for  money,  that  ye 
 may-  drink."  Also  Deut.  xxiii.  8,  9  (7,  8),  ''Thou  shalt  not 
 abhor  an  Edomite,  for  he  is  thy  brother  ;  thou  shalt  not  abhor  an 
 Egyptian,  because  thou  wast  a  stranger  in  his  land.  The  child- 
 ren that  are  begotten  of  them,  shall  enter  into  the  congregation 
 of  the  Lord  in  their  third  generation."  It  had  been  said  just 
 before  in  ver.  4-7  (3-6),  "  An  Ammonite  or  Moabite  shall  not 
 enter  into  the  congregation  of  the  Lord ;  even  to  their  tenth 
 generation  shall  they  not  enter  into  the  congregation  of  the  Lord 
 for  ever :  Because  they  met  you  not  with  bread  and  with  water 
 in  the  way,  when  ye  came  forth  out  of  Egypt,  and  because  they 
 hired  against  thee  Balaam  ...  to  curse  thee.  .  .  Thou 
 shalt  not  seek  their  peace  nor  their  prosperity  all  thy  days  for 
 ever."  In  how  totally  a  different  tone  are  the  expressions  of  the 
 prophets  in  reference  to  the  Edomites  !  Compare,  for  instance, 
 Amos  i.  11,  12. 
 
 Thus  saith  tbe  Lord, 
 
 For  three  trausgi-essions  of  Edom, 
 
 And  for  four,  I  will  not  turn  away  the  punishment  thereof; 
 
 Because  he  did  pursue  his  brother  with  the  sword, 
 
 And  did  cast  off  all  pity. 
 
 And  his  auger  did  tear  perpetually, 
 
 And  he  kept  his  wrath  for  ever ; 
 
 But  I  will  send  a  fire  upon  Teman, 
 
 Which  shall  devour  the  palaces  of  Bozrah, 
 
 Here  the  Edomites  are  not  merely  reduced  to  the  same  level  as 
 the  Moabites  and  Ammonites  (whose  later  outrages  almost  cast  into 
 the  shade  their  comparatively  lighter  guilt  of  former  times),  but  even 
 placed  below  them,  and  so  in  all  the  prophets.  Edom  is  regarded 
 by  them  as  the  sticictly  hereditary  enemy,  Israel's  enemy  Kar 
 e^oyrjv,  for  which  reason  Edom  is  employed  by  them  as  a  type  of 
 the  enemies  of  the  Idngdom  of  God  in  general ;  compare  Isaiah 
 Ixiii.  This  difference  can  be  explained  on  no  other  principle  than 
 that,  between  the  date  of  the  Pentateuch  and  that  of  the  remaining 
 Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  a  series  of  historical  developments 
 had  intervened,  by  which  Israels  position  towards  Edom  had  been 
 essentially  altered. 
 
 Secondly,  The  regal  government  of  Edom,  as  described  in  the 
 Pentateuch,  was  elective.     So  far  from  the  existence  of  a  regal 
 
EDOM.  245 
 
 race,  even  foreigners  were  called  to  the  throne.  But  in  later  times 
 the  kingdom  among  the  Edomites  was  hereditary.  We  learn  this 
 from  1  Kings  xi.  14,  '"  And  the  Lord  raised  up  an  adversary  to 
 Solomon,  Hadad  the  Edomite  ;  he  ivas  of  the  lungs  seed  in 
 Edojn."  ^'^'^^^.  ^^^  ^'^V  s^^'Jf .  As  Solomon's  contemporary,  Hadad, 
 was  of  the  royal  race,  the  alteration  from  an  elective  to  a  heredi- 
 tary monai'chy  must  have  taken  place  some  time  before.  But  the 
 accounts  of  the  Pentateuch  necessarily  belong  to  an  age  in  which 
 the  alteration  had  not  yet  taken  place.  In  the  Edomitish  state, 
 as  it  is  represented  in  the  Pentateuch,  no  heir,  nor  pretender  to 
 the  throne,  could  appear. 
 
 Thirdlf/,  According  to  an  express  statement  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  31, 
 all  the  eight  kings  reigned  at  a  time  when  Israel  had,  as  yet,  no 
 king.  We  do  not  see  what  could  induce  a  later  writer  not  to  con- 
 tinue any  farther  the  line  of  Edomitish  kings.  The  perplexity 
 into  which  the  opponents  of  the  genuineness  are  thrown  by  this 
 circumstance,  may  be  perceived  in  Von  Bohlen's  assertion  (p. 
 ^341),  that  the  notice  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  31,  by  no  means  conveys  the 
 idea  that  eight  kings  had  ruled  in  succession  before  the  establish- 
 ment of  the  regal  power  in  Israel.  Yet  this  is  just  what  is  assert- 
 ed in  the  clearest  and  most  express  terms. 
 
 Fourthly,  It  is  very  evident  that  the  eighth  Edomitish  king 
 was  a  contemporary  of  the  author.  Michaelis  has  remarked  on 
 this  point  (p.  254),  Hadarem  qui  octo  illorum  Idumeae  reyum 
 postremus  fuit,  eo  temj)ore  quo  Moses  Fentateuchum  suum  ah- 
 solvity  adhuc  vexisse,  turn  ex  eo  cognoscitur,  quod  Moses  quad 
 ragesimo  post  exitum  ex  Aegypto  anno  legatos  ad  rcgem  quen- 
 dam  Idumeae  misit,  tum  ex  hoc  quod  antecedentiuni  quidem  re' 
 gum  omnium  commemoravit  mortem,  de  ultimi  vero  hujus  regis 
 morte  silet,  quamproin  scrihente  Mose  nondum  evenisse  oportet^ 
 Though  liis  death  is  not  mentioned  (in  Chronicles  it  is  added 
 "and  he  died'),  there  is  mention  of  his  wife,  and  of  her  father 
 and  grandfather,  ''  And  Baalhanan,  the  son  of  Achbor,  died,  and 
 Hadar  reigned  in  his  stead ;  and  the  name  of  his  city  was  Pai, 
 and  his  wife's  name  was  Mehetabel,  the  daughter  of  Matred,  the 
 daughter  (grand- daughter)  of  Mezahab."  (This  explanation  is 
 the  only  correct  one ;  compare  ver.  2,  and  Beck  on  the  Targum. 
 1  Chron.  i.  50.)  No  other  satisfactory  explanation  besides  the 
 contemporaneousness  of  the  author  can  be  given  for  this  exactness 
 
24 G  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 in  Stating  the  domestic  relations  of  the  last  king.  Now,  if  we 
 admit  Moses  to  be  the  author,  the  eighth  king  might  reasonably 
 have  been  his  contemporary,  as  we  have  already  shown.  On  the 
 contrary,  the  admission  of  a  later  authorship  only  involves  us  in 
 inextricable  difficulties.  That  in  the  Mosaic  age  the  regal  govern- 
 ment was  founded  among  the  Edomites,  is  rendered  probable  from 
 the  analogy  of  the  surrounding  nations.  Already  in  this  age  we 
 find  kings  among  the  Midianites,  Num.  xxxi.  8  ;  the  Moabites, 
 Num.  xxi.  26 ;  xxii.  4  ;  and  even  among  a  tribe  of  Edomitish 
 origin,  the  Amalekites,  Num  xxiv.  7 ;  to  say  nothing  of  the 
 Egyptians  and  Canaanites.  In  addition,  there  is  the  express  state- 
 ment of  the  Pentateuch  in  Num.  xx.  14,  that  Moses  sent  messen- 
 gers to  the  long  of  Edom;  also  ver.  17,  where  the  great  Edom- 
 itish road  is  called  tlie  Idngs  hif/Juvay,  ^\??.^i  ^Ti,  whence  it  follows 
 that  the  regal  government  was  not  then  altogether  new,  but  al- 
 ready firmly  established.  But  even  if  persons  are  not  disposed 
 to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  may  be  con- 
 cluded with  certainty  from  Judges  ii.  17,  that  the  regal  govern- 
 ment existed  in  Edom  in  the  Mosaic  age.  Now,  if  the  terminus 
 a  quo  of  the  reigns  of  eight  (more  properly  seven)  kings  can  in 
 no  case  be  placed  lower  than  the  Mosaic  age,  or  must  rather  be 
 placed  higher  than  the  Mosaic  age,  we  should  reach  with  the  succes- 
 sion only  the  first  half  of  the  period  of  the  Judges,  to  which  no 
 one  has  ever  yet  transferred  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch. 
 
 Fifthly,  It  is  remarkable  that  the  most  considerable  city  in 
 later  Idumaea,  Selah  or  Petra  (compare  Rosenmuller,  Act. 
 iii.  p.  76;  Hitzig  on  Isaiah  xvi.  1)  is  not  mentioned  at  all  in 
 the  Pentateuch.  This  silence  leads  us  to  infer  that  it  was  not 
 then  in  existence.  For  there  were  not  wanting  opportunities  for 
 mentioning  it.  How  many  cities  are  named  besides  in  the  genea- 
 logy !  If  Selah  already  existed,  and  was  as  important  a  place  then 
 as  it  was  afterwards,  could  no  king  be  taken  from  it — did  no  Phy- 
 larch  reside  there  ?  The  place  was  situated  in  the  immediate  vici- 
 nity of  the  region  which  the  Israelites  touched,  close  to  Mount  Hor 
 (compare  Eeland,  p.  930  ;  Eosenmuller,  82 ;  Von  Eaumer,  p. 
 184).  That  Eziongeber  in  the  Mosaic  age  was  not  a  city,  ap- 
 pears from  Num.  xxxiii.  35,  where  it  is  mentioned  as  a  station  of 
 the  Israelites  in  their  journey ings  through  the  wilderness.  But 
 the  encampments  were  in  general  not  inhabited  places,  but  hke  the 
 
AMALEK. 
 
 247 
 
 encampments  nowadays  of  the  caravans— sj^ots  in  the  desert  suited 
 for  the  purpose  by  their  fountains  and  a  few  trees,  &c.  See 
 Von  Kaumer's  Der  Zitg  der  IsraelUen,  p.  38.  Consequently 
 the  hiter  maritime  town  Eziongeber,  where  Solomon  built  his 
 ships,  according  to  1  Kings  ix.  2G,  2  Chron.  viii.  17,  18,  and 
 Josephus  too,  was  as  yet  unknown  to  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch. 
 Sixthly,  The  exact  notices  respecting  a  tribe  of  whom,  subse- 
 quently to  the  Mosaic  age,  no  traces  can  be  found,  the  Horites— 
 the  occasional  ^^ieces  of  information  such  as,  that  Anah  found  the 
 warm  springs  in  the  desert— that  Hadad  the  son  of  Bedad  smote 
 Midian  in  the  field  of  Moab— the  cei;tainty  with  which  the  author 
 traces  the  first  origin  of  the  Edomitish  people— all  this  will  not 
 suit  an  author  of  a  later  aere. 
 
 AMALEK. 
 
 We  shall  here  collect  together  everything  by  which  it  has  been 
 attempted  to  prove  the  unhistorical  character  of  the  accounts  of 
 the  Pentateuch  respecting  this  people,  whether  traces  of  a  later 
 age  or  contradictions. 
 
 I.  "In  Gen.  xxxvi.  12,  \Q,  an  Amaleh  appears  as  a  grandson 
 of  Esau,  and  chief  of  an  Arabian  tribe,  and  according  to  all  pro- 
 babihty  must  be  regarded,  in  conformity  with  the  design  of  the 
 genealogies,  as  the  father  of  this  people.  But  this  is  contradictory 
 to  the  account  in  Gen.  xiv.  7,  according  to  which  the  Amaleldtes, 
 at  the  time  of  the  expedition  of  the  confederate  kings  from  inner 
 Asia,  appeared  on  the  field  of  history  and  suffered  a  defeat  from 
 them."  Thus  Gesenius  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  Enci/clojhcdia, 
 iii.  301,  and  many  others.  To  remove  this  difficulty  several  cri- 
 tics have  assumed  that  this  Amalek  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
 Amalekites.  Thus  J.  D.  Michaelis,  following  the  example  of 
 Le  Clerc,  maintains  {S2)icil.  i.  171)  very  decidedly,  that  we 
 might  as  well  term  Hermann  Augustus  Franke  the  father  of  the 
 Franks,  as  Amalek  the  father  of  the  Amalekites.  He  states  the 
 question  very  unfairly,  as  if  the  connection  between  Amalek  and 
 the  Amalekites  had  nothing  more  in  its  behalf  than  the  ao-reemcnt 
 of  the  name,  the  importance  of  which,  even  if  it  stood  alone,  ouo-ht 
 certainly  to  be  rated  higher  than  is  done  by'him.     There  is  hi 
 
248  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 addition,  the  identity  of  residence — (in  1  Chron.  iv.  42,  43,  the 
 Amalekites  are  removed  precisely  to  Mount  Seir,  so  that  in  a 
 wider  sense  Amalelutis  was  reckoned  as  forming  a  part  of  Tdu- 
 maea) — and  the  improbability  that  a  people  who  acted  so  dis- 
 tinguished a  pai't,  and  even  in  the  Mosaic  age  stood  in  such  im- 
 portant relations  to  the  Israelites,  could  be  dyeveaXoyrjTO'^,  con- 
 trary to  the  whole  plan  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  lastly,  also,  the  neces- 
 sity of  some  intimation  by  which  the  two  Amalekites  might  be 
 thstinguished  from  one  another.  These  arguments  cannot  be 
 countervailed  by  what  may  be  adduced  in  favour  of  the  distinc- 
 tion. It  has  been  remarked,  (i.)  That  the  Amalek  in  Gen. 
 xxxvi.  could  not  be  the  father  of  the  Amalekites,  because  in  Ba- 
 laam's prophecy  they  are  described  as  the  most  ancient  of  nations. 
 Num.  xxiv.  20.  But  the  question  arises  whether  the  interpreta- 
 tion according  to  which  Amalek  is  there  described  as  the  most 
 ancient  of  nations,  be  correct.  Amalek  is  there  styled  ^."'^^  ''^^'f^l 
 n^"^s-i  has  always  in  the  Pentateuch  (compare  Gen.  xlix.  3  ;  Deut. 
 xi.  12,  and  elsewhere)  the  meaning  of  heginning.  But  in  what 
 respect  Amalek  is  called  the  heginning  of  nations,  must  be  deter- 
 mined by  the  connection.  Now  the  subject  of  the  context  is  the 
 hostile  disposition  of  the  heathens  towards  Israel.  Now  if  we  add 
 to  this  that  the  Amalekites  were  really  the  first  heathens  who  at- 
 tacked Israel  in  open  fight,  after  the  Lord  had  purchased  them 
 for  his  own  heritage  (Exod.  xvii.),  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
 most  ancient  interpretation  is  also  the  correct  one.  Onkelos 
 translates  d'^^j  n'^rs'n  by  princij)ium  hellornm  Israelis.  Jonathan 
 and  Jerusalem  have,  j^^'i^^^^U^i^f^^  l^ojndorifin,  qui  instruxerunt 
 helium  contra  domuni  Israel.  Jeuome, primi  gentium  qui  I s- 
 raelitas  oppugnarunt.  Jarchi  and  the  other  Jewish  expositors 
 explain  it  in  the  same  way.  (ii.)  An  appeal  has  been  made  to 
 the  different  position  which  the  Israehtes  assumed  towards  the 
 Idumaeans  and  towards  the  Amalekites.  Cum  Idumaeos,  Le 
 Clerc  remarks  on  Gen.  xiv.  7,  hello  petere  vetiti  sint  Israelitae 
 Hamalakitis  inttilerioit,  quo  fit  lit  aliunde  oriundos  putem 
 Hamalikitas,  quanquam  Idumaeis  vicinos.  But  that  the  Is- 
 raelites assumed  a  different  position  towards  the  Amalekites  from 
 what  they  did  towards  the  other  Edomites,  was  simply  owing  to 
 the  different  relation  in  which  the  two  parties  stood  towards  tlie 
 Israelites.     And  however  sacred  in  the  law  the  bond  of  kindred 
 
AMALEK.  249 
 
 was,  yet  it  was  not  absolutely  indissoluble.  This  is  shown  by  the 
 position  which  the  prophets  took  towards  the  Idumaeans,  and 
 equally  also  towards  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites.  In  the'  Mo- 
 saic age,  the  other  tribes  of  the  Edomites,  although  they  had  not 
 shewn  themselves  friendly  towards  the  Israehtes,  had  perpe- 
 trated nothing  which  would  entirely  dissolve  their  brotherhood. 
 Only  the  Amaleldtes  had  assailed  the  Israelites  with  bloody  ha- 
 tred and  bitter  mahgnity.  What  now  was  more  natural,  than 
 that  they  should  be  separated  from  the  Mndred  tribes  ?  Thus 
 much  at  least  is  certainly  correct,  that  the  Amaleldtes  in  the  Pen- 
 tateuch, and  in  the  later  Books  of  Scripture,  do  not  appear  as  a 
 particular  section  of  the  Edomites,  but  rather  as  a  separate  peo- 
 ple. That  they  undertook  a  war  alone  against  the  Israehtes  leads 
 to  the  same  conclusion.  But  this  does  not  exclude  their  descent 
 fi'om  Esau.  They  might  very  possibly  have  separated  themselves 
 in  the  course  of  time  from  their  kindred  tribes,  and  have  been 
 formed  into  an  independent  people. 
 
 We  therefore  disclaim  unconditionally  a  method  of  explanation 
 which  is  rendered  suspicious  by  the  late  period  at  which  it  has 
 been  brought  forward.  Le  Clerc  was  about  the  first  who  thought 
 of  a  double  Amalek.  In  ancient  times  only  one  was  known.  Jo- 
 SEPHUS  throughout  regards  the  Amaleldtes  as  anEdomitishrace. 
 (Aiitiq.  ii.  1,  ^;  iii.  2  §  1). 
 
 If  it  had  been  said  in  Gen.  xiv.  that  the  kings  smote  the  Ama- 
 lekites,  the  contradiction  would  have  been  palpable,  and  the  ad 
 mission  of  a  prolepsis  would  be  simply  inadmissible.  But  if  we 
 look  at  the  text  more  closely,  every  chfficulty  vanishes,  and  the 
 apparent  proof  against  the  credibility  changes  at  once  into  its 
 opposite.  It  is  said  in  ver.  7,  "  And  they  returned,  and  came  to 
 En-mishpat,  which  is  Kadesh,  and  smote  all  the  country  of  the 
 Amalekites,  and  also  the  Amorites  that  dwelt  in  Hazezon-tamar." 
 It  is  striking  that  here  only  the  country  of  the  Amalekites  is 
 spoken  of,*  while  in  all  other  cases  \\\q people  are  noticed— the 
 Rephaim,  the  Surim,  the  Emims,  the  Horites  on  their  Mount 
 Seir,  and  the  Amorites.  This  is  certainly  not  by  mere  accident. 
 It  rather  conveys  an  intimation  that  the  Amaleldtes  had  not,  at 
 
 *Mark  observes  {^Gomm.  in  Pent.  parf.  praec.  p.  509),    "  Tautum  percussi  agri 
 Amalekitarnm  meminit,  sic  satis  proleptiram  appcllationem  adhiberi  argiieus." 
 
250  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 that  time,  appeared  on  tlie  field  of  history,  and  that  by  ''  the 
 count ry  of  tJie  Amalekitcs"  we  are  to  understand  the  country 
 which  the  Amalekites  afterwards  occupied,  and  this  prepares  us 
 for  the  direct  information  in  ch.  xxxvi.  respecting  the  origin  of 
 the  Amalekites.  Thus  the  closer  examination  of  the  text,  in 
 which  not  a  w^ord  is  placed  unadvisedly,  gives  a  death-blow  to  the 
 assumed  contradiction,  as  well  as  to  the  attempts  at  the  solution 
 which  have  been  made  on  other  ground^.  We  have  only  to  ob- 
 viate one  objection,  raised  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  against  our  in- 
 terpretation— ''  8i  i^er  prolepsin"  he  says,  "  ager  Amalecitanim 
 dicitur,  omnino  non  opparet,  qui  homines,  cifjus  gentis  victi 
 aut  caesi  sunt.  Id  vero  non  solum  sua  sponte  est  hono  histo- 
 rico  indignum,  sed  et  a  reliquo  totius  narrationes  scopo  ahludit, 
 non  situs  modo  locorum,  sed  et  nomina  gentium  victarum  indi- 
 cantis."  But  w^e  cannot  infer  from  the  design  of  the  author,  that 
 he  was  necessitated,  always  and  without  exception,  to  name  the 
 conquered  nations ;  and  besides  he  gives  us,  not  obscurely,  to  under- 
 stand to  what  nation  the  inhabitants  of  the  country  afterwards  oc- 
 cupied by  the  Amalekites  belonged.  That  they  were  Canaanites 
 is  shown  by  the  position  of  their  residence  between  the  Canaan- 
 itish  Horites  and  Amorites. 
 
 (ii.)  It  is  objected  that  to  the  Amalekite  king  Agag,  in  1  Sam. 
 XV.  8,  there  is  a  reference  in  Num.  xxiv.  7,  where  in  Balaam's 
 prophecy  it  is  said — 
 
 And  his  [Israel's]  king  shall  be  higher  than  Agag, 
 And  his  kingdom  shall  be  exalted. 
 
 The  supposition  that  Agag  was  a  common  name  of  the  Amalekite 
 kings,  is  only  a  desperate  effort.  Therefore  Num.  xxiv.  w^as 
 not  written  till  after  Samuel's  death.  Thus  Bleek,  in  Kosen- 
 muller's  Repertorium,  i.  35  ;  Hartmann,  716  ;  Von  Bohlen, 
 Einl.  p.  135.  But  the  notion  that  the  Pentateuch,  in  reference 
 to  this  one  point,  rests  on  1  Sam.  xv.,  is  inadmissible,  because,  as 
 we  shall  afterwards  prove,  1  Sam.  xv.  is  evidently  independent 
 throughout  of  the  Pentateuch.  Even  from  our  opponents'  point 
 of  view,  Agag  cannot  be  taken  as  nom.  propr.  For  how  should 
 the  author,  who  otherwise  well  knew  how  to  play  his  part,  betray 
 himself  here  so  awkwardly  ?  But  what  is  the  main  point,  the 
 assumption  that  the  name  Agag  belongs  to  a  single  Amalekite 
 
AMALEK.  251 
 
 king,  is  at  variance  with  the  essential  character  of  Balaam's  pro- 
 phecies.    Their  complexion  is  throughout  ideal.     Nowhere  else 
 IS  an  individual  named.     In  such  a  connection  an  isolated  indi- 
 vidual reference  would  he  altogether  unsuitahle.     If  the  author 
 had  wished  to  introduce   any  thing  of  that  sort,  it  would  have 
 heen  much  more  natural  to    have  hrought  in    by  name   Saul 
 or  David.     Why  should  he  insert  the  name  of  the  conquered, 
 and  not   of  the    conqueror?     The   last   prediction  of  Balaam 
 crowns  the  wliole.      It  is  far  more  definite  and  individual  than 
 the  former.      But  there,  in  ver.  20,  only  the  overthrow  is  an- 
 nounced which  Amalek  would  receive  from  Israel.     Moreover, 
 the  opinion  that  Agag  was  a  ?iom.  dign.  of  the  Amalekite  kings,' 
 has  a  number  of  analogies  in  its  favour.     Such  nomina  dicjni- 
 tatis  were  used  in  most  of  the   neighbouring  nations.      The 
 Egyptian  kings  had  the  common  name  Pharoalt,  the  Phihstines 
 that  of  Ahimelech,'^  alluding  to   the   hereditary  nature  of  their 
 regal  government,  in  contrast  to  the  elective,  like  that  of  tlie 
 Edomites;  the  kings  of  the  Jebusites  were  called  Melchisedec  or 
 Adonizebec;  compare  Gen.  xiv.  18,  with  Jos.  x.  1-3.    The  kings 
 of  Hazor  had  the  standing  name  of  Jabin,  The  Intelligent ;  com- 
 pare Josh.  xiv.  1  with  Judg.  iv.  2.     Agag   assorts  with  these 
 names  so  much  the  more  because,  in  its  meaning,  it  is  highly 
 suitable  as  a  nomen  dignitatis.     The  root  :as  has  in  Ai'abic,  to 
 which  we  are  here  directed  first  of  all,  the  meaning  arsit,  fla~ 
 
 gravit,  cucurrit,  celeravit  gradum,  hence  the  adjectives  z;>-^^ 
 
 *  Compare  Gesen.  Thes.  p.  9,  nomen  complurium  regum  in  terra  PhiUstaeorum  ut 
 regis  Geraritki  tempore  Abrahami,  Gen.  xx.  2,  et  Isaaci,  Geu.xxvi.  1,  item  regis  urbis 
 Gath  tempore  Davidis,  Ps.  xxxiv.  coll.  1  Sam.  xxi.  12,  nbi  idem  Achis  appellatur. 
 Commune  fere  illud  regum  horum  nomen  titulusve  fuisse  videtur,  nt  Pharao  regum 
 priscorum  Aegypti,  Caesar  et  Augustus  hnjjeratoruni  Romanorum.  Vox  Bohlen 
 maintains,  p.  220,  tbat  tlie  later  inscription  in  Ps.  xxxiv.  introduced  the  Abimelech 
 that  occurs  elsewhere  so  often.  In  the  same  manner  Studeb  {z.  B.  d.  Eichter,  p.  98) 
 tries  to  take  away  from  Jabin  its  character  as  the  standing  name  of  the  king  of  Ilazor, 
 when  he  asserts  that  the  Jabin  of  Joshua's  time  arose  from  that  in  the  period  of  the 
 judges,  that  the  name  was  cai-ried  hack  from  the  later  period  to  the  earlier.  But  this 
 hypothesis,  which,  if  the  case  was  isolated,  would  have  some  probability,  is  annihila- 
 ted by  the  multitude  of  analogies,  pai-ticularly  since  aU  these  names,  according  to  tlieir 
 meanings,  are  nomina  dignitatis.  It  was  otherwise  with  names  which  evidently  refer 
 to  personal  and  accidents  qualities,  as,  for  example,  Balak  and  Eglon.  Compare  on 
 the  standiiig  names  of  kings  among  the  Arabians.  E.  v.  L.  Zur  Gesch.  der  Araba 
 vor  Mohammed.  Berl.  1836,  p.  217 ;  and  on  Si/ennesi  among  the  Cilicians,  Bahr  on 
 Herodotus,  i.  74. 
 
252  ANACRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 s     1$ 
 
 and  ^^S,  valde  ardens,  rutilans,  splendens ;  compare  Frey- 
 TAG,  s.  V.  The  Fiery  One  would  certainly  be  a  most  suit- 
 able name  for  the  Amalekite  king.  To  Agag,  as  the  general 
 name  of  the  Amalekite  royal  race,  we  are  led  by  the  designation 
 of  Haman  as  the  Agagite,  •';;s,  in  Esther  iii.  1,  10,  since  it  is 
 more  probable  that  his  family  was  thus  referred  back  to  that  of 
 the  Amalekite  kings,  than  to  that  single  individual  in  Saul's  time. 
 From  these  remarks,  any  one  may  decide  whether  the  opinion 
 that  Agag  was  the  nom.  dign.  of  all  the  Amalekite  kings,  is  a 
 mere  make-shift,  which  even  the  more  moderate  among  our  oppo- 
 nents do  not  venture  to  maintain ;  for  Winer  explains  Agag  as 
 the  nom.  lyropr.  regum  Amalekitarum,  and  Gesenius,  in  his 
 Thesaurus,  after  remarking  that  Num.  xxiv.  perhaps  refers  to  1 
 Sam.  XV.,  adds,  nisi  Agagi  nomen  Amalekitaruni  regihusfere  com- 
 mune fuisse  dicas,  ut  Abimelechi  nomen  Philistaeorum  regihus. 
 It  would  indeed  be  strange  if  precisely  in  the  Pentateuch,  in  a 
 prediction,  a  proper  name  should  appear,  when  here,  in  the  his- 
 tory, almost  throughout,  the  nomina  dignitatis  are  used ;  the 
 Egyptian  kings  always  bearing  the  name  Pharaoh,  and  those  of 
 the  Philistines  the  name  of  Abimelech.  Finally,  in  1  Sam.  xv. 
 the  title  and  not  the  proper  name  of  the  Amalekite  king  is  de- 
 signedly used.  The  account  respecting  the  fulfilment  was  to 
 approach  in  form,  as  near  as  possible,  to  the  prediction.  This 
 view  is  in  conformity  with  the  general  relation  of  1  Sam.  xv.  to 
 the  Pentateuch. 
 
 (iii.)  The  decree  of  extermination  against  the  Amalekites  in 
 Exod.  xvii.  14,  which  is  repeated  in  Deut.  xxv.  17,  19,  could 
 not  have  been  in  existence  in  Samuel's  time.  For  Samuel,  in  1 
 Sam.  XV.  2,  3,  says  not  a  syllable  respecting  such  a  divine  com- 
 mand ;  nor,  even  afterwards,  when  his  intense  displeasure  against 
 Saul  breaks  forth  in  ver.  16.  Thus  Hartmann.  But  how  came 
 Samuel,  if  that  command  did  not  exist  in  the  law,  to  command 
 the  extermination  of  the  Amalekites  ?  In  all  the  later  history  of 
 the  Israehtes,  nothing  similar  occurs.  In  his  own  time  there  was 
 no  adequate  cause.  There  were  far  greater  enormities  in  other 
 nations.  In  the  Mosaic  age,  on  the  contraiy,  we  find  sufficient 
 reasons  for  such  a  command.  The  Amalekites  were  the  first 
 who  manifested  hostility  to  Israel,  a  circumstance  to  which  great 
 
AMALEK.  253 
 
 weiglit  is  attached  in  Num.  xxiv.  20.  It  took  place  under  very 
 aggravating  circumstances.  The  Lord  had  ah-eady  declared  that 
 Israel  was  his  people,  and  that  he  was  Israel's  God ;  Exod  xv. 
 14,  15. 
 
 The  people  bear  it — they  tremble — 
 
 Quaking  seizetb  the  dwellers  in  Pbilistia; 
 
 The  chiefs  of  Edom  are  frightened; 
 
 Trembling  seizetb  the  rams  of  Moab  ; 
 
 Dread  and  fear  fall  on  them ; 
 
 By  the  greatness  of  thine  arm  they  shall  be  still  as  a  stone. 
 
 Amalek,  more  hardened  than  Pharaoh,  is  determined  to  vent  his 
 hatred  on  the  IsraeHtes,  to  tiy  his  strength  upon  them,  precisely 
 because  they  are  the  people  of  God.  He  attacks  God  himself  in 
 his  people.  Amalek  laid  his  hand  on  the  throne  of  God  ;  where- 
 fore the  Lord  declared  war  against  Amalek  to  all  generations, 
 Exod.  ':vii.  16.  There  was  in  addition  the  cruel  malignity  and 
 spite  with  which  the  Amalekites  acted  towards  Israel.  Great 
 stress  is  laid  upon  this  in  Deut.  xxv.  18,  "  How  he  met  thee  by 
 the  way,  and  smote  the  hindmost  of  thee,  all  that  were  feeble  be- 
 hind thee,  when  thou  wast  faint  and  weary,  and  he  feared  not  God." 
 Consequently,  though,  in  1  Sam.  xv.,  there  were  no  express  re- 
 ferences to  the  decree  of  extermination,  or  generally  to  the  Pen- 
 tateuch, yet  it  might  be  regarded  as  certain,  that  Samuel  in  his 
 acts  was  guided  by  the  Pentateuch,  or  at  least  by  its  substantial 
 meaning. 
 
 But  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  how  any  one  can  overlook  the 
 evident  references  in  1  Samuel  xv.  to  the  Pentateuch,  and  espe- 
 cially to  the  decree  respecting  the  Amalekites. 
 
 These  references  begin  at  the  close  of  ch.  xiv.  It  is  there  said 
 in  ver.  47,  48,  "  So  Saul  took  the  Idngdom  over  Israel,  and 
 fought  against  all  his  enemies  on  every  side  ;  against  Moab,  and 
 against  the  children  of  Ammon,  and  against  Edom,  and  ngainst 
 the  king  of  Zobah,  and  against  the  Philistines,  and  whithersoever 
 he  turned  himself,  he  vexed  them.  And  he  gathered  a  host" 
 (wrought  powerfully,  Enr/.  Marg.  E.)  ^:^  '^?r.,  &c.  then  follows, 
 after  some  notices  respecting  Saul's  family,  the  command  (xv.  1) 
 to  exterminate  the  Amalekites.  Now,  let  it  be  compared  with 
 Deut.  xxv.  19,  ''  Therefore,  it  shall  be,  wdien  the  Lord  thy  God 
 hath  given  thee  rest  from  all  thy  enemies  round  about,  in  the  land 
 
2^)4.  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  TENTATIilUCn. 
 
 which  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee  for  an  iulieritance  to  possess 
 it,  that  thou  shalt  blot  out  the  remembrance  of  Amalek  from  un- 
 der heaven  ;  thou  shalt  not  forget  it."  Evidently,  the  author  by 
 this  reference  designed  to  intimate,  that  the  time  notified  by  the 
 Lawgiver  had  now  arrived,  and  therefore  to  give  the  reason  why 
 Samuel  exactly  at  this  time  laid  the  injunction  on  Saul.  The 
 expression,  "  against  Moab,"  Szc.  in  1  Sam.  xiv.  47,  is  mere  in- 
 dividualising. That  the  agreement  is  only  accidental  will  scarcely 
 appear  probable,  if  we  notice  that  the  language  in  2  Sam.  vii.  1 
 is  almost  literally  borrowed  from  Dent.  xxv.  19,  "  And  it  came 
 to  pass,  when  the  king  sat  in  his  house,  and  the  Lord"  (as  he 
 promised  in  the  law)  "  had  given  liini  rest  round  about  from  all 
 Ms  enemies."  Thus  also  the  notion,  that  perhaps  the  reverse  w^as 
 the  fact,  that  the  words  in  Deuteronomy  were  borrowed  from  Sa- 
 muel, is  excluded.  The  phrase  '^ri!^  '^Tl  marks  the  fulfilment  of  the 
 promise  in  Num.  xxiv.  18,  ^;i?  ^'f'^  ^?*^^.^^,  which  is  followed  in  ver. 
 20  by  the  tln'eat  of  the  destruction  of  Amalek ;  compare  Ps.  Ix. 
 J  4  (12),  ^:t^"^T^l  ^^^^^^  ;  cviii.  14  (13),  where  a  similar  reference 
 to  Num.  xxiv.  18  occurs. 
 
 In  1  Sam.  xv.  2,  "  I  remember  that  which  Amalek  did  to  Is- 
 rael, how  he  laid  wait  for  him  in  the  way  when  he  came  up  from 
 Egypt ;"  the  reference  cannot  be  mistaken  to  Deut.  xxv.  17,  "  Ee- 
 member  what  Amalek  did  unto  thee  by  the  way,  when  ye  were 
 come  forth  out  of  Egypt."  The  agreement  is  verbal,  excepting 
 the  third  person  instead  of  the  second,  and  ^^C  instead  of  ^^?. 
 
 According  to  ver.  G,  Saul  said  to  the  Kenites,  "  Ye  showed 
 kindness  to  all  the  children  of  Israel,  when  they  came  up  out  of 
 Egypt."  The  Kenite  Jethro,  or  Hobab,  Moses'  father-in-law 
 (Judges  i.  16),  had  been  eyes  to  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness, 
 (Num.  X.  31,  "  Thou  knowest  how  we  are  to  encamp  in  the  wil- 
 derness, and  thou  may  est  be  to  us  instead  of  eyes,")  and  in  retm^n 
 all  good  things  had  been  promised  to  him.  "  And  it  shall  be,  if 
 thou  go  with  us,  yea  it  shall  be  that  what  goodness  the  Lord  shall 
 do  unto  us,  the  same  will  we  do  unto  thee."  If  the  Idndly  con- 
 duct of  Saul  was  determined  by  the  contents  of  the  Pentateuch,  what 
 can  be  more  natural  than  to  suppose  that  his  hostile  conduct  htid 
 a  like  foundation  ? 
 
 In  ver.  7,  "  And  Saul  smote  the  Amalekites  from  Havilah,  un- 
 til thou  comest  to  Shur  that  is  over  against  Egypt."  ^*:^^^ ''.??"'?  "'^^ 
 
AMAI.EK.  265 
 
 tlie  boundaries  ave  given  not  merely  verbally,  but  to  the  very  let- 
 ter, from  Gen.  xxv.  18,  "And  they"  (the  sons  of  Islimael)  "  dwelt 
 from  Havilah  unto  Shur  that  is  before  Egypt."     The  reference  to 
 Genesis  is  so  much  the  more  undeniable,  since,  whichever  among 
 the  different  localities  Havilah  may  be  supposed  to  be  (see  Gese- 
 Nius,  T/ies.  s.  v.),  it  is  very  improbable  that  Saul  would  have  pe- 
 netrated into  this  district.     "  From  Havilah  to  Shur  "  can  be  no 
 ordinary  geograpliical  designation,  and  the  autlior  must  have  had 
 another  reason  besides  tlie  fact  itself,  to  choose  this  in  preference 
 to  any  other.     Althougli  the  reference  to  Genesis  is  plain,  still 
 the  deeper  reason  for  making  it  is  concealed.    Perhaps  the  author 
 meant  to  intimate,  that  the  Amalekites  had  settled  in  the  inherit- 
 ance which,  according  to  the  sacred  books,  belonged  to  the  sons 
 of  Ishmael.     The  expression,  "  he  smote  the  Amalekites  fi^om 
 Havilah  to  Shur,"  is,  however,  equivalent  to  "  such  of  the  Ama- 
 lekites as  were  between  Ha\dlah  and  Shur." 
 
 In  ver.  21,  Saul  says  to  Samuel,  "  And  the  people  took  of 
 the  spoil,  sheep  and  oxen,  ^^Kl,  the  firstlings  of  the  Cherem, 
 (==:??l')  to  sacrifice  unto  the  Lord  thy  God  in  Gilgal."  It  is  de- 
 serving of  notice,  that,  in  Deuteronomy,  the  ordinance  respecting 
 the  presentation  of  the  first  fruits  (xxvi.  1)  J^-^'f^^::  unmediately  fol- 
 lows the  command  for  the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites  (xxv. 
 19).  The  very  quarter  whence  Samuel  drew  his  accusation  fur- 
 nished Saul,  it  seems,  with  the  materials  of  apology. 
 
 In  ver.  29,  Samuel  says,  "  The  Strength  of  Israel  will  not  lie 
 nor  repent ;  for  he  is  not  a  man  that  he  should  repent."  Com- 
 pare this  with  Num.  xxiii.  19, 
 
 "  God  is  not  a  man  that  he  should  lie, 
 Neither  the  son  of  man  that  he  should  repent," 
 
 If  the  reference  here  is  undeniable,  (as  if  he  had  said,  "  Remem- 
 berest  thou  not  the  words  wdiich  the  prophet  of  the  Lord  said  to 
 Balak,  when  he  thought  to  change  the  counsel  of  the  Lord,")  so 
 also  the  coincidence  of  ''  it  repenteth  me,"  T^^?,  in  ver.  11,  witli 
 Gen.  vi.  G,  7,  cannot  be  accidental.  The  relations  are  essentially 
 the  same  here,  on  tlie  small  scale,  which  were  then  exhibited  in 
 larger  proportions.  There,  ''  it  repenteth  me  that  I  have  made 
 men  ;"  here,  ''  it  repenteth  me  that  I  have  set  up  Saul  to  be  king." 
 
250  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 And  if  the  references  to  the  Pentateuch,  with  all  their  importance, 
 are  often  only  slight  and  suggestive,  it  will  not  be  thought  far- 
 fetclied  if  we  consider  the  expression  in  the  same  verse,  "  and 
 hath  not  performed  my  commandments,"  ^7^  ^'  ""T?!,  as  coinciding 
 with  Deut.  xxvii.  20,  "  Cursed  be  he  that  confirmeth  not  the 
 w^ords,  ^T.?T'^^.  ==7.T^''',  of  this  law  to  do  them."  Compare  the  un- 
 doubted reference  to  this  passage  in  Neh.  v.  13,  '^^  ^'^IT'^^  ^y^~^'^. 
 It  is  ascertained,  therefore;  that  1  Sam.  xv.,  without  an  express 
 citation,  has  a  manifold  relation  to  the  Pentateuch  generally,  and 
 specially  to  the  ordinance  against  the  Amalekites.  Nor  should 
 we  neglect  to  draw  from  this  result  some  general  conclusions  re- 
 specting the  kind  and  style  of  the  references  to  the  Pentateuch  in 
 the  remaining  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Especially  in  the 
 writings  composed  by  the  prophets,  which,  in  the  historical  parts, 
 never  forego  their  peculiar  character ;  to  demand  direct  and  ex- 
 press citations  would  be  quite  unreasonable.  The  law  had  become 
 to  them  thoroughly  internal,  and  thus  the  references  to  the  Pen- 
 tateuch of  the  kind  in  question  originated,  always  breathing  its 
 spirit,  but  notsemlely  adhering  to  its  phraseology. 
 
 THE  OTHER  SIDE  JORDAN. 
 
 Hartmann  remarks,  700,  ''  The  author  speaks  of '  the  other 
 side  Jordan,'  although,  if  his  work  was  committed  to  writing  be- 
 fore the  invasion  of  Palestine,  the  expression  '  this  side  Jordan  ' 
 must  have  been  used  ;  for  instance,  in  Num.  xxxv.,  the  three 
 cities  '  on  the  other  side'  ^=?^^  (this  side,  Eng.  A.  V.)  Jordan  are 
 distinguished  from  '  the  three  cities  in  the  land  of  Canaan.'  "  The 
 naiTator  also  transports  himself  into  Palestine,  in  Deut.  i.  1, 
 *'  These  be  the  words  which  Moses  spake  unto  all  Israel  on  the 
 other  side  Jordan  ;"  also  iii.  8.  In  the  same  chapter,  ver.  20, 
 &c.,  where  taking  possession  of  the  promised  land  is  spoken  of,  the 
 expression  ^n:>a  takes  its  proper  place,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
 shows  that  our  first  argument  is  well  founded. 
 
 This  difficulty  is  not  one  of  modern  invention.  Aben  Ezra 
 had  remarked  it ;  Nicolas  de  Lyra  enumerates  it  among  the 
 grounds  on  which  some  persons  denied  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pen- 
 tateuch ;  Spinoza  and  Peyrerius  attached  importance  upon  it ; 
 
THE  OTHER  SIDE  JORDAN.  *-^o7 
 
 in  short,  it  forms  a  standing  article  in  the  older  treatises  both  for 
 and  ag-ainst  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch. 
 
 The  advocates  of  the  genuineness  endeavour  to  meet  the  ob- 
 jection, by  maintaining  that  ".=.V=  and  "'^".'^  equally  mean  this  side 
 or  that  side,  and  in  order  to  avoid  the  awkwardness  of  combin- 
 iug  two  exactly  opposite  meanings,  have  tried  to  trace  both  to  a 
 general  primary  moaning.  -3:>3  was  originally  either  at  the  side, 
 ov  across,  and  only  by  the  connection  acquires  the  special  inean.- 
 iug  of,  tJiis  side  or  tJie  other  side.  Thus,  for  instance,  among 
 the  older  critics,  Gousset  remarks  {Lex.  p.  1099),  -::?  sir/nificat 
 id,  quo  sj)atif/?/f  aUfpiod  terminater,  quodqiie  adeo  tra  nsr/redi 
 oportet,  lit  ex  illo  spatio  in  viciiuon  tra)\seat)(r  ....  Quia 
 nutem  simplieiter  notat  terminum  spatii  ac  oram  ret,  ideo  cum 
 aliquid  aiiud  corpus  apponitur,  iion  desirjuat  cui  orae  et  quo 
 modo  appo)iitur,  sed  id  circumstaiitiae  doceut ;  Carpzov,  Rich. 
 81MON,  and  generally,  all  who  have  noticed  it  among  the  moderns, 
 Movers  {ueher  die  Chrouik.  p.  240),  Konig,  {tteher  Josua,  p. 
 106),  Drechsler,  (against  VonBohlen  and  Vatke,  p.  149), 
 who  modifies  the  view  in  a  peculiar  manner,  yet  without  essen- 
 tially giving  it  up — and  others. 
 
 Were  we  obliged  to  choose  between  tw^o  opinions, — were  no 
 tliird  supposition  conceivable,  we  should  unhesitatingly  decide  for 
 the  latter.  For  the  difficulties  of  the  former  are  so  great,  it  is  so 
 evident  that  -^v^  and  ^ay^  are  n ot  always  used  for  the  Trans-jordanic 
 region,  but  many  times  for  the  Cis-jordanic,  that  even  the  opponents 
 of  the  genuineness  are  obliged  to  see,  that  this  argument  must  be 
 given  up.  Thus  Vatke  remarks  on  Deut.  iii.  against  Geddes, 
 (who  considers  this  passage  as  demonstrative  against  the  Mosaic 
 authorship,  and  maintAins  that  no  passages  can  be  pointed  out 
 where  -^a:>a  means  on  this  side)  ;  that  ^ar^  in  Num.  xxi.  13,  xxxii. 
 19,  32,  xxxiv.  15,  xxxv.  14,  plainly  means  on  this  side;  like- 
 wise "^ayain  Jos.  i.  15.  There  is  also  evidence  for  it,  (besides  the 
 highest  antecedent  probability,  that  Deut.  iii.  must  have  been 
 spoken  by  Moses  on  the  east  of  Jordan  ;)  in  Deut.  iii.  8.  On 
 -aya  therefore  no  weight  can  be  laid.  Von  Bohlen  (p.  Ix.), 
 after  he  had  resolved  to  torture  the  phrase  '^^^  T:?!^.  *rr.^  by  inter- 
 preting it  "  from  the  opposite  shore  of  Jordan  even  to  the  sea,"  is 
 forced  to  admit  that  -a:>^  may  signify  this  side  and  tJie  other  side, 
 so  that  no  reason  can  remain  to  refuse  this  meaning  to  -a:>3. 
 
 VOL.  II.  R 
 
2bS  ANACHRONLSMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 To  the  assumption  that  -as,  ^a^a,  -ay^a  always  refer  to  t/ie  other 
 side,  from  the  speaker's  or  writer's  point-of-view,  an  insurmount- 
 able obstacle  is  presented  by  several  passages  in  the  Books  of  Ezra 
 and  Nehemiah.  Nehemiah  at  Susa,  requests  letters  from  the 
 Persian  king  to  the  governors  "v;"""??^  (ch.  ii.  7),  and  in  ver.  9, 
 he  narrates  that  he  "  came  to  the  governors  ^nr:  ^ay  and  gave  them 
 the  king's  letters,"  Cum  Uteras  iietehat.  Gousset  remarks, 
 versans  in  Babylonia,  duces  iUi  erant  eo  respectu  ultra  jiuvium, 
 nempe  erant  in  Judaea  aut  rer/ionibus  adjacentibus,  sed  cum 
 eas  reddidit  Nehemias,jam  iidem  duces  respectu  ejus  tunc  in 
 Jadaea  vel  jirojie  Judaeam  a  gent  is  erant  citra  ipsum  Jiumen. 
 Ita — he  goes  on  to  say — c.  iii.  7,  notat  in  ipsa  Hieros.  sede 
 thronum  ^nsa  ^ay  rf^s  ducis  citra  fiuvium,  cum  et  thronus  et  dux 
 in  eodem  loco  non  inter posito  sane  Jluvio  exsisterent.  In  the 
 Book  of  Ezra,  -n:n  ■nay  refers  to  the  reoion  which,  from  the  writer's 
 point-of-view,  was  on  this  side  of  the  Euphrates;  iv.  10,  11; 
 V.  3,  6  ;  vi.  G,  8  ;  viii.  86.  As  little,  on  this  supposition,  can 
 the  passage  in  1  Chron.  xxvi.  30,  be  satisfactorily  explained, 
 where  *'  Israel  -p^'^V  -ai^a  on  the  westward  of  Jordan"  is  sjioken 
 of,  therefore  evidently  the  region  which,  from  the  writer's  point- 
 of-view,  lay  on  this  side  Jordan,  is  described  as  ■,--■'7  ^ay^s.  The 
 passages  in  the  Book  of  Joshua,  in  which  ^a^a  evidently  means 
 the  region  which  to  the  writer  was  on  this  side  Jordan,  will  be 
 noticed  when  we  state  the  positive  arguments  for  our  view. 
 
 But  the  supposition  that  ^a^-a  and  -a>'?2  sometimes  mean  this  side, 
 sometimes  the  other  side,  has  to  combat  with  great  difficulties. 
 Its  insertion  would  then  be  altogether  supei-fluous;  one  does  not 
 see  why  it  should  not  be  altogether  left  out,  since  its  precise  force 
 would  depend  entirely  on  its  adjuncts.  And  what  can  be  done  with 
 the  numerous  passages  in  which  these  adjuncts  are  entirely  wanting, 
 and  yet  manifestly  a  definite  meaning  must  be  affixed  to  the  term  ? 
 And  from  this  point- of- ^dew,  there  is  no  possibility  of  explainiug 
 why  the  use  of  ^aya  and  '-r^-  "^aya  for  the  Cis-jordanic  region  should 
 be  confined  almost  to  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Book  of  Joshua. 
 
 To  both  these  untenable  positions  we  shall  now  oppose  what 
 we  deem  the  correct  view,  ^ay,  -a^a,  and  ^aya,  everywhere  and  with- 
 out exception  mean  the  other  side,  but  this  side  or  the  other 
 side  may  be  used  from  a  two-fold  poiut-of-view,  either  that  of  the 
 individual  speaker  or  writer,  or  that  of  general  and  standing  geo- 
 
TlIK  OTHER  SIDE  JUliDAN.  ^TlO 
 
 grapliieal  designations.  The  latter  phraseology  is  evervNvhere  em- 
 ployed, where  -2^2  or  pn^n^zy's  appears  to  have  the  meaning  of 
 fhi.'<  side  Jordan^  or  has  called  forth  the  remark  that  the  author 
 of  the  Pentateuch  had  forgotten  his  part. 
 
 That  for  the  latter  use  of  this  side  and  tJtc  other  side,  a  gi*eat 
 number  of  examples  may  be  adduced  from  other  quarters,  may  be 
 readily  anticipated.  We  need  only  think  of  the  Tras  os  Mantes 
 in  Portugal,  Ahruzzo  ulterior e  and  citeriore  in  the  kingdom  of 
 Naples,  the  Transpadine,  Cispadine.,  and  Cisalpine  Eepublics,  in 
 the  time  of  Napoleon,  the  Gallia  citerior  and  ulterior  of  the 
 Romans — appellations  which  suffer  no  change  in  the  mouths  of 
 those  who  found  themselves  in  Gallia  ulterior,  in  Transmarisca 
 in  Moesia,  or  Cisplatina  in  South  America.  Lower  Hungary  is 
 divided  into  the  Cis-Danuhian  circle  and  the  Trans-Danuhian 
 circle  ;  Upper  Hungary  into  the  Cis-Tihisean  circle  on  this  side 
 of  the  Theiss,  and  the  Trans-Tibisean  circle,  on  the  otlier  side 
 of  the  TheisSj  and  thus  many  other  countries.  But  the  Scrip- 
 tures themselves  furnish  us  with  the  closest  analogy  in  the  pas- 
 sages already  quoted,  in  which,  by  writers  who  wrote  westward  of 
 the  Euphrates,  the  country  between  them  and  that  river  is  called, 
 -nsn  -aya  ;  passages  to  which  1  Kings  v.  4,  (iv.  24),  may  be  added, 
 where  it  is  said  of  Solomon,  "  He  had  dominion  over  all  'r::n  -=y 
 from  Tiphsah  even  unto  Azzah  (Gaza)  overall  the  kings  -rm-zv." 
 Who  does  not  see,  that  in  these  passages,  the  situation  of  the 
 places  is  determined  by  their  relation  to  the  central  point  of  the 
 Chaldee-Persian  Empire,  without  regard  to  the  writer's  personal 
 point-of-view  ? 
 
 In  the  case  of  Palestine,  a  fixed  application  of  the  phrase  -2:>a 
 •p*^n  to  the  Trans-jordanic  region,  independent  of  the  personal  re- 
 lations of  the  speaker  or  writer,  might  be  more  early  formed,  as 
 the  Cis-jordanic  region  came  to  be  regarded  as  the  main  of  the 
 promised  land,  to  which  the  Trans-jordanic  was  a  mere  supplement 
 or  appendage.  In  the  Pentateuch  the  Cis-jordanic  land  frequently 
 takes  the  name  of  Canaan,  and  on  all  occasions  the  Trans-jordanic 
 appears  as  standing  to  it  in  the  same  relation  as  the  suburbs  to  a 
 citv.  From  this  national  relation  of  the  two  divisions  to  one 
 another,  arose  the  latter  geographical  designation,  Peraea,  T-Spav 
 Tov  'lopSavov.  Therefore,  when  we  hear  of  the  country  o?i  the 
 otJtpr  side  Jordan,  we  are  not  to  consider  whether  it  stands  in  tliat 
 
 R  2 
 
^6-0  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 relation  to  us,  but  must  transport  ourselves  at  once  to  the  centre 
 of  the  country. 
 
 The  preceding  remarks  show  that  there  is  nothing  that  directly 
 opposes  our  view.  We  would  now,  by  an  examination  of  the 
 most  important  passages,  prove,  that  in  many  cases,  it  is  abso- 
 lutely required,  and  is  every  where  suitable. 
 
 In  Gen.  1.  10,  11,  it  is  wTitten,  "  And  they  came  to  the 
 threshing  floor  of  Atad,  wdiich  is  'ji^n  ^nya,  and  there  they  mourn- 
 ed with  a  gi'eat  and  very  sore  lamentation,  and  he  made  a  mourn- 
 ing for  his  father  seven  days.  And  when  the  inhabitants  of  the 
 land,  the  Canaanites,  saw  the  mourning  in  the  floor  of  Atad,  they 
 said.  This  is  a  grievous  mourning  to  the  Egyptians  ;  therefore  the 
 name  of  it  was  called  Abel-mizraim,  which  is  "p^'^i"  ^=ys."  Movers 
 consider  this  passage  as  the  strongest  proof  for  his  assertion  that 
 •^nya  means  also  this  side.  He  thinks  that  if  it  were  not  so,  Jo- 
 seph's funeral  procession  from  Egypt  to  Hebron  must  have  been 
 taken  by  a  strange  route  across  the  Jordan.  But  this  route  is 
 certainly  not  strange,  for  we  might  call  any  one  so  in  which  a 
 circuit  is  necessarily  made.  The  Egyptians  took  their  way  not 
 through  the  land  of  the  Philistines,  for  the  same  reasons  that  they 
 did  not  enter  into  Canaan.  On  account  of  the  warlike  escort  they 
 took  their  w^ay  through  the  wilderness  ;  this  remained  behind  on 
 the  borders  of  Canaan,  while  the  peaceful  procession  of  Joseph's 
 corpse,  with  his  brethren  and  their  attendants,  advanced  undis- 
 turbed on  their  way  to  Hebron.  But  the  meaning  "  o)i  this  side" 
 is  quite  inadmissible.  "?==  T^?  in  ver.  1 3  forms  the  evident  con- 
 trast to  the  -p^^n  ^3:>a.  The  Egyptians  conducted  the  funeral  to 
 the  region  on  the  other  side  Jordan  ;  Joseph's  sons  brought  it  to 
 Canaan  in  the  stricter  sense.  There  is  exactly  the  same  contrast 
 in  Num.  xxxii.  32,  xxxv.  14.  And  why  was  the  phrase  -pn^nnaya 
 used  at  all,  if  it  can  equally  mean  this  side  or  the  other  side  1 
 For  what  reason  is  this  side  Jordan  mentioned  ?  If  they  took 
 their  way  through  the  land  of  the  Philistines,  they  would  not  come 
 near  it.  This  side  would  be  altogether  superfluous,  for  that 
 would  at  once  occur  to  every  one.  But  as  little  can  p^^n  "^ayn  here 
 mean  on  tlie  other  side,  taken  from  the  personal  position  of  the 
 writer;  it  must  rather  mean  on  the  other  side  in  an  objective 
 sense.  The  author  has  not  marked  his  own  point- of- view,  but 
 without  that  he  could  not,  in  reference  to  it,  speak  either  of  this 
 
THE  OTHER  SIDE  JORDAN.  201 
 
 aide  or  the  other  side.     The  proper  ground  is  the  contrast  to 
 Canaan.* 
 
 In  Num.  xxii.  \,  ''  And  the  children  of  Israel  set  forward  and 
 pitched  in  the  plains  of  Moiib,  y-^i^  ^ay^  by  Jericlio."  ^.a^ti  can  only 
 mean  on  the  other  side,  for  only  thus  is  it  more  definite  than  the 
 '^v,  which  stands  after  words  in  the  repetition  of  the  geographical 
 formula.  But  if  the  other  side  be  taken  in  an  objective  sense, 
 there  is  evidently  no  necessity  for  doing  violence  to  the  text. 
 
 Num.  xxxii.  1 9  demands  particular  notice,  in  which  the  Trans- 
 jordanic  tribes  say  to  Moses,  "  We  will  not  inherit  with  them  07i 
 the  other  side  ^iox^im;'  p-iV^  n.^^^a,  "  because  our  inheritance  is  fallen 
 to  n^on  the  other  side  Jordan,  towards  the  East,"  nh^t^a  p^^V '^a:?^. 
 It  is  inconceivable  that  ^ny^  should  be  used  here  in  a  breath,  in 
 directly  opposite  senses,  first  this  side,  then  the  otiier  side.     It 
 
 *  We  wisli  to  take  this  opportunity  of  relieving  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  from  a 
 reproach  which  it  has  heen  attempted  to  cast  upon  him  on  the  strength  of  this  passage. 
 1  he  place,"  VonBohlen  remarks,  according  to  this  passage,  was  also  called  a^^i:^  ^as 
 threshing-floor,  meadow,  grass-plot  of  the  Eggptiaus,  perhaps  from  some  earlier  en- 
 campment, since  they  often  made  war  in  Palestine.    Several  places  are  found  of  which 
 the  names  are  compounded  with  ^ax  such  as  a^-j-rn  Vas,  Num.  xxxiii.  48,  and  hzvi 
 Q^  )3^2,  Judges  XI.  33.   The  historian  wished  to  explain  the  name,  and  interpret  it  accord- 
 ing to  the  unpointed  writing  by  ?ns  mourning;  and  to  favour  this  view  transports  the 
 scene  to  the  country  east  of  Jordan,  which  the  procession  designed  for  Hebron  would 
 never  enter."    We  maintain,  on  the  contrary,  that  a-^^^^  Vas  cannot  signify  the  grass- 
 plot  of  the  Egyptians,  however  widely  spread  that  interpretation  has  been.     For  the 
 meaning  of '52S  locus  g rami nosus,2)ascu am, pratum,  Gesenius  adduces  (Thesaurus, -p. 
 14}    besides  the  nomm.  propr.,  only  1  Sam.vi.  18,  but  considers  the  passage  as  very 
 doubtful  both  as  to  the  reading  and  meaning.     J.  H.  Micraelis,  tind  other  old  expo- 
 sitors, bave  correctly  given  it,  usque  ad  lapidem  ilium  magnum;  ver.  14.  qui  a  luetic 
 acerbissmio  qui    ver.  19,  describitur  Abel  diet  us  f  lit  nns  is  changed  into  Vas  just  as 
 y^2io^_his  ividows,  for  rr;i3a-.!s  his  palaces,  in  Isaiah  xiii.  21.     See  other  examples 
 in  Vol.  1  p.  89      That  ^ns  therefore  has  here  no  other  meaning  than  the  usual  one, 
 mournjul,  as  the  meaning  of  mourning  prevails  in  the  Hebrew,  both  in  the  root  and 
 derivatives.   The  passage  points  to  the  formation  of  proper  names  with  Vns,  and  stands 
 in  tins  respect  pai-allel  with  the  one  before  us.     The  nomm.  propr.  have  collectively 
 the  meaning  moiirnful;  and  the  additional  names  serve  to  distinguish  them  from  one 
 Bnothei— Abel,  Beth  Maachah  ;  that  is,  Abel,  near  Beth  Maachah.     According  to  the 
 analogy  of  the  rest,  our  Abel  Misraim  should  not  be  as  it  otherwise  might  be,  translat- 
 ed by  mourning  Egypt,  but,  Abel  of  the  Egyptians.     If  it  be  settled  that  the  name 
 can  be  only  thus  explained,  so  far  from  testifying  against  the  credibilitv  of  the  account. 
 It  rather  serves  to  confirm  it.     The  name  alone  is  a  pledge  to  us  that  a  spot  in  the 
 Irans-jordanic  land,  which  the  Eg^-ptians  certainly  did  not  freqnentlv  visit,  had  been  a 
 place  ofmourmngfor  the  Egyptians,  and  the  narrative  only  adds  time  and  occasion. 
 Had  the  author  transposed,  at  his  pleasure,  the  scene  in  the  co.intry  east  of  Jordon 
 las  evil  conscience  would  certainly  havc.impelled  him  to  give  reasons  for  the  singularly 
 circuitous  route.  °         ^ 
 
262  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 rather  means  in  Lotli  cases  on  the  other  side  ;  first,  subjectively, 
 then  objectively.  The  phrase  "  towards  the  East"  is  not  intended, 
 according  to  the  explanation  given  by  Movers  of  this  and  similar 
 expressions  to  determine  that  here  "nay^a  means  "  on  this  ,s'ide," 
 but  it  is  used  as  a  fixed  geographical  designation,  independently 
 of  the  position  of  the  speaker.  By  this  passage  both  the  cun-ent 
 opinions  are  negatived.  Here  it  is  impossible  to  deduce  the  ap- 
 plication ^aytt  to  the  Trans-jordanic  regions,  from  the  author's 
 forgetfulness  ol  his  relative  position.  Could  he,  at  one  and  the 
 same  instant,  remember  and  forget  his  actual  point- of- view  ? 
 
 In  ver.  32  of  the  same  chapter  it  is  said,  "  We  will  pass  over 
 ^--^^  armed  before  the  Lord,  into  the  land  of  Canaan,  that  the  pos- 
 session of  our  inheritance  —r-^^  *2-j^  may  be  ours."  Here  it  is  evi- 
 dent that  the  region  on  the  other  side  Jordan  was  regarded  only 
 as  an  accessoriuni  to  Canaan.  We  see  how  the  i^^^?  -^n:?^  became 
 a  standing  geographical  designation.  In  the  verb  ^2^2  lies  the 
 ^a:-'3  in  the  appellative  meaning  tJie  other  side. 
 
 Num.  xxxiv.  15,  "  The  two  tribes  and  the  half  tribe  have  re- 
 ceived their  inheritance  ■j--!^?  ^ny^  near  Jericho,  eastward,  tow^ard 
 the  sunrising."  The  author  could  not  here  have  forgot  himself; 
 this  is  shown  by  the  explanatory  clauses,  which  serve  to  remove 
 any  indistinctness  which  the  iripav  rod  'lopMvov  might  have  in 
 relation  to  Peraea. 
 
 Num.  XXXV.  14,  "  Ye  shall  give  them  three  cities  p-i^?  ^a^to? 
 and  three  cities  shall  ye  give  in  the  land  of  Canaan." 
 
 In  Deut.  i.  1,  "  These  are  the  words  which  Moses  spake  unto 
 all  Israel  •p^'^rt -c^'s,"  the  meaning  on  this  side  will  not  suit  -aya. 
 GoussET  remarks,  Kon  est  quod  Moses  dicat,  se  esse  citra  flu- 
 vinm.  Nam  loquens  ad  qiiamcunque  ripam  sit,  semjier  est  in 
 citeriori  resjiectu  stii.  And  here,  least  of  all,  can  the  phraseology 
 be  attributed  to  forgetfulness.  The  author,  who  certainly  intend- 
 ed to  be  considered  as  Moses,  would  here  collect  liis  thoughts  at 
 the  introduction  ;  nor  would  he  be  likely  to  commit  himself  by 
 such  puerile  inadvertence  at  the  very  threshold.  This  passage 
 should  suffice  to  make  our  opponents  acknowledge  the  use  of  the 
 other  side  in  an  objective  sense  in  the  Pentateuch  ;  and,  at  the 
 same  time,  to  prevent  their  attributing  henceforwcird  any  import- 
 ance to  ^::y3  in  the  investigations  respecting  the  genuineness  of 
 the  ]Mosaic  writine^s. 
 
THE  OTHER  SIDE  JOllDAN.  263 
 
 Ii]  Dent.  iii.  8,  "And  we  took  at  that  time  out  of  the  hand  of 
 the  two  kings  of  the  Amorites,  the  land  i^^n  "^aya  'irs?  from  the  river 
 of  Arnon  unto  Mount  Hermon  ;"  ver.  20,  "  Until  the  Lord  have 
 given  rest  unto  your  brethren  as  well  as  unto  you,  and  they  also 
 possess  the  land  which  the  Lord  your  God  hath  given  them  '^??!^ 
 V.'^-'^ ;"  ver.  25,  "  I  pray  thee  let  me  go  over,  and  see  the  good 
 land  that  is  1!!'?!'7  '^=?.^."  How  unnatural  is  it  to  suppose  that  the 
 author  forgot  himself  in  ver.  8,  hut  not  in  ver,  20,  25 ;  nor  less 
 so  that  "^a^Ja  in  ver.  8  means  ihis  side,  and  in  ver.  20,  25,  the 
 other  side ;  while  how  easy  and  natm'al  that  '^a:>a  in  all  the  pas- 
 sages means  on  the  other  side,  hut  in  ver.  8  is  taken  objectively, 
 and  in  ver.  20,  25,  subjectively. 
 
 Deut.  iv.  41,  "  Then  Moses  severed  three  cities  V^"^  ^??!^,  to- 
 tvards  the  sun-risiny \'  ver.  46,  ''VTyi  ^?.?^  in  the  land  of  Si- 
 hon ;"  ver.  47,  ''  Two  kings  of  the  Amorites  which  were  '^???? 
 1!'.^!l',  toward  the  siiti-rising ;"  ver.  49,  ''All  the  plain  i:!?.^  ^??. 
 eastward.^'  How  came  these  repeated  explanatory  clauses  here, 
 if  the  author  forgot  himself?  Josh  i.  14,  15,  "Your  wives,  your 
 little  ones,  and  your  cattle,  shall  remain  in  the  land  which  Moses 
 gave  you,  intlTL?  ^^?.^,  but  ye  shall  j)ass  over  'i^^?^  before  your 
 brethren  armed.  .  .  until  the  Lord  have  given  your  brethren 
 rest  as  he  hath  given  you,  .  .  then  ye  shall  return  unto  the 
 land  of  your  possession,  and  enjoy  it,  which  Moses  the  Lord's 
 servant  gave  you  V^l^  ^??f  toward  the  sun-rising."  Here  also 
 must  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  have  forgot  himself,  since 
 he  describes  the  land  as  being  on  the  other  side,  which,  in  respect 
 of  his  own  personal  position,  was  o?i  this  side — he,  who  imme- 
 diately speaks  of  passing  over,  and  who  by  the  added  clause,  "  to- 
 ward the  sun-rising,"  shows  that  he  had  chosen  the  geographi- 
 cal designation  with  due  deliberation  ? 
 
 Jos.  V.  1,  "  And  it  came  to  pass  when  all  the  kings  of  the  Amo- 
 rites which  wereT?"?!^  ^?.?^  westward;"  xii.  1,  "  Now  these  are  the 
 kings  of  the  lands  which  the  children  of  Israel  smote,  and  pos- 
 sessed their  land  V^^^jI  "^^.^f  toward  the  rising  of  the  sun;"  ver.  7, 
 *'  And  these  are  the  kings  of  the  country  wliich  Joshua  and  the 
 children  of  Israel  smote  Xl'T!^  "^t-^  toward  the  west."  Ch.  xx.  8, 
 "  And  in'?!'?  ^?.?!?  by  Jericho  eastward  ;"  ch.  xxii  7,  "  Now  to  the 
 half  of  the  tribe  of  Manasseh,  Moses  had  given  possession  in  Ba- 
 shau ;  but  unto  tlie  other  half  thereof  gave  Joshua  among  their 
 
564 
 
 AXACHKOMSMJj  Of  THE   rtNTATEUCH. 
 
 brethren  'C'T'  "f.y  westward."  For  wliat  j)urpose  are  the  terms 
 "  eaatuard,"  "  west  ward,''  repeated,  if  '' a/t  the  other  side'  was 
 perfectly  free  from  ambiguity;  and  why  not  merely  ''eastward" 
 and  ''westward^'  if -2^2  had  in  itself  no  definite  meaning  ? 
 
 Josh.  ix.  1,  "And  it  came  to  pass,  when  all  tlie  kings  which 
 were  -:y2  Jordan  .  .  heard,"  is  gladly  adduced  by  the  advo- 
 cates of  the  two-fold  meaning  *  of  -z^'s  as  evidence  for  the  mean- 
 ing "  on  this  side,"  while  those  who  maintain  that  it  alwayty 
 means  **'  on  the  other  side"  in  a  subjective  sense,  infer  from  this 
 passage  as  well  as  from  v.  1,  xii.  7,  and  xxii.  7,  that  the  book 
 was  written  after  the  people  were  carried  away  into  captivity. 
 Both  opinions  are  alike  arbitrary.  "  The  other  side"  is  to  be  ex- 
 plained by  the  circumstance  that  the  Israelites  had  not  yet  gained 
 a  firm  footing  "  on  this  side"  Jordan;  and  therefore  the  designa- 
 tion, which  strictly  spealdngwas  only  suitable  for  them  as  long  as 
 they  had  not  crossed  over  Jordan,  still  continued  in  frequent  use. 
 They  had  still  their  fixed  position  on  the  other  side  Jordan,  so 
 that  what  was  outwardly  taken  on  this  side,  w^as  inwardly  taken 
 still  on  the  other  side  for  them. 
 
 That  almost  all  the  instances  in  wliich  ^aya  occasions  any  dif- 
 ficulty, are  found  in  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua,  appears,  accord- 
 ing to  our  view%  quite  natural.  For  when  the  occupation  of  the 
 land  w^as  completed,  the  personal  point-of-view  coincided  with 
 the  general. 
 
 UNTO  THIS  DAY. 
 
 The  passages  of  the  Pentateuch  of  which  it  is  said  that  such  or 
 
 *  TLey  also  appeal  to  1  Sain.  xxxi.  7,  but  where  there  is  no  reason  for  giving  np  the 
 common  meaning  maintained  also  by  the  LXX.  and  Josephus.  "  And  when  the  men 
 of  Israel  that  were  on  the  other  side  of  the  valley,  and  they  that  were  on  the  other  side 
 •Jordan,  saw  that  the  men  of  Israel  fled,  and  that  Saul  and  his  sons  were  dead,  they 
 forsook  the  cities  and  fled,  and  the  Philistines  came  and  dwelt  in  them."  We  must 
 only  think  of  those  who  wtre  on  the  other  side  Jordan,  with  a  limitation  that  arises 
 out  of  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  they  were  those  who  lived  near  the  field  of  battle, 
 whose  cities  could  be  reached  by  the  Philistines  in  a  few  hours.  Mouut  Gilboa 
 stretcles  near  Bethshan  (Raumer,  p.  ;5S),  and  Bethshan  is  only  two  hours'  distance 
 from  the  Jordan  (p.  117).  Bethshan  itself,  on  whose  walls  the  Philistines  (ver.  10) 
 hung  Saul's  body,  is  an  instance  of  a  city  on  the  other  side  of  the  valley. 
 
r:NTO  TJfis  DAV  2G."'; 
 
 8iic]i  u  lliing  i:^  "  to  this  daij^'  liave  lonj,^  jigo  been  taken  into 
 consideration  in  tlie  treatises  on  its  genuineness.  Arnon^'  the 
 later  opponents  Yater  conducts  himself  with  tolerable  moderation 
 (p.  O.'Jij  ;  the  passages  in  (jenesis  he  gives  up,  remarking  that 
 this  expression  could  have  been  used  by  Moses,  since  the  events 
 themselves  were  earlier  than  himself;  also  iJeut.  x.  8,  where  it  is 
 said,  *'  At  that  time  the  Lord  separated  the  tribe  of  Levi,  to  bear 
 the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  of  the  Lord,  to  stand  before  the  Lord, 
 to  minister  unto  him,  and  to  bless  in  his  name,  unto  thin  dai/," 
 he  will  not  urge,  since  *'  after  some  thirty  years  it  might  be  so 
 said."  But  Deut.  iii.  H,  he  considers  to  be  perfectly  in  point. 
 "  J  air  the  son  of  Manasseh  took  all  the  countr}^  of  Argob, 
 and  called  them  after  his  own  name,  Bashan-havoth-jair,  irnto  this 
 dayy  This  event  belongs,  according  to  this  passage,  to  the  time 
 immediately  before  the  death  of  Moses,  and  tliis  therefore  could 
 not  have  been  spoken  in  his  farewell  discourse.  But  the  latest 
 opponents  have  again,  without  any  distinction,  founded  their  objec- 
 tion on  all  the  passages  where  the  phrase  "  unto  thin  day'  oc- 
 curs. Thus  Von  Bohlen  remarks  (£inl.  p.  08),  "  He  frequently 
 makes  use  of  this  phrase  "  unto  t/tis  da//,"  which  always  refers  to 
 a  distant  time,  and  on  account  of  which  Jerome  makes  it  a  ques- 
 tion where  Ezra  did  not  revise  the  Pentateuch."  Compare  also 
 Hartmann,  p.  G89. 
 
 It  is  certainly  not  difficult  to  inclose  the  opponents  of  the  ge- 
 nuineness of  the  Pentateuch  within  the  bounds  which  Vater 
 (though  indeed  only  by  compulsion)  had  set  himself,  and  to 
 confine  the  whole  discussion  to  a  single  passage,  Deut.  iii.  14. 
 In  Genesis,  "  unto  this  day'  is  throughout  said  of  facts  which 
 were  separated  from  the  age  of  Moses  by  several  centuries  ;  com- 
 pare ch.  xix.  37,  "  The  same  is  the  father  of  the  Moabites  unto 
 this  day ;"  ver.  38,  "  The  same  is  the  father  of  the  children  of 
 Ammon  unto  this  day!'  Ch.  xxii.  14,  "As  it  is  said  to  this 
 day,  in  the  Mount  of  the  Lord  it  shall  be  seen."  Ch.  xxvi.  33, 
 "Therefore  the  name  of  the  city  is  Beersheba,  unto  this  day." 
 Ch.  xxxii.  33,  (32),  "Therefore  the  children  of  Israel  eat  not  of 
 the  sinew  which  slirank  .  .  .  unto  this  day."  Ch.  xxxv. 
 20,  "  And  Jacob  set  a  pillar  upon  her  grave  ;  that  is  the  pillar  of 
 liachel's  grave  unto  this  day"  Ch.  xlvii.  20,  "And  Jo.seph 
 made  it  a  law  over  the  land  of  Egypt  unto  this  day.'     The  same 
 
200  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 remark  applies  also  to  Deiit.  ii.  22,  "  The  Lord  drove  out  the 
 Horites  before  them  the  (sons  of  Esau)  ;  and  they  dwelt  in  their 
 stead,  even  unto  this  daij."  The  interval  is  shorter  in  Deut.  x. 
 8,  hut  yet  quite  long  enough  for.  the  remark  to  be  made  with 
 propriety. 
 
 We  turn  immediately  to  the  passage  in  Deut.  iii.  14,  especially 
 since  our  remarks  upon  it  will  be  equally  suited  to  set  at  rest 
 whatever  doubts  may  remain  in  reference  to  the  others.  It  is 
 there  said,  "  Jair  called  them  (the  cities  of  Bashan)  after  his  own 
 name,  Bashan  Havoth-Jair,  unto  this  day." 
 
 I.  The  first  point  to  be  determined  is,  the  time  of  Jair's  taking 
 possession  of  these  cities,  and  calling  them  after  his  name.  Ac- 
 cording to  Numbers  xxxii,  39-42,  it  seems  that  Machir  and  Jair 
 made  their  conquests  not  till  after  the  defeat  of  Og  and  Sihon, 
 after  the  country  on  the  other  side  Jordan  had  been  apportioned 
 by  Moses  to  the  two  tribes  and  a  half.  But,  on  fiu'ther  conside- 
 ration, it  appears  that  only  the  formal  investiture  belongs  to  that 
 time,  but  the  taking  possession  and  giving  the  name  to  an  earlier 
 period.  Here  only  the  circumstance  is  repeated,  that  Machir  and 
 Jair  specially  effected  the  conquest  which,  in  ch.  xxi.  35,  is  ascrib- 
 ed, in  general,  to  the  children  of  Israel.  This  will  be  evident  if 
 we  take  into  account  Deut.  iii.  4-6  (3-5),  ("  So  the  Lord  our  God 
 delivered  into  our  hands  Og  also  the  king  of  Bashan,  and  all  his 
 people  ;  and  we  smote  him  until  none  was  left  to  him  remaining. 
 And  we  took  all  his  cities  at  that  time,  there  was  not  a  city  which 
 we  took  not  from  them,  threescore  cities  ....  fenced  with 
 high  walls,  gates,  and  bars  .  .  .  and  we  utterly  destroyed 
 them,  as  we  did  unto  Sihon  king  of  Heshbon")  compared  with 
 ver.  14,  "  Jair  the  son  of  Manasseh  took  aU  the  country  of  Argob 
 .  and  called  them  after  his  own  name,"  &c.  Here 
 can  be  no  doubt,  that  the  conquest  made  by  the  Israelites  and  by 
 Jair  was  one  and  the  same.  And  as  here  ver.  4,  &c.  is  related  to 
 ver.  14,  so  is  Num.  xxi.  35  to  xxxii.  39-42.  But  the  same  fact 
 is  contained  in  Num.  xxxii.  39,  &c.  itself  It  is  said,  ver. 
 39,  40,  *'  And  the  children  of  Machir  the  son  of  Manasseh 
 went  to  Gilead,  and  took  it,  and  dispossessed  the  Amorite  which 
 was  in  it.  And  Moses  gave  Gilead  unto  Machir  the  son  of  Ma^ 
 nasseh  ;  and  he  dwelt  therein."  According  to  this  passage,  Ma- 
 chir's  investiture  took  place  after  his  conquest,  not  the  reverse. 
 
UNTO  THIS  DAY.  267 
 
 L'rom  analogy,  the  same  may  be  concluded  of  Jair  and  Nobah  in 
 ver.  41,  42.  If  thus  far  we  have  made  our  ground  good,  then 
 the  fact  of  which  the  continuance  is  remarked  was  not  so  verv 
 near  the  present  time  of  the  writer.  All  that  occurred  from  Num. 
 xxii.  to  the  end  lay  between. 
 
 II.  The  assertion  that  the  phrase  "  unto  this  day"  is  always 
 used  respecting  an  objectively  distant  time  must  appear  absurd, 
 previous  to  any  special  examination.  It  is  self-evident,  that  the 
 length  of  time  under  consideration  cannot  be  an  absolute  but  only 
 a  relative  duration.  It  depends  entirely  on  the  character  of  indi- 
 vidual objects,  whether  they  are  subject  to  alteration  in  a  longer 
 or  shorter  time.  The  objectively  short  time  may  be  relatively 
 long  ;  so  that  it  may  be  more  natural  to  notice  it  of  an  object  con- 
 tinuing to  exist  after  the  lapse  of  a  few  months  or  even  days,  than 
 of  another  which  has  lasted  for  centuries.  Le  Clerc  {De  Scrip. 
 Pent.  No.  7)  has  given  examples  of.  the  use  of  such  phrases  in 
 other  works  besides  the  Scriptures,  where  a  very  short  time  (ob- 
 jectively considered)  hes  between  the  object  and  the  writer.  Thus 
 ^QTO'mQ  ^vcjQ,'^' Priscillianus,  Ahitae  e2yisco2)us  .  .  .  usque 
 ho  die  a  nonnullis  Gnosticae,  i.e.  Basilidis  et  Marcionis,  de 
 qtdhiis  Irenaeus  scripsit,  haereseos  accusatur,  defendentibus 
 aliis  non  ita  ciinisensisse,  ut  arguitur ;  although  Priscillian  had 
 been  dead  only  seven  years.  Examples  from  the  New  Testament 
 are  found  in  Matt,  xxvii.  8,  xxviii.  15.  KoxiG  {^on  Joshuu,  p.  95) 
 has  collected  examples  from  the  Old  Testament  with  great  care. 
 Thus  in  Joshua's  address  to  the  Trans- jordanic  tribes  (Joshua 
 xxii.  8),  "Ye  have  not  left  your  brethren  these  many  days  unto 
 this  day ;"  although  these  tribes  had  only  for  a  short  series  of 
 years  taken  part  in  the  wars  of  the  Lord  on  this  side  Jordan. 
 Thus  Joshua  says  in  ch.  xxiii.  9,  "  For  the  Lord  hath  driven  out 
 from  before  you  great  nations  and  strong  ;  but  as  for  you,  no  man 
 hath  been  able  to  stand  before  you,  inito  this  daij."  If  these  and 
 so  many  other  examples  show,  that  the  phrase  in  the  Nvritmgs  of 
 the  Old  Testament  is  very  far  from  being  always  used  respecting 
 a  distant  period,  there  are  other  facts  wliich  indicate,  that  it  lost 
 among  the  Hebrews  much  of  its  force,  and  was  employed  with 
 very  little  exactness.  How  otherwise  can  we  account  for  its  be- 
 ing employed  so  often  in  writings  which  are  wholly  sine  die  et 
 consule  ?     In  these  it  can  only  be  intended  to  say,  that  certain 
 
^08  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 transactions  had  not  a  merely  transitory  character.  To  the  same 
 result  we  are  led  by  observing,  that,  in  the  Books  of  Kings  and 
 Chronicles,  the  plu-ase  "  unto  this  day  "  not  unfrequently  occurs 
 relative  to  transactions  which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  could 
 not  have  lasted  to  the  time  when  these  books  were  composed  ; 
 compare  the  instances  in  Movers,  p.  98.  It  is  commonly  taken 
 for  granted,  that  the  writers  transferred  this  remark  without 
 scruple  from  more  ancient  documents ;  but  how  could  they  do  this 
 without  extreme  thoughtlessness,  unless,  in  the  current  language, 
 it  had  a  more  indefinite  value,  the  chai^acter  of  a  standing  phrase 
 w^iich  was  employed  with  little  exactness  ? 
 
 HI.  But  we  need  not  lay  very  great  stress  on  our  last  observa- 
 tion— the  fluctuating  character  of  the  phrase.  From  the  nature 
 of  the  fact,  in  connection  with  which  it  here  occurs,  we  are  able 
 to  show  that  the  objectively  short  time  was  here  not  unimportant, 
 and  hence  the  expression  "  unto  this  daij^'  was  properly  intro- 
 duced. Nothing  is  more  common  than  names  which  do  not  re- 
 main fixed  to  their  respective  objects.  Num.  xxxii.  38  furnishes 
 an  example.  Here  w^e  ai-e  told,  that  the  Israelites  gave  another 
 name  to  the  city  of  Nebo.  But  it  could  not  maintain  its  hold. 
 Even  in  the  times  of  the  kings,  the  city  bore  its  ancient  name. 
 But  all  depends  on  a  name  finding  its  way  into  general  use. 
 When  this  happens,  it  is  generally  sure  of  the  future.  It  was 
 therefore  worthwhile,  in  reference  to  the  name  Havoth-Jair,  to  re- 
 mark, some  months  after  it  was  first  apphed,  that  it  was  still  in  use  ; 
 for  tliis  being  the  case,  it  had  passed  the  crisis  of  its  fate.  And 
 it  is  to  be  observed,  that  here  is  not  merely  an  indication  of  the 
 continuance  of  the  name  as  such,  but  also  of  the  fact  on  which  it 
 rested.  If  the  enemy  had  wrested  his  possessions  from  Jair,  or 
 Moses  had  not  confirmed  his  right  to  them,  the  name  and  the  fact 
 which  occasioned  it  would  both  have  vanished  together.  So  it 
 was,  for  instance,  with  Hormah  ;  after  a  few  months,  the  phrase 
 "  unto  this  day  "  could  no  longer  be  apphed  to  it. 
 
 IV.  We  ought  not  to  overlook  the  larger  connection  in  which 
 the  phrase  "  unto  this  day,"  in  the  passage  before  us,  stands. 
 Le  Clerc  and  J.  H.  Michaelis  surmised  something  of  the  kind 
 when  they  remarked.  Ex  hac  locutione  quidem  colliyunt  haec 
 vert) a  non  esse  Mosis ;  sed  vide  quod  hoc  ipso  cajiite  sexies 
 legitur  ;   tempore  ilto,  quod  nobis  remotius  quid  sonare  videtur, 
 
UNTO  THIS  DAV.  269 
 
 fiine  diihio  tamen  hie  de  rehiiH  imperrimc  gestis  dicitur.  But 
 they  ^^nrsuecl  the  matter  no  farther.  That  a  new  great  section 
 begins  with  Deuteronomy  is  indicated  by  the  new  and  very  full 
 introduction.  To  \\\\^ present,  all  that  went  before,  whether  near 
 or  afar  off,  forms  a  collective  contrast,  confronts  it  as  the  past. 
 The  phrase  "  at  that  time,"  ^V^  l'^,  recurs  in  the  recajDitulation 
 of  former  transactions,  without  taking  into  account  whether  they 
 happened  months,  or  years,  or  half-a-score  years  before.  It  is  set 
 in  contrast  with  this  day,  or  now.  In  reference  to  the  more  distant 
 past,  compare,  for  instance,  Deut.  i.  9,  where  "  that  time"  relates 
 to  the  time  when  the  Israehtes  sojourned  at  Horeb,  ver.  16,  18; 
 iv.  14  ;  ix.  20  ;  x.  1  ;  in  reference  to  the  nearer  and  nearest  past; 
 ch.  iii.  i,  "And  we  took  all  his  cities  at  that  time^  Yer.  8, 
 *'  And  we  took  at  that  time  out  of  the  hands  of  the  two  kings  of 
 the  Amorites  the  land,"  &c.  Yer.  12,  "  And  this  land  which  we 
 possessed  at  that  time!'  Yer.  18,  "  And  I  commanded  you  at 
 that  time,  saying,  The  Lord  your  God  hath  given  you  this  land 
 to  possess  it ;  ye  shall  pass  over  armed  before  your  brethren."  In 
 tliis  last  passage,  the  phrase  ^^"J?  ^11  occurs  in  reference  to  events 
 which  stood  immediately  on  the  threshold  of  the  time  to  which 
 the  discourses  in  Deuteronomy  belong;  compare  Num.  xxxii. 
 20,  21.  Thus  also  in  ver.  21,  22,  "  And  I  commanded  Joshua 
 at  that  time  and  said,  Thine  eyes  have  seen  all  that  the  Lord  your 
 God  hath  done  unto  these  two  kings  ;  so  shall  the  Lord  do  unto 
 all  the  kingdoms  whither  thou  passest.  Ye  shall  not  fear  them  : 
 for  the  Lord  your  God  he  shall  hght  for  you."  Compare  Num. 
 xxvii.  16,  &c.  Lastly,  ver.  28,  "  And  I  besought  the  Lord  at 
 that  time,  saymg,  .  .  .  .  let  me  go  over,  and  see  tlie  good 
 land  \'-  compare  Num.  xxvii.  12  ;  then  follows,  in  ch.  iv.  1,  "  And 
 now'x?.]  hearken,  O  Israel,  unto  the  statutes  and  the  judgments." 
 So  that  the  phrase  ''at  that  time'^  in  Deuteronomy  loses  the  singu- 
 larity of  its  application  to  events  that  were  outwardly  near,  by  the 
 internal  difference  of  the  two  periods  ;  and  the  phrase  is  to  be 
 judged  of  quite  differently  here,  from  what  would  have  been  cor- 
 rect, had  it  stood  at  the  close  of  the  Book  of  Numbers,  even  in 
 reference  to  the  very  same  events. 
 
 But  if  we  have  arrivc^d  at  the  result  that  among  the  passao-es 
 in  the  Pentateuch  where  the  phrase  "  unto  this  day "  occurs, 
 only  one  apparently  indicates   a  post-Mosaic  age,  and  not  one 
 
270  ANACHKONISMS  OF  THE  PE\TATKi:CH. 
 
 really,  we  may  pass  from  the  defensive  to  the  offensive.  If  tlie 
 Pentateucli  were  not  comjDOsed  till  centuries  after  Moses,  this 
 would  have  appeared  in  the  use  of  this  formula.  How  natural 
 it  would  have  heen,  on  a  multitude  of  occasions,  to  make  a  com- 
 parison of  the  present  with  the  past.  So  much  at  least  must  be 
 granted  us,  that  the  omission  of  this  phrase  on  occasions  where 
 it  would  not  have  heen  suitable  in  the  Mosaic  age,  is  explicable 
 only  on  the  supposition  that  the  later  authors  wished  to  palm 
 their  work  on  Moses.  But  a  Moses  iiersonatiis  would  many 
 a  time  have  involuntarily  betrayed  himself.  Let  it  also  be 
 observed,  that  the  phrase  "  tinto  this  day  "  occurs  frequently  in 
 Genesis,  never  in  the  three  middle  books,  and  in  Deuteronomy 
 only  once.  We  find,  therefore,  the  phrase  used  exactly  as  w^e 
 should  anticipate,  on  the  supposition  of  the  Mosaic  authorship. 
 It  will  be  very  difficult  for  our  opponents  to  explain  this  relation 
 of  the  books  to  one  another,  which  certainly  cannot  be  the  result 
 of  accident. 
 
 THE  THREATENING  OF  EXILE. 
 
 This  is  asserted  very  confidently  by  our  opponents  to  be  the 
 mai'k  of  a  later  age,  and  an  argument  against  the  genuineness  of 
 the  Pentateuch.  Vater,  p.  639;  Bertholdt,  794  ;  Hartmann, 
 ^01 ;  Von  Bohlen,  p.  71. 
 
 We  begin  with  remarking,  that  either  this  argument  must  be 
 given  up,  or  it  must  be  applied  much  more  extensively  than  it 
 has  been.  An  appeal  is  commonly  made  only  to  the  last  chap- 
 ters of  Deuteronomy,  and  to  Lev.  xxvi.,  while  yet  the  threatening 
 of  Exile,  and  the  warning  respecting  it,  go  through  the  whole, 
 fi-om  beginning  to  end.  Like  the  history  of  the  loss  of  Paradise, 
 in  Gen.  ii.  8,  it  has  a  prophetic  character.  It  is  only  necessary 
 to  trace  back  the  special  conduct  of  God  to  general  principles, 
 and  at  once  a  prophecy  is  evolved.  This  significance  of  histoi7 
 has  been  acknowledged  in  all  ages  by  the  prophets ;  compare  the 
 proofs  in  the  Christologie,  iii.  053.  The  same  may  be  affirmed 
 of  the  narrative  of  the  flood,  and  of  the  destruction  of  Sodom 
 and  Gomorrah,  ch.  xviii.  and  xix.,  of  which  the  prophetic  import 
 was  evident  to  all  the  prophets  ;  compare  the  Clirisiologie,  ii.  516. 
 
THK  THREATENlNCi  OF  EXILE.  271 
 
 In  Gen.  xv.  IG,  God  said  to  Abraham,  when  he  explained  to  him 
 tlie  reason  why  Canaan  must  still  remain  for  him  the  land  oi'jiro- 
 mise,  not  of  j)ossessioN,  "  for  the  iniquity  of  the  Amorite  is  not 
 yet  full."  The  idea,  w'hich  is  here  presented  wuth  a  special  appli- 
 cation, is  this,  that  the  nations  held  these  countries  of  God  only  as 
 a  feudal  tenui'e,  and  would  be  deprived  of  them  as  soon  as  their 
 rebellion  against  their  Lord  and  God  had  reached  its  height. 
 The  threatening  of  Exile  is  a  mere  conclusion  from  this  idea. 
 Even  the  decalogue  contains  the  germ  of  the  threatening — 
 "  Honour,"  it  is  said,  "  thy  father  and  thy  mother,  that  thy  days 
 may  be  long  upon  the  land  which  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee." 
 In  the  same  way  as  the  promises  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
 belong  to  each  individual  beatitude;  as  the  benedictions  of  Jacob 
 and  Moses  for  the  individual  tribes,  are  for  the  most  part  only 
 special  applications  of  the  general  blessing,  so  is  this,  "  that 
 thou  mayest  live  long  in  the  land,"  &c.,  not  something  intended 
 merely  for  individual  Israelites,  but  for  Israel  at  large ;  and  in 
 reference  to  the  other  commandments,  it  is  to  be  recollected  how 
 it  is  connected  in  a  considerable  number  of  passages  with  other 
 commandments,  for  instance,  Deut.  iv.  26,  40  ;  v.  30 ;  vi.  8  ; 
 xxii.  7;  xxv.  15.  All  these  passages,  from  this  point-of-view, 
 must  be  regarded  as  proofs  of  a  later  age,  which  is  so  much  less 
 admissible  since  the  phrase  '^T^T"*?:;;  is  properly  speaking  peculiar 
 to  the  Pentateuch.  In  the  later  books  it  occurs  only  scattered  here 
 and  there,  and  always  in  such  a  way  that  its  application  evidently 
 rests  on  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  never  found  but  in  connection 
 with  the  observance  of  the  law,  and  always  so  that  it  may  be  re- 
 garded as  a  quotation.  We  must  also  mark  all  the  numerous 
 passages  in  the  foui'  last  books,  in  which  (as  in  Deuteronomy  ix. 
 f),  "  for  the  wickedness  of  these  nations  the  Lord  thy  God  doth 
 di'ive  them  out  before  thee  ")  the  expulsion  of  the  Canaanites  is 
 represented  as  the  consequence  of  their  sins.  For  those  who  re- 
 fuse to  Moses  the  view"  of  a  second  expulsion  of  the  inhabitants, 
 must  also  deny  that  he  contemplated  the  first,  as  he  actually  did, 
 and  especially  since  the  expulsion  of  the  Canaanites  at  that  time 
 is  so  often  expressly  marked  as  a  prophecy  of  the  future  expul- 
 sion of  the  Israelites;  compare  for  instance,  Deut.  viii.  19,  20. 
 "  And  it  shall  be,  if  thou  do  at  all  forget  tlie  Lord  thy  God, 
 and  walk  after  other  gods,  and  serve  them,  and  worship  them,  1 
 
2  I  2  ANACHRONISMS  OF  TIIK   PENTATKICIJ. 
 
 testify  against  you  this  day,  tliat  ye  shall  surely  perisli.  As  the 
 nations  wliich  the  Lord  destroyeth  before  your  face,  so  shall  ye 
 perish."  Equally  must  all  passages  he  considered  as  traces  of  a 
 later  age,  in  which  the  unbelief  of  the  Israelites  is  distinctly 
 stated  to  be  the  cause  of  their  forty  years'  sojourn  in  the  wilder- 
 ness; for,  if  they  could  not  enter  into  the  promised  land,  if  even 
 Moses  and  Aaron  could  not,  on  account  of  it,  cross  its  borders, 
 it  is  self-evident  that  unbelief  must,  at  last,  expel  them  from  the 
 possessions  that  were  at  last  won.  If  the  history  is  true,  so  also 
 is  the  prediction.  Such  is  the  view  that  Moses  takes  when,  in 
 Deut.  iv.  3,  he  speaks  in  a  tone  of  warning:  "  Your  eyes  have 
 seen  what  the  Lord  did  because  of  Baal  Peor ;  for  all  the  men 
 that  followed  Baal  Peor,  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  destroyed  them 
 from  among  you."  In  short,  all  the  passages  must  be  attacked 
 in  which  Moses  expresses  his  acquaintance  with  the  deep  sinful- 
 ness of  the  Israelites,  and  in  which  its  outbreaks  are  historically 
 described.  For,  if  Moses  knew  this,  and  at  the  same  time  pos- 
 sessed a  knowledge  of  God's  punitive  justice,  (which  is  shown  all 
 through  the  Pentateuch),  how  could  he  do  otherwise  than  look 
 with  an  anxious  heart  on  the  future  destinies  of  his  people  ?  Thus, 
 from  all  sides  we  are  led  to  the  threatening  of  the  Exile,  we  meet 
 every  where  with  its  germ,  and  therefore  it  can  only  be  made  to 
 tell  as  an  argument  against  the  genuineness,  by  denying  any 
 Mosaic  element  whatever  in  the  Pentateuch. 
 
 The  assertion  that  the  threatening  of  the  Exile  could  not  pro- 
 ceed fi'om  Moses,  on  nearer  examination,  strikes  us  as  excessive- 
 ly absurd.  The  bias  from  which  it  proceeds  must,  if  conse- 
 quentially carried  out,  end  in  a  gross  materialism.  Without  at  all 
 considering  in  what  relation  the  announcement  stands  to  the  idea, 
 people  pass  their  judgment  upon  it,  as  if  the  subject  of  Moses' 
 predictions  had  been  what  kind  of  weather  it  would  be  some 
 centuries  after  his  death. 
 
 The  threatening  of  the  Exile  is  the  necessary  product  of  three 
 factors  (i.)  The  experimental  acquaintance  with  the  depravity 
 of  the  people  ;  this  is  always  laid  as  a  foundation  by  Moses  him- 
 self. How  fearfully  it  w^ould  manifest  itself  in  the  future,  he  in- 
 fers from  its  outbreaks  in  the  present,  which  in  so  many  respects 
 gave  omen  of  what  would  follow  :  "  if  these  thinf/s  are  done  in  a 
 green  tree,  what  shall  he  done  in  the  dry  /"    Compare  for  instance 
 
THliKATKNING  OF  EXILK.  ''i'J'i 
 
 Dent.  ix.  0,  7,  ''  Tliou  art  u  stift'-ucrkcd  pcM)plt'.  KtMiKiiilicr  and 
 forget  not,  llo^v  thou  provokedest  the  T^ord  tliy  (lod  to  wralli  in 
 the  wilderness;  from  the  day  that  tlion  didst  depart  out  (tf  tlie 
 land  of  Egypt,  until  ye  eame  unto  this  plaee,  ye  have  been  rebel- 
 lious against  the  Lord."  Then  follows  an  enumeration  of  particu- 
 lars. Lastly,  in  ver.  21,  he  sums  up  the  ^vllole  hy  saying,  "You 
 have  been  rebellious  against  the  Lord,  from  the  day  that  I  knew 
 you."  Compare  other  passages,  which  show  how  deeply  Moses 
 was  acquainted  with  human  and  Israelitish  depravity,  (vol.  i.  p. 
 U3).  (ii.)  The  knowledge  that  God,  the  possessor  of  all  coun- 
 tries, divides,  bestows,  and  takes  them  away,  according  to  his  own 
 will ;  compare  Dent.  ii.  5,  "  Meddle  not  with  them  ;  for  I  will 
 not  give  you  of  their  land ;  no,  not  so  much  as  a  foot-breadth  ; 
 because  I  have  given  Mount  Seir  unto  Esau  for  a  possession." 
 10-12  and  other  passages,  (iii.)  The  conviction  tbat  tbe  posses- 
 sion (as,  in  a  certain  degree,  that  of  all  countries,  but  here  ac- 
 cording to  a  more  elevated  standard,  founded  on  the  relation  of 
 God  to  Israel)  was  conditional,  determined  only  by  the  steady 
 fidelity  and  obedience  of  the  people.  Compare  Num.  xxxv.  o8, 
 34  ;  Deut  vii.  1,  &c. 
 
 It  must  not  be  overlooked,  that  the  prediction  of  the  captivity  is 
 expressed  throughout  in  terms  more  general  than  those  of  the  most 
 ancient  prophets.  The  idea  had  as  yet  so  little  mastered  its  future 
 substratum,  that  the  author  was  obliged  to  confine  himself  to  the 
 earlier.  He  announces  a  return  to  Egypt,  exactly  as  Zechariah 
 does  to  Sinar,  though,  as  mfiy  be  gathered  from  other  passages, 
 with  the  clear  consciousness  that  Egypt  only  occupied  the  place 
 of  an  unknown  quantity,  [die  stelle  eines  uiihekannten  X).  Com- 
 pare vol.  i.  p.  123. 
 
 If  persons  venture  to  speculate  thus  crudely,  what  must  become 
 of  all  the  predictions  of  the  prophets  ?  Even  Eichhorn's  style 
 of  criticism,  who  c(msiders  the  prophecies  for  the  most  part  as 
 veiled  historical  sketches,  would  not  be  thorough-paced  enough. 
 Nay,  even  words  like  the  well-known  expressions  of  Niebuiir  re- 
 specting the  troubled  future  that  awaits  us,  could  only  be  con- 
 sidered as  genuine,  till  they  were  actually  fulfilled ! 
 
 "  Sin  is  the  destruction  of  the  people,"  and  "  wheresoever  the 
 carcase  is,  there  will  the  eagles  be  gathered  together." — The  man 
 who  knows  these  truths  vitally,  can  prophesy  ;  for  he  is  in  pos- 
 VOL.  II.  s 
 
274  ANACHRONItSMS  IN  THK  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 session  of  the  laws  by  wliich  history  is  governed.  "  The  sins  of 
 the  Italians,"  says  Savonarola  (Rudelbach's//.  Havoiiarole  und 
 seine  Zeit.  p.  809),  are  enough  to  make  all  men  prophets  if  there 
 was  no  other  prophecy ;"  and  again,  "  Truly,  it  is  not  I  who  pro- 
 phecy against  you,  but  your  sins  prophecy  against  you." 
 
 It  remains  to  be  noticed,  that  precisely  the  portions  that  have 
 been  assailed,  the  last  chapter  of  Deuteronomy  and  Lev.  xxvi.,  are 
 those  which  have  received  the  greatest  confirmation  from  the 
 quotations  of  later  writers.  They  form,  in  fact,  the  foundation  of 
 the  whole  prophetic  structure,  and  their  originality  is  testified  by 
 all  the  prophets  from  the  earliest  times  without  exception.  Many 
 tilings  belonging  to  them  have  been  brought  forw^ard  in  vol.  i. 
 several  more  in  the  Christologie,  particularly  in  vol.  iii. ;  but  we 
 shall  take  another  opportunity  for  their  complete  illustration. 
 
 THE  PROPHETS. 
 
 Among  Le  Clerc's  eighteen  doubtful  passages,  one  is  (p.  ^7) 
 the  frequent  occuiTcnce  of  n^=3  in  the  Pentateuch,  which  appears 
 to  contradict  1  Sam.  ix.  9,  where  it  is  said,  "Before  time  in 
 Israel,  when  a  man  went  to  enquire  of  God,  thus  he  spake.  Come, 
 and  let  us  go  to  the  seer ;  for  he  that  is  now  called  s^=3  Avas  be- 
 fore time  called  '^?'^."  If,  accordingly,  the  name  Isahi  was  not 
 in  use  in  the  beginning  of  Samuel's  time,  then  the  passages  of 
 the  Pentateuch  w^here  s-^sd  occurs,  must  be  regarded,  it  would  seem, 
 as  so  many  anachronisms.  Yet  Le  Clerc  does  not  attach  much 
 weight  to  this  difficulty.  He  remarks  on  Gen.  xx.  7,  briefly  and 
 well :  temporihus  Mosis  iisitata  erat ;  jiidicum  tempore  desiit, 
 inde  iteriun  renaia  est.  Yet  Vater  revived  it,  though  some- 
 w^hat  doubtfully.  But  Hartmann  w^ent  farther.  Apart  from  the 
 names,  all  the  passages  in  wdiich  the  prophetic  order  is  mentioned, 
 appeared  to  him  as  so  many  proofs  of  a  later  age.  For  the  ac- 
 credited history  shows  us  the  first  traces  of  the  prophetic  order  in 
 Samuel's  age.  But  as  to  this  latter  point,  what  right  have  we  to 
 conclude,  that  because  the  prophetic  order  in  Samuel's  time  made, 
 in  some  sort,  a  fresh  beginning,  it  had  no  existence  in  the  Mosaic 
 age  ?  On  the  contrary,  the  flourishing  of  the  prophetic  order  in 
 Samuel's  time,  leads  us  to  expect  with  certainty  something  similar 
 
THE  PROPHETS.  275 
 
 in  the  Mosaic  age.  The  prophetic  order  meets  us  in  the  history 
 of  Israel  at  all  the  cross-ways,  at  all  the  great  critical  periods.  It 
 is  inse2:)arably  connected  with  every  fresh  revival  of  the  theocratic 
 principle  in  the  national  mind — on  the  one  hand  as  its  highest 
 ornament,  Joel  iii.  1,  on  the  other  hand,  as  the  means  by  which  the 
 Lord  called  it  into  action,  Joel  ii.  1  ;  Malachi  iii.  1,  23.  Hence 
 every  separate  manifestation  of  the  prophetic  spirit,  may  be  re- 
 garded as  a  prediction  of  all  that  were  to  come,  as  far,  that  is, 
 as  there  w^as  a  recurrence  of  similar  circumstances.  Isaiah,  in  the 
 time  of  Hezekiah,  points  us  to  Jeremiah  in  the  time  of  Josiah  ; 
 the  existence  of  Malachi  is  a  pledge  of  the  appearance  of  John 
 the  Baptist.  Even  so  we  may  with  certainty  draw  conclusions 
 respecting  the  earlier  from  the  later.  We  cannot  conceive  of  the 
 Mosaic  age  as  destitute  of  any  manifestation  whatever  of  the  pro- 
 phetic spirit,  since  it  was  the  original  stock  which  contained  the 
 germ  of  all  later  developments.  To  take  away  entirely  the  pro- 
 phetic order  from  the  Mosaic  age,  would  be  to  annihilate  the 
 liistorical  existence  of  Moses.  For  reject  and  suspect  as  many 
 single  facts  as  we  please  in  his  history,  what  is  left  behind  will 
 always  give  evidence  of  his  prophetic  character.  And  where  a 
 spiritual  gift  in  an  individual  is  put  forth  with  such  potency,  a 
 circle  of  other  individuals  always  gathers  round  in  whom  the  same 
 gift  is  manifested  in  lower  degrees.  Thus,  as  the  existence  of  a 
 Luther  was  a  pledge  of  the  existence  of  a  Melancthon,  a  Jonas, 
 a  BuGENHAGEN,  as  WO  cannot  conceive  of  a  Samuel,  or  an 
 Elijah,  otherwise  than  as  surrounded  by  a  choir  of  prophetic 
 pupils,  so  the  prophetic  powers  of  Moses  brought  in  their  train 
 those  of  Miriam,  the  seventy  Elders,  and  many  more  of  whom 
 history  is  silent.  But  setting  aside  the  Pentateuch,  how  can  any 
 one  maintain  that  the  accredited  history  of  the  prophets  began  with 
 the  times  of  Samuel  ?  Does  not  the  period  of  the  Judges  present 
 us  with  manifold  examples  of  prophetic  agency — connecting  hnks 
 of  the  prophetic  chain  between  the  age  of  Moses  and  of  Samuel  ? 
 The  whole  objection  rests  on  a  most  unspiritual  view  of  the  na- 
 ture of  prophecy.  There  is  no  perception  of  its  necessity — of  its 
 intimate  connection  with  the  whole  constitution  of  the  kingdom  of 
 God  under  the  Old  Covenant;  it  is  treated  as  a  discovery,  a 
 mechanical  invention — as  an  external  and  accidental  peculiarity  of 
 a  certain  age ;  Samuel,  in  relation  to  the  prophetic  gift  is  thought 
 
276  ANACHRONISMS  IN  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 of,  like  Sir  Francis  T3rake  in  relation  to  the  culture  of  the  p-o- 
 tato.     We  ought  to  be  above  such  mean  notions. 
 
 As  to  the  passage  in  1  Sam.  ix.  9,  it  must  be  interpreted  (as 
 Havernick  has  done,  Einl.  li.  p.  50)  in  connection  with  the 
 whole  character  of  tlie  age  to  which  it  belongs.  The  phrase- 
 ology was  not  accidental ;  it  w^as  founded  on  facts.  The  key  is 
 given  in  1  Sam.  iii.  1,  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  was  scarce  in  those 
 days,  no  prophecy  was  spread  abroad."  In  the  age  preceding 
 Samuel,  prophecy  had  lost  its  true  importance ;  here  and  there 
 the  prophetic  gift  manifested  itself,  but  scattered,  and  with- 
 out a  proper  connection  with  the  kingdom  of  God.  Saul's 
 example  -shows  what  was  then  sought  for  from  the  men  of  God ; 
 from  which  we  may  conclude  what  was  not  sought.  Under  these 
 circumstances,  it  was  in  the  nature  of  the  case  that  the  x-'m  must 
 give  way  to  the  t^s^ ;  this  does  not  involve  an  absolute  unac- 
 quaintedness  with  the  former,  but  only  a  neglect,  somewhat  as  the 
 days  of  prevailing  rationaUsm,  when  the  clergy  undertook  not  only 
 the  general  care  of  souls,  but  the  duties  of  mihtary  chaplains,  and 
 were  only  shepherds  in  a  pecuhar,  or  rather  an  improper  sense, 
 so  that  the  no  longer  distinctive  term  pastor  began  to  give  way  to 
 2)reacher  or  teacher.  The  term  ns^  relates  merely  to  the  form  in 
 which  their  knowledge  was  imparted  to  the  man  of  God ;  s<"'25, 
 on  the  contrary,  denotes  a  fixed  position  in  the  kingdom  of  God, 
 and  is  always  used  in  reference  to  it.  All  cs^sd  wTre  n^s^,  but  not 
 the  reverse  ;  as  at  an  earlier,  by  a  revolution  in  the  national 
 mind,  the  term  s^33  had  been  expelled,  so  now,  by  a  fresh  revolu- 
 tion in  Samuel's  time,  the  n'^s<n  were  again  become  a\s^a:,  and  were 
 reinstated  in  their  rights. 
 
 THE  alleged  abstract  UNHISTORICAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE 
 MOSAIC  POLITY. 
 
 Vatke  (p.  204)  has  urged  this  as  an  argument  against  the 
 genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch.  A  close  examination,  he  asserts, 
 makes  it  evident  that  the  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  could  not 
 be  the  foimdation  of  a  pohtical  constitution,  nor  even  of  a  hier- 
 archy, but  only  an  enlargement  in  some  special  departments  of  a 
 state  of  legislation  and  morals   akeady  existing.     The  Mosaic 
 
UNHTSTORICAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  MOSAIC  POLITY.         277 
 
 polity  could  only  exist  by  means  of  a  supplement,  wliich  it  really 
 had  at  a  later  period,  since  it  perfected  itself.  There  wanted  a 
 legislative  power,  and  equally  a  determining  one,  "  since  Moses, 
 the  priests,  the  chiefs  of  the  tribes,  and  the  elders,  on  the  one 
 hand,  and  the  congregation  on  the  other,  stood  in  no  organic  re- 
 lation." The  judicial  power  formed  no  comprehensive  organism — 
 the  executive  power  was  altogether  wanting.  As  the  Pentateuch 
 contained  so  many  prescriptions  in  detail,  respecting  the  rights  of 
 private  persons,  the  ritual,  the  revenues  of  the  priests,  and  such- 
 like, it  appears  inconceivable  that  Moses  should  have  done  so 
 little  for  carrying  out  these  laws ;  that  he  did  not  perceive  that 
 the  whole  state  must  fall  into  anarchy — that,  in  short,  his  state, 
 without  this  ruling  power,  would  be  no  state.  Besides  the  idea 
 of  an  effective  ruling  power,  there  was  wanting  to  the  Mosaic 
 state  the  higher  unity,  and  the  whole  sphere  of  pubhc  justice. 
 The  famed  systematic  unity  of  the  Mosaic  theocracy  refers  itself, 
 when  closely  viewed,  only  to  the  abstract  general  theocratic  prin- 
 ciple, and  such  consequences  as  might  be  immediately  deduced 
 from  it,  and  not  to  the  unity  of  an  actual  political  constitution. 
 All  the  powers  of  the  state  are  attributed  to  God,  so  that  God 
 had  in  his  own  hand  the  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive  power ; 
 and  all  the  organs  clothed  with  official  authority  were  only 
 dependent  instruments.  There  was  no  form  of  polity,  in  the 
 common  sense  of  the  words,  but  rather  a  religious  exhibition,  a 
 result  and  abstraction  of  moral  relation  already  formed,  and 
 more  fitted  to  purify  and '  elevate  the  moral  and  rehgious  condi- 
 tion of  the  people,  than  to  regulate  their  judicial  and  social  rela- 
 tions. If,  on  isolated  occasions,  the  Divine  sovereignty  appointed 
 earthly  representatives,  there  was  nothing  in  the  way  against  ap 
 pointing  such  substitutes  on  all  occasions.  But  to  the  Mosaic 
 state,  the  conception  of  human  authority,  and  of  the  obedience  it 
 involves,  was  altogether  wanting ;  for  the  government  was  entrust- 
 ed neither  to  the  priests  nor  to  the  chiefs  of  the  tribes.  (!)  The 
 result  is,  that  the  whole  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  formed  the 
 basis  of  no  pohtical  constitution,  nor  was  it  intended  for  that 
 pm^oose,  but  had  rather  for  its  object  only  the  partial  improve- 
 ment of  individual  sections,  and  hence  mui>t  have  originated  in 
 a  state  already  exiatincj. 
 
 On  this  argument,  which  it  is  evident  belongs  to  one  of  the 
 
278  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  TENTATEUCH. 
 
 pretended  traces  of  a  later  age  in  the  Pentateuch,  we  oflbr  the  fol- 
 lowing remarks  : — 
 
 First,  That  the  Pentateuch  presupposes  an  already  existing 
 legal  and  social  condition  is  correct ;  but  the  assertion  is  false 
 that  such  a  condition  was  not  already  existing  in  the  age  of 
 Moses.  It  is  founded  on  a  notion  of  the  perfectly  rude  state  of 
 the  Israelites,  which  we  already  proved  to  be  inconsistent  with 
 facts  (vol.  i.  p.  406-411).  The  constitution  of  the  Israelites 
 had  certainly  its  important  defects  ;  but  it  would  appear  to  us 
 much  more  as  a  closely  connected  organism  if  we  possessed  re- 
 cords which  would  furnish  a  complete  exhibition  of  the  civil  life 
 of  the  Israelites.  But  we  have  only  a  view  of  their  sacred  history, 
 in  which  the  civil  only  so  far  appears  as  it  comes  into  contact  with 
 the  rehgious.  Nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  the  fragmentary 
 quahty  of  the  history  has  been  transferred  to  the  facts,  especially 
 since  a  neglect  of  the  distinction  between  sacred  and  civil  history 
 (the  parent  of  innumerable  mistakes),  has  extended  so  widely. 
 The  appearance  of  defect  in  the  constitution  of  civil  relations  has 
 been  greater,  because  Moses  and  Aaron,  by  the  voluntary  surren- 
 der of  authority  to  them  in  acknowledgment  of  their  extraordinary 
 Divine  mission,  and  afterwards  Joshua,  exercised  those  functions 
 in  a  dictatorial  manner,  which  would  have  been  otherwise  divided. 
 To  a  superficial  observer  these  transactions  appear  as  so  many 
 proofs  that  in  these  cases  there  was  a  want  of  continuity  in  the 
 civil  organism.  But  how  httle  reason  there  is  for  such  a  conclu- 
 sion appears  from  the  examples  of  the  judicial  functions.  These 
 had  been  accumulated  on  Moses,  since  the  confidence  which  the 
 people  had  placed  in  him  on  religious  grounds  was  transferred  to 
 this  department,  and  those  who  would  naturally  have  been  judges, 
 from  a  sense  of  his  spiritual  superiority,  willingly  retired  to  the 
 back-ground.  But  when  the  evils  arising  from  this  state  of  things 
 became  sensible,  Moses  did  not  arbitrarily  take  a  certain  number 
 of  judges  from  the  mass  of  the  people,  who  might  appear  by  their 
 personal  qualities  to  be  suited  for  this  office,  but  reinstated  the 
 natural  overseers  and  judges  in  their  suspended  functions.  That 
 the  constitution  could  not  be  so  unformed  as  Vatke  assumes,  is 
 at  once  settled  by  the  circumstance,  that  it  maintained  itself  for  cen- 
 turies under  not  very  simple  relations,  and  continued  during  the  resi- 
 dence of  the  Israelites  in  Canaan,  for  several  centuries,  without  any 
 
UXHISTORICAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE   MOSAIC  POLITY.         279 
 
 alteration  in  essential  points.  This  is  also  shown  if  we  descend 
 to  particulars,  and  follow  them  out.  That  each  tribe  possessed  an 
 internal  government  of  its  own  is  as  clear  as  day.  (Miciiaelis 
 Mos.  EecJit,  i.  §  4G.)  It  w^as  less  liable  to  change,  since  all  the 
 official  persons,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  attained  to  their 
 dignity  by  birth,  and  were  thus  tlie  natural  representatives  of  the 
 people.  Nor  ^vas  the  national  unity  wholly  wanting,  though  tliis 
 was  certainly  the  weak  side  of  the  constitution.  The  hereditai^ 
 representatives  of  each  tribe  formed  together  the  council  of  the 
 nation,  which,  on  emergencies  which  affected  the  whole,  exercised 
 the  supreme  powers  (Michaelis,  §  45),  the  legislative,  after  Moses, 
 not  less  than  the  rest ;  for  the  assertion  that  the  legislation  closed 
 with  Moses,  must  necessarily  be  limited  to  the  department  of  re- 
 ligion and  morals.  Even  in  Egypt,  Moses  and  Aaron,  when  they 
 were  to  deliver  their  commission  to  the  people,  knew  at  once  to 
 whom  they  must  address  themselves.  They  called  together  all 
 the  elders  of  the  people,  Exod.  iv.  29.  When  an  extraordinary 
 event  took  place  on  their  march  through  the  wilderness,  "  All  the 
 rulers  of  the  congregation  {^1^.Tl  T"*?^"^?)  came  and  told  Moses." 
 If  the  bond  of  union  between  the  tribes  w^as,  and  continued  to  be, 
 a  loose  one,  yet  it  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  as  God  effected  for 
 the  present  a  unity  by  the  mission  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  and  for 
 the  period  immediately  succeeding  by  the  election  of  Joshua  ;  so 
 also,  for  later  times,  Moses  always  proceeds  on  the  supposition 
 that  God  would  send  extraordinary  helps  for  extraordinary  situa- 
 tions and  emergencies ;  that  he  would  raise  up  judges,  rehgious 
 and  political  directors  for  the  people,  which  actually  happened,  as 
 often  as  the  people  turned  with  sincere  hearts  to  the  Lord ;  while 
 in  case  of  their  unfaithfulness,  the  defects  of  their  constitution 
 would  necessarily  be  felt  heavily  and  painfully. 
 
 Secondly,  Moses  certainly  did  not  hand  over  the  government 
 to  the  chiefs  of  the  tribes,  &c. ;  for,  in  order  to  do  this,  he  must 
 have  previously  wrested  it  from  them  like  a  downright  demagogue  ; 
 nor  did  he  admit  their  authority  as  an  element  in  his  state ;  how 
 could  he  do  this  wdien  he  himself  foresaw  that  at  a  future  period 
 the  existing  constitution  would  give  way  to  royalty  ?  Whoever 
 attempts  to  link  the  unchangeable  with  the  changeable,  draws  it 
 down  to  liis  own  destruction.  But  Moses  recognised  the  existing 
 Magistracy  as  one  which,  for  the  present,  until  under  God's  guid- 
 
280  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 aiice  a  new  development  made  its  appearance,  did  honour  to  the 
 supremacy  of  God  and  to  justice,  and  from  which  obedience  could 
 not  be  withdrawn  w^ithout  great  criminahty.  It  is  said  in  Exod. 
 xxii.  27  (28),  "  Thou  sh alt  not  revile  God,  nor  curse  the  ruler  of 
 thy  people  ;"  which  is  tantamount  to,  "  Whoever  curses  the  ruler 
 who  bears  the  image  of  God,  curses  God."  The  sentiment  is  here 
 designedly  expressed  in  general  terms,  so  that  it  might  suit  the  fu- 
 ture not  less  than  the  present,  but  by  this  general  character  it  would 
 be  more  impressive  for  the  latter,  than  if  the  then  existing  magis- 
 tracy had  been  specially  named.  It  is  exactly  the  same  as  in  the 
 words  of  the  Apostle,  iraaa  '^v)(r]  i^ovcrlai,^  v'jTepe')(ova-aL^  viro- 
 raacreo-Ow.  ovydp  iaTcv  e^ovata  it  fjurj  utto  6eov,  at  8e  ovcrat  e^ov- 
 (Tcat,  VTTO  Tov  Oeov  reraj/jLevat  elo-lv,  Eom.  xiii.  1 ;  the  general  prin- 
 ciple is  laid  down  which  should  regulate  men's  conduct  towards 
 their  rulers.  The  actual  condition  is  treated  as  the  lawful  one,  and 
 all  subjective  argumentation  is  su2:)pressed.  Vatke  endeavours 
 to  elude  the  force  of  this  passage  by  remarking,  that  it  is  evidently 
 a  reference  to  later  times,  because  the  law  does  not  sanction  worldly 
 dominion.  But  this  evasion  would,  at  the  most,  be  only  allowable 
 if  the  passage  stood  quite  isolated.  But  all  the  cases  in  which 
 Moses  calls  the  rulers  of  the  people  to  a  consultation,  contain  a 
 recognition  of  it,  and  stand  parallel  to  this  law.  Moses  invited 
 the  twelve  chiefs  of  the  tribes,  and  the  other  natural  represen- 
 tatives of  the  people,  to  important  conferences  which  had  a  politi- 
 cal aspect.  Thus,  for  example,  at  the  numbering  of  the  j)eople, 
 Num.  ch.  i.,  where  it  is  said,  after  enumerating  the  twelve  chiefs 
 of  the  tribes,  "  These  w^ere  the  called  from  the  congregation, 
 princes  of  the  tribes  of  their  fathers,  heads  of  the  thousands  of 
 Israel."  Thus  also  at  the  sending  of  the  spies,  Num.  xiii.  The 
 partition  of  the  land  by  Joshua  and  Eleazar  was  to  be  undertaken 
 with  their  concurrence.  Num.  xxxiv.  16.  According  to  Num. 
 xxxii.,  "  the  childi'en  of  Gad  and  the  cliildren  of  Reuben  came 
 and  spake  to  Moses  and  to  Eleazar  the  priest,  and  unto  the 
 princes  of  the  congrer/ation."  In  Num.  xxxvi.  1,  it  is  said, 
 "  And  the  chief  fathers  ^'^'^^'^  ^'it'^'^  of  the  families  of  the  children  of 
 Gilead  ....  came  near  and  spake  before  Moses,  and  be- 
 fore the  princes,  the  chief  fathers  of  the  children  of  Israel.  "  The 
 position  which  Moses  assumes  in  this  reference,  at  once  allowing 
 and  securing  tlie  right  of  the  present,  and  of  the  future  historical 
 
rNHlSTORICAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  MOSAIC  POLITY.         ;^81 
 
 (lovelopnient,  sliowing  that  lie  knew  liow  to  unite  intimately  tlie 
 Htate  and  the  Church,  and  yet  how  to  separate  them,  is  truly  wor- 
 thy of  admiration. 
 
 Thirdly,  It  is  a  strange  requirement  that  Moses  should  throw 
 aside  the  whole  existing  constitution,  and  appoint  new  earthly 
 representatives  in  its  stead.  Persons  must  really  be  very  much 
 governed  by  the  great  principle  of  subjectivity,  if  they  would  ap- 
 ply to  a  Divine  messenger  the  standard  of  a  demagogue  and  con- 
 stitution-maker. Even  on  the  principles  of  prudence  how  could 
 Moses  act  otherwise  than  he  did  ?  Had  he  disturbed  the  exist- 
 ing order  of  things,  the  instance  of  the  rebellion  of  Korah,  Da- 
 than,  and  Abiram,  shows  what  would  have  been  the  consequence. 
 If  an  insurrection  of  such  great  extent  and  energy  was  formed 
 against  the  pre-eminence  which  Moses,  strictly  keeping  himself 
 within  liis  own  peculiar  bounds,  the  spiritual  department,  had  con- 
 ferred, without  taking  away  existing  rights,  which  in  this  depart- 
 ment were  almost  non-existent — what  would  not  have  been  the 
 consequence,  if,  intruding  into  the  pohtical  department,  he  had 
 ventured  to  pull  up  or  to  plant  according  to  his  own  will,  to  alter 
 relations  which  were  most  intimately  and  deeply  interwoven  vvith 
 the  national  life  ?  But  granting  that  he  might  for  the  instant 
 have  succeeded,  how  soon  would  the  national  life  have  freed  itself 
 by  a  violent  reaction  from  the  constitution  imposed  upon  it,  and 
 at  the  same  time  from  religion  ?  Certainly,  a  prudent  man  would 
 not  risk  everything  for  the  sake  of  (proportionably)  so  small  a 
 gain  !  Still  more  must  every  thought  of  such  an  enterprise  be 
 set  at  rest  by  Moses'  sense  of  justice  and  his  piety  !  It  has  been 
 of  old  usual  to  deduce  the  duties  towards  rulers,  from  the  com- 
 mand to  honour  parents,  and  the  most  absolute  justification  for 
 this  inference  is  to  be  found  in  the  constitution  of  the  Israelites 
 in  the  time  of  Moses.  The  state  was  then  nothing  more  than  a 
 large  family.  How  could  Moses  himself  wantonly  violate  the 
 first  commandment  which  had  a  promise  ?  The  objection 
 that  Moses  had  newly  installed  earthly  agents  for  some  spe- 
 cialities of  the  theocracy,  is  of  no  force,  partly  because  these 
 specialities  had  hitherto  had  no  peculiar  agents,  partly  because 
 they  were  not  pohtical  but  religious.  Nor  is  it  of  more  impor- 
 tance, if  an  appeal  be  made  to  the  very  numerous  detailed  pre- 
 scriptions respecting  the  riglits  of  private  persons.     For  private 
 
282  ANACHRONISMS  OF  THE  PENTATIiUCH. 
 
 right  has  a  moral  and  natural  basis,  and  cannot  equally  well  be 
 settled  in  this  way  or  that  way.  What  depends  on  changeable 
 relations,  is  also  here  left  undetermined.  The  constitution,  on  the 
 other  hand,  held  itself  in  a  state  of  indifference  towards  religion 
 and  morals.  Whoever  were  the  judges,  the  persons  who  came 
 before  them  appeared  before  God,  Ex.  xxi.  26  ;  xxii.  7.  It  was 
 the  same  in  all  the  other  public  relations.  The  assertion,  that 
 either  Moses  did  not  give  so  many  laws,  or  by  a  transformation 
 of  the  constitution,  must  have  been  in  fear  for  their  execution,  at- 
 tributes to  Moses  the  design  to  fabricate  a  kind  of  perpetuum 
 mohile,  to  found  a  work  that  had  in  itself  the  guarantee  of  its 
 continued  duration.  But  this  view  was  very  far  from  entering 
 his  thoughts.  Moses  rested  the  hope  of  the  permanence  of  his 
 work  on  the  living  God,  whose  sovereignty  in  Israel  was  to  him 
 no  abstract  idea,  no  titulus  sine  re,  but  the  most  real  of  all  rea- 
 lities. It  stood  in  perfect  clearness  before  his  eyes,  that  shameful 
 transgression  awaited  the  laws,  but  instead  of  opposing  to  this 
 transgression  the  petty  bulwark  of  political  institutions,  which  in 
 no  age  has  withstood  a  vigorous  assault,  he  directed  his  eye  to 
 the  great  Reformer  in  heaven,  who  must  watch  over  his  own  laws, 
 which  are  the  expressions  of  a  will  that  emanates  ii'om  liis  own 
 nature. 
 
 The  preceding  remarks  will  perhaps  contribute  to  render  more 
 conspicuous  the  error  of  the  common  representation  of  the  ab- 
 solute unity  of  State  and  Church  under  the  Old  Covenant.  Not 
 Christ  alone,  but  Moses  could  say,  t/?  /le  Kareo-TTjae  BtKaa-rrjp  rj 
 ^epLo-rrjv  icj)  vfid^ ;  Luke  xii.  13,  although  certainly  the  relation 
 of  a  national  church  to  the  state,  must  be  closer  than  that  of  one 
 which  embraces  all  people  and  tongues  on  the  whole  earth. 
 
(  283   ) 
 
 THE 
 
 CONTRADICTIONS 
 
 PENTATEUCH. 
 
 It  is  tlie  unavoidable  fate  of  a  spurious  historical  work  of  any 
 length,  to  be  involved  in  contradictions.  This  must  be  the  case 
 to  a  very  great  extent  with  the  Pentateuch  if  it  be  not  genuine. 
 It  embraces  a  very  considerable  period ;  the  same  facts  are  fre- 
 quently touched  upon  in  different  places,  and  the  same  subjects  of 
 legislation.  If  the  Pentateuch  is  spurious,  its  histories  and  laws 
 have  been  fabricated  in  successive  portions,  and  were  committed 
 to  writing  in  the  course  of  centuries  by  different  individuals.  From 
 such  a  mode  of  origination,  a  mass  of  contradictions  is  insepara- 
 ble, and  the  improving  hand  of  a  later  editor  would  never  be  ca- 
 pable of  entirely  obhterating  them.  From  these  remarks  it  appears 
 that  freedom  from  contradictions  is  much  more  than  the  conditio 
 sine  qua  non  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch. 
 
 We  shall  here  only  subject  that  to  examination  which  really 
 requires  it,  and  has  not  abeady  been  fully  settled  by  the  earlier 
 vindicators  of  the  genuineness,  and,  as  far  as  our  abihties  extend, 
 endeavour  to  exhaust  the  subject.  On  Genesis,  particularly  on 
 the  first  eleven  chapters,  we  shall  bestow  less  attention  than  on 
 the  remaining  books.  It  may  be  thought,  that  Moses,  in  the  his- 
 tory of  ancient  times,  found  contradictions,  and  repeated  the  tra- 
 dition without  removing  them,  just  as  he  received  it,  a  view  which 
 Licentiate  Bauer  has  very  lately  attempted  to  establish.  On 
 the  contrary,  where  Moses  nan-ates  what  he  himself  spoke,  did,  or 
 saw,  there  evei7  real  contradiction  becomes  a  witness  against  the 
 genuineness.     In  important  things,  his  testimony  is  decisive  ;  and 
 
284  THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH, 
 
 also  in   little   things,*  it  must  always  be  outweighed  by  more 
 weighty  veason /or  the  genuineness. 
 
 CHRONOLOGICAL  CONTRADICTIONS. 
 
 1.  Von  Bohlen  remarks  (p.  338)  on  Gen.  xxxv.  26,  Isaac 
 was  sixty  years  old  when  Jacob  and  Esau  were  born,  Gen.  xxv.  26. 
 Esau  married  at  forty,  and  after  this  marriage  Jacob  went  to  Me- 
 sopotamia (Gen.  xxvi.  34),  where  he  stayed  twenty  years  ;  at  the 
 time  of  his  leaving  Chaldea,  he  was  therefore  (I)  sixty,  and  Isaac 
 120  years  old;  the  latter  died  (Gen.  xxxv.  26)  when  180;  and 
 therefore,  from  Jacob's  joui'ney  from  Haran  to  his  father's  death, 
 there  were  sixty  years.  In  Chaldea,  the  history  of  the  family  be- 
 gins, and  there  Joseph  was  born  ;  consequently  he  was  now  about 
 sixty  years  old  ;  Jacob  is  120,  and  lives  altogether  147  years,  (Gen. 
 xlvii.  28) ;  he  stands  when  130  before  Pharaoh  (Gen.  xlvii.  9),  and 
 spends  the  last  seventeen  years  of  his  hfe  in  Egypt ;  consequently, 
 between  his  going  down  to  Goshen  and  the  present  point  of  time, 
 there  are  ten  years  ;  and  between  Isaac's  death  and  the  memor- 
 able years  of  plenty  and  famine,  only  a  single  year,  which  is  to  be 
 filled  up  with  Joseph's  imprisonment,  since  already  nine  years  ai'e 
 gone  by,  when  Joseph  brings  down  his  family  to  Egypt,  (Gen.  xlv. 
 6).  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  the  most  distinct  statements, 
 according  to  which,  Joseph  was  brought  down  to  Egypt  in  his 
 seventeenth  year,  and  is  described  as  a  handsome  youth  exposed  to 
 seduction.  At  thirty,  he  stands  before  Pharaoh  (Gen.  xli.  26), 
 and  therefore  twenty-two  years  are  allowed  between  his  being  car- 
 ried away  and  Jacob's  settling  in  Goshen." 
 
 *  Those  persons  who  confidently  assert  the  spuriousness  of  the  Pentateuch  at  every 
 semblance  of  an  ummportant  contradiction,  might  learn  from  Ranke's  example  to 
 practise  a  little  more  modesty.  That  writer  remarks,  in  his  History  of  the  Popes,  iii. 
 328  (Mrs  Austin's  Transl.  vol.  iii.  Appendix,  p.  129),  in  answer  to  the  question,  whe- 
 ther the  Vita  Sixti  V.  ipsiiis  manu  cmendato,  was  really  revised  by  that  Pope — "  Tem- 
 pesti,  amongst  other  things,  points  out  the  fact  (p.  30)  that  Graziani  describts  the 
 Pope's  first  procession  as  setting  out  from  St  Apostoli,  whilst  in  fact  it  set  out  from 
 Araceli.  An  error  certainly  more  likely  to  have  escaped  a  man  arrived  at  the  dignity 
 of  the  Papacy,  and  occupied  \\\i\\  tlie  business  of  the  whole  world,  than  the  Padre  Ma- 
 estro Tempesti."  But  we  are  not  reduced  to  the  plight  of  seeking  this  moderate  indul- 
 gence for  Moses. 
 
CHRONOLOGICAL  CONTRADICTIONS.  •     285 
 
 If  we  compare  what  this  writer  says  on  Gen.  xxvii,  (p.  274), 
 we  find  quite  a  different  computation,  according  to  which,  Esau 
 and  Jacob,  when  the  hitter  went  to  Mesopotamia,  were  from  90 
 to  100  years  okl.  Of  what  he  has  written  there,  the  author  here 
 seems  to  know  nothing.  Truly  we  must  pity  any  one  who  chooses 
 such  a  writer  for  his  guide,  and  follows  him  with  blind  confidence, 
 as  LuTZELBERGER  docs  in  his  "  die  Griuide  der  freiwillicjeti  Nie- 
 derlegunc)  meines  geist/ichem  Amies ^    Niirnb.  1838,  p.  88,  &c. 
 
 Every  thing  depends  upon  the  year  in  which  Jacob  went  to 
 Mesopotamia.  If  this  year  be  correctly  determined,  all  difficul- 
 ties will  at  once  vanish. 
 
 It  is  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  older  critics  (with  the  ex- 
 ception of  Beer,  Ahh.  z.  Erldut.  der  alien  Zeitrechnung  und 
 Geschichte,  p.  114,  whose  assertion  that  Jacob  spent  forty 
 years  in  Mesopotamia  has  been  universally  rejected  as  absurd, 
 compare  Hartmann,  Chro?iologia,  p.  91),  that  Jacob  began  his 
 journey  w^hen  seventy-seven  years  old.  If  this  opinion  did  not 
 rest  on  a  firm  foundation,  such  unanimity  respecting  it  would  not 
 have  obtained. 
 
 The  opinion  is  grounded  on  the  following  computation  :  Joseph 
 w^as  thirty  years  old  when  he  stood  before  Pharaoh.  When  Jacob 
 removed  to  Egypt,  seven  years  of  plenty  and  tw^o  years  of  famine 
 had  already  expired,  so  that  then  Joseph  was  thirty-nine  years 
 old.  But  Jacob  was  then  130  years  old.  According  to  this, 
 Joseph  was  born  wdien  Jacob  was  ninety-one.  But  he  was  bom 
 in  the  fourteenth  year  of  Jacob's  residence  at  Padan-Aram.  Con- 
 sequently Jacob  left  his  father's  house  for  Mesopotamia  when  he 
 was  seventy- seven. 
 
 With  this  result,  the  description  of  Isaac's  condition  in  ch. 
 xxvii.  1  (ver.  19,  according  to  which  he  was  bed-ridden),  agrees 
 extremely  well.  This  description  much  better  suits  one  in  his 
 137tliyear  than  in  his  hundredth.  It  was  enough  that  he  still 
 protracted  his  existence  some  forty  years.  Lightfoot  {Ojjp.  i. 
 19)  remarks — "  Isaac  Jean  ad  illam  aelaleni  jierve/iit,  qua  fra- 
 ter  ejus  Ismael  ante  annos  14  ohiif,  nenqte  annum  137.  Neque 
 ahludit  a  vero,  meditationeni  niorlis  illius  hac  aetate  suhjecisse 
 Isaaco  cogitationem  dejineiwoprio. 
 
 Against  this  opinion,  and  in  favour  of  the  other,  that  Jacob 
 
286      THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 when  he  journeyed  to  Mesopotamia,  was  about  forty  years  old,  no 
 argument  of  the  least  validity  can  be  alleged.  Von  Bohlen  and 
 LuTZELBERGER  take  for  granted  that  Esau's  marriage,  when  the 
 two  brothers  were  forty  years  old,  could  not  be  separated  by  any 
 long  interval  from  Jacob's  departure.  But  why  not  ?  It  might 
 as  well  be  asserted,  that  between  Joseph's  death  and  Moses'  birth 
 there  could  be  only  a  short  interval.  Hartmann's  remark  against 
 this  very  crude  conclusion  is  worthy  of  notice.  Earn  vero  con- 
 clusio)iem  ipse  textus  sacer  rejicit,  qui  docet  dudum  ante  hene- 
 dictionem  Jacohi  miiltam  ah  uxorihus  Esavi  jam  Isaaco  et 
 Rebecca  excifatani  fiiisse  tristitiam,  p.  91.  Compare  Gen. 
 xxvi.  35  ;  xxvii.  40  ;  xxviii.  8. 
 
 Then  Yon  Bohlen  thinks  (p.  274)  that  both  the  brothers  in 
 the  account  of  their  endeavours  to  obtain  the  blessing,  are  re- 
 garded as  youths,  and  that  Jacob  acts  under  his  mother's  guid- 
 ance. But  there  is  not  a  syllable  to  intimate  that  the  brothers 
 were  still  of  a  youthful  age,  and  he  who  would  be  under  his 
 mother's  guidance  at  forty,  w^ould  probably  be  so  still  at  se- 
 venty-seven. The  influence  of  this  relationship  was  deeply 
 seated  in  Jacob's  individuality  (compare  Gen.  xxv.  27),  as  well 
 as  in  the  similarity  of  mental  conformation  which  subsisted  be- 
 tween himself  and  liis  mother.  Esau,  even  as  early  as  ten  years 
 old,  would  certainly  have  refused  to  be  led  by  his  mother. 
 
 If  any  person  would  assert,  that,  since  Esau  married  at  forty 
 years  old,  it  maybe  supposed  that  Jacob  was  not  much  older  when 
 he  took  his  wives,  this  analogy  is  opposed  by  others  of  much  gi'eater 
 force,  taken  from  the  history  of  the  chosen  race.  Among  them 
 things  were  much  later.  Isaac  and  Abraham  married  indeed  at 
 an  ordinary  age,  but  it  was  late  before  they  had  children.  Jacob 
 married  late,  and  had  children  late.  The  clinging  affection  for 
 his  mother  kept  Jacob,  it  would  seem,  from  thinking  of  matri- 
 mony ;  compare  what  is  said  of  Isaac,  Gen.  xxiv.  67.  As  long  as 
 he  had  a  mother  he  felt  little  need  of  the  conjugal  relation.  Be- 
 sides, from  the  first,  it  seems  fixed  in  liis  own  mind  and  his 
 mother's,  that  he  ought  not  to  take  a  wife  from  among  the  Ca- 
 naanites.  He  was  deterred  from  doing  this  by  a  reference  to  the 
 promise — by  the  example  of  Isaac — and  by  mournful  experience 
 in  Esau.     But  when  Jacob  was  directed  to  his  distant  relations, 
 
CHRONOLOGICAL  CONTRADICTIONS.  287 
 
 it  must  have  cost  him  a  severe  struggle.  A  catastrophe  such  as 
 the  one  descrihed,  was  needful  in  order  to  tear  him  from  the  pa- 
 ternal roof  and  his  mother's  arms. 
 
 Lastly,  if  persons  maintain  that  on  physical  grounds  it  is  incon- 
 ceivable that  Jacob  should  defer  marriage  to  so  advanced  an  age, 
 let  them  recollect  that  he  must  be  measured  by  his  own,  not  by  our 
 standard.  Our  life  lasts  seventy  years,  and  is  reckoned  long  if  it 
 reach  eighty.  But  Jacob  lived  to  one  hundred  and  forty-seven,  and 
 therefore,  when  he  obtained  Rachel,  was  little  past  middle  life. 
 
 2.  "  Within  seven  years  Leah  bore  seven  children,  one  after  an- 
 other, and,  nevertheless,  makes  a  considerable  pause,  in  which  her 
 handmaid  and  Rachel's  had  children."  We  must  indeed  ask,  how 
 this  came  to  pass  ?  Must  here  also  recourse  be  had  to  miracles  ? 
 LuTZELBERGER,  p.  90.  But  in  all  this  everything  was  perfectly 
 natural.  That  the  first  four  sons  of  Leah  followed  one  another  with 
 the  shortest  possible  delay  (compare  Lev.  xii.  2,  4)  appears  from 
 Gen.  xxix.  35,  and  after  the  birth  of  the  fourth  son  a  pause  ensued. 
 Gen.  XXX.  3.  But  this  pause,  on  account  of  the  hitherto  regular 
 succession  in  child-bearing,  must  have  been  striking  to  Leah,  and 
 might  soon  lead  her  to  suppose  that  no  further  blessing  of  the 
 kind  was  intended  for  her,  and  therefore  induce  her  to  adopt  the 
 expedient  in  Gen.  xxx.  9.  Leah's  last  three  children  again  came 
 in  quick  succession,  the  last  at  the  close  of  Jacob's  residence  in 
 Paden-Aram.  Thus  we  obtain  for  the  interruption  a  period  of 
 sufficient  length. 
 
 But  it  would  be  very  erroneous  to  suppose  that  this  interval 
 must  be  so  great  as  to  comprehend  the  four  successive  conceptions 
 and  births  which  are  narrated  in  Gen.  xxx.  1-13.  Leah,  accord- 
 ing to  ver.  9,  adopted  the  expedient  of  giving  Zilpah  to  Jacob, 
 when  "  she  saw  that  she  had  left  bearing."  If  we  take  into 
 account  her  whole  position  in  relation  to  her  sister,  her  passionate 
 excitement,  it  will  appear  incredible  that  Bilhah  had  already  bom 
 two  sons  for  Rachel.  The  Futures,  with  Vau  conversive  at  the  be- 
 ginning of  ver.  1,  9,  14,  do  not  connect  the  individual  facts  with 
 the  preceding,  but  with  the  whole  section,  as  in  numberless  in- 
 stances ;  for  example,  Ex.  ii.  1,  "And  there  went  ir.i  a  man  of 
 the  house  of  Levi,  and  took  a  daughter  of  Levi.  And  the  woman 
 conceived  and  bare  a  son."  But  the  birth  followed  the  edict  men- 
 tioned in  ch.  i.  22.     Under  this  class  are  most  of  the  instances 
 
288  THE  CONTRADICTION'S  oF  THE   PENTATEUCH. 
 
 enumerated  in  the  older  grammarians,  in  which  the  future  witli 
 Vau  conversive  must  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  the  Pluperfect.  A 
 succession  is  certainly  expressed,  but  only  in  general  terms.  Bil- 
 hah's  first  son  was  not  horn  before  Leah's  fourth.  After  Jacob's 
 connection  with  Bilhah  followed  that  wdth  Zilpah.  Zilpah's  se- 
 cond son  was  born  before  the  first  of  Leah's  second  series.  But 
 Bilhah  conceived  for  the  first  time,  before  Leah  left  off  bearing, 
 and  Leah's  fifth  pregnancy  was  parallel  in  part  with  Zilpah's 
 second. 
 
 Whoever  is  disposed  to  enquire  further  into  this  subject,  may 
 read  the  remarks  of  the  acute  and  accurate  Petavius  {De  doctr. 
 temp.  ix.  19),  who  answers  the  objections  against  the  occurrence 
 of  so  many  births  in  a  period  of  seven  years  (wdiich  had  been  al- 
 ready stated  by  Usher  far  more  pointedly  than  by  the  adversa- 
 ries of  Revelation ),  by  presenting  a  complete  computation.  See 
 also  Heidegger,  Hist.  Pair.  ii.  353. 
 
 eS.  Von  Bohlen  remarks  (p.  327),  that  the  author  in  Gen. 
 xxxiv.  is  strikingly  at  variance  w^ith  the  chronology,  "since  Jacob's 
 daughter  could  scarcely  be  more  than  six  or  seven  years  old — as 
 the  Patriarch  obtained  Leah  after  seven  years'  service — Dinah 
 was  Leah's  seventh  child,  and  Jacob  stayed  only  twenty  years  with 
 Laban.  It  is  true,  between  his  leaving  Mesopotamia  and  his 
 coming  to  Isaac,  there  are  sixty  years  ;  but  the  children,  by  w^hom 
 only  the  youngest  could  be  meant,  Dinah  and  Joseph,  are  called 
 "  tender"  (Gen.  xxxiii.  13),  so  that  the  event  (in  ch.  xxxiv.)  can- 
 not be  placed  long  after  Jacob's  separation  from  Laban."  LuT- 
 ZELBERGER  repeats  this  statement,  "  The  two  boys  Simeon  and 
 Levi,"  he  adds,  "  the  one  between  eleven  and  twelve,  the  other 
 between  ten  and  eleven  years  old,  fell  upon  the  city  !" 
 
 But  the  chronological  relations  of  the  section  in  ch.  xxxiv.  are 
 simply  as  follows.  According  to  ch.  xxxvii.  2,  Joseph  was  seven- 
 teen years  old  when  he  was  sold.  If  now  Joseph  was  born  at  the 
 end  of  the  fourteen  years'  service  for  Laban's  daughters,  and  was 
 six  years  old  on  the  return  from  Mesopotamia,  then  the  event  nar- 
 rated in  ch.  xxxiv.,  which  happened  before  the  completion  of  his 
 seventeenth  year,  must  have  also  been  before  the  eleventh  ye.ir 
 after  the  family  left  Haran.  But  on  the  other  hand,  the  event 
 could  not  have  happened  long  before  this  time.  For  in  the  two 
 places  to  which  Jacob  came  on  his  journey,  he  must  necessarily 
 
CHRONOLOGICAL  CONTRADICTIONS.  289 
 
 have  stayed  a  long  time, — in  Succoth,  for  lie  not  merely  pitched 
 his  tent  there,  but  "  huilt  him  an  hoifse,''  Gen.  xxxiii.  17,  and 
 in  Shechem,  for  there  he  formally  estahhshed  himself,  purchased 
 a  field,  and  huilt  an  altar,  circumstances  from  which  Augustin 
 infers  {quaest.  108  in  Gen.)  that  he  remained  there  a  long  time. 
 There  is  no  weight  at  all  in  Lutzelberger's  objection  against 
 a  loni?  residence  in  Shechem — "Dinah,  in  truth,  did  not  wait 
 several  years  till  she  longed  to  get  acquainted  with  the  daughters 
 of  the  land."  The  expression,  and  "  Dinah  went  out"  in  Gen. 
 xxxiv.  1,  is  tantamount  to  "once  upon  a  time  she  went  out." 
 We  must  as  well  infer  from  this  passage  that  Dinah  went  out  then 
 for  the  first  time,  as  from  ch.  xxv.  S9,  "  and  Jacob  sod  pottage." 
 {Und  (einst)  kochte  Jacob  ein  Gericht,  De  Wette)  that  Jacob 
 never  dressed  lentils  before.  Within  the  limits  we  have  noted, 
 we  are  at  full  liberty  to  fix  on  any  point  for  the  event,  which  may 
 appear  most  suitable.  Certainly  the  opinion  of  Petavius  comes 
 nearest  the  truth  (iii.  28G),  that  the  event  happened  ten  years 
 after  the  return  from  Mesopotamia,  of  which  two  were  spent  at 
 Succoth,  and  eight  at  Shechem,  when  Dinah  was  sixteen  years 
 old.  But  how  is  the  appeal  to  ch.  xxxiii.  13,  to  be  met  ?  Did 
 not  the  objector  know,  or  did  he  wish  not  to  know,  that  the  long 
 residence  in  Succoth  and  Sichem  was  posterior  to  the  time  at 
 which  the  children  are  here  described  as  "  tender  ? " 
 
 4.  Von  Bohlen  remarks  (p.  364)  on  Gen.  xxxviii.,  "  First 
 of  all,  the  author  contradicts  his  own  chronology,  and  it  is  only 
 a  weak  make-shift,  to  say  that  he  did  not  fix  it  so  exactly,  or  to 
 place  the  event  earlier,  perhaps,  (with  Kosenmuller)  shortly  before 
 the  departm-e  from  Haran  ;  for  here  s'^nn  ^ya  cannot  be  taken 
 generally,  but  is  expressly  understood  of  Joseph's  being  canied 
 away.  But,  between  this  point  of  time  and  Jacob's  removal  to 
 Egypt,  there  are  only  twenty-tw^o  years,  (compare  Gen.  xxxvii. 
 2,  with  xlv.  G),  and  yet,  in  the  meantime,  Judah  had  three  sons, 
 who  married  and  died  before  Pharez  and  Zarah  were  born  to 
 him.  Pbarez  had,  moreover,  two  sons  (ch.  xlvi.  12),  so  that 
 fifty  years,  at  least,  are  required  for  these  three  generations.'' 
 Again,  on  ch.  xliii.  (p.  395),  he  says,  "  Benjamin,  in  this  section, 
 is  spoken  of  as  still  very  young  (ver,  29,  xliv.  20,  30,  &c.)  and 
 he  is  so  in  relation  to  the  specified  age  of  Joseph ;  but,  farther 
 on,  the  author  again  returns  to  his  early  chronology,  and  gives 
 
 VOL.  IT.  T 
 
290         CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATET'CH. 
 
 Benjamin,  in  the  year  immediately  following,  ten  sons,  whom  he 
 takes  with  him  into  Egypt,  Gen.  xlvii.  21."  Lutzelberger, 
 (p.  94)  here  follow^s  his  master  most  faithfully,  like  his  shadow. 
 
 These  difficulties,  which  Ilgen  {UrJamde,  All),  among  the 
 opponents  of  the  genuineness,  first  strongly  urged,  and,  after 
 him,  De  Wette,  (Krit.  1G.5)  were  known  by  the  ancients,  from 
 Augustin,  in  their  full  extent.  Also  the  right  method  of  solu- 
 tion has  been  almost  unanimously  adopted  by  the  ablest  critics, 
 as  Petavius,  Heidegger,  Hartma,  Venemann  (Hist.  Eccl.  i. 
 121),  but  with  whose  investigations  not  one  of  our  opponents  has 
 been  acquainted.  Kanne,  w^ho  in  his  Bihl.  Unterss,  ii.  33,  &c., 
 has  occupied  himself  very  zealously  with  the  removal  of  these 
 difficulties,  is  very  inferior  to  his  predecessors. 
 
 Every  thing  turns  on  this  point — whether,  in  the  belief  of  the 
 author,  the  individuals  named  in  Gen.  xlvi.  8,  &c.,  all  went  down 
 into  Egypt,  or  whether  part  of  them  were  born  there.  Eor,  as  to 
 what  concerns  Judah's  family,  all  that  is  narrated  in  ch.  xxxviii. 
 might  very  possibly  take  place  in  the  space  of  twenty-two  years, 
 and  the  only  difficulty  is,  that,  according  to  ch.  xlvi.,  the  two 
 sons  of  Pharez,  Hezron  and  Hamul,  appear  to  have  been  born 
 wdien  Jacob  and  his  family  went  down  into  Egypt ;  and  the  asser- 
 tion that  Benjamin  at  that  time  had  also  ten  sons,  is  founded 
 entirely  on  this  genealogy. 
 
 The  following  reasons  may  be  assigned  for  believing  that  the 
 author  did  not  intend  to  name  only  those  wdio  were  born  at  the 
 time  of  going  down  into  Egypt — (i.)  Reuben,  when  Jacob's  sons 
 wished  to  take  their  last  journey  to  Egypt,  had  no  more  than 
 two  sons.  This  is  evident  from  ch.  xlii.  37,  "  Slay  my  two 
 sons,  ^£^^?.^"^^.  (several  have  incoiTcctly  translated,  two  of  my 
 sons)  if  I  bring  him  not  to  thee."  Had  he  had  several,  he  would 
 have  made  the  offer  of  several.  But  in  Gen.  xlvi.  9,  four  sons 
 of  Reuben  are  enumerated.  Two  of  these  must,  therefore,  have 
 been  born  in  Egypt,  (ii.)  The  representation  of  Benjamin  as 
 a  youth  is  so  fixed  and  constant,  that  it  could  not  enter  the 
 thoughts  of  an  Israehte,  that  on  his  going  do^vn  into  Egypt  he 
 had  ten  sons;  compare  for  example^  xliii.  8,  xliv.  30,  31,  33, 
 where  he  is  called  ^t-jl,  and  xliii.  29,  where  Joseph  calls  him  his 
 son.  (iii.)  The  author  appears  specially  to  indicate,  resj)ecting 
 Hezron  and  Hamul,  that  they  were  a  kind  of  compensation  for 
 
CHRONOLOGICAL  CONTRADICTIONS.  291 
 
 Er  and  Onuu,  and  that  they  were  not  born  in  the  hand  of 
 Canaan ;  compare  v.  12,  "  But  Er  and  Onan  died  in  the  land  of 
 Canaan,  and  the  sons  of  Pharez  were  Hezron  and  Hamid." 
 Venema  remarks,  "  Filiorum  Pharezi  licet  in  Aegypto  natorum 
 mentiofit,  quia  duobus  Judae  Jiliis  in  Canaan  mortuis  substi- 
 tuti  sunt,  quod  diserte  tradit  Jiistoricus,  qui  cum  expresse  addit 
 eos  in  Canaiiaea  obiisse,  hand  obscure  innuit  Jilios  Pheresi 
 ij)sis  sujfcctos  ibi  non  fuisse  natos."  (iv.)  Immediately  before 
 the  genealogy,  it  is  said  in  ch.  xlvi.  5,  "  And  the  Sons  of  Israel 
 carried  Jacob,  their  father,  and  their  httle  ones,  ^I'i,  in  the 
 waggons."  Also,  according  to  ch.  xhii.  8,  the  family  consisted 
 of  Jacob,  his  sons,  and  their  little  ones.  But  in  the  genealogy, 
 Jacob's  grandchildren  are  mentioned  as  having  children.  It 
 cannot,  therefore,  have  been  the  author's  design,  to  restrict  him- 
 self exactly  to  the  point  of  time  when  the  children  of  Israel 
 entered  Egypt,  (v.)  In  Num.  xxvi.  not  a  single  grandson  of 
 Jacob's  is  mentioned  besides  those  whose  names  are  given  in 
 Gen.  xlvi.  But  this  can  hardly  be  explained  if,  in  Gen.  xlvi., 
 the  going  down  into  Egypt  is  taken  precisely  as  the  terminus  ad 
 quern.  Were  no  other  sons  born  to  Jacob's  sons  in  Egypt  ? 
 (vi.)  The  author,  in  Gen.  xxxvii.  1,  announces  the  genealogy  of 
 Jacob,  sp>'^  n'-'r,n.  The  sons  of  Jacob  had  been  already  enume- 
 rated in  the  phs^  n^nVn,  the  genealogy  of  Isaac.  It  still  remained 
 for  him  to  mention  the  sons'  sons,  and  perhaps  some  of  their 
 grandsons,  wdio  had  obtained  peculiar  importance.  If  the  author 
 wished  to  fulfil  the  promise  given  in  ch.  xxxvii.  1,  he  would  not 
 take  notice  of  the  accidental  circumstance,  whether  the  sons 
 sons  w^ere  born  in  Canaan  or  not,  but  exhibit  them  all  fully. 
 Besides,  a  second  genealogical  review  must  follow  on  the  en- 
 crease  which  the  family  of  Jacob  would  receive  in  Egypt.  But 
 such  a  one  is  not  extant.  At  the  same  time,  the  author,  if  he 
 had  cut  off  every  thing  which  was  subsequent  to  the  going  down 
 into  Egypt,  would  have  injured  the  genealogical  plan,  which  he 
 had  constantly  followed  from  the  beginning  of  his  work,  and 
 which  had  been  already  marked  as  regulating  the  whole  by  the 
 subscription,  "  This  is  the  Geiiealoffij,"  &c. 
 
 These  are  the  arguments  to  prove  that  it  could  not  be  the 
 design  of  the  author  merely  to  name  those  individuals  who  were 
 born   at  the  going  down  into  Egypt.     Thus  supported,  we  say 
 
 T  2 
 
292  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 with  Hartmann,  (p.  94) — Quid  ergo  1  Est  hie  eatalogus 
 reeeniio  omnium  familiae  Jaeohi  masculorum,  qui  geniti  vel  in 
 Mesopotamia,  vel  in  Canaan,  vel  in  Aegypto  sunt,  quique  vel 
 sine  Jiaeredihus  niortui,  vel  capita  seu  principes  familiarum 
 posteritatis  Jaeohi  faeti  sunt,  quod  et  ex  coll..  Num.  xxvi.  5, 
 b^^,  ahunde  apparet.  Quositam  vero  ex  fdiis  suis  susceperit 
 nepotes  in  Canaan,  quosnam  praetcr  jilios  Josephi  in  Aegypto, 
 hoc  quidem,  Gen.  c.  xlvi.,  non  docetur. 
 
 But,  against  this  result,  the  express  declaration  of  the  author 
 himself  appears  to  militate.  When,  in  ver.  2(3,  he  says,  "  All 
 the  souls  that  came  with  Jacoh  into  Egypt,  which  came  out 
 of  his  loins,  besides  Jacob's  sons'  wives,  all  the  souls  were 
 tlu'ee  score  and  six" — he  seems  as  decidedly  as  possible  to 
 exclude  the  view  that  we  have  advocated.  According  to  it, 
 also,  it  seems  that  the  contrast  made  (ver.  26  and  27)  be- 
 tween the  souls  who  came  to  or  with  Jacob  into  Eg}'pt,  on 
 the  one  hand,  and  Joseph  and  his  sons  on  the  other,  is  not  to 
 be  explained. 
 
 We  maintain,  however,  that  the  appearance  here  is  deceptive  ; 
 that  the  author  regarded  those  who  were  born  in  Egypt  as  com- 
 ing in  the  person  of  their  fathers  with  Jacob  into  Egypt.  Our 
 justification  of  this  opinion,  by  which  the  contrast  between  ver. 
 26,  27,  (which  can  only  be  destroyed  by  admitting  a  pure  a 
 potior i),  will  remain  complete,  is  supported  by  the  following 
 reasons. 
 
 (1.)  It  is  said  in  ver.  27,  *'  All  the  souls  of  the  house  of  Jacob, 
 wdiicli  came  into  Egypt,  are  seventy. ''  Now,  since  here  Joseph's 
 sons  are  numbered  with  the  souls  which  came  down  to  Egypt, 
 because  they,  although  born  in  EgA-pt,  yet  came  in  their  father 
 thither — witli  equal  propriety,  among  the  souls  that  came  with 
 Jacob  into  Egypt,  miglit  those  grandchildren  of  Jacob  be 
 reckoned  v;ho  came  thither  in  their  fathers.  This  reason  is 
 irrefragable.  (2.)  The  fifteenth  verse  deserves  to  be  noticed — 
 "  These  be  the  sons  of  Leah,  which  she  bare  unto  Jacob  in 
 Padan  Aram,  with  her  daughter  Dinah ;  all  the  souls  of  his  sons 
 and  his  daughters  were  tliirty- three."  By  the  term  "  sons " 
 here,  and  in  ver.  8,  we  may  either  understand  sons  in  a  strict 
 sense,  or  admit  that  it  is  used  in  a  wider  signification.  In  both 
 cases,   the   sons   appear   as  appurtenances   {Pert  in  en  z)   of  their 
 
CHRONOLOGICAL  CONTllADICTIONS.  293 
 
 fathers,  as  in  tliem  already  existing  and  born.  The  same  remark 
 appUes  to  ver.  18 — "  These  are  the  sons  of  Zilpah,  whom  Lahan 
 gave  unto  Leah,  his  daughter  ;  and  these  she  bare  unto  Jacob, 
 sixteen  souls."  Either  she  bare  in  the  two  (Gad  and  Asher)  the 
 sixteen,  or  she  bare  these  sixteen  in  the  two ;  compare  also  ver. 
 25.  (3.)  In  Deut.  x.  22 — "  Thy  fathers  went  down  into  Egypt 
 with  {ill  7)  threescore  and  ten  persons,"  Joseph's  sons  at  all 
 events  are  considered  as  having  come  down  in  their  father  to 
 Egypt.  (4.)  This  mode  of  viewing  family  connections,  so  foreign 
 to  own  notions,  may  be  easily  detected  in  a  multitude  of  other 
 places,  especially  in  Genesis.  We  only  refer  to  the  instance  in 
 ch.  xlvi.  4 — '*  I  will  go  down  with  thee  into  Egypt,  and  I  will 
 also  surely  bring  thee  up  again." 
 
 But  it  may  be  asked,  if  the  author  gave  the  names  not  merely 
 of  those  who  were  already  born  when  Jacob  went  down  into 
 Egypt,  how  was  it  that,  not  content  with  naming  them,  he  also 
 states  their  number  ?  When  he  states  the  aggregate  of  Jacob's 
 family  to  be  seventy  souls,  it  seems  to  indicate  that  all  the  per- 
 sons named  w^ere  already  born. 
 
 We  reply,  the  author's  object  in  making  this  computation  is, 
 to  show  from  how  small  a  quantity  of  seed  so  rich  a  harvest  was 
 produced.  This  w^e  learn  from  Exod.  i.  5 — "  And  all  the  souls 
 that  came  out  of  the  loins  of  Jacob  were  seventy  souls, 
 ver.  7,  and  the  children  of  Israel  were  fruitful,  aud  increased 
 abundantly,  and  multiplied,  and  waxed  exceeding  mighty,  and 
 the  land  was  filled  by  them."  Also  Deut.  x.  22 — "  Thy  latliers 
 went  down  into  Egypt  with  (in)  three  score  aud  ten  persons; 
 and  now  the  Lord  tliy  God  hath  made  thee  as  the  stars  of 
 heaven  for  multitude."  A  counterpart  to  this  enumeration  is  the 
 account  of  the  number  of  Israel  at  the  departure  from  Egypt, 
 in  Num.  i.,  and  before  their  entrance  into  Canaan  in  Num.  xxv. 
 Here  is  the  seed — there  the  harvest. 
 
 For  this  object  it  was  perfectly  indifferent  to  the  author  whether 
 the  numbers  were  40,  50,  GO,  or  70.  The  contrast  between  these 
 numbers  and  the  hundreds  of  thousands  remains  the  same.  The 
 author,  who  must  be  measured  by  the  standard  of  a  sacred  his- 
 torian, not  of  a  writer  on  statistics,  could  hence  follow  his  theo- 
 logical principle,  which  recommended  to  him  the  choice  of  the 
 number  seventy.     Seven  is  the  signature  of  the  covenant  rela- 
 
294  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 tion  between  God  and  Israel,  the  special  theocratic  number.  Com- 
 pare Bahr,  Symbolik  des  Mos.  Ciiltus.  i.  193).  By  fixing  on 
 the  covenant  number,  the  author  intimated  that  the  increase  was 
 the  covenant  hlesslng. 
 
 The  number  70  itself  leads  to  the  conjecture  that  some  mem- 
 bers were  either  left  out  or  interpolated.  If  the  author's  aim  had 
 not  been  to  complete  the  number,  he  would  not,  in  contradic- 
 tion to  the  principle  which  he  elsewhere  always  follows,  have  in- 
 cluded Dinah,  and  Serah,  the  latter  of  whom  had  no  more  right 
 than  all  the  rest  of  Jacob's  female  grandchildren  to  a  place  in  the 
 genealogy.  That  he  did  this,  and  inserted  a  number  of  the  mem- 
 bers of  the  family  who  were  born  in  Egypt,  is  accounted  for  on  the 
 same  principle. 
 
 Similar  modes  of  computation  are  found  in  other  parts  of 
 Holy  Writ.  Thus,  Matthew  (ch.  i.  17),  numbers  fourteen 
 (twice  seven)  generations  from  Abraham  to  David  ;  fourteen  from 
 David  to  the  Babylonish  captivity;  fourteen  from  the  Babylonish 
 captivity  to  Christ.  To  obtain  these  numbers,  he  makes  several 
 sacrifices  ;  he  leaves  out,  for  instance,  between  Joram  and  Uzziah, 
 three  members,  Ahaziah,  Joash,  and  Amaziah  ;  between  Josiah  and 
 Jechoniah,  Jehoiakim. 
 
 CONTRADICTIONS  IN  REFERENCE  TO  THE  PASSOVER. 
 
 Before  entering  into  particulars,  we  must  first  point  out,  in 
 what  relation  the  various  passages  of  the  Pentateuch  respecting 
 the  Passover  stand  to  one  another,  not  one  of  which  forms  a  mere 
 repetition,  but  each  later  one  is  connected  wdth  the  preceding  as 
 complementary.  A  multitude  of  false  constructions  will  thus  be 
 at  once  set  aside,  and  we  shall  obtain  a  foundation  for  subsequent 
 special  deductions. 
 
 First  of  all,  the  fundamental  law  is  given  in  Ex,  xii.  1-18, 
 containing  the  declarations  respecting  the  object  and  significance 
 of  the  Paschal  sacrifice — the  slaying  of  it — the  rites  to  be  observed 
 in  serving  up  and  eating  it — and  the  seven  days  eating  of  un- 
 leavened bread.  Then  in  ver.  43-49,  the  persons  permitted  to 
 partake  of  it  (only  the  circumcised)  are  positively  and  negatively 
 described.     In  ch.  xiii.  2-10,  the  ordinance  respecting  the  un- 
 
THE  TIME  OF  THE  .PASSOVEK.  295 
 
 leavened  bread,  which  hitherto  had  been  only  given  by  God  to 
 Moses,  is  communicated  to  the  people. 
 
 In  Exod.  xxiii.  15,  it  was  not  the  author's  design  to  state  a  new 
 important  fact  in  reference  to  the  Passover,  but  he  mentions  it 
 only  for  the  sake  of  the  general  survey  in  the  ^'^^'^'  ^^20^  the  hrevis 
 conspectus  of  the  laws  to  be  observed  by  Israel,  which  was  de- 
 livered to  the  people  before  the  ratification  of  the  covenant.  There 
 is  an  express  reference  to  the  earlier  and  more  complete  law. 
 
 Also  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  18,  where  likewise  the  complete  ordinance 
 is  referred  to,  the  Passover  only  appears  in  a  review  which  was 
 necessarily  made  on  the  renewal  of  the  covenant  with  the  people 
 in  consequence  of  their  infraction  of  it.  The  whole  section  in 
 which  the  Passover  is  mentioned,  has  the  character  of  being  in- 
 cidental, and  must  be  regarded  as  an  episode. 
 
 In  Levit.  xxiii.,  the  Passover  appears  in  the  calendar  of  the 
 feasts ;  the  account  of  the  ^^7^^'=.  Particular  directions  are  here 
 given  respecting  the  ^"P  ^^yy  "  the  holy  convocations"  at  the 
 Passover,  ver.  4-8.  Then  the  ordinance  respecting  the  presenta- 
 tion of  the  first  fruits  in  ver.  9-14. 
 
 In  Num.  ix.  1,  &c.,  is  a  supplement  to  the  former  law  (occasioned 
 by  a  particular  incident),  respecting  the  Passover  to  be  kept  by 
 the  ceremonially  unclean.  The  design  of  communicating  this 
 regulation  is  the  only  cause  why  the  celebration  of  the  second 
 Passover  is  mentioned,  as  is  shown  by  the  chronological  position 
 of  the  section.     Compare  Schmidt  de  Paschate,  p.  153. 
 
 In  Num.  xxviii.,  in  the  catalogue  of  offerings,  those  that  were 
 to  be  presented  at  the  Passover  are  given. 
 
 Lastly,  in  Deut.  xvi.  it  is  fixed  where  the  Pasover  was  to  be 
 celebrated,  by  the  whole  nation  at  the  place  of  the  sanctuary. 
 
 We  shall  now  apply  ourselves  to  explain  the  alleged  contradic- 
 tiQns  in  the  ordinances  respecting  the  Passover. 
 
 THE  TIME  OF  THE  PASSOVEK. 
 
 HiTZiG  maintains  [0 stern  undPfingsten  in  Zweiten  Decalog. 
 Heidelb.  1838.  p.  91),  that  according  to  a  number  of  passages, 
 (Ex.  xii.  6,  17  ;  Lev.  xxiii.  5  ;  Num.  ix.  2 ;  xxviii.  16  ;  xxxiii. 
 3),  the  departure  from  Egypt  and  the  Passover  belong  to  the 
 
296         CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 evening  of  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month ;  that,  on  the 
 contrary,  according  to  other  passages,  the  Passover  falls  on  the 
 new  moon  of  the  same  month. 
 
 If  this  difference  really  existed,  it  would  be  decisive  against  the 
 genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  will  therefore  well  repay  the 
 trouble,  to  investigate  the  matter  closely.  We  wish  to  subject  all 
 the  passages  in  which,  according  to  Hitzig,  the  Passover  is  ap- 
 pointed to  be  kept  on  the  New  Moon  of  the  first  month,  to  a 
 careful  examination. 
 
 I.  This  is  expressly  attested,  Hitzig  maintains,  in  Ex.  xxxiv. 
 18,  "  The  feast  of  unleavened  bread  shalt  thou  keep  ;  seven  days 
 shalt  thou  eat  unleavened  bread  as  I  commanded  thee  ^^^^  '^'^)p^. 
 ^''??^ ;  for  ^^^^IJ^!  '"""^'"f  thou  camest  out  fi'om  Egypt"  with  which  Ex. 
 xviii.  15,  perfectly  agrees  in  essential  points.  The  words  ^-'n^ 
 n^2sn  must  be  translated,  the  new  moon  of  Ahih.  For  what  had 
 been  the  work  of  a  day  would  be  more  suitably  referred  to  a  day 
 than  to  a  whole  month.  If  the  author  intended  the  1 5th  day, 
 why  did  he  not  say  so  ?  To  the  current  interpretation  according 
 to  wliich,  by  ■i:>ito  the  whole  month  is  understood,  the  meaning  of 
 15^^  is  opposed,  which  always  mean  a  point  of  time,  and  stands 
 only  for  a  very  short  time. 
 
 But  this  argument,  by  which  Hitzig,  to  favour  a  random  sug- 
 gestion, endeavours  to  set  aside  the  current  interpretation,  really 
 proves  nothing.  For  (i.)  why  the  day  is  not  named  is  self-evi- 
 dent, if  the  words  are  allowed  to  stand  wliich  Hitzig  would  quite 
 arbitrarily  strike  out,  and  the  more  so,  since  they  are  found  in 
 hoth  passages,  ''  seven  days  shalt  thou  eat  the  unleavened  bread, 
 as  I  command  thee."  The  object  of  the  command  is  a  feast  of  seven 
 days,  and  this  could  not  be  referred  to  one  day.  Let  the  reference 
 to  Exod.  xii.  15,  xiii.  6,  be  allowed  to  stand,  and  the  more  exact 
 statement  of  the  time  is  unnecessary.  This  reference  is  altogether 
 agreeable  to  the  character  of  that  section  which  appears  throughout 
 as  an  abstract.  Even  in  the  words  which  Hitzig  allows  to  stand, 
 there  is  an  indirect  reference  to  the  earlier  command,  "  the  feast 
 of  unleavened  bread  shalt  thou  keep;"  tliis  expression  is  not  suited 
 to  a  passage  which  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  locus  classicus  re- 
 specting a  festival."  How  very  different  is  Exod.  xii.  16,  xiii.  G, 
 "  seven  days  shall  ye  eat  unleavened  bread."  (ii.)  To  refute  his 
 assertion  respecting  the  ^'^1??'^,  it  is  sufficient  to  refer  to  Gen.  i.  14. 
 
THE  TIME  OF  THE  PASSOVER.  297 
 
 Here  the  moaclun  are  divided  into  clays  and  years.     Compare 
 Schumann  on  the  passage.     The  feasts,  even  of  seven  days,  are 
 moaclim  ;  Ex.  xiii.  10  ;  Lev.  xxiii.  2,  4,  87,  44.     In  Dent'  xxxi. 
 10,  the  whole    "  year  of  release"  is  described  as  "'^^^"l^  ^V^,  "T^. 
 Moed  is  an  appointed  time,  whether  long  or  short.     Whether  it 
 denotes  ^  point  or  a  space  of  time,  can  only  be  decided  by  the 
 connection.     In  the  circle  of  seven  years,  for  example,  the  year  of 
 release  is  the  moed  for  the  reading  of  the  law,  and  in  the  year  of 
 release,  the  moed  is  the  feast  of  tabernacles.     So  the  moed  for  the 
 celebration  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  in  the  year  is  Abib,  and 
 in  Abib,  the  14-21  day.     So  also  here,  as  in  ch.  xiii.  3,  the  month 
 Abib  itself  is  the  moed.      The  general  designation  could  only 
 appear  strange  if  the  more  exact  had  not  preceded.     But  here 
 this  was  not  only  the  case,  but  the  author  distinctly  adverts  to  it. 
 From  the  defensive  we  now  pass  on  to  the  offensive.     Against 
 the  translation  ''  the  new  moon  of  Abih,"  the  following  reasons 
 are  decisive  :   (i.)  The  indirect  and  the  exj^ress  reference  to  the 
 former  law,  according  to  which,  the  Passover  would  indeed  fall  in 
 the  month  Abib,  but  not  at  the  new  moon,     (ii.)  A  seven  days' 
 feast  might  be  assigned  to  the  month,  but  not  to  the  day.     (iii.) 
 '^^'^  in  the  Pentateuch  never  means  neiv  moon,  but  always  month. 
 New  moons  are  °''^:Cl  ""^"^^ ;  compare  Num.  x.    10;  xxviii.    II. 
 Num.  xxviii.  14,  "^^  '^:^7!7^  ^firr^  ^  r^  ^^'  ought  not  to  be  trans- 
 lated, as  it  has  been  by  De  Wette,  "  This  is  the  burnt-offering 
 of  the  new  moon  for  every  new  moon  of  the  new  moons  of  the 
 year ;"  but,  "  This  is  the  burnt-offering  of  the  month  for  every 
 month  among  the  months  of  the  year ;"  compare  the  ^'^f}  ^T!^  in 
 Ex.  xii.  2,  as  rendered  correctly  by  Venusi.     The  sacrifice  re- 
 lates to  the  whole  month.     That  it  was  to  be  presented  at  the  be- 
 ginning of  the  month  had  already  been  said.     So  in  Num.  xxix. 
 6,  where  the  offering  of  the  month  and  the  daily  offering  are  placed 
 together.     Ex.  xix.  1  is  not  to  be  translated  as,  by  Gesenius 
 {Thes  p.  449),  "  on  the  third  new  moon,"  but  "  on  the  third 
 month  since  the  departure  of  the  children  of  Israel  from  Egypt, 
 on  this  day  ;"  that  is, ''  on  the  day  when  the  month  began ;  other- 
 wise the  words  -^.l^  '=*■''?  would  be  superfluous.     Let  any  one  only 
 compare  the  chronological  data  in  xvi.  1  ;  xl.  17  ;  Num.i.  1,  ka. 
 which  form  a  continued  series  as  nearly  as  possible  alike,  and  he 
 will  be  convinced  that  there  is  no  more  propriety  in  attributing 
 
29^  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 another  meaning  to  t;ih  in  tliis  passage  than  in  all  the  rest.  And 
 in  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  "•^^-^ti  never  means  ?iei& 
 1710071,  hut  only  monthly  feast,  which  may  he  considered  as  an  ab- 
 breviation in  the  same  manner  as  Passover,  so  the  meaning  77ionth 
 is,  strictly  speaking,  the  only  one  tlu'oughout  the  Old  Testament. 
 If  persons  attempt  to  find  a  support  in  the  etymology  for  the 
 meaning  7iew  7710071,  which,  as  we  have  shown,  is  utterly  useless, 
 then  they  must  also  maintain  that  r^^vl:  (properly  c]ia7ige,  as  w"^n 
 new7iess)  which  invariably  has  the  meaning  of  yea7',  denotes  also 
 the  change  of  the  year,  or  7iew  year,  and  that  this  meaning  was 
 the  original  one.  (iv.)  Even  were  it  allowable  to  translate  ttJih  by 
 new  moon,  a'^asnt;-;!-:  could  not  mean  tJie  7ieiu  7710071  of  Abih ;  for 
 a^nsn  cannot  denote  the  771071th  Abih.  Even  Hitzig  acknowledges 
 that  this  does  not  agree  with  the  current  interpretation  of  a'^ss. 
 But  he  maintains  that  (p.  28)  the  meaning  of  the  ears-ofcorn- 
 mo7ith  {ahre7i77W7iat)  w^as  introduced  at  a  later  period  ;  ears-of- 
 corn-i7io7ith  should  rather  be  a^a^asn  '^nJi.  In  was  probably  only  a 
 Hebraized  form  of  the  name  of  the  Eg7ptian  month  'Eitl^L  The 
 objection  which  is  brought  against  the  usual  meaning  of  the  word 
 a-'ns  falls  to  the  ground  as  soon  as  that  is  somewhat  diflerently 
 modified,  as  it  has  been  by  several  of  the  old  expositors.  That 
 2^2s  does  not  denote  the  single  ear  of  corn  is  evident  from  the  two 
 passages,  Lev.  ii.  U,  '•  Thou  shaltofi'er  'f^5  ''^W^^^r^  gree?i  ears  of 
 cor7i  dried  by  the  fire,"  and  Exod.  ix.  31,  ^'??  ^^^T-,  "  the  barley 
 was  i7i  the  ear ;"  also  from  the  fact  that  Q'^a^ash  'vD-in  never  occurs. 
 In  behalf  of  this  meaning,  nothing  can  be  alleged.  It  is  strictly 
 an  adjective,  as  the  LXX.  have  correctly  taken  it  in  all  places. 
 Ex.  xiii.  4,  ip  fjLr)vl  tmv  vecov  ;  compare  Ex.  xxiii.  15;  Deut. 
 xvi.  1  ;  Ex.  ix.  31, 77  yap  KpuOrj  Trapeo-rrjKvla,  Lev.  ii.  14,  accord- 
 ing to  the  Cod.  Alex.  airoCkov.  For  the  modified  current  trans- 
 lation of  n^as  and  against  that  of  Hitzig,  there  are  the  following 
 reasons  :  («.)  Ahih  cannot  be  the  710771.  propi'iu77i  of  a  month, 
 since  all  the  other  months  in  the  Pentateuch  have  no  names,  but 
 all  merely  denoted  by  numbers,  {h.)  Ahih  would  not,  then,  in 
 connection  with  h'^i,  always  have  the  article.  (<?.)  a^sK  occurs  in  the 
 Pentateuch  itself  as  apiiellativu77i,  and,  apart  from  the  compound 
 phrase,  a-^asn  ^a-^^',  Ex.  ix.  31  ;  Lev.  ii.  14.  It  is  to  be  observed 
 {d.)  that  a^as'n':;TM  never  occurs  but  where  the  departure  from 
 Egypt,  and  the  Passover  celebrated  in  consequence  of  it,  are  spoken 
 
THE  TIME  OF  THE  PASSOVER.  2\)\) 
 
 of — a  fact  which  cannot  be  explained  on  Hitzig's  view.  Besides, 
 the  same  month  bears  the  name  of  the^/i7'st  month,  and  so  ap- 
 pears under  the  same  denomination  as  the  rest ;  compare,  for  in- 
 stance, Ex.  xl.  17  ;  Num.  ix.  1 ;  xx.  1.  It  only  bears  the  name 
 a'^asn  tanh  with  reference  to  the  sheaves  that  were  to  be  presented 
 at  the  Passover.  In  the  designation  of  the  month  as  a^nsn  tann  in 
 Ex.  xiii.  14,  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  ordinance  respecting  the 
 presentation  of  the  sheaf  of  first  fruits,  which  is  iirst  given  in  Lev. 
 xxiii.  9. 
 
 II.  Also  in  Deut.  xvi.  1,  (''Observe  the  a-^ssn 'jnn  and  keep 
 the  Passover  unto  the  Lord  thy  God ;  for  n^ai?n  t^-iha  the  Lord 
 God  brought  thee  forth  out  of  Egypt  by  night,"  ^^?^),  Hitzig 
 remarks  that  the  Chodesh  Ahih  is,  the  New  Moon  of  Ahih.  This 
 night  is  everywhere  a  definite  expression  ;  it  must  be  so  here  if 
 we  translate  the  words  in  question,  the  New- Moon-day  of  Ahih. 
 But  the  objection  against  the  received  translation  has  only  weight 
 on  the  supposition  that  the  Passover  law  of  Deuteronomy  stands 
 there  unconnected  with  the  rest,  and  indej)endent ;  but  from  this 
 fact,  the  incorrectness  of  this  supposition  is  evident.  The  rela- 
 tion in  which  one  passage  stands  to  the  earlier  laws  in  which  the 
 time  is  distinctly  determined,  is  equivalent  to  a  direct  reference. 
 Schmidt  {de  Paschate,  \i.  170)  has  remarked:  Nihil  difficul- 
 tatis  hahet  hie  versus,  si  nota   sit  historia  Ex.  xii.  de  exitu 
 
 filioriim  Israel  ex  Aegypto.  The  same  writer  paraphrases  the 
 passage  in  Exod.  xii.  thus  :  Si  itaque  evolvatur,  sic  hahehit 
 textus  ;  ohserva  mensem  Ahih,  tit  facias  {in  node  ejus  decima- 
 quinta)  pascJia  Jehovae  deo  tuo ;  quia  in  hoc  mense  eduxit 
 te  Jehova  deus  tuns  ex  Aegypto  node  {eadem).  The  positive 
 reasons  against  Hitztg's  interpretation  may  be  gathered  from  the 
 foregoing  remarks. 
 
 III.  In  Exod.  xiii.  4,  it  is  said,  "  This  day  came  ye  out  tDih 
 a'^ssn."  When,  asks  Hitzig,  is  this  day  ?  In  the  preceding 
 context  it  is  nowhere  given ;  for  we  cannot  go  back  to  ch.  xii. 
 37,  and  so  it  is  not  told  at  all.  The  clause,  moreover,  "  in  the 
 month  Abib,"  would  be  lame  and  remain  so,  if  even  to  deter- 
 mine "  this  day,"  we  were  disposed  to  go  back  to  xii.  37,  where 
 there  is  a  perfectly  different  document ;  it  remains  so,  since  the 
 month  in  which  that  important  day  fell,  would  thereby  gain 
 nothing  in  importance,  and  would  never  be  celebrated.      Mani- 
 
300  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 festly,  he  infers,  must  the  clause  n^asn  ^nha  define  the  indefinite 
 a^^n;  and  the  v-\i  must  be  a  day,  not  a  month,  which  is  thus 
 palpably  shown  by  the  ^'^n  standing  there. 
 
 But  that  the  a-.^n  does  not  oblige,  us  to  impose  a  false  meaning 
 on  the  3^ab<n  "i-^i-a,  the  following  remarks  will  show.  That  the 
 Passover  Lamb  was  to  be  slain  by  the  whole  congregation  of 
 Israel  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month,  is  declared  by  God 
 to  Moses  in  Ex.  xii.  6,  "And  they  shall  eat  the  flesh  in  that 
 night,"  ver.  8,  the  death  of  the  first-born  of  the  Egyptians  is  fore- 
 told, ver.  12,  and  this  was  to  be  followed  by  the  departure  of  the 
 Israelites.  This  day  was  to  be  continually  observed  by  the 
 Israehtes  as  '*'  a  feast  to  the  Lord,"  ver.  14,  for  in  this  self  same  day 
 ntn  arn  asya  the  Lord  brought  the  children  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt, 
 ver.  1 7.  To  these  specifications  of  time,  ver.  29  refers.  "  And  it  came 
 to  pass  that  at  midnight  the  Lord  smote  all  the  first-born  in  the 
 land  of  Egypt."  Then  ver.  41,  "And  it  came  to  pass  at  the  end 
 of  the  four  hundred  and  thirty  years,  even  the  self  same  day  it  came 
 to  pass,  that  all  the  hosts  of  the  Lord  went  out  from  the  land  of 
 Egypt  =':^?  r:»?!?  ^V\  J^'^^=?'-?-^=  ^«f.  ^:p.  °'ir"  °???.  in  this  latter  pas- 
 sage particularly  the  reference  is  undeniable  to  ver.  1 7,  with  which 
 it  agrees  strikingly  in  expression,  "and  ye  shall  observe  the  feast 
 of  unleavened  bread,"  for  !=::f  ?  T^]}.  ^^K^?^^^-^^.  ^^^T^  ^T^  '^'^^^  a^ya 
 (Compare  Gen.  vii.  13,  where  riTn  ai^n  a::yn  refers  to  ver.  11  ;  xvii. 
 23,  2r3,  where  it  likewise  refers  to  the  day  marked  in  the  preced- 
 ing context).  To  this  day  the  author  returns  at  the  end  of  the 
 chapter  in  ver.  51,  after  the  connection  of  the  narrative  had  been 
 interrupted  by  the  ordinance  respecting  the  Passover — "  and  it 
 came  to  pass  the  self-same  day  the  Lord  did  bring  the  children 
 of  Israel  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  by  their  armies."  With  this, 
 ch.  xiii.  1,  is  connected,  "And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  (on 
 the  self- same  day),  sanctify  me  all  the  first  born,  &c.  ver.  3,  and 
 Moses  said  unto  the  people  (on  the  same  day),  Kemember  this 
 day,  in  which  ye  came  out  from  Egypt,  ver.  4,  This  day  came  ye 
 out,"  ^"?^U  ''^""?. 
 
 Even  the  arn  shows,  that  we  have  not  before  us  a  compilation 
 from  a  variety  of  written  sources.  Only  if  the  connection  be  ar- 
 bitrarily broken,  the  ai^i-i  becomes  indefinite,  and  requires  to  be 
 more  exactly  determined,  which  has  been  attempted  by  a  forced 
 exegesis  of  a-^asn  ty^ha. 
 
THE  TIME  OF  TPIE  PASSOVER.  .301 
 
 Also  in  other  respects  the  closest  connection  is  apparent,  so  tliat 
 we  are  perfectly  justified,  in  going  back  even  to  ch.  xii.  17,  in 
 order  to  determine  "  tJiis  day,"  as  yet,  that  part  of  the  ordinance 
 respecting  the  Passover,  wliich  God  imparted  to  Moses  in  ch.  xii. 
 i-ZO,  had  not  been  communicated  to  the  people  ;  the  communi- 
 cation to  the  elders  in  ver.  21-28,  contains  nothing  of  it,  and  that 
 the  reason  of  this  must  not  be  sought  for  in  a  mere  design  to 
 abridge,  appears  from  ver.  33,  34,  according  to  whicJi  the  people, 
 Avithout  as  yet  knowing  anything  of  the  command  of  unleavened 
 bread,  by  the  pressure  of  circumstances  were  prevented  from 
 leavening  their  dough;  exactly  as  afterwards  the ^v/Y^tV/Vr// insti- 
 tution of  the  Sabbath,  by  the  failure  of  the  manna,  preceded  the 
 verbal  one.  Thus,  when  we  have  read  through  the  section  con- 
 tained in  ch.  xii.  1-28,  w^e  find  ourselves  referred  to  an  account 
 of  the  promulgation  of  the  ordinance  concerning  unleavened  bread 
 in  the  following.  But  equally  as  this  section  points  forwards, 
 ch.  xiii.  3  points  backwards.  Why  Avas  the  ordinance  respecting 
 unleavened  bread,  as  well  as  that  of  the  consecration  of  the  first- 
 born, first  communicated  by  God  to  Moses,  then  by  Moses  to  the 
 people,  in  the  regular  course  of  legislation  ?  Why  is  the  account 
 of  the  communication  of  the  ordinance  respecting  the  unleavened 
 bread  placed  between  God's  command  to  Moses  respecting  the 
 consecration  of  the  first-born,  and  the  command  of  Moses  to  the 
 people  ?  How  can  this  be  explained  otherwise  than  thus,  that 
 Moses,  before  he  promulgated  the  new  command,  made  known  to 
 the  people  the  earlier  command  that  had  not  yet  been  promul- 
 gated, the  communication  of  which  presupposed  facts,  which  not 
 till  just  at  that  time  had  transpired. 
 
 That  2i3«n  ^-^n^  even  apart  from  general  grounds,  cannot  be 
 translated,  on  the  vew  moon  of  Ahih,  is  shown  by  ver.  5,  which 
 is  closely  connected  with  ver,  4,  "  And  it  shall  be  wdien  the  Lord 
 shall  bring  thee  into  the  land  of  the  Canaanites,  &c,  a  land  flowing 
 with  milk  and  honey  .  .  .  that  thou  shalt  keep  this  service 
 in  this  month"  Would  Hitzig  also  here  translate  "J'!'  ^'Jl^^r  "  at 
 this  new  moon  ?"  But  the  reference  is  to  a  seven  days'  eating  of 
 unleavened  bread,  and  this  may  be  assigned  to  a  month,  but  not 
 to  a  day. 
 
 The  reason  of  the  addition  of  a'^asn  ta-iha  lies  in  the  relation  of 
 ver.  4  to  ver.  5.      Since  the  latter  treats  of  a  seven  davs'  feast, 
 
302  (H)XTRADICTIONy  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 which  belongs  to  the  month,  the  month  must  be  named  in  ver.  4 , 
 to  which  the  day  of  the  departure  belonged.  That  this  month  is 
 called  a"^2sh  'r-i^,  and  not,  as  it  is  repeatedly  elsewhere,  the  first 
 month,  is  for  the  purpose  of  conveying  an  allusion  to  the  presen- 
 tation of  the  first-fruits  of  the  harvest,  which  took  place  in  the 
 seven  days  of  unleavened  bread,  and  to  which  the  mention  of  the 
 fruitfulness  of  the  land  naturally  led;  compare  Lev.  xxiii.  10. 
 Precisely  that  the  feast,  beside  the  historical  blessing  {Geschichts- 
 wohlthat),  might  have  for  its  object  the  natural  blessing  {Natiir- 
 wohlthat)  based  upon  it,  God  had  so  ordered  it  that  the  redemp- 
 tion of  Israel  was  effected  in  this  month. 
 
 IV.  The  fourth  passage  to  which  Hitzig  appeals  is  that  in 
 Exod.  xii.  40,  41.  "  Now  the  sojourning  of  the  children  of  Is- 
 rael, who  dwelt  in  Egypt,  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years. 
 And  it  came  to  pass  at  the  end  of  the  four  hundred  and  thirty 
 years,  even  the  self-same  day  it  came  to  pass,  that  all  the  hosts  of 
 the  Lord  went  out  from  the  land  of  Egypt."  "  The  author's 
 meaning  cannot  admit  of  a  doubt,"  says  Hitzig  ;  "  there  is  no 
 room  for  a  two-fold  interpretation."  (Certainly  not !)  "  He  says 
 on  the  same  day  on  which  the  430  years  had  expired,  therefore 
 on  the  first  day  of  the  four  hundred  and  thirty-first  year,  they 
 went  out." 
 
 The  data  for  setting  aside  this  notion  are  contained  in  what  has 
 been  already  said.  Only  a  word  or  two  more  is  needed.  If  the 
 passage  means  exactly  the  day  on  which  the  430  years  were  com- 
 pleted, the  new"  year's  day  could  not  be  meant,  but  only  the  day 
 on  which  the  Israelites  entered  Egypt.  If  any  one  should  say, 
 such  an  event  happened  ten  years  after  my  entrance  on  ofiice,  on 
 the  self-same  day,  who  would  understand  new-year's  day  to  be 
 intended  ?  The  passage,  therefore,  will  prove  nothing  for  Hit- 
 zig. What  day  this  was  must  be  ascertained  from  what  goes  be- 
 fore. It  would  have  been  a  different  case  if  it  had  been  related 
 m  Genesis  that  the  entrance  into  Egypt  was  on  the  first  of  Abib. 
 
 Not  to  mention  that  ^-rj  in  the  Pentateuch  always  refers  to  a 
 day  named  in  the  preceding  context  (compare,  on  this  point,  be- 
 sides the  passages  already  quoted.  Lev.  xxiii.  14),  how  can  any  one 
 imagine  that  Jtere  ^'T-  ^^^~-  °"tv?  can  mean  any  thing  else  than  it 
 does  in  ver.  17?  Observe  especially  that  very  pecuHar  expres- 
 sion, "  the  hosts  of  the  Lord"  in  ver.  17,  41,  61. 
 
UNLEAVENED  BREAD,  AND  THE  PASSOVER.  303 
 
 After  the  text  lias  revenged  itself  on  all  the  passages  which 
 HiTZiG  adduces  in  favour  of  his  unfortunate  vagary  (and  there- 
 fore on  him),  wo  cannot  read  his  words  in  p.  21  without  smil- 
 ing, "HI  am  now  pleased  to  translate  the  word  (the  ta-h  in 
 a^asrt  ©nn)  by  neic-moon-day  (Neumondstag) ,  who  will  contradict 
 me?" 
 
 HiTZiG  endeavours  (p.  27),  in  an  amusing  manner,  to  solve 
 what  is  for  him  a  very  difficult  problem — how  the  Passover 
 should  be  transferred  from  the  new  moon  (to  which  it  originally 
 belonged)  to  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month.  a'as  had  been 
 erroneously  explained  to  mean  ears  of  corn,  and  now  ^-^^  cannot 
 be  retained  in  the  sense  of  day  of  the  neiv  moon.  Thus  there  be- 
 ing no  longer  any  particular  day,  the  middle  one  of  the  month  is 
 arbitrarily  seized  upon. 
 
 As  the  problem  has  been  proved  to  be  a  nonentity,  it  would  not 
 repay  the  trouble  to  show  at  length  that  this  solution  of  it  is  alto- 
 gether untenable.  One's  olfactory  nerves  need  not  be  very  dehcate 
 to  perceive  that  it  smells  of  the  lamp.  It  shows,  by  a  memorable 
 example,  how  closely  modern  criticism  shuts  its  eyes  on  real  hfe. 
 It  is  a  mighty  acliievement  to  misplace  the  most  important  feast. 
 But  a  whole  nation  will  never  suffer  itself  to  be  regulated  by  the 
 pedantry  of  a  few  hterati,  least  of  all  a  nation  of  such  rehgious 
 pertinacity  as  the  Israelites.  Only  think  of  the  controversies  re- 
 specting Easter  in  the  Christian  Church  ! 
 
 UNLEAVENED   BREAD,  AND  THE   PASSOVER. 
 
 HiTZiG  maintains  (p.  32)  that  in  Ex.  xxiii.,  which  contains 
 the  same  Pascal  law  as  ch.  xxxiv.,  and,  without  doubt,  the  oldest, 
 that  the  feast  is  not  called  the  Passover ;  it  is  the  feast  of  Unlea- 
 vened Bread  C^^^^^^  ^-^T^^),  and  originated  in  the  historical  fact 
 mentioned  in  Ex.  xii.  37-42.  The  clause  'Hhou  shalt  eat  un- 
 leavened bread  seven  days,  as  I  commanded  thee,"  in  this  pas- 
 sage, was  inserted  by  later  editors.  The  seven  days'  eating  is  a 
 circumstance  not  in  accordance  with  tenor  of  the  naiTative.  We 
 meet  it  everywhere,  where  the  feast  happens  in  the  middle  of  the 
 month,  and  here  the  feast  is  already  a  double  one — the  Passover 
 and  the  Unleavened  Bread ;  and  therefore  it  was  arranged  that. 
 
304  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 instead  of  the  Unleavened  Bread,  the  Passover  fixed  itself,  at  the 
 supposed  point  of  time  when  the  departure  from  Egypt  took  place, 
 and  the  Unleavened  Bread  was  removed  farther  to  the  15th,  and 
 following  days.  Lev  xxiii.  5,  G  ; .  Num.  xxviii.  16,  17.  At  a  later 
 period,  the  unimportant  accident  that  the  Israelites  had  not  leaven- 
 ed their  dough,  gave  the  precedence  to  the  exemption  of  the  first- 
 born of  the  Israelites.  "  On  this  account  a  special  feast  of  unlea- 
 vened bread,  Ex.  xii.,  Num.  ix.,  is  not  recognised  ;  and  in  Num. 
 xxviii.  17,  m::^n  is  placed  after  the  :n.  Although  the  unleavened 
 bread  was  to  be  eaten  seven  days  (Exod.  xii.  15,  Num.  xxviii. 
 17),  it  forms  (Exod.  xii.  8,  Num.  ix.  11)  only  a  sort  of  garnish 
 to  the  Paschal  Lamb,  and  is  not  otherwise  related  to  it.  Deut. 
 xvi. 
 
 Therefore,  in  Exod.  xxiii.  and  xxxiv.  there  is  no  Passover,  only 
 a  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  then  a  double  feast,  the  Passover  and 
 Unleavened  Bread  ;  in  the  latest  passages  there  is  only  a  Passover, 
 and  no  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread.  The  eating  of  unleavened 
 bread  at  first  coincided  with  the  time  of  the  departure  from  Egypt, 
 but  afterwards  was  transferred  to  the  following  day. 
 
 First  of  all,  the  assertion  is  false  that  Exod.  xxiii.  and  xxxiv. 
 contain  the  oldest  law  of  the  Passover.  That  these  are  not  the  fun- 
 damental passages  on  the  Passover  is  apparent,  even  without  the 
 special  reference  which  Hitzig  quite  arbitrarily  explains  as  intro- 
 duced later.  The  eating  of  unleavened  bread  is  enjoined  without 
 a  reason,  and  yet  in  the  fundamental  passage  we  should  expect  a 
 reason.  But  the  principal  point  is  that  ch.  xxiii.  18  is  absolutely 
 unintelligible  without  the  reference  to  the  fundamental  passage  in 
 ch.  xii.  Without  it  no  one  can  tell  what  the  sacrifice  of  God 
 Kar  i^oxv^  ^s  ;  no  one  can  tell  what  to  do  with  the  concise  ex- 
 pression T!?0~^-,  and  as  little  what  kind  of  feast  is  intended  by 
 *'  the  feast  of  Jehovah,"  Kar  i^oxv^-  The  indefiniteness  of  the 
 last  expression  is  only  removed  by  the  parallel  passage  in  ch. 
 xxxiv.  25. 
 
 That  tlie  feast  in  Exod.  xxiii.  and  xxxiv.  is  not  called  the  Pass- 
 over, lends  no  support  to  Hitzig's  whim  (it  does  not  deserve  the 
 name  of  a  hypothesis.)  The  true  reason  of  this  fact  is  very  evi- 
 dent. The  whole  seven  days  feast  was  to  be  designated  ;  now 
 for  this,  the  only  suitable  name  was  the  feast  of  Unleavened 
 Bread.     The  name  Passover  is  never  applied  in  the  Pentateuch 
 
UNLEAVENED  BREAD  AND  THE  PASSOVER.  305 
 
 to  the  whole  feast.  This  has  been  noticed  by  Schmidt,  de 
 Paschate,  277.  Pesach  ^P^  always  stands  only  for  the  Paschal 
 sacrifice  and  feast ;  the  whole  feast  is  always  called  the  feast  of 
 Unleavened  Bread.  For  one  and  the  same  reason,  the  feast  is 
 called  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  and  is  assigned  to  the 
 month,  not  to  a  particular  day.  From  the  latter  circumstance 
 we  are  warranted  to  infer  that  the  words  "  seven  days  shall  thou 
 eat,"  i*tc.  are  not  a  later  interpolation.  If  a  feast  of  several  days 
 had  not  been  intended,  the  day  would  have  been  given. 
 
 We  can  offer  conclusive  reasons  that  the  nature  of  the  Passover 
 was  known  to  the  author  of  Exod.  xxiii.  and  xxxiv.,  and  that 
 therefore  the  omission  of  the  name  cannot  be  on  the  ground  al- 
 leged by  HiTZiG.  In  ch.  xxxiv.  18,  19,  the  command  respect- 
 ing the  redemption  of  the  first-bom  is  annexed  to  that  respecting 
 the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread.  This  shows  that  the  exemption 
 from  death  of  the  first-born  of  the  Israelites  was  known  to  the 
 author ;  and  if  this  were  the  case,  he  could  not  regard  the  Pass- 
 over as  a  mere  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread.  If  he  knew  the  fact 
 which  formed  the  basis  of  the  Passover,  he  also  knew  the  Pass- 
 over. But  ch.  xxxiv.  25  is  pecuharly  important,  "  Thou  shalt 
 not  offer  the  blood  of  my  sacrifice  with  leaven,  neither  shall  the 
 sacrifice  of  the  feast  of  the  Passover  be  left  unto  the  morning," 
 compared  with  xxiii.  18,  "  Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood  of  my 
 sacrifice  with  leavened  bread  (the  Chaldee  iwn  mactahis  super 
 fermento  sanguinem  Pesach  mei,  i.e.,  says  Kivet,  non  immola- 
 his  victimam  paschalem,  donee  fermentum  omne  ex  doniihus 
 exjnirgatum  sit),  neither  shall  the  fat  of  my  sacrifice  remain  until 
 the  morning."  Before  the  slaying  of  the  Paschal  Lamb  all  lea- 
 vened bread  was  to  be  put  away  ;  a  compendium  of  ch.  xii.  1 5,  20 ; 
 xiii.  6.  nothing  was  to  be  left  till  the  morning — a  compendium  of 
 ch.  xii.  10.  The  Paschal  Lamb  is  in  both  passages  the  sacrifice 
 of  God.  Kar  i^oxn^.  In  ch.  xxiii.  18,  the  Paschal  Lamb  is  con- 
 sidered so  much  as  the  substance  of  the  feast  that  ''  the  fat  of  my 
 feast"  ■'^tj'^^.'l  stands  for  ''  the  sacrifice  of  my  feast."  Thus, 
 therefore  Ex.  xxiii.  and  xxxiv.  contain,  in  a  compendious  manner, 
 all  the  three  points  of  importance  which  appear  in  the  pecuhar 
 law  of  the  Passover,  (i.)  The  Paschal  sacrifice,  (ii.)  The  un- 
 leavened bread,      (iii.)  The  dedication  of  the  first-born. 
 
 HiTZiG  tries  indeed  to  give  a  meaning  to  Ex.  xxiii.  18,  "  Nei- 
 
 VOL.    II.  u 
 
30G      THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 tber  shall  the  fat  of  my  feast  remain  until  morning,"  wliisli  would 
 render  it  useless  for  our  purpose.  According  to  him  it  contains 
 the  general  regulation,  not  to  let  the  fat  of  the  sacrifice  remain 
 till  the  morning,  that  it  might  not  putrify  and  become  offensive. 
 Such  a  general  law  might  be  expected  here ;  it  stands  among, 
 matter  of  a  similar  kind,  and  is  closely  connected  with  what  goes 
 before,  since  they  both,  and  only  they,  refer  to  the  sacrificial  ri- 
 tual. The  author  of  Ex.  xxxiv.  had  mistaken  this  law,  and  re- 
 ferred it  to  the  Passover. 
 
 But  this  exposition  is  altogether  untenable,  (i.)  It  excites  a 
 very  unfavourable  prejudice  against  it,  that  Hit5?ig  is  obliged  to 
 explain  ch.  xxxiv.  25  as  a  mistake.  The  meaning  which  this  pas- 
 sage gives  the  words,  ought  certainly  not  to  be  rehnquished  ex- 
 cept on  the  most  stringent  grounds,  (ii.)  With  evident  design 
 HiTZiG  slurs  over  the  first  half  of  the  verse.  That  he  would  give 
 that  also  a  general  reference  is  clear.  But  Eivet  (0pp.  I.  Ro- 
 terod.  1651,  p.  1085)  has  long  ago  shown  that  this  will  not  suit 
 the  passage.  Lev.  c.  ii.  hahetur  generalis  regula,  omnis  ohla- 
 tio,  quae  ojfertur  Domino,  absque  fermentojiet,  nee  quidqiiain 
 fermenti  aut  mellis  adolehitur  in  sacrificiis  domini.  Sed  }io& 
 intelligendum  est  de  ohlationihus  quae  efferehantur  domino  eo^ 
 rebus  inanimatis  (r:n3«)  maxime  quae  Jiebant  ex  simila,  in  qua 
 misceri  j)oterat  fermentum.  Hie  an  tern  cum  non  agaiur  de  ob- 
 latione  ex  simila,  sed  de  ea,  quae  sanguinem  habebat,  aliud 
 ojwriet  esse,  quam  id,  quod  in  oblatiotie  similae  prohibetur. 
 Non  legimus  aliquando  cum  sanguine  victimae  fermentatiun 
 panem  aut  non  fermentatum  fuisi^e  mixtum,  sed  quid  sub  his 
 verbis  intelUgatur  ex  ch.  xxxiv.  xxxv.  &c.  Quod  in  aliis  sa- 
 crificiis necessarium  non  erat,  in  quibus  Ebraei  agitantes  can- 
 vivia  ex  carnibus  sacrijiciorum  jioterant  uti  pane  fermeniata. 
 (Compare  the  hv  in  Ex.  xii.  8;  Num.  ix.  11  ;  Deut.  xvi.  2, 
 "  Thou  shalt  eat  no  leavened  bread  with  it ;  seven  days  shalt  thon 
 eat  unleavened  bread  therewith,  the  bread  of  affliction,"  which  so- 
 far  differs  from  the  passages  we  have  been  considering,  that  here 
 it  is  commanded  to  put  away  the  leaven  before  the  slaying  of  the 
 Paschal  Lamb,  and  there,  to  eat  no  leavened  bread  during  the 
 whole  feast — all  which  is  perfectly  consistent.  Now  if  the  first 
 half  of  the  verse  refers  to  tlie  Passover,  it  is  most  natural  that  the 
 second  in  parallelism  with  it  should  refer  to  the  Passover.     Com- 
 
UNLEAVENED  BREAD  AND  THE  PASSOVER.  307 
 
 pare  Deut.  xvi.  2-4,  where  likewise  both  the  eating  of  unleavened 
 bread,  and  the  not  leaving  any  portion  of  the  Paschal  Lamb  till 
 morning,  are  connected  together.  Also  in  reference  to  the  more 
 distant  context,  the  law  is  laid  down  in  a  manner  perfectly  suita- 
 ble to  our  explanation,  first  in  ver.  14-17  of  the  three  feasts  in  ge- 
 neral, then  in  ver.  1 8  two  regulations  in  reference  to  the  first  and 
 principal  feast  are  indicated,  to  which  we  must  supply  an  et  cetera, 
 (iii).  Considered  in  themselves,  the  words  before  us  allow  of  no 
 other  reference  but  to  the  Paschal  Lamb.  Hitzig  entirely  passes 
 over  in  silence  the  ^^.*^,  and  translates  the  passage,  without  hesita 
 tion,  as  if  it  were  "  my  sacrifice !'  The  direction  that  nothing  of 
 it  {the  fat  is  mentioned  in  our  passage  ^^  pars  praecipiia)  should 
 be  left  till  morning,  is  altogether  peculiar  to  the  Paschal  Lamb. 
 Our  passage  cannot  have  the  same  object  as  the  law  in  Lev.  xix. 
 6,  where  it  is  said  of  the  Shelamim,  "  It  shall  be  eaten  the  same 
 day  ye  offer  it,  and  on  the  morrow,  and  if  ought  remain  until  the 
 third  day  it  shall  be  burnt  with  fire."  Compare  Lev.  vii.  IQ,  17. 
 For  here  a  longer  terminus  must  be  given.  Lastly,  the  Tp""'? 
 contains  an  implication  that  the  sacrificial  feast  was  to  be  at  night. 
 Otherwise  it  would  have  been  said,  until  the  morning  of  the  fol- 
 lowing day.     y^  forms  the  antithesis  to  night. 
 
 Having  shown  on  such  striking  grounds  that  the  passages  which, 
 according  to  Hitzig,  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Passover, 
 have  been  misapplied,  it  will  not  be  worth  while  to  enlarge  upon 
 the  subject,  as  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  whole  festival  should 
 be  limited  to  the  rite  of  unleavened  bread,  especially  according 
 to  the  crude  notion  of  it,  as  a  mere  memorial  of  a  fact,  that  in 
 itself  was  insignificant,  and  symbohsed  no  idea. 
 
 Having,  in  this  manner,  settled  the  main  point,  we  now  turn  to 
 the  remaining  contradictions  which  Hitzig  professes  to  discover. 
 
 It  is  a  mere  fancy  that  the  eating  of  the  unleavened  bread  was  at 
 first  confined  to  a  single  meal,  but  afterwards  extended  to  seven 
 days.  Wherever  the  Mazzoth  is  mentioned,  there  we  also  find 
 the  term  of  seven  days.  Indeed,  if  IIitzig's  view  of  the  institu- 
 tion of  this  rite  were  correct,  we  could  not  account  for  its  being  kept 
 seven  days.  By  his  view  the  undeniable  connection  of  the  pro- 
 hibition of  Vr.^!  at  the  Passover,  and  the  n'.ns^,  is  entirely  broken.* 
 
 *  Compare  Lev.  ii.  11—"  No  meat-off'ering  wbicli  ye  bring  unto  the  Lord  shall  l.o 
 made  with  leaven  ;  for  ye  shall  burn  no  leaven,  nor  any  honey,  in  any  offering  of  tlio 
 
 U    2 
 
808       THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Tlie  true  significance  of  eating  the  unleavened  bread,  may  be 
 best  learnt  from  1  Cor.  v.  0.  The  unleavened  bread  typifies  the 
 elXifcplveia  and  akrjOeia,  which  the  redeemed  are  habitually  to 
 practice,  which  we  can  here  only  hint  at,  and  shall  enlarge  upon 
 at  another  opportunity. 
 
 We  never  find  two  feasts,  the  Passover  and  that  of  Unleavened 
 Bread ;  never  is  the  beginning  of  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread 
 transposed  to  the  day  after  the  Passover.     If  in  Levit.  xxiii.  5, 
 6  ("In  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month,  at  even,  is  the 
 Lord's  Passover.     And,  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  same  month, 
 is  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  unto  the  Lord — seven  days  ye 
 must  eat  unleavened  bread"),  the  Passover  is  assigned  to  the 
 fourteenth,    and    the    beginning    of   the    feast    of    Unleavened 
 Bread  to   the  fifteenth,  it  is  to  be  understood  that  the  evening 
 which  follow^s  the  fourteenth  may  be  considered  as  belonging  to 
 it,  forming  its  close,  or  as  belonging  to  the  fifteenth,  forming  its 
 beginning.    The  first  happens  in  reference  to  the  Paschal  Lamb, 
 since  this  was  slain  ^^T^^^Tr.;  the  second,  in  reference  to  the 
 Unleavened  Bread,  since  the  eating  of  it  began  after  the  fifteenth 
 was  actually  entered  upon,  and  the  days  were  numbered  from 
 the  fifteenth  to  the  twenty-first.     If  the  Unleavened  Bread,  ac- 
 cording to  Ex.  xii.  18,  was  to  be  eaten  "  on  the  fourteenth  day 
 of  the  month,  at  evening,  until  tlie  one-and-twentieth  day  of  the 
 month  at  evening,"  the  eating  of  it,  since  (according  to  the  common 
 division  of  time)  the  day  began  in  the  evening,  strictly  speaking, 
 belonged  to  the  fifteenth. .    The  arguments  which  prove  that  the 
 evening  of  the  fourteenth  day,  on  which  the  Passover  was  to  be 
 eaten,  did  not  begin  but  conclude  the  fourteenth  day,  and,  there- 
 fore, strictly  belonged  to  the  fifteenth,  have  been  stated  by  Schmidt 
 in  his  treatise  De  Paschate,  p.  396—"  Neqiie  enim,"  he  remarks, 
 "  quando  in  scriptura  mentio  fit  vesperae  alicujus  deci,  ita  ut 
 vespera  ista  distinguatiir  a  tiocte,  putamus  nusquam  inveniri 
 nllum  locum,  tihi  i?iteUir/atur  vespera  diem  terminans.     The 
 opinion  advocated  by  Eauch,  that  the  Passover  was  eaten  at  the 
 beginning  of  the  fourteenth  (see  De  Wette's  counter-remarks, 
 in  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1834,  p.  939),  is  opposed  by  the  expression  ^a 
 a-^a-yn.     If  the  Passover  evening  formed  the  beginning  of  the 
 
 Lord  made  by  fire."      Baal  Tukim  :    Quia  fermentum  corruptionem  hominis  vel 
 pravam  concupiscentiam,  mel  antem  improbam  ejus  dalcedinem  s.  vohiptaiem  denotat. 
 
DEUT.  XVI.  2.  o09 
 
 fourteentli,  then  the  a^a'^yn  y:i  must  belong  to  the  thirteenth. 
 The  defect  here  also  has  been,  that  persons  have  neglected  to 
 determine  the  later  passages  by  the  earlier — the  recapitulation  by 
 the  loci^s  classiciis.  The  same  remark  applies  to  the  second 
 passage,  to  which  Hitzig  appeals,  Num.  xxviii.  IG,  17.  We 
 nowhere  meet  w^ith  a  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  in  contradistinc- 
 tion from  the  Passover.  The  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  denotes 
 the  whole,  including  the  time  peculiar  to  the  Passover.  In 
 Levit.  xxiii.  and  Num.  xxviii.,  two  distinct  festivals  are  not  given 
 in  juxtaposition,  but  only  the  beginning  and  chief  component  part 
 of  the  festival,  and  the  whole  of  it. 
 
 DEUT.  XVI.  2. 
 
 In  this  passage  it  is  said — "  Thou  shalt  therefore  sacrifice  the 
 Passover  unto  tlie  Lord  thy  God,  of  the  flock  and  the  herd,  in  the 
 place  where  the  Lord  shall  choose  to  place  his  name  there."  This 
 has  given  rise,  in  former  times,  to  frequent  discussion  (Schmidt, 
 de  PascJiate,  p.  170).  Lately,  Hitzig  has  remarked  in  reference 
 to  it,  that  it  is  opposed  to  the  legislation  of  Leviticus,  by  the  direc- 
 tion that  the  smaller  cattle  (goats  as  well  as  sheep)  and  the  larger 
 were  to  be  offered  as  the  Passover  of  Jehovah. 
 
 But  we  have  already  learnt  from  Lev.  xxiii.  8,  that  besides  the 
 Paschal  Lamb,  there  were  other  sacrifices  at  the  Passover.  The 
 directions  respecting  their  quality  and  number  we  find  in  Num. 
 xxviii.  19-26.  They  consist  of  y^^  and  iss.  These  are  burnt- 
 offerings  and  sin-ofiJerings.     Shelamim  are  not  mentioned 
 
 The  difference  is  only  this — that  in  the  passage  under  con- 
 sideration, ^'^^,  denotes  the  Passover  generally,  not  the  Paschal 
 sacrifice,  Kar  i^oxn'^-  Also  by  "jsrs,  the  Paschal  Lamb  alone  is 
 not  to  be  understood.  That  the  author  must  have  stated  the  dis- 
 tinction between  the  two,  can  only  be  maintained  from  a  false 
 view  of  his  object.  His  only  concern  was  with  the  place  of  the 
 presentation.  In  reference  to  this,  all  ambiguity  and  indefinite- 
 ness  must  be  avoided,  and  truly  here  the  author  is  minute  and 
 exact  enough  ;  he  constantly  returns  to  it  negatively  and  posi- 
 tively. Every  thing,  besides,  is  mere  embelUshment,  or  has  not  a 
 legislatorial,  but  a  parenthetical  character.  This  supplement,  in 
 reference  to  the   Passover,   stands  in  close   connection  with  the 
 
310       THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 special  design  of  Deuteronomy,  in  reference  to  which  De  Wette 
 {Beitr.  i.  283),  remarks — "Almost  all  the  peculiar  laws  in  our 
 book  refer  to  the  residence  in  the  land  of  Canaan."  The  same 
 also  is  the  case  with  the  two  other  great  feasts.  Here  also  the 
 author  has  only  the  place  in  his  eye.  That  he  only  occupied 
 himself  wdth  those  feasts  which  were  to  he  celebrated  at  the 
 place  of  the  sanctuary,  shows  that  he  meant  not  to  treat  of  the 
 feasts  in  general,  but  only  with  one  special  reference. 
 
 So  much  for  the  alleged  contradictions  in  reference  to  the 
 Passover. 
 
 EXOD,  XVII.   1,  &C.  ;    NUM.  XX.   1,  &C. 
 
 The  events  narrated  in  these  passages,  it  is  said  (Yater,  p.  490  ; 
 compare  Hartmann,  p.  196),  wear  a  striking  resemblance.  In 
 both  places,  the  Israelites  murmured  on  account  of  a  want  of  water ; 
 in  both  places  they  received  water  from  a  rock,  and  both  times  the 
 place  obtains  the  same  names  from  the  event.  It  is  probably  one 
 and  the  same  event,  which,  in  the  course  of  time,  by  the  uncertainty 
 of  tradition,  was  assigned  to  two  different  places.  The  collector  of  the 
 Pentateuch  found  a  tw^ofold  narrative  different  in  subordinate  cir 
 cumstances,  and  inserted  both  in  the  works.  That  both  narratives 
 proceeded  from  one  and  the  same  author  cannot  be  admitted,  on  ac- 
 count of  the  difference  of  phraseology.  In  Exodus  we  find  ^t  and  7.P.I 
 ^'^^T.  ',  in  Numbers  imy  and  Vr^p;  in  Exodus,  ^^is;  in  Numbers,  ^^^. 
 
 We  begin  with  a  rectification  of  the  matter  of  fact.  The  asser- 
 tion is  false,  that  the  place  received  both  times  the  same  name. 
 The  first  place  obtained  the  names  of  Massah  and  Meribah  ;  the 
 second,  those  of  Kadesh  and  En  Mishpat.  The  occasion  of  the 
 error  hes  in  Num.  xx.  13,  "  Tliis  is  the  water  of  strife  (-?""?'?  '^'H), 
 because  the  cliildren  of  Israel  strove  i^'^l)  with  the  Lord,  and  he 
 was  sanctified  in  them."  Not  a  word  is  said  here  about  giving 
 the  name  Meribah  to  the  place.  Elsewhere,  only  the  waters  of 
 strife  at  Kadesh  are  spoken  of.  That  the  author  uses  the  expres- 
 sion waters  of  strife  is  intentional.  The  repetition  of  the  desig- 
 nation, wliich,  on  the  former  occasion,  became  a  7ioni.  jrrojrr.,  here 
 serves  as  an  allusion  to  it,  and  therefore  sets  in  a  more  conspicu- 
 ous hght  the  unbehef  of  the  people  and  of  their  leader.  Equally 
 false  also  are  the  observations  on  the  language  from  which  a  diver- 
 
EXOD.  XVII.   1,  i^C.  ;    NUM.  XX.   1,  ctc.  311 
 
 sity  of  authorship  is  attempted  to  be  proved.  The  narrative  in 
 Exodus  ch.  xvi.  begins  with  the  words,  "  And  all  the  congrega- 
 tion of  the  children  of  Israel  "  (^.?«7f.''  ''.??  ^r'?"'?),  which  stands  hi 
 the  closest  connection  with  ch.  xvii.  ;  compare  especially  ch.  xvii. 
 3  with  xvi.  3  ;  both  ^VJ^^  and  ^3?,  the  latter  several  times.  That 
 only  in  Exodus  the  elders  are  mentioned  is  easily  explained,  if  we 
 consider  that  here  the  miracle  was  wrought  only  in  the  sight  of 
 the  elders ;  there,  before  all  the  people.  That  in  Exodus  ^•.:i  is  used, 
 and  in  Numbers  spo,  is  owing  to  a  real  difference  in  the  things 
 spoken  of,  for  the  w^ords  are  certainly  not  synonymous. 
 
 If  we  now  keep  in  view  the  settled  matters  of  fact,  we  cannot 
 avoid  the  conviction,  that  the  whole  objection  proceeds  from  an 
 obscure  and  unconscious  dread  of  the  miraculous.  If  a  natural 
 relief  had  occurred  twice,  no  one  would  have  found  any  difficulty 
 in  it.  The  want  of  water  in  a  barren  desert  was  a  trial  continually 
 recurring,  the  greatness  of  wdiich  we  are  assisted  in  conceiving  by 
 the  accounts  of  modern  travellers.  In  Exod.  xv.  22,  at  an  earher 
 period,  we  are  told  that  the  people  murmured  for  the  want  of  w^a- 
 ter  that  was  fit  to  drink  at  Marah,  and  the  bitter  water  was  changed 
 into  sw^eet.  And,  after  the  event  naiTated  in  Num.  xx.,  the  same 
 complaint  was  again  renewed,  ch.  xxi.  4,  5,  "  And  they  journeyed 
 from  Mount  Hor,  by  the  way  of  the  Red  Sea,  to  compass  the  land  of 
 Edom,  and  the  soul  of  the  people  was  much  discouraged,  because 
 of  the  way.  And  the  people  spake  against  God,  and  against  Moses, 
 Wherefore  have  ye  brought  us  up  out  of  Egypt,  to  die  in  the  wil- 
 derness ?  for  there  is  no  bread,  neither  ivatery  If  the  distress 
 was  similar,  we  might  beforehand  expect  to  find  that  the  Divine 
 aid  was  repeated,  and  so  much  the  more,  since  it  had  even  a  second 
 time  been  the  lot  of  the  new  generation,  with  which  the  Divine  lead- 
 ings had  begun  afresh.  As  soon  as  we  understand  that  the  spiritual 
 Rock  followed  the  Israelites,  that  they  constantly  di'ank  of  the  spi- 
 ritual water  which  proceeded  from  that  Rock  (1  Cor.  x.  4),  we 
 shall  be  in  a  position  to  perceive,  that  the  outwardly  supernatural 
 was  the  inwardly  natural ;  in  the  first  event  we  shall  find  a  pre- 
 diction of  the  second,  which  w^ould  certainly  be  fulfilled  on  a  recur- 
 rence of  the  same  circumstances.  Our  opponents  should,  there- 
 fore, so  far  understand  themselves,  that  they  direct  their  attack 
 no  longer  against  the  twofold  event,  but  twice  against  the  miracu- 
 lous character  of  the  event,  and  even  against  this  not  in  its  iso- 
 
31^  THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 lated  state,  but  only  on  the  ground  that  Israel,  in  his  journey 
 through  the  desert,  was  not  under  the  special  guidance  of  his  God 
 — that  the  whole  relation  to  him  was  only  imaginary.  But  they 
 are  too  much  inclined  to  affect  a  transfer  of  the  conflict  from  the 
 field  of  dogmatical  to  that  of  historical  criticism. 
 
 Yet  it  must  he  admitted  that  some  ground  of  suspicion  will, 
 after  all,  he  left — if  both  events  had  not  their  peculiar'  physiog- 
 nomy— if  they  were  so  ahke,  even  as  to  place  and  time,  that  one 
 might,  without  hesitation,  transpose  the  narrative  in  the  Book  of 
 Exodus  to  the  Book  of  Numbers,  and  the  reverse.  But  this  can 
 be  asserted  only  by  very  superficial  observers.  The  deeper  we  go, 
 the  more  distinctly  the  very  opposite  becomes  apparent. 
 
 The  unbelief  of  Moses  and  Aaron  is  pecuHar  to  the  Book  of 
 Numbers.  Moses  said  to  the  people,  with  mingled  doubt  and 
 irritation,  ''Hear  now  ye  rebels,  must  we  fetch  you  icater  out  of 
 this  rock  V  An  rem,  quae  Jiere  nequit,  a  nobis  postulatis} 
 MiCHAELis.  He  struck  the  rock  twice  in  haste  and  perturbation, 
 uncertain  of  the  result.  This  transaction  stands  in  causal  connec- 
 tion with  the  death  of  Moses  and  Aaron.  Therefore,  the  most  im- 
 portant particular  is  peculiar  to  the  second  event.  It  is  of  a  kind 
 that  could  not  have  been  thought  of  at  the  first.  Here  is  a  weai'iness 
 of  spirit,  such  as  we  might  expect  after  years  of  trial.  Never  till  this 
 time  had  Moses  lost  his  self-command  in  the  presence  of  the  people. 
 In  ver.  3,  the  words,  "  Would  to  God  we  had  died,  when  om'  bre- 
 tln'en  died  before  the  Lord  !"  there  is  an  allusion  to  a  fact  which 
 had  not  transpired  at  the  time  of  the  first  event.  So  also  in  ver.  6, 
 "And  Moses  and  Aaron  went  from  the  presence  of  the  assembly  unto 
 the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation ;"  while  in  Exod. 
 xvii.  4,  it  is  merely  said,  "  And  Moses  cried  unto  the  Lord."  In 
 the  interval  between  the  two  events,  the  tabernacle  had  been 
 erected.  Then  ver.  9,  "  And  Moses  took  the  rod  from  before  the 
 Lord  (ni"?  ^}^^)  as  he  commanded  him."  The  rod  was  now  kept 
 in  the  sacred  tabernacle.  So  exactly  does  the  narration  tally  with 
 the  course  of  the  history,  so  little  is  it  like  a  detached  leaf,  which 
 accident  had  blown  into  its  present  position. 
 
 Contrary  to  the  supposition  of  our  opponents,  that  the  two  nar- 
 ratives were  penned  by  different  authors,  are  the  allusions  to  the 
 former  which  occur  in  the  latter.  In  Num.  xx.  8,  it  is  merely 
 said  with  striking  conciseness,   "  Take  the  rod ;"  so  that  several 
 
EXOD.    XVII.    1,  Sec;    NUM.    XX.    1,  &iC.  813 
 
 have  supposed  that  it  was  Aaron's  rod.  This  conciseness,  as  we 
 find  frequently  in  the  Pentateuch,  points  to  a  fuller  description, 
 wliich  was  given  before  on  a  similar  occasion.  This  we  find  in 
 Exod.  xvii.  5,  "  And  thy  rod,  wherewith  thou  smotest  the  river, 
 take  in  thine  hand."  In  Numbers  also,  the  words,  "  Thou  slialt 
 smite  the  rock,"  are  to  be  supplied  from  Exodus.  How  neces- 
 sary the  additions  fi'om  Exodus  are,  for  understanding  the  broken 
 narrative  in  Numbers,  is  shown  by  a  mistake  of  Kanne's,  ii.  105, 
 and  others,  which  is  merely  occasioned  by  supposing  that  the  pas- 
 sage in  Numbers  is  self-explanatory.  They  think  that  Moses 
 ought,  on  this  occasion,  to  have  taken  his  miraculous  rod  with  him 
 indeed,  but  only  to  have  spoken  to  the  rock.  The  weakness  of 
 his  faith  was  shown  in  the  fact,  that,  mistrusting  the  efiiciency  of 
 merely  speaking,  he  struck  the  rock. 
 
 How  httle  we  have  here  to  do  with  a  dubious  and  fluctuating 
 legend,  is  shown  by  the  sure  and  certain  references  to  these  events, 
 and  the  sharp  distinction  between  them,  when  they  are  spoken  of 
 in  the  Pentateuch.  Two  passages  are  worthy  of  special  notice — 
 Num.  xxvii.  12-14,  "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  get  thee 
 up  into  this  mount  Abarim  ....  And  thou  also  shalt  be 
 gathered  unto  thy  people,  as  Aaron  thy  brother  was  gatliered. 
 For  ye  rebelled  against  my  commandment,  in  the  desert  of  Zin, 
 in  the  strife  of  the  congregation,  to  sanctify  me  at  the  water  be- 
 fore their  eyes  ;  that  is  the  water  of  Merihali  in  Kadesh,  in  the 
 wilderness  of  Zin -J'  and  Deut.  xxxii.  51,  "Because  ye  trespas- 
 sed against  me  among  the  children  of  Israel,  at  the  waters  of  the 
 strife  at  Kadesh,  in  the  wilderness  of  Zin,  because  ye  sanctified 
 me  not  in  the  midst  of  the  children  of  Israel."  The  exactness  of 
 the  geographical  descrij)tion  was  plainly  with  a  view  to  the  former 
 passage,  to  distinguish  the  event  in  Numbers  from  that  in  Exo- 
 dus. The  implication  that  there  were  other  waters  of  strife  may 
 be  plainly  discerned.  To  the  first  passage  there  is  a  reference  in 
 Num.  xxxiii.  IJ,  "  And  they  encamped  at  Eephidim,  where  was 
 no  water  for  the  people  to  drink  ;"  also  in  Deut.  viii.  15,  "  Who 
 led  thee  through  that  great  and  terrible  vdlderness  .  .  .  where 
 there  was  no  water  ;  who  brought  thee  forth  water  out  of  the  rock 
 of  flint ;"  the  author  had  the  second  clearly  before  his  eyes  before 
 he  gave  an  account  of  the  second.  In  Gen.  xiv.  7  it  is  said,  "They 
 returned,  and  came  to  En-Mishpat,  which  is  Kadesh."     It  is  evi- 
 
314       THE  CONTKADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 dent,  and  should  not  have  been  passed  over  by  Kanne  (ii.  107), 
 that  hoth  these  names  were  taken  from  the  event  recorded  in  the 
 Book  of  Numbers  ;  En-Mishpat  accompanying  the  nom.  jrrojrr. 
 rather  as  an  appellative,  so  that  its  meaning  remains  always  fresh 
 and  palpable,  and  Kadesh  being  strictly  the  ;«ow.  ^r6>/;/*.*  The 
 original  name,  indeed,  is  not  here  given.  The  event  made  such 
 a  deep  impression  on  the  people  that  the  new  name  very  soon  be- 
 came permanent.  Only  in  some  few  passages,  Deut.  i.  2,  19, 
 the  original  name  Bamea  ^J?^.  appears  in  connection  with  Kadesh,t 
 while  the  place  commonly  is  called  simply  Kadesh  ;  compare  Num. 
 xxxiv.  4 ;  Deut.  ii.  44  ;  Josh.  x.  42.  Also,  the  wilderness  in 
 which  Kadesh  Barnea  was  situate,  must  have  exchanged  its  ear- 
 lier name,  Zin,  for  Kadesh,  or  at  least  have  taken  the  latter  as  a 
 surname;  compare  Num.  xxxiii.  36,  "  they  pitched  in  the  wilder- 
 ness of  Zin,  which  is  Kadesh,"  with  Num.  xxvii.  14,  "  the  water 
 of  Meribah  in  Kadesh,  in  the  wilderness  of  Zin." 
 
 An  incontestable  witness  for  the  historical  truth  of  both  events 
 is  furnished  by  the  names  Mispah,  and  Meribah,  and  Kadesh, 
 which  they  originated.  The  Hebrew  etymologies,  and  the  allu- 
 sion to  the  events  in  question,  are  so  palpable,  while  of  the  names 
 Bamea  and  Zin  it  is  difficult  to  fix  on  any  probable  Hebrew  ety- 
 mology. 
 
 *  Vater  quotes  (p.  633)  Gen.  xiv.  7,  among  "  the  passages  with  explanatory  addi- 
 tions, especially  to  names  of  places,  such  as  would  not  be  expected  in  the  time  of 
 Moses."  But  with  what  propriety  one  does  not  perceive.  That  one  and  the  same 
 event  give  rise  to  a  double  name,  according  to  different  associations  connected  with  it 
 — Fuunta'm  of  judgment  (•js'i'o  "^S")  on  account  of  the  judgment  on  Aaron  and  Moses 
 
 (Num.  XX.  12),  and  Kadesh  ('ii~'p\  because  the  Lord  there  sanctified  himself  to  the  Is- 
 raelites ;  {quia  prostrata  eorum  improbitate  et  petulantia  sanctum  suum  nomen  a  con- 
 temtu  vindicaverat ;  Calvin)  can  only  appearstrange  to  those  who  do  not  recognise  the 
 intimate  connection  between  names  and  things  in  the  earliest  ages.  Compare  Gilead 
 and  Mispah  in  Gen.  xxxi.  48,  49.  The  passage  proves  nothing  more  than  that  Gene- 
 sis in  its  present  form  could  not  have  existed  before  the  event  recorded  in  Num.  xx. 
 
 +  The  supposition  of  a  double  Kadesh  by  Reland  (p.  114)  and  others,  rests  on  un- 
 acquaintance  with  localities  that  have  been  since  ascertained.  Reland's  remark,  p. 
 115)  in  reference  to  Kadesh  Barnea :  certe  in  sacra  codice  nunquam  urhs  oppellatur 
 hoc  nomine,  is  exactly  the  opposite  of  the  fact.  Kadesh  Barnea  is  always  tlie  name  of 
 a  place,  never  of  the  wilderness.  The  wilderness  is  called  Zin,  with  the  addition  of 
 Kadesh. 
 
EXODUS  XXIII.   16,  AND  XXXIV.  22.  315 
 
 EXODUS  XXIII.   10,  AND  XXXIV.  22. 
 
 HiTZiG  {Ostern  and  Pfingsteu,  p.  15)  remarks,  "  What  in 
 Exod.  xxxiv.  22  is  called  *  the  wheat  harvest,'  is  called  in  ch. 
 xxiii.  16,  '  thy  labours  which  thou  hast  sown  in  thy  field.'  "  We 
 have,  therefore,  in  ch.  xxiii.  a  feast  of  first-fruits  generally,  in 
 which  the  first-fruits  of  grain  are  to  be  offered.  At  the  feast  in 
 ch.  xxxiv.,  the  first-fruits  of  wheat  were  to  be  offered.  But  the 
 harvest  generally  took  its  beginning  with  the  barley  harvest.  The 
 feast  in  ch.  xxiii.  is,  therefore,  one  of  the  first-fruits  of  the  barley  ; 
 and  it  follows  that  in  ch.  xxiii.  the  celebration  of  the  feast  must 
 be  so  much  earlier  than  in  ch.  xxxiv.,  as  the  time  that  elapsed 
 from  the  beginning  of  the  barley  harvest  to  that  of  wheat  harvest. 
 
 Let  us  first  quote  at  length  the  two  passages — Ex.  xxiii.  16, 
 "  And  (thou  shalt  keep)  the  feast  of  harvest,  the  first-fruits  of  thy 
 labours,  which  thou  hast  sow^n  in  thy  field  ;  and  the  feast  of  in- 
 gathering which  is  in  the  end  of  the  year,  when  thou  hast  gather- 
 ed in  thy  labours  out  of  the  field  ;"  xxxiv.  22,  "  And  thou  shalt 
 observe  the  feast  of  weeks,  of  the  first-fruits  of  wheat  harvest." 
 
 On  applying  ourselves  to  remove  the  difference  urged  by  Hrr- 
 ziG,  which  he  represents  as  "  lying  pretty  much  on  the  surface," 
 the  first  question  that  arises  is,  are  we  to  consider  "  the  feast  of 
 harvest,"  ^''^'^  ^^  as  one  which  was  celebrated  at  the  beginning  of 
 harvest,  or  at  its  close  ?  That  there  was  no  third  time,  that  a  ce- 
 lebration of  the  harvest  between  the  beginning  and  end  is  not  to 
 be  imagined,  even  Hitzig  acknowledges.  This  writer  supposes 
 that  the  feast  was  celebrated  at  the  beginning  of  the  harvest,  and 
 that  the  first  ripe  ears  of  barley  were  taken  for  presentation.  But 
 the  contrary  is  the  correct  view.  The  feast  of  ingathering  con- 
 nected with  the  harvest  feast  was  celebrated  after  the  complete  in- 
 gathering. The  first-fruits  of  what  was  sown  in  the  fields,  which 
 were  presented  at  the  harvest  feast,  consisted,  according  to  the 
 parallel  passage  in  Lev.  xxiii.  16  (which  must  be  regarded  as  the 
 special  sedes  doctrinae  on  this  subject),  not  of  ears  of  com,  but 
 of  bread.  Hence  it  follows  that  the  harvest  feast  was  not  cele- 
 brated before  the  beginning  of  the  hai-vest,  and  it  is  certain  also 
 that  it  must  have  been  immediately  after  its  close.  Lampe  on 
 John  iv.  35,  remarks,  Ncc  enim  manijuihis  fijiicarum,  quae  cum 
 
81  G  THE  CONlJiADICTlONS  OF  THE  TEM'-ITEUCH. 
 
 virides  adhiic  essent,  torreri  antea  dehehant,  in  Pentecost e  cf- 
 ferebatur,  vehit  Jiebat  in  festo  Paschatis,  quando  incijfiehat 
 ■messis  hordeacea,  sed  panes  de  tritico  qui  supponehcDit  messeni 
 jam  aliquot  salteni  diehus  antea  institutam  et  tantuni  salteni 
 teni^ioris,  quantum  ad  demetendum,  siccandum,  triturandum, 
 pinsendum,frumentum  requirehatur. 
 
 If  now  the  harvest  feast  in  ch.  xxiii.  was  a  festival  for  retimi- 
 ing  thanks  for  the  completion  of  the  harvest  generally,  it  might 
 be  held  after  the  end  of  the  wheat  harvest,  and,  therefore,  scarcely 
 eai'her  than  the  feast  in  ch.  xxxiv.  The  difference  might,  there- 
 fore, only  consist  in  this,  that  the  feast  in  ch.  xxiii.  related  to  the 
 har\''est  generally,  hut  the  feast  in  ch.  xxxiv.  merely  to  the  wheat 
 harvest. 
 
 But  even  this  diflerence  vanishes  on  a  closer  examination.  In 
 ch.  xxxiv.  it  is  by  no  means  asserted  that  the  Pentecostal  feast 
 was  merely  the  feast  of  the  wheat  harvest,  but  only  that  the  first- 
 fruits  of  the  wheat  haiTest  were  to  be  presented  at  that  time.  From 
 its  being  contrasted  with  the  feast  of  ingathering  ^^??Vj  it  rather 
 appears  that  it  was  a  feast  of  thanks  for  the  harvest  generally. 
 This  also  is  spoken  of  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  verse.  It  was 
 the  harvest  feast  generally,  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  feast  of  the 
 first-fruits  of  the  wheat  harvest — the  feast  at  which  the  first-fruits 
 of  the  wheat  harvest  w^re  presented. 
 
 Since  with  tlie  first-fruits  of  the  wheat-haiTest,  the  first-fruits 
 of  the  w^hole  harvest  were  presented,  so  also  it  was  the  feast  of 
 presentation  of  first-fruits  of  all  kinds  of  grain,  in  the  form  of 
 bread.  That  this  species  should  be  chosen  as  representative  of 
 the  genus,  was  perfectly  natural.  For,  though  barley  bread  was 
 eaten,  it  was  only  the  food  of  the  poor.  Compare  Studer  {on 
 Judges,  p.  208.)  All  the  bread,  &c.,  presented  to  the  Lord  was 
 made  of  wheaten  floui'. 
 
 If,  as  HiTZiG  has  done  without  any  good  reason,  the  harvest- 
 feast  in  ch.  xxiii.  is  changed  into  a  feast  of  the  first-fi'uits  of 
 barley,  it  occasions  the  impropriety  of  putting  the  wheat  in  the 
 backgroimd,  which  is  always  celebrated  as  the  principal  of  God's 
 gifts.  Compare  Deut.  xxx.  ii.  14,  where  "  the  fat  of  the  kidneys 
 of  wheat"  "'^'7  ^'"''^  ^r.*!  appears  as  the  most  precious  of  the  Divine 
 bounties,  while  the  other  kinds  of  grain  are  not  mentioned  ;  Deut. 
 viii.  8,  in  the  list  of  the  productions  of  the  promised  land,  wheat 
 
THE  TWO  TABLES  OF  THE   LAW.  317 
 
 Stands  first  as  the  noblest ;  "a  land  of  wheat  and  barley,  and 
 vines,  and  lig-trees,  and  pomegranates,  a  land  of  oil,  olive,  and 
 honey." 
 
 A  second  contradiction  which  Hitzig,  p.  17,  would  find  be- 
 tween Exod.  xxxiv.  and  xxiii.,  is  removed  in  and  with  this  first. 
 For  it  rests  on  the  supposition  that  the  harvest-feast  in  ch.  xxiii. 
 and  xxxiv.  formed  the  beginning  of  the  harvest ;  and  moreover, 
 that  the  harvest-feast  in  ch.  xxxiv.  was  only  the  feast  of  wheat 
 harvest,  suppositions  of  which  we  have  already  pointed  out  the 
 nulHty,  so  that  it  is  not  worth  while  to  quote  Hitzig's  assertion. 
 
 THE  T^VO  tables  OF  THE  LAW. 
 
 I.  According  to  Exod.  xxxiv.  2-4,  and  Deut.  x.  1—1,  it  is  as- 
 serted God  wi'ote  the  two  tables.  On  the  contrary,  according  to 
 Exod.  xxxiv.  28,  they  were  written  by  Moses.  This  apparent 
 contradiction,  which  in  the  older  commentators  has  been  a  regu- 
 lar topic  of  remark,  has  been  already  urged,  particularly  by  Hart- 
 MANN  (p.  227),  But  the  simple  solution  is  this,  that  in  the  =''"^.'1 
 in  Exod.  xxxiv.  28,  "'And  he  was  therewith  the  Lord  forty  days 
 and  forty  nights,  he  did  neither  eat  bread,  nor  drink  water ;  and 
 HE  wrote  upon  the  tables  the  words  of  the  covenant,  the  ten  com- 
 mandments (words),"  not  Moses,  but  Jehovah,  is  the  subject. 
 Against  this  view  nothing  can  be  objected,  since  in  the  Pentateucli 
 nothing  is  more  frequent  than  such  a  change  of  the  subject  with 
 out  any  express  indication  of  it,  in  case  it  can  be  otherwise  deter- 
 mined, which  can  undeniably  be  done  here,  since  the  author  only 
 wrote  for  those  who  would  previously  have  read  ver.  1-4.  Com- 
 pare for  instance.  Gen.  xxiv.  32  ;  xxix.  3  ;  there  are  also  the  fol- 
 lowing arguments  in  its  favour,  (i.)  The  analogy  of  the  first 
 tables.  It  was  sufficient  punishment  for  the  people  that  the  ma- 
 terials had  been  provided  by  Moses,  (ii.)  The  connection  be- 
 tween God's  \\Titing  and  God's  speaking.  Tf  the  second  table 
 had  been  written  by  Moses,  the  difference  between  the  decalogue 
 and  the  rest  of  the  laws,  grounded  on  the  fact  that  the  first  was 
 ™tten  by  God,  and  the  latter  promulgated  by  Moses,  would  have 
 been  taken  away,  (iii.)  Ch.  xxxiv.  1-4.  Even  in  the  most  in- 
 different writer,  it  could  onlv  be  admitted  in  an  extreme  case  that 
 
318  THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 in  so  short  a  space  he  could  so  grossly  contradict  himself.  Who- 
 ever supposes  anything  of  this  sort  in  sucli  a  work  as  the  Penta- 
 teuch, only  gives  evidence  of  his  own  incapacity,  (iv.)  The  place 
 in  which  they  were  written.  Sf/jiposito — remarks  J.  F.  Michae- 
 Lis  (in  his  Dissert,  de  tab.  foed.  poster.  §  8) — Mosen  poster i- 
 ores  foederis  tahulas  scrijisisse,  quaestio  movetiir  quare  Moses 
 tahulis  non  in  eodem  loco,  iihi  easdem  dolavit,  decalogiun  in- 
 scripserit.  (v.)  Moses  was  alone  upon  the  mountain.  He  could 
 therefore  in  writing  them,  not  make  use  as  in  hewing  them  of  the 
 assistance  of  others.  But  is  it  probahle  that  he  himself  possessed 
 the  capahihty  of  engraving  the  writing  on  stone  ? 
 
 II.  According  to  Deut.  x.  3  ("And  I  made  an  ark  of  Shittim 
 wood,  and  hewed  two  tables  of  stone  like  unto  the  first,  and  went 
 up  unto  the  Mount,  having  the  two  tables  in  my  hand,")  the  ark 
 was  made  before  the  two  tables  of  stone ;  but  according  to  Exod. 
 xxxvii.  1,  the  ark  was  not  made  till  Moses  had  come  down  from 
 the  mount.  Thus  Vater,  p.  492,  but  this  apparent  contra- 
 diction he  has  borrowed  from  older  writers ;  compare  Gerhard 
 on  Deuteronomy,  p.  609.  We  have  here  to  do  with  a  simple 
 Hysteronproteron.  The  inaccuracy  which  occurs  in  the  pas- 
 sage of  Deuteronomy,  would  not  be  excusable  if  the  represen- 
 tation had  a  purely  historical  object,  and  if  the  author  had 
 not  elsewhere  represented  the  purely  historical  course  of  things. 
 But  here  the  history  is  subordinate  to  a  purely  hortatory  object, 
 and  for  this  purpose  it  was  a  matter  of  no  moment  whether  the 
 tables  of  the  law  were  first  made,  or  the  ark.  But  in  the  preced- 
 ing commands  of  God  it  is  plainly  enough  intimated  that  the  ark 
 was  made  after  the  tables.  In  ver.  1  it  is  not  said,  "Make  the 
 ark  and  then  hew  the  two  tables ;"  but  "  Hew  thee  two  tables  of 
 stone,  like  unto  the  first,  and  come  up  unto  me  into  the  mount, 
 and  make  thee  an  ark  of  wood."  Here,  as  well  as  in  Exodus, 
 the  going  up  into  the  mountain,  w^here  the  commandments  were 
 written  on  the  tables,  intervened  between  the  making  of  the  tables 
 and  of  the  ark, 
 
 III.  According  to  Deut.  x.  1,  the  same  decalogue  was  written 
 on  the  second  tables  as  on  the  first ;  but  according  to  Exod. 
 xxxiv.  the  second  tables  contain  a  totally  different  set  of  Ten 
 Commandments  which  are  there  stated,  ver.  12-26.  Thus  Hit- 
 ziG  writes  {O stern  und  FJingsten,  p.  40),  to  whom  the  exclusive 
 
THE  TWO  TABLES  OF  THE  LAW.  319 
 
 honour  must  remain  of  having  discovered  this  "•  Second  Deca- 
 logue."    In  reply,  we  offer  the  following  remarks,     (i.)  Accord- 
 ing to  Exod.  xxxiv.  J ,  the  same  words  w^ere  to  he  written  on  the 
 second  tahles  as  on  the  first.     Now,  it  would  he  strange  if  these 
 words  were  not  communicated  till  the    occasion  of  the  second 
 tahles.     They  must  rather  have  heen  contained  in  the  preced- 
 ing portions,  and  if  they  were  1 0,  then  the  decalogue  is  different 
 from  ver.  12-26.     (ii.)   The  law  which  was  written  on  stone,  can 
 only  he  the  fundamental  law.     Now,  it  is  simply  impossible  that 
 an  Israelite  could  have  supposed  the  commands  in  ver.  12-2G,  to 
 be  the  fundamental  law.     This  objection,  which  must  occur  to 
 every  one,  Hitzig  tries  to  parry  by  remarking  :  "  He  excluded 
 all  the  commands  which  might  be  more  or  less  understood  of 
 themselves,  or  were  of  equal  validity  among  other  nations ;  there 
 is  not  one  exclusively  moral  law,  none  that  relates  to  the  adminis- 
 tration of  justice  ;    the   collection  includes  the  chief  distinctive 
 doctrines  of  the  Hebrew  faith  (des  Hehraismus)."     But  this  re- 
 mark only  serves  to  show  more  plainly  the  unsoundness  of  the 
 hypothesis.     What  was  a  more  distinctive  doctrine  of  the  Hebrew 
 faith,  than  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  and  ideality  of  God,  the 
 command  to  serve  Jehovah  alone,  and  to  make  no  image  of  Him  ? 
 In  what  part  of  the  Old  Testament  is  the  depai'tment  of  the  moral 
 law  considered  as  common  to  Israel  with  the  heathen  ?     Where 
 can  the  view  be  found  that  the  law  of  Moses  contained  merely 
 supplementary  articles  ?     (iii.)  The  tables  of  the  law  in  Exod. 
 xxxiv.  29,  are  called  the  two  tables  of  Testimony  ^^"^Z,  an  appel- 
 lation which  has,  we  have  already  shown,  and  shall  show  elsew^here, 
 so  far  suited  the  law  as  it  was  a  testimony  against  sin.     Now 
 this  appellation  will  not  correctly  apply  to  the  commands  in  ver. 
 12-2G,  on  account  of  their  preponderating  positive  form,  while  it 
 is  perfectly  in  unison  with  the  preponderating  prohibitory  form  of 
 the  real  decalogue.     In  the  internal  character  also  these  com- 
 mands do  not  comport  with  the  idea  of  ^^'^^..     They  could  all  be 
 performed  without  any  painful  sense  of  constraint,  without  coming 
 into  collision  with  the  corrupt  tendencies  of  the  heart.     If  these 
 were  the  ^'^'^^.  then  no  ^'i^^  mercy-seat  would  have  been  needed, 
 and  yet  both  stand  in  the  strictest  relation  to  one  another,  as  will 
 be  shown  in  the  section,   On  the  Theolofji/  of  the  Pentateuch. 
 (iv.)  The  analogy  of  ch.  xx.  in  relation  to  ch.  xxi.  xxiii.  requires 
 
320       THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 a  second  collection  of  commands  written  down  by  Moses,  besides 
 the  decalogue  written  wdth  the  iinger  of  God.  The  renewal  of  the 
 law  is  closely  connected  with  the  first  giving  of  it.  If  then  there 
 was  a  two-fold  (jenus,  so  also  there'  must  be  now.  (v.)  This  two- 
 fold genus  is  also  here  expressly  distinguished.  The  words  of  the 
 Covenant,  the  Ten  Words,  God  himself  w^ould  write,  ver.  1, 
 and  ver.  28,  w^e  are  informed,  "  the  Lord  himself  wrote  upon  the 
 tables  the  words  of  tlie  Covenant,  the  Ten  Commandments  ;"  on 
 the  other  hand,  the  commands  which  were  communicated  in  ver. 
 12-26,  Moses  was  ordered  to  wTite  down,  "Write  thou  these 
 words,"  ver.  27.  (vi.)  To  explain  how  it  came  to  pass  that  the 
 author  of  ch.  xxxiv.  formed  a  new  decalogue,  although  he  was 
 acquainted  with  the  preceding  portion  which  contains  the  true 
 decalogue,  Hitzig  asserts  that  it  is  never  said  in  the  preceding 
 part,  that  the  decalogue  in  ch.  xx.  had  been  written  on  the  two 
 tables;  and  what  their  contents  consisted  of,  remains  undeter- 
 mined. But  this  is  totally  false.  In  ch.  xxiv.  1 2,  it  is  said,  "  And 
 the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Come  up  to  me  to  the  mount,  and  be 
 there  :  and  I  will  give  thee  tables  of  stone,  and  a  law,  and  com- 
 mandments, wliich  I  have  written  for  their  instruction."  Now, 
 since  in  the  preceding  part,  a  double  set  of  laws  had  been  com- 
 municated, one  which  God  himself  delivered  to  the  people,  and 
 another  delivered  by  Moses,  it  is  self-evident  that  only  the  first 
 could  form  the  contents  of  the  tables.  For  the  words  spoken  by 
 God,  and  the  writing,  correspond  to  one  another.  That  the  author 
 finds  it  unnecessary  expressly,  to  remark,  that  the  decalogue  was 
 written  on  the  tables,  shows  how  natm^al  it  was  to  understand  this, 
 and  that  no  one  for  centuries  before  Hitzig  even  thought  of 
 doubting  it. 
 
 The  number  of  the  commandments,  ten,  in  ver.  12-26,  Hitzig 
 maintains,  betrays  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  author,  they  were 
 written  on  the  tables.  It  unquestionably  appears  that  the  com- 
 mandments in  ver.  12-26,  are  teti,  which  is  almost  the  only 
 valuable  thought  such  as  it  is,  in  Hitzig's  two  letters  to  Ideler, 
 and  to  Schweizer.  But  wdiat  does  it  prove  ?  The  number  Toi 
 is  the  symbol  of  the  perfect,  of  what  is  complete  in  itself.  By  its 
 being  employed  here,  the  second  collection  of  laws,  the  secon- 
 dary lawgiving,  is  set  in  contrast  to  the  former  as  a  whole  to  a 
 whole. 
 
THE  LEVITF.S'  AGE  OF  SERVICE.  8*21 
 
 THE  LEVITES    AGE  OF  SERVICE. 
 
 In  Numbers  ch.  iv.  (it  is  said),  tlie  age  of  the  I.evites  at  the 
 entrance  on  their  service  is  fixed  tln-oiighout  at  thirty  years  ;  on  the 
 contrary,  in  ch.  viii.  24,  it  is  written,  "  This  it  is  that  belongeth 
 unto  the  Levites  from  twenty  and  five  years  old  and  upwards: 
 they  shall  go  in  to  wait  upon  the  service  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 
 congregation.  The  two  passages  can  be  reconciled  by  nothing 
 but  a  violent  alteration  of  the  text,  as  the  LXX  have  done  through- 
 out ch.  iv.  by  changing  thirty  into  twenty-five.  Only  in  fragments 
 by  different  authors  could  there  be  such  a  difference  in  the  contents 
 of  the  prescription.     Vater,  p.  458.     Hartmann,  p.  281. 
 
 It  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  various  solutions  of  the  contradic- 
 tion from  Maimonides,  which  assumes  a  five-years'  training  to 
 Kanne,  who  asserts,  that,  in  the  former  passage,  an  arrangement 
 was  made  for  the  present  exigency,  and,  in  the  second,  a  regula- 
 tion for  the  fiiture — are  collectively  met  by  Hartmann's  objec- 
 tion ;  the  question  always  remains  unanswered  why  the  author 
 does  not  give  the  slightest  intimation  that  such  was  his  meaning. 
 
 But,  on  the  other  hand,  at  the  outset,  it  is  certainly  not  pro- 
 bable, that  exactly  in  reference  to  this  point,  such  a  glaring  con- 
 tradiction should  be  found  in  the  Book  of  the  Law,  not  even  from 
 oiu'  opponents'  point-of-view.  Nor  can  we  admit  a  contradiction 
 on  account  of  the  exact  and  verbal  agreement  in  expression,  which 
 hardly  leaves  room  to  suppose  a  variety  of  authoi^. 
 
 A  closer  examination  will  discover,  that  the  appearance  of  con- 
 tradiction has  been  occasioned  by  a  superficiality  of  exposition, 
 common  to  both  friends  and  foes.  The  author  is  not  to  bear  the 
 blame  if  his  readers  identify  what  he  has  clearly  enough  dis- 
 tinguished. Ch.  iv.  relates,  solely  and  alone,  to  the  service  of  the 
 Levites  at  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  to  carrying  it  until 
 the  time  when  the  Lord  would  choose  a  fixed  place  for  the  dwell- 
 ing-place of  his  name.  On  the  contrary,  in  ch.  viii.,  the  subject 
 is  the  service  of  the  Levites  in  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation. 
 For  the  first  service,  the  greatest  bodily  vigour  was  required  ; 
 hence  the  greater  age.  This  view  we  shall  endeavour  to  estabhsh 
 by  a  consideration  of  parti culai*  passages. 
 
 In  ch.  iv.  8,  it  is  said,  "  From  thirty  years  old  and  upward, 
 
 VOL.   II.  X 
 
322  C()NT]lAttICTIO>.S  OF  'JHE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 even  until  fifty  years  old,  all  that  enter  into  the  service  **??^  {host, 
 Eng.  A.  Vers.,  Dienste,  H.)  to  do  the  work  at  the  tabernacle  of 
 the  congregation/'  '^V^  ^"^f  ought  not  to  be  translated  "  in  the 
 tabernacle  of  the  congregation  ;"  for  what  follows  relates  to  car- 
 rying the  tabernacle,  and  not  to  the  other  services  of  the  Levites. 
 The  numbering  relates  entirely  to  one  single  employment  of  the 
 Levites.  If  it  were  not  so,  why  is  there  not  a  word  said  in  the 
 whole  chapter  respecting  the  rest  of  their  duties  ?  Thus,  too,  in 
 ver.  4,  "  This  shall  be  the  service  of  the  sons  of  Kohath  at  the 
 tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  about  the  most  holy  things."  In 
 ver.  5-14,  directions  are  given  how  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  to 
 pack  all  the  parts  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  appurtenances  ;  then 
 in  ver.  15  it  is  said,  "  And  when  Aaron  and  his  sons  have  made 
 an  end  of  covering  the  sanctuary,  and  all  the  vessels  of  the  sanc- 
 tuary, as  the  camp  is  to  set  forward ;  after  that  the  sons  of  Ko- 
 hath shaU  come  to  bear  it,  but  they  shall  not  touch  the  sanctuary 
 '^'7P",  lest  they  die  ;  this  is  the  burden  of  the  sons  of  Kohath  at 
 the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,"  (again  ■7:>i^  Vn^a)  ;  ver.  19, 
 "  Aaron  and  his  sons  shall  go  in,  and  appoint  them  (the  sons  of 
 Kohath)  every  one  to  his  service,  and  to  his  burden."  And  as 
 ver.  4-20  treat  of  the  family  of  Kohath,  so  do  ver.  21-28  of  the 
 family  of  Gershon.  In  ver.  23,  it  is  said,  "  All  that  enter  in  to 
 perform  this  service,  to  do  the  work  at  the  tabernacle  of  the  con- 
 gTegation ;"  ver.  24,  "  This  is  the  service  of  the  families  of  the 
 Gershonites,  to  serve  and  for  hurdetis,"  ^-^■'^  ''=^^.  In  ver.  25 
 and  26  is  stated  what  they  were  to  carry ;  ver.  27,  "  At  the  ap- 
 pointment of  Aaron  and  his  sons  shall  be  all  the  service  of  the 
 sons  of  the  Gershonites,  in  all  their  burdens  and  in  all  their  ser- 
 vice ;  and  ye  shall  appoint  unto  them  in  charge  all  their  burdens." 
 Then  again,  in  ver.  29-33,  the  service  of  the  sons  of  Merari  is 
 allotted  ;  ver.  31,  "  And  this  is  the  charge  of  their  burden,  ac- 
 cording to  all  their  service  at  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation." 
 At  the  close  of  the  whole,  the  object  of  this  numbering  of  the  Le- 
 vites is  very  distinctly  shown  ;  ver.  47  and  48,  "  All  those  that 
 were  numbered  ....  from  thirty  years  old  and  upward, 
 even  to  fifty  years  old,  every  one  that  came  to  do  the  service  of 
 the  ministry  and  the  service  of  the  burdens  at  the  tabernacle  of 
 the  congTegation,"  &c.  "  they  were  numbered  .  .  .  accord- 
 ing to  his  service  and  according  to  his  burdens." 
 
JOSHUA HOSHEA.  S2.'i 
 
 How  we  are  to  understand  the  expression,  "  they  shall  come 
 and  take  their  place  in  the  service  of  the  tahernacle  of  the  con- 
 gregation, "^^'  in  the  second  passage,  Num.  viii.  24,  whether  of  the 
 service  in  the  widest  extent,  or  specially  of  service  in  the  taber- 
 nacle, must  be  determined  by  the  preceding  context.  But  here 
 the  only  subject  mentioned  is  the  service  of  the  tabernacle  (com- 
 pare ver.  15),  so  that  we  cannot  venture  to  say  that  the  employ- 
 ment mentioned  in  ch.  iv.  forms  an  exception.  Both  regulations 
 stand  perfectly  independent  beside  one  another. 
 
 According  to  1  Chron.  xxiii.  25,  26,  David  made  an  arrange- 
 ment that  the  Levites  should  be  engaged  from  the  age  of  twenty 
 years  in  the  service,  especially  since  they  were  now  released  from 
 one  of  their  earlier  chief  employments,  the  carrying  of  the  sanc- 
 tuary as  it  had  now  been  permanently  fixed.  He  allowed  him- 
 self, therefore,  in  the  spiritual  interpretation  of  the  law,  a  hgliter 
 and  longer  service  to  be  tantamount  to  one  shorter  but  heavier. 
 The  service  of  the  Levites  also  under  Hezekiah  began  at  the  age 
 of  twenty  years,  2  Chron.  xxxi.  17  ;  and  after  the  return  from  the 
 captivity,  Ezra  iii.  8.  If  the  modern  view  of  the  origination  of 
 the  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  were  correct,  the  law  would  cer- 
 tainly have  been  modelled  by  the  existing  practice.  We  should 
 not  have  found  such  very  ample  directions  respecting  the  bearing 
 of  the  sanctuary,  which,  in  David's  time,  had  lost  all  their  appli- 
 cability. 
 
 .JOSHUA HOSHEA. 
 
 Yater  remarks  (p.  490),  "  Num.  xiii.  17,  T^^'^'"\  first  receives 
 this  name  on  the  occasion  there  stated,  and  yet  in  Exod.  xxxiii. 
 11,  he  already  bears  the  same  name." 
 
 Kanne  {Bihl.  Unters.  ii.  IQQ),  has  taken  notice  of  the  occur- 
 rence of  the  name  Joshua  in  Exod.  xxiv.  13  and  Num.  xi.  28. 
 To  these  we  add  Exod.  xvii.  9. 
 
 This  apparent  contradiction,  which,  as  early  as  the  times  of 
 Justin  Martyr,  was  a  topic  of  discussion,  and  is  noticed  at  some 
 
 *  That  De  Wette,  after  Le  Clerc's  example,  l;as  incorrectly  trauslaled  sau  in 
 the  phrase  sa:i  sn'2  hy  Host(IJeer)  instead  of  xt^rvire  (Dienst),is  shown  here  ven- 
 plainly.     He  felt  himself  ohliged  to  leare  it  out. 
 
 X  2 
 
324  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE   PENTATEUCH. 
 
 length  by  that  father,  has  heen  attempted  to  he  solved  in  a  va- 
 riety of  ways.  First,  hy  the  admission  of  aj)rolej)sis,  for  which 
 so  many  analogies  may  he  brought  from  the  Pentateuch.  Se- 
 condly,  by  supposing  that  Moses  only  renewed  the  name  Joshua, 
 on  that  occasion  when  he  was  afresh  to  verify  his  title  to  it. 
 Thirdly,  by  the  supposition  that,  in  Num.  xiii.  27,  a  statement 
 is  made  of  what  had  taken  place  a  considerable  time  before  either 
 w4ien  HosHEA  entered  the  service  of  Moses,  or  before  the  engage- 
 ment with  the  Amalekites.  In  its  ordinary  form,  in  which,  for 
 instance,  it  appears  in  Eosenmuller,  Eichhorn  (iii.  302),  and 
 IvANNE,  Avho  take  the  future  with  Vau  convershe  as  a  Pluperfect, 
 ef  I'ocaverat ;  this  supposition  is  certainly  inadmissible.  But  it 
 needed  only  a  modification  in  order  to  be  free  from  objection  in  a 
 grammatical  respect.  "  These  are  the  names  of  the  men  whom 
 Moses  sent  to  spy  out  the  land  ;  and  then  or  so  (after  he  had  at 
 a  former  period  home  the  name  Hoshea)  he  called  him  Joshua. 
 The  Future  with  Vfiu  conrersive  "  expresses  a  consequence  of  the 
 second  from  the  first,  a  necessary  advance  from  the  first  to  the  se- 
 cond, and  consequently  an  internal  reference  of  the  second  to  the 
 first,"  Ewald's  Sm.  Gram.  §  610;  (Nicholson's  TransL  p.  374). 
 In  the  expression,  "  These  are  the  names  of  the  men,"  it  is  imphed 
 that  these  were  originally  the  names  of  the  men. 
 
 A  perfectly  certain  decision  between  these  three  methods  of  so- 
 lution cannot  be  given.  But  the  third  is  that  whicli  has  most  in 
 its  favour.  It  is  against  the  first  and  second  that  in  the  passage 
 before  us  no  sufficient  motive  is  stated  for  giving  afresh  his  sacred 
 name  to  Joshua,  to  say  nothing  of  its  then  being  given  for  the 
 first  time.  And  we  can  scarcely  suppose  that  Moses  could  have 
 looked  forward  to  this  time  with  the  change  of  name,  since  he  had 
 already,  by  Joshua's  victory  over  the  Amalekites,  obtained  so 
 strong  an  inducement  for  bestowing  it. 
 
 That  the  author  here  first  mentioned  that  he  whom  he  had 
 hitherto  called  simply  Joshua  originally  bore  the  name  Hoshea, 
 w^as  not  without  good  reason.  What  had  been  liitherto  related  of 
 Joshua,  belonged  to  him  as  a  servant  of  God ;  the  sacied  name 
 was,  therefore,  properly  employed.  But  here  Hoshea  must  stand, 
 for  he  went  "  to  spy  out  the  land,"  not  as  the  servant  of  Moses, 
 but  as  one  of  "  the  heads  of  the  children  of  Israel"  (Num.  xiii.  3), 
 one  of  the  plenipotentiaiies  of  the  congregation. 
 
HOREB  AND  SlNAI.  325 
 
 HOREB  AND  STNAl, 
 
 In  the  whule  of  Deuteronomy,  Vater  remarks  (p.  49-4),  the 
 place  where  tlie  Israelites  received  the  law  is  frequently  and  in- 
 variahly  called  Mount  Horeb  ;  in  the  preceding  books  it  is  usu- 
 ally called  Mount  Sinai,  excepting  in  Exod.  iii.  1,  xvii.  6,  xxxiii. 
 6,  where  Horeb  occurs.  This  difference  argues  against  the  iden- 
 tity of  the  author  of  Deuteronomy,  and  of  the  remaining  books. 
 Geseniqs  (in  liis  translation  of  Burkhardt's  Travels,  p.  1078) 
 is  not  disposed  to  acknowledge  the  validity  of  this  argument ;  in 
 his  opinion,  the  "  somewhat  remarkable"  circumstance  loses  its 
 importance  if  Horeb  was  the  specific  name  of  one  of  the  moun- 
 tain summits,  and  Sinai  the  general  name  of  the  whole  range  ; 
 and  with  this  solution  Kosenm  uller  satisfies  himself  {Alterthum- 
 skiinde,  I.  iii.  115).  But  we  do  not  consider  it  sufficient.  Why 
 should  the  general  name  be  used  in  the  first  three  books,  and  the 
 special  one  in  Deuteronomy  ? 
 
 The  correct  solution  can  only  be  obtained  by  means  of  a  more 
 exact  determination  of  the  matter  of  fact.  This,  therefore,  we 
 shall  first  of  all  attempt  Until  the  narrative  advances  to  the  so- 
 journ in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,  only  Horeb  is  spoken  of.  In 
 Exod.  iii.  1,  it  is  said,  "  And  he  came  to  the  mountain  of  God, 
 to  Horeb,"  a  passage  which  shows  how  far  Vater  was  correct  in 
 asserting  that  none  of  the  passages  in  which  Horeb  occurs  (ex- 
 cepting in  Deuteronomy)  stands  in  relation  to  the  giving  of  the 
 law.  On  account  of  the  giving  of  the  law  was  Horeb,  indeed, 
 the  mountain  of  God.  This  is  clear  fi:om  ver.  12,  in  which,  on 
 account  of  its  allusion  to  ver.  1,  only  Horeb  can  be  intended — 
 "  When  thou  hast  brought  the  people  out  of  Egypt,  ye  shall  serve 
 God  upon  this  mountain."  Quia  accipieti  legem  super  hoc 
 monte."  Jonathan.  Horeb  also  is  found  in  ch.  iv.  27,  "  And 
 he  went  and  met  him  in  the  mount  of  God,  and  kissed  him."  In 
 ch.  xvii.  0,  Moses  resorted  with  the  elders  to  Horeb.  In  ch. 
 xviii.  5,  Horeb  is  referred  to  ("  And  Jethro  came  unto  Moses 
 into  the  wilderness,  where  he  encamped  at  the  mount  of  God") 
 on  account  of  ch.  iii.  4,  and  because  in  the  preceding  context  only 
 Horeb  has  been  sp(dven  of 
 
826  CONTRADICTIONS  Of  THE   PENTA'i'KL'CH. 
 
 With  ch.  xix.  2,*  begins  the  use  of  the  name  of  Sinai,  "  i^or 
 they  were  departed  from  Rephidim,  and  were  come  to  the  desert 
 of  Sinai,  and  had  pitched  in  the  wiklerness  :  and  there  Israel  en- 
 camped before  the  mount."  Comj^are  ver.  11,  "  For  the  third 
 day  the  Lord  will  come  down  in  the  sight  of  all  the  people  upon 
 Mount  Sinai."  With  the  exception  of  ch.  xxxiii.  6,  where  Horeb 
 appears  in  the  midst  of  a  Sinai  context  (In  Sbiaitischer  Umge- 
 hiDig),  a  circumstance  which  of  itself  shows  that  the  difference 
 cannot  be  explained  by  a  diversity  of  authors,  but  imperatively 
 requires  an  explanation  from  the  facts  of  the  history,  the  use  of 
 the  name  Sinai  continues  uninterruptedly  down  to  the  point  where 
 the  children  of  Israel  break  up  their  encampment  in  this  district. 
 Num.  X.  1^,  "  And  the  children  of  Israel  took  their  joumies  out 
 of  the  wilderness  of  Sinai."  Compare  Exod.  xix.  18,  28  ;  xxiv, 
 16  ;  xxxii.  15  ;  xxxiv.  29,  32  ;  Lev.  vii.  38  ;  xxv.  1 ;  xxvi.  46  ; 
 xxvii.  34  ;  Num.  i.  1  ;  iii.  1,  14.  Sinai  also  recurs  in  the  list 
 of  the  encampments,  Num.  xxxiii.  15,  "And  they  departed  from 
 Rephidim,  and  pitched  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai."  In  Exod. 
 xxiv.  13,  Sinai,  exactly  as  Hoeeb  before,  is  called  "  the  mount 
 of  God."     a^^X?.0  T. 
 
 After  the  Israehtes  had  left  those  parts,  Horeb  is  used  without 
 exception,  and  the  name  of  Sinai  is  never  again  mentioned.  Deut. 
 i.  2,  "  There  are  eleven  days'  journey  from  Horeb  unto  Kadesh 
 Barnea."  Ver.  G,  "  The  Lord  our  God  spake  unto  us  in  Horeb." 
 Ver.  19 ;  iv.  10,  15 ;  v.  2 ;  ix.  8  ;  xviii.  16  ;  xxviii.  69  (xxix.  1). 
 All  the  events  which  in  these  passages  we  briefly  touched  upon  as 
 having  happened  on  Horeb,  are  more  fully  related  in  the  other 
 books  (a  circumstance  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  explain  on 
 the  hypothesis  of  a  variety  of  authors),  and  are  there  transferred 
 to  Sinai,  or  to  the  wilderness  of  Sinai. 
 
 If  we  survey  these  facts,  it  will  at  once  appear  that  they  can 
 lend  no  support  to  the  hypothesis  of  a  variety  of  authors,  but 
 rather  exclude  it.  One  and  the  same  author  has,  for  definite 
 reasons  we  see  plainly,  even  before  we  know  what  these  reasons 
 are,  used  here  one  and  there  another  of  these  two  names.  What 
 is  shown  relative  to  great  objects  in  the  use  of  Jehovah  and 
 Elohim  is  here  shown  in  reference  to  those  of  less  importance. 
 
 ♦  Cli.  xix.  1.  "  The  same  day  camp  tln'v  into  the  ^Yilflen^of?s  ot  Sinai." — [Tr, 
 
THE   PLAINS  or  >i(>AB  AND   TlIK   LAND  OF  MOAB.  327 
 
 Design  and  proportion  are  visible  in  these  Books,  even  to  tlie  mi- 
 nutest particulars. 
 
 But  it  is  not  so  very  difficult  to  ascertain  these  definite  reasons. 
 If  the  facts  are  ascertained  with  precision  and  exactness,  the  rea- 
 sons are  obvious.  Never,  in  the  whole  composition,  does  Horeb 
 appear  as  a  single  mountain  in  contrast  to  Sinai.  Sinai,  on  the 
 other  hand,  is  always  a  single  mountain.  Before  the  children  of 
 Israel  reached  the  district,  and  after  they  left  it,  the  general  name 
 of  the  mountain  Horeb  always  stands  in  contrast  to  Egypt,  the 
 plains  of  Moab,  &c.  During  their  stay  there,  the  particular  is 
 made  a  distinct  object  from  the  general  ;  the  mountain  of  Sinai 
 and  its  wilderness  are  distinguished  as  the  theatre  of  events  that 
 took  place  in  the  district  of  Horeb.  But  in  Exod.  xviii.  5,  the 
 general  term  is  used — the  whole  of  Horeb  is  still  the  mountain 
 of  God;  which  designation,  nevertheless,  is  only  applicable  to  the 
 whole,  on  account  of  what  transpired  on  part  of  it,  Sinai. 
 
 The  exact  observance  of  the  distinction  would  certainly  be  at 
 tended  to  more  by  an  eye-witness  than  by  writers  who  lived  some 
 centuries  later.  The  later  sacred  writers  speak  almost  always  of 
 Horeb  only;  Ps.  cvi.  19,  "They  made  a  calf  in  Horeb,"  accord- 
 ing to  Exodus  "in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,"  1  Kings,  viii.  9  ; 
 xix.  8;  2  Chron.  v.  10;  Mai.  iii.  22  (iv.  4.) 
 
 THE  PLAINS  OF  MOAB  AND  THE  LAND  OF  MOAB. 
 
 Among  the  proofs  for  a  different  author  of  Deuteronomv,  from 
 that  of  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  Vater  (p.  494)  ad- 
 duces the  following.  In  Num.  xxii.  1  =**'"^  ^''^y.,  the  plains  of 
 Moah  designates  the  place  where  the  children  of  Israel  were  at 
 that  time  encamped,  and  is  very  frequently  repeated  throughout 
 the  Book  of  Numbers.  The  discourses  of  Moses  recorded  in 
 Deuteronomy  were  according  to  the  two  superscriptions,  ch.  i.  1, 
 (fee;  iv.  45,  &c.,  delivered  in  exactly  the  same  place.  But  in 
 Deuteronomy  it  is  always  said  =»j'"^'2  7:*?=,  in  the  land  of  Moah  ; 
 compare  i.  5;  xxviii.  69  (xxix.  1);  xxxii.  19  ;  xxxiv.  5;  only 
 inxxxiv.  1,  8,  ^f"^  ^^^y.  is  used. 
 
 But  here  the  coarse,  external  explanation  of  the  fact  (which 
 certainly  requires  an  explanation,  and  cannot  be  referred  to  acci- 
 
828       THE  CONTKADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 dent),  on  closer  examination  is  seen  to  be  totally  inadmissible. 
 Correctly  explained,  this  fact  forms  a  part  of  the  series  of  proofs 
 for  the  unity  and  harmony  of  the  Mosaic  writings. 
 
 Not  merely  the  appellation  ss^^  n-a-y  is  peculiar  to  the  Book  of 
 Numbers,  but  the  whole  formula  'i-:';  i.?;!-^?  ^f  >=  ^*"=:?^  or  "??5? 
 l'"?-^,  the  latter  only  in  ch.  xxii.  1,  at  the  beginning  of  the  whole 
 section,  and  doubtless  on  purpose,  as  more  definite.  By  "^syw  it 
 is  said  once  for  all  how  the  more  general  term  ^^  is  to  be  under- 
 stood, by  Jordan,  namely  on  its  eastern  side.  As  the  foimula 
 stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  connected  section  ("And  the 
 children  of  Israel  set  forward  and  pitched  in  the  plains  of  Moab, 
 beside  the  Jordan,  near  Jericho,")  so  it  is  placed  at  its  end,  which 
 likewise  forms  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  book.  Ch.  xxxvi.  13, 
 *'  These  are  the  commandments  and  the  judgments  wdiich  the  Lord 
 commanded  by  the  hand  of  Moses  unto  the  ehildi'en  of  Israel  in 
 the  plains  of  Moab,  by  Jordan  near  Jericho."  Thus  also  it  oc- 
 curs in  the  middle  portion,  namely  wherever  in  a  single  section  in 
 the  larger  whole,  begnis  or  closes.  Compare  ch.  xxvi.  3,  "  And 
 Moses  and  Eleazar  the  priest  spake  mth  them  in  the  plains  of 
 Moab,  by  Jordan  near  Jericho  ;"  ver.  63,  "  These  are  they  that 
 were  numbered  by  Moses  and  Eleazer  the  priest,  who  numbered 
 the  children  of  Israel  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  by  Jordan  near  Je- 
 richo ;"  xxxiii.  50,  "  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  in  the 
 plains  of  Moab  by  Jordan  near  Jericho;"  xxxv.  1,  "And  the 
 Lord  spake  unto  Moses  in  the  plains  of  Moab,"  &c.  That  the 
 author  always  uses  exactly  the  same  formula,  though  by  no  means 
 the  only  appropriate  one — that  he  employs  none  of  the  manifold 
 variations  which  ofiered  themselves  to  him,  nay  which  he  could  only 
 avoid  by  a  designed  adherence  to  the  phrase  he  had  once  chosen, 
 cannot  possibly  be  accidental.  Bather  we  should  infer  that  the 
 author  by  this  absolute  sameness  in  his  designation  of  the  locality, 
 meant  to  point  out  that  all  the  events  contained  in  the  section 
 formed  one  connected  ivhole. 
 
 If  this  be  settled,  it  must  also  be  admitted  that  the  use  of  the 
 formula  cannot  go  beyond  the  end  of  the  Book  of  Numbers.  For 
 it  is  evident  that  at  the  beginning  of  Deuteronomy,  a  new  group 
 {complexus)  of  events  is  formed.  By  a  change  of  phraseology  it 
 is  indicated  that  here  such  a  transition  is  made.  As  the  unifor- 
 mity of  expression  formerly  served  to  bind  the  fruits  together,  so 
 
PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES.  329 
 
 it  must  cease  where  a  separation  is  intended  to  be  marked  This 
 will  be  the  more  obvious,  since  the  two  designations  border  close 
 on  one  another.  Sufficient  care  w^as  taken  that  the  difference  in 
 the  designation  might  not  mislead  or  obscure  the  identity  of  the 
 locahty.  In  Deut.  i.  1,  ^^1??  precedes  the  ^r'^Vv??  ''"7-  "?"?  i^^ 
 ver.  5  ;  both  together  are  in  fact  =  ss-^  r-.z^-j. 
 
 PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES. 
 
 I.  In  the  first  books,  De  Wette  asserts  [Kritik.  p.  385)  the 
 Levites  are  distinguished  from  the  proper  priests,  the  sons  of 
 Aaron,  and  are  only  the  servants  and  watchmen  of  the  sanctuary  ; 
 in  Deuteronomy,  on  the  contrary,  the  Levites  and  priests  are  sy- 
 nonymous, a-'iVn  D'^ans  (rr)  commoiily  stand  together.  Thus  the 
 distinction  of  the  family  of  Aaron,  as  the  proper  priestly  family 
 is  taken  away,  and  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi  is  represented  as  a 
 tribe  of  priests.  Vater  (p.  600)  remarks,  that  in  Deuteronomy 
 the  phrase  o^iVn  tr^'ro  (n)  does  not  occur  with  a  i  between,  but  as 
 if  both  words  meant  the  same  persons,  '*  Even  if  the  question 
 was  not  of  a  difference  of  arrangement,  and  merely  of  a  difference 
 of  expression,  ...  it  must  be  very  striking  to  find  here  con- 
 stantly this  addition,  and  in  the  preceding  books  as  constantly  the 
 addition  Y'^T;^  ''}?.  to  ^^?n^"  (p.  501.)  The  same  assertions  have  been 
 lately  repeated  and  amplified  by  George  {die  Ji'id.  Feste,  p.  45.) 
 
 But  that  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  did  not  know,  or  did  not 
 admit,  the  distinction  between  priests  and  Levites,  cannot  be  in- 
 ferred from  the  expression  ^.^"^^~  °^.=l!^^,  which  only  tells  us  that  all 
 the  priests  were  Levites,  but  not  that  all  the  Levites  were  priests. 
 On  this  point  the  Book  of  Joshua  furnishes  us  with  a  striking 
 proof.  No  one  will  maintain  that  the  authors  of  this  book  did 
 not  know  how  to  distinguish  between  priests  and  Levites;  the  con- 
 trary is  sufficiently  shown  in  ch.  xxi.  And  yet  even  in  this  book 
 w^e  find  the  phrase  a^-pn  a^Dt^an  first  of  all  in  ch.  iii.  3.  The  Vul- 
 gate translates  it  well,  sacerdotes  stirjjt\s  Leiiticae.  De  Wette 
 falsely  "  a?id  theprieats  a  n  d  the  Levites ;"  according  to  the  reading 
 of  several  MSS.  the  LXX.  Syr.  and  Chaldee,  which  have  a-^ipn^  .* 
 
 ♦  "C^V-jn-  k,  1,  174,  1H7,  198,  225,  47o;    pr.  R.  i.  4,  187;  pr.  226,  305.    Bibl.  Souc, 
 Brix,  c't  Pi^ph.  Souc.  1486,  LXX.  Syr.  Chalil.  Ar."— Jahn,  Bihl.  ^e&r.— [Tb.] 
 
380  THE   CONTJcADICTlO.Nfc;  OF  THE  PENTATKUCIi. 
 
 This  reading  has  no  authority.  We  may  see  at  once  how  it  was 
 formed.  In  the  whole  section  the  priests  are  spoken  of  solely  and 
 alone  as  bearers  of  the  ark  ;  the  reading  n^i^n  a^insn  is  ascer- 
 tained by  the  parallel  passages.  In  ch.  viii.  33,  it  is  said,  "  And 
 all  Israel,  and  their  elders  and  officers  {Shoterim)  stood  on  this 
 side  the  ark  and  on  that  side  before  the  priests  the  Levites,  which 
 hare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord."  In  ch.  xxi.  1-3,  the 
 priests  are  included  under  the  general  name  of  Levites.  In  ver- 
 4  they  are  called  "  the  sons  of  Aaron  the  priest,  of  the  Levites  1? 
 °r'^L'."  This  is  a  paraphrase  of  the  a^iVn  in  other  passages,  and 
 shows  how  it  is  to  be  taken.     So  also  ver.  9. 
 
 But  even  from  Deuteronomy,  we  can  bring  evidence  that  the 
 expression  a^'''::^  a^ansn  must  not  be  taken  as  it  is  by  our  opponents. 
 The  author  knew  very  well  how^  to  distinguish  bet^veen  priests 
 and  Levites.  (i.)  In  ch.  x.  9,  there  is  an  express  allusion  to 
 Num.  xviii.  20,  a  chapter  in  which  the  distinction  between  priests 
 and  Levites  is  most  fully  made,  (ii.)  According  to  ch.  x.  6, 
 Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron,  ''  ministered  in  the  priest's  office  in 
 his  stead."  According  to  this  passage,  at  least,  the  high  priest- 
 hood belonged  only  to  the  family  of  Aaron,  (iii.)  If  priests  and 
 Levites  were  the  same,  what  an  idle  tautology  would  there  be  in 
 ch.  xviii.  1,  ^"?.  '^?."f"~'^  '=r.*?v  ==1="^^.  Evidently  the  author  passes  on 
 from  the  part  first  named,  because  to  that  the  special  regulation 
 related  which  he  was  about  to  introduce — to  the  whole  ;  "  the 
 priests,  the  Levites,  yea  all  the  tribe  of  Levi."  (iv.)  A  distinc- 
 tion is  made  between  the  priests  and  Levites  in  ch.  xviii.  3-8. 
 First  of  all,  a  supplementary  regulation  in  reference  to  the  priests 
 is  given,  ver.  3-5  ;  then,  in  reference  to  the  Levites,  ver,  6-8.  (v.) 
 The  Levites  (without  the  prefixed  id^j  )  are  mentioned  in  xii.  12, 
 18,  19;  xiv.  27,  29;  xvi.  11,  U;  xxvi.  11,  12,  13.  In  all 
 these  passages  they  appear  as  the  objects  of  benevolence,  in  con- 
 nection with  wddows,  orphans,  and  strangers.  If  Levites  and 
 priests  are  identical,  why  should  they  never  be  called  a^nbrt  a^s-an 
 instead  of  Levites,  in  the  injunctions  to  treat  them  with  a  provi- 
 dent benevolence  ?  How  can  it  be  imagined  that  those  who  were 
 thus  recommended  to  the  tender-heartedness  of  the  people,  are 
 identical  with  the  Levitical  priests  who,  in  all  the  passages  in 
 Deuteronomy  where  they  are  mentioned,  occupy  a  very  important 
 position  ?     Let  its  due  weight  be  given  to  this  consideration  :  it 
 
Pli JESTS  AM)  LEVITES.  ;];jl 
 
 is  sufficient  by  itself  to  decide  the  question,  (vi.)  In  Deutero- 
 nomy no  function  is  assigned  to  the  a^^Vn  'a^ir-oT-^  which,  according 
 to  the  other  books,  belonged  to  the  mere  Levites.  For  the  oppo- 
 site opinion  Be  Wette  (p.  336)  appeals  to  Deut.  xxxi.  9,  "  And 
 Moses  wrote  the  law,  and  delivered  it  to  the  priests,  the  sons  of 
 Levi,  which  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord."  "  There- 
 fore," he  remarks,  "  these  are  the  proper  Levites  of  the  earlier 
 books,  who  now  appear  in  a  subordinate  capacity."  But  the  car- 
 rying of  the  ark  belonged  jyrincipa  liter  to  the  priests,  and  only 
 materialiter  mostly  to  the  Levites.  Compare  Num.  iv.  4,  &c., 
 and  especially  ver.  19.  For  this  reason,  on  peculiarly  solemn  oc- 
 casions the  ark  was  also  carried  materialiter  by  the  priests.  Thus 
 it  was  at  the  passage  through  the  Jordan,  Joshua  iii.  3,  0,  8  ;  at  the 
 taking  of  Jericho,  Josh.  vi.  6  ;  at  the  removal  of  the  ark  to  Solo- 
 mon's temple,  1  Kings  viii.  3,  6.  The  mere  Levites  never  dared 
 to  carry  the  ark  into  the  sanctuary  nor  out  of  it.  Let  it  be  ob- 
 served also  that  here,  according  to  the  connection,  the  main  point 
 is  the  principaliter,  and  not  the  materialiter.  In  the  words 
 "who  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,"  the  reason  is 
 given  why  the  book  of  the  law  w^as  committed  to  the  priests  along 
 with  the  elders,  (vii.)  When  the  priestly  functions  are  spoken 
 of  in  Deuteronomy,  the  simple  term  Levites  is  never  used,  or  only 
 when  preceded  by  the  more  exact  designation  of  D^n^na^ir^sr;. 
 
 It  is  therefore  settled  that  it  cannot  be  inferred  from  the  expres- 
 sion tj^iVn  t=^jnD  that  no  distinction  is  made  in  Deuteronomy  be- 
 tween priests  and  Levites.  How  could  any  one  think  of  main- 
 taining this  assertion  ?  The  whole  Israelitisli  history  does  not 
 present  an  interval  in  which  the  difference  betAveen  priests  and 
 Levites  appears  either  as  not  yet  existing,  or  as  abolished. 
 
 But  the  mere  difference  of  expression,  that  in  the  preceding  books 
 of  the  Pentateuch  the  priests  are  commonly  spoken  of  as  sons  of 
 Aaron,  and  in  Deuteronomy  as  Levites,  can  be  of  little  service 
 to  our  opponents.  That  in  the  first  four  books  the  priests  are 
 designated  sons  of  Aaron,  is  perfectly  natural.  The  priests, 
 whom  the  regulations  in  these  books  concerned,  were  first  of 
 all  really  sons  of  Aaron,  and,  as  long  as  their  father  Hved, 
 this  characteristic  was  prominent.  At  that  time  there  w-as  a 
 mere  family  of  priests.  The  regulations  are,  for  the  most  part, 
 personally   directed   to  Aju'on.      Let  any   one   compare   Exod. 
 
332  THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 xxviii.  2d  ;  Lev.  xiii.-x. ;  Num.  xviii.,  and  he  will  be  convinced 
 that  here  we  are  to  look  for  the  ground  of  the  designation.  The 
 legislation  of  Deuteronomy,  on  the  contrary,  is  prophetic ;  it  has 
 no  longer  to  do  with  a  family  of  priests,  but  with  an  order  of 
 priests ;  the  designation  sons  of  Aaron,  is  therefore  not  suited 
 to  its  purpose. 
 
 II.  According  to  the  former  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and 
 particularly  according  to  Num.  xviii.,  the  firsthng  of  the  cow 
 was  allotted  to  the  priests ;  on  the  contrary,  according  to  the 
 clear  directions  of  Deuteronomy,  the  iirsthng  of  the  cow  was 
 made  a  sacrifice,  and  then  a  sacred  feast.  Compare  Deut.  xii. 
 17,  18 — "  Thou  mayest  not  eat  within  thy  gates  the  tithe  of  thy 
 corn,  or  of  thy  wine,  or  of  thy  oil,  or  of  the  jirstlings  of  thy 
 herd  or  of  thy  Jiock,  nor  of  thy  vows  which  thou  hast  vowed, 
 &c.,"  .  .  "  but  thou  must  eat  them  before  the  Lord  thy  God, 
 in  the  place  where  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  choose;"  ch.  xv.  19, 
 "  All  the  firsthng  males  that  come  of  thy  herd,  and  of  thy 
 flock,  thou  shall  sanctify  unto  the  Lord  thy  God  ;  thou  shalt 
 do  no  work  with  the  firstling  of  thy  bullock,  nor  shear  the  first- 
 ling of  thy  sheep.  Thou  shalt  eat  it  before  the  Lord  thy  God, 
 year  by  year,  in  the  place  which  the  I^ord  shall  choose,  thou  and 
 thy  household." 
 
 This  contradiction  has  been  long  ago  noticed,  but  the  attempts 
 to  remove  it  have  not  been  fortunate.  Augustin,  Quaest.  18, 
 in  Dent.,  states  it,  but  gives  no  solution.  Aben  Ezra  and 
 Jarchi  suppose  that  the  address  in  ch.  xv.  is  directed  to  the 
 priests.  Gerhard  on  Deut.  xii.  (p.  769),  where  other  arbitrary 
 solutions  may  be  found,  remarks — Himplicissime  resjjondetur, 
 agi  hoc  loco  de  priniogenitis  faemineis,  a  supposition  which  a 
 single  glance  at  ch.  xv.  is  sufficient  to  disprove.  J.  D.  Mich- 
 aelis  {Mos.  Recht.  §  193),  who  is  followed  by  Jahn  (Arch.  iii. 
 415),  and  Bauer  {Gottesd.  Verf  i.  289),  supposes  that  a  double 
 first-born  was  given — that  the  first-born,  in  a  strict  sense,  was 
 allotted  to  the  priests,  and  what  came  next  of  all  to  the  first- 
 born was  to  be  used  in  a  sacrificial  feast.  This  supposition  bears 
 on  its  forehead  the  marks  of  its  origin.  How  can  we  conceive 
 that  the  second-born,  without  any  further  designation,  should 
 be  called  the  first-born?  Eichhorn  (iii.  235),  assumes  a 
 mistake  on  the  part  of  Moses  in  Deut.  xii.  and  xv.     Nothing  is 
 
PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES.  S'VS 
 
 more  conceivable  (!)  than  that  the  author  was  hurried  away  by 
 his  rapid  eloquence  at  the  mention  of  the  first-born. 
 
 Such  being  the  state  of  the  question,  it  excites  no  surprise  to 
 find  that  the  opponents  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch 
 (Vater,  iii.  24G,  500;  De  Wette,  Krit.  331),  have  laid  great 
 stress  on  this  contradiction. 
 
 Let  us  now  proceed  to  investigate  the  subject.  That  accord- 
 ing to  Deuteronomy,  the  firstlings  of  beasts  were  to  be  appropri- 
 ated to  sacrifices  and  sacred  feasts,  is  perfectly  clear.  But,  is  it 
 equally  clear  that,  according  to  the  preceding  books,  the  first- 
 ling was  allotted  wholly  to  the  piiests  ? 
 
 Very  much  depends  on  Num.  xviii.  18,  the  onl//  passage  which 
 appears  decidedly  to  state  that  all  the  flesh  of  the  firstling  was 
 allotted  to  the  priests.  It  is  there  said — "  And  the  flesh  of  them 
 shall  be  thine  (the  priests),  as  the  wave-breast,  and  as  the  right 
 shoulder  are  thine."  "  Their  Jfesk  "  is  put  in  contrast  to  the 
 blood  and  fat,  in  the  preceding  verse,  which  were  devoted  ex- 
 pressly to  the  Lord.  It  is  easy  to  perceive  the  imphcation — the 
 flesh,  as  far  as  it  belongs  to  the  Lord,  and  not  to  the  ofi'erers. 
 Tliis  limitation  arises  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  and  yet 
 is  expressed  by  the  additional  clause,  ''  as  the  wave-breast,"  &c., 
 which  is  tantamount  to  saying,  as  the  parts  of  flesh  that  belong  to 
 the  Lord  in  all  remaining  ^^'^Vf  "'"^.^  The  w^ords,  ''  as  the  wave- 
 breast,"  &c.,  allude  to  the  law  in  Lev.  vii.  28,  by  which  this 
 whole  verse  is  illustrated.  If  this  law  had  been  consulted,  the 
 whole  misunderstanding  would  never  have  existed.  The  parts 
 which  God  received  fi:om  the  o^^sVto  hat,  are,  according  to  this 
 passage,  the  blood  and  the  fat,  which  were  presented  to  the  Lord 
 — the  breast  which  was  first  consecrated  to  the  Lord,  and  then 
 given  to  the  priests,  as  well  as  the  right  shoulder.  Also  here  the 
 same  contrast  exists  between  the  blood  and  the  flesh,  the  breast  and 
 shoulder.  Compare  also  Exod.  xxix.  27,  28,  according  to  wdiich 
 the  children  of  Israel  w^ere  always  to  present  to  the  Lord,  for  Aaron 
 and  his  sons,  the  wave-breast  and  the  heave-shoulder  of  their  ^at 
 a^ttVj  ;  likewise  Lev.  x.  14,  L").  Those  who  suppose  tlie  meaning 
 of  our  passage  to  be,  that  all  the  flesh  must  fall  to  the  priests' 
 share,  know  not  what  to  do  with  the  clause,  "  as  the  wave-breast," 
 &c.     We  arrive  at  the  same  resuh  in  another  way.     There  were 
 
331        THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 altogether  only  three  classes  of  sacrifices  ^^i^)  rs-^ij-r;V-::>-i='^>3^^  t-sT^ 
 OuTRAM,  de  sacrif.  p.  98.  That  the  firstling  was  presented  as  a 
 sin-oflering  cannot  be  admitted,  without  contravening  the  whole 
 meaning  of  the  dedication  of  the  first-horn,  which  was  rather 
 an  act  of  gratitude,  nor  can  the  firstlings  belong  to  the  burnt- 
 ofterings,  for  in  these  none  of  the  flesh  was  eaten.  The  ofi'ering 
 of  the  firstlings  belongs  to  the  class  of  o^^Vr.  But  it  belonged 
 essentially  to  the  idea  of  the  B^toV,y  that  the  offerers  should  not 
 eat  of  them.  Now,  in  the  case  of  the  ofi'ering  of  the  firstlings, 
 not  the  priests,  but  the  owners,  were  the  offerers.  This  is  evi- 
 dent, from  the  expression  'j?^  ''=^.  in  Exod.  xiii.  15. 
 
 III.  In  reference  to  the  tithes,  a  remarkable  diversity  exists  in 
 the  Pentateuch.  According  to  Num.  xviii.  the  Levites  received  the 
 tithes,  and  from  these  gave  again  a  tithe  of  these  (ver.  26)  to  the 
 priests.  On  the  contrary,  through  the  whole  of  Deuteronomy,  not  a 
 word  is  said  of  that  revenue  of  the  Levites,  which  is  more  remark- 
 able, since,  in  Deut.  xviii.  1-4,  we  have  a  regulation  respecting  the 
 maintenance  of  the  priests,  by  which  merely  a  share  in  the  offer- 
 ings of  animals,  and  the  first  fruits,  and  "  the  first  of  the  fleece" 
 is  promised  them.  Nay,  it  is  not  merely  that  nothing  is  said  in 
 Deuteronomy  of  tithes  for  the  Levites.  They  are  expressly  ap- 
 propriated in  a  different  manner.  According  to  the  following  pas- 
 sages, xii.  6,  7,  17-19;  xiv.  22,  &c. ;  xxvi.  12,  15,  the  tithes 
 were  to  be  brought  yearly  to  the  sanctuary,  then  to  be  consumed 
 in  feasts  of  joy,  to  which  the  Levites  were  to  repair ;  but  the  tithes 
 of  the  third  year  were  to  be  shared  at  the  dwellings  of  the  owners 
 among  the  Levites,  strangers,  widows,  and  orphans.  Of  these 
 tithes,  there  is  as  little  notice  in  the  earlier  books  as  in  Deutero- 
 nomy of  the  Levitical  ones.  Such  diversities  in  legislation  are 
 irreconcilable.     Vater  (iii.  247),  De  Wette  {Krit.  331). 
 
 On  closer  inspection,  this  difference  will  be  found  to  rest  en- 
 tirely on  a  mere  argument  inn  e  silentio ;  as  to  a  contradiction, 
 strictly  so  called,  there  is  nothing  of  the  land.  The  Levitical 
 tithes  and  the  tithes  of  Deuteronomy  could  very  reasonably  co 
 exist.  Why  should  they  not  be  compatible  with  one  another  in 
 the  book  of  the  law,  since  they  were  not  incompatible  in  actual 
 life  ?  Compare  Tobit  i.  7,  "  The  first  tenth  part  of  all  increase 
 I  gave  to  the  sons  of  Levi,  who  ministered  at  Jerusalem  ;  another 
 
PIUESTS  AND   LEVITES.  335 
 
 tenth  part  I  sold  away,  and  went  and  spent  it  every  year  at  Jeru- 
 salem ;  and  the  third  part  I  gave  unto  them  to  whom  it  w^as 
 meet."* 
 
 But  we  can  prove  that  the  argumcntum  e  sUentio,  which  in 
 general  is  an  extremely  uncertain  one,  has  here  no  force  w^hatever. 
 It  may  he  shown  most  convincingly,  that  the  author  of  Deuter- 
 onomy, though  he  does  not  mention  the  Levitical  tithes,  w^as 
 nevertheless  acquainted  with  them,  (i.)  In  Deut.  xviii.  in  ver. 
 1  and  2,  in  the  general  introduction  to  the  special  regulation  that 
 follow^s,  which  furnishes  the  ground  on  w^hich  it  rests — the  point- 
 of-view  from  which  it  must  appear  as  equitahle  —  besides  the 
 Levitical  priests  wdio  ai'e  here  especially  concerned,  the  whole 
 tribe  of  Levi  is  named,  as  having  no  inheritance  among  their  breth- 
 ren, because  the  Lord  was  their  inheritance.  "  The  priests,  the 
 Levites,  and  all  the  tribe  of  Levi,  shall  have  no  part  or  inheri- 
 tance in  Israel ;  they  shall  eat  the  offerings  of  the  Lord  made  by 
 fire,  and  his  inheritance.  Therefore  shall  they  (the  tribe  of  Levi) 
 have  no  inheritance  among  their  brethren,  the  Lord  is  their  in- 
 heritance as  he  hath  said  unto  them."  Compare  ch.  x.  9.  Now 
 since,  in  the  regulation  itself,  there  is  no  account  taken  of  the 
 Levites,  but  only  of  the  priests,  the  passage  expressively  indicates 
 the  existence  elsewhere  of  directions  respecting  the  income  of  the 
 Levites,  and  since  they  are  not  to  be  found  in  Deuteronomy,  we 
 are  sent  back  to  the  preceding  books  in  which  tithes  are  assigned 
 to  the  Levites  as  their  only  income.  The  revenues  which  are 
 assigned  to  the  priests  in  ver.  8-5,  are  certainly  inadequate.  If 
 they  received  nothing  more,  the  assertion  that  the  Lord  was  their 
 inheritance,  would  have  been  a  bitter  insult.  Of  the  Shelamim 
 they  were  to  receive  the  shoulder,  the  two  cheeks,  and  the  maw, 
 besides  the  first  fruits  of  corn,  wine,  and  oil,  and  the  first  of  the 
 fleece.  A  pitiful  livehhood  truly  !  and  the  same  book,  which  so 
 contracts  the  revenues  of  the  priests,  must  yet  advance  their  power 
 and  influence.  According  to  De  Wette  (^/;^/.  §  15G),  "Deuter- 
 onomy had  a  homeless,  destitute,  but  powerful,  priestly  tribe." 
 Into  such  paradoxes  men  fall,  w^hen  they  do  not  take  things  as  they 
 
 «£S     l£pov(ra\i]fi,   Kal  ttjv   SavTtpav  otKUTriv   'X'7r£7rpaTiX,6fxi}V,  Kai  kiroptvofi^v,  Kai 
 fduTravwv  av-ra    kv  "If^poaokvf/LOL^  kuct'  tKaaTov  tvuivTov,  kul  Ttju  TpiTr\v  k^ioovv  oJv 
 
336  THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  TIIK  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 actually  lie  before  them.  The  passage  in  Deut.  xviii.  evidently 
 contains  not  a  full  statement  of  the  revenues  of  the  priests,  but  a 
 mere  supplement  to  the  passages  that  relate  to  this  subject  in  the 
 earher  books.  The  first  fruits  of,  com,  wine,  and  oil,  which  had 
 already  been  mentioned  in  Num.  xviii.  12,  are  introduced  again 
 here  only  to  add  to  them  the  "  first  of  the  fleece,"  which  does  not 
 appear  there,  (ii.)  In  Deut.  xviii.  6-8,  it  is  enjoined  that  the 
 Levite  who,  from  an  internal  impulse,  "  with  all  the  desire  of  his 
 mind,"  '"''^^  '^^^i*'^^  should  come  from  his  own  city  to  the  place  of 
 the  sanctuary,  should  be  maintained  like  the  rest,  without  regard 
 to  his  private  means  of  subsistence.  This  implies  that  the  Levites 
 had  regular  incomes,  and  since  these  are  not  assigned  to  them  in 
 Deuteronomy,  we  must  necessarily  resort  for  information  to  the 
 preceding  books,  (iii.)  In  Deut.  x.  3,  ("Wherefore  Levi  hath 
 no  part  nor  inheritance  with  his  brethren  ;  the  Lord  is  his  inheri- 
 tance, according  as  the  Lord  thy  God  promised  him"),  there  is 
 an  explicit  reference  to  the  locus  classiciis  on  the  Levitical  tithes 
 in  Num.  xviii ;  compare  ver.  20,  "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Aaron, 
 Thou  shalt  have  no  inheritance  in  their  land,  neither  shalt  thou 
 have  any  part  among  them  ;  I  am  thy  part  and  thine  inheritance 
 among  the  children  of  Israel ;"  ver.  23  and  24,  "It  shall  be  a 
 statute  for  ever  throughout  your  generations,  that  among  the  child- 
 en  of  Israel  they  (the  Levites)  have  no  inheritance.  But  the  tithes 
 of  the  children  of  Israel,  which  they  offer  as  an  heave-offering 
 unto  the  Lord,  I  have  given  to  the  Levites  to  inherit:  therefore 
 I  have  said  unto  them,  Among  the  children  of  Israel  they  shall 
 have  no  inheritance,  (iv.)  All  the  passages  in  Deuteronomy 
 which  recognise  the  existence  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  are  proof  also 
 of  the  Levitical  tithes.  For  these  tithes  are  the  foundation  of 
 the  existence  of  the  Levites,  their  o?ih/  income,  the  compensation 
 for  their  inheritance  and  the  wages  for  their  service ;  compare 
 Num.  xviii.  21-24.  Let  it  not  be  objected  that  the  exhortation 
 in  Deuteronomy  to  shew  benevolence  towards  the  Levites  implies 
 their  poverty.  This  imphcation  was  also  founded  on  the  existence 
 of  the  law  of  tithes.  The  presentation  of  tithes  appears  in  the 
 Pentateuch  as  a  religious  duty,  to  the  falfilmeiit  of  which  no  one 
 was  held  by  any  outward  constraint.  All  was  left  to  conscience. 
 Compare  Michaelis  {Mos.  Recht.  iv.  §  102).  Under  these 
 circumstances  only  those  who  feared  God  would  be  faithful  in  the 
 
PRIESTS  AND  LKVITES.  387 
 
 presentation  of  tithes,  and  that  these  would  form  the  minority,  is 
 impHed  throughout  the  Pentateucli,  and  in  Deuteronomy  is  re- 
 peatedly and  strongly  expressed.  The  autlior,  therefore,  might 
 very  consistently  be  acquainted  with  the  law  of  tithes,  and  yet 
 exhort  to  deeds  of  charity.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  inconceivable 
 that  he  should  make  the  existence  of  a  whole  tribe  to  depend 
 merely  on  the  hospitality  which  might  be  shown  to  its  members 
 at  the  times  of  the  sacrificial  feasts,  (v.)  The  silence  of  Deuter- 
 onomy respecting  the  Levitical  tithes  could  only  be  deemed  of 
 importance,  if  a  period  in  the  history  could  be  pointed  out,  in 
 which  these  tithes  were  not  presented ;  if,  in  short,  it  could  be 
 shown,  that  their  presentation  was  not  customary  at  the  very  time 
 when  this  book  (it  is  allowed)  was  composed.  But  tliis  cannot 
 be  done.  On  the  contrary,  only  in  times  of  religious  degeneracy 
 was  the  presentation  of  the  Levitical  tithes  neglected  ;  we  can 
 prove  positively  in  reference  to  a  later  period,  that  the  I^evitical 
 tithes  were  presented.  In  2  Chron.  xxxi.  4,  &c.  Hezekiah  com- 
 manded, at  his  reformation,  that  the  children  of  Israel  should  give 
 the  portion  of  the  priests  and  the  Levites.  In  consequence,  they 
 brought  the  first  fruits  of  corn,  wine,  and  oil,  &c.  and  "  the  tithes 
 of  all  things  abundantly."  In  Neh.  x.  8G,  it  is  commanded ^on 
 the  ground  of  the  prescriptions  of  the  law,  that  every  one  should 
 bring  the  first  fruits  of  the  land  and  of  the  trees,  the  first-born  of 
 man  and  beast,  to  the  priests  at  Jerusalem  ;  the  tithes  were  to  be 
 given  to  the  Levites,  and  they  again  were  to  give  "  a  tithe  of  the 
 tithes'  to  the  priests.  In  Nehem.  xiii.  5,  "  the  tithes  of  the  corn, 
 the  new  wine,  and  the  oil,  the  alloivance  ^l"^^  (das  Dejmtat)  of 
 the  Levites"  is  mentioned.  Modern  criticism  has  here  involved 
 itself  in  a  singular  contradiction.  It  assigns  Deuteronomy  to  the 
 times  of  the  finished  construction  of  the  hierarchy,  and  yet  this  is 
 precisely  the  book  which  knows  nothing  of  the  Levitical  tithes ! 
 It  would  much  better  suit  the  view  it  takes  of  the  relation  of 
 Deuteronomy  to  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch,  if  Deuteronomy  alone 
 was  acquainted  with  the  Levitical  tithes.*     We  have  therefore 
 
 *  Against  those  who  maintain  that  the  regulations  given  in  Deuteronomy  were 
 later  than  the  re-^t,  we  remai'k,  that  an  extract  from  the  confessions  in  Deut.  xxvi.  5,  is 
 found  in  Hosaa  xii.  13,  14;  (compare  vol.  i.  p.  132),  and  a  reference  to  the  triennial 
 tithes  of  Deuteronomy  in  Amos  iv.  4,  (compwe  vol.  i.  p.  142). 
 
 VOL.  II.  Y 
 
S^B  THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 established  by  a  succession  of  proofs  (what  would  be  from  the 
 first  certain  to  those  persons  who  correctly  perceive  the  relation 
 of  Deuteronomy  to  the  preceding  books;  on  which  subject  com- 
 pare Kanke,  p.  145)  that  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  was  ac- 
 quainted with  the  Levitical  tithes.  It  still  remains  to  be  proved^ 
 that  the  four  first  books  recognise  the  two  tithes.  The  reasons 
 for  these  are  certainly  not  so  striking  as  for  the  position  proved 
 above.  Yet  they  are  sufficient  to  render  nugatory  a  mere  argu- 
 mentnm  e  silentio. 
 
 MiCHAELis  {Mas.  Recht.  ii.  §  73)  has  found  a  reference  to  the 
 double  tithes  in  Gen.  ch.  xlvii.  In  Egypt,  he  remarks,  the  lands 
 belonged  to  the  king,  and  the  peasantry  were  not  proprietors  of 
 the  lands  which  they  cultivated,  but  tenants,  who  were  bound  to 
 give  the  king  a  fifth,  Gen.  xlvii.  19-34.  Just  so  Moses  declares- 
 that  God^  who  conferred  on  the  Israelites  the  honour  of  calling 
 himself  their  King,  was  the  only  sovereign  possessor  of  all  tho 
 fields  of  the  promised  land,  in  the  possession  of  which  he  placed 
 them  by  his  special  Providence  ;  but  that  the  Israelites  w^ere  mere- 
 tenants  who  could  not  alienate  the  lands  for  ever ;  Lev.  xxv.  22 
 (compare  ver.  42  and  55).  In  fact,  they  were  bound  to  give  God 
 two  tithes,  as  the  Egyptians  gave  Pharaoh,  &c. 
 
 This  view  has  been  advocated  by  Leo  (Jiid.  Gesch.  p.  100), 
 with  the  modification,  that  he  supposes  that  the  author  invented 
 the  legend  about  the  oiigination  of  vassalage  in  Egypt,  in  order 
 to  lay  a  legal  foundation,  according  to  the  ideas  of  human  justice^ 
 for  the  position  of  Jehovah,  as  the  priests  desired  to  represent 
 it.  VoN  BoHLEN  agrees  with  Leo,  (p.  422.)  In  the  whole 
 narrative,  he  remarks,  there  is  an  apologetic  tendency  in  order 
 to  present  the  Levitical  system  and  the  offering  of  tithes  in  a  more 
 favourable  light. 
 
 Indeed,  the  copiousness  of  the  account  in  Gen.  xlvii.  must 
 awaken  the  suspicion  of  an  ulterior  object ;  and,  if  we  compai^e 
 Lev.  XXV.,  it  can  scarcely  be  doubtful,  that  the  exhibition  of  the 
 relation  in  which  Egypt  stood  to  its  visible  king  had  a  reference 
 to  the  relation  of  the  Israelites  to  their  invisible  King — that  King, 
 who  was,  at  the  same  time,  their  God. 
 
 Moreover,  we  find  in  Genesis  an  analogy  for  both  tithes  ;  for 
 the  Levitical  in  the  tithes  wdiich  Abraham  gave  to  Melchizedek, 
 Gen.  xiv.  20  ;   (Von  Bohlen,  p.  176,  finds  here  an  intentional 
 
PRIESTS  AND  LKVITES.  ,130 
 
 anticipation  of  tJie  law  respecting  the  tithes  to  the  Levites  and 
 priests,  which,  according  to  him,  must  be  contained  in  Dent.  xii. 
 17  ;  xiv.  28,  29;  xxvi.  12,  S^c.  !  !)  and  for  those  enjoined  in 
 Deuteronomy  in  Gen.  xxviii.  22,  where  Jacob  vows  that  he  would 
 give  to  God  a  tenth  of  all  that  God  would  give  him.  Here  there 
 can  be  no  allusion  to  the  tithes  of  the  priests. 
 
 But  if  it  be  asked,  why,  in  Deuteronomy,  the  first  tithes  are  not 
 expressly  mentioned,  nor  the  second  in  the  other  books,  the  an- 
 swer in  reference  to  Deuteronomy  is  not  difficult.  It  passes  over 
 the  point  which  had  been  sufficiently  settled  in  the  preceding 
 books,  particularly  in  Num.  ch,  xviii,,  which  De  Wette  super- 
 scribes "  the  priesthood  and  its  rir/hts,"  and  in  reference  to  which 
 it  had  no  supplementary  matter  to  furnish.  As  to  the  ground  of 
 the  silence  in  the  other  books  respecting  the  second  tithes,  we  can 
 only  offer  conjectures.  Michaelis  has  inferred,  from  the  man- 
 ner in  which  these  tithes  are  spoken  of  in  Deuteronomy,  and  also 
 from  Gen.  xxviii.  22,  that  they  existed  at  an  earlier  period.  If  this 
 were  the  case,  it  would  only  be  of  importance  to  determine  the  place 
 where  these  tithes  were  to  be  consumed.  But  to  determine  Hie  place 
 of  sacred  rites  is  a  business  which  the  author  has  chiefly  reserved 
 for  Deuteronomy.  That  the  regard  X^o  place  in  the  regulations  of 
 Deuteronomy  preponderates  is  very  apparent.  In  Deut.  xii.  the 
 tithes  are  mentioned  onhj  in  reference  to  the  place  where  they 
 were  to  be  eaten.  In  ch.  xiv.  22,  the  author  returns  to  the  subject 
 of  tithes,  in  order  to  state  that  they  were  to  be  turned  into  money 
 (v  25)  if  the  sanctuary  was  too  distant,  and  likewise,  that  every  third 
 year  the  tithes  v/ere  not  to  be  eaten  at  the  place  of  the  sanctuary, 
 but  be  consumed  at  home  in  hospitable  entertainments.  Also  the 
 prevailing  tone  of  sentiment  in  Deuteronomy  is  such,  that  the  ac- 
 count of  these  second  tithes  devoted  to  hospitality  is  inserted  in 
 it  with  peculiar  propriety. 
 
 We  only  remark  further,  that  Jewish  expositors  have  never 
 found  any  difficulty  in  determining  the  relations  of  the  two  tithes 
 to  one  another.  That  the  two  tithes  were  co-ordinate  has  been, 
 at  all  times,  acknowledged.  Let  us  only  compare  the  LXX. 
 Deut.  xxvi.  12  ;  {lav  he.  avvT€\€ar)<;  diroBeKarMaat  irav  to  iirt- 
 heKarov  roiv  yevrjfjLdrcDV  tt)?  7?}?  aov  iv  rco  eret  rw  TptT(p  (after 
 the  presentation  of  the  Levitical  tithes)  to  Bevrepov  iiriBeKarov 
 Sajo-6t9  Tft)  XevLTT]  Kalru)  irpocrrfKvTw  k.t.\>),  and  all  later  exposi- 
 
 Y  2 
 
340       THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 tors.  Aben  Esra  on  Deut.  xiv.  22  mentions,  indeed,  persons 
 who  held  the  first  and  second  tithes  to  be  identical ;  (compare 
 Hottinger  de  dec.  p.  149.)  But  he  terms  them  ts'^-rhs^s,  liars  or 
 apostates,  and  in  doing  so,  indicates  that  he  considers  their  ex- 
 position as  altogether  erroneous.  The  case  is  very  different  in 
 reference  to  the  regulations  respecting  the  second  and  third  tithes, 
 which,  in  Deuteronomy,  stand  close  to  one  another.  Here  not  a 
 few  are  of  opinion,  that,  in  the  third  year,  both  were  presented 
 together,  and  therefore  three  in  the  whole  (Hott.  p.  194),  al- 
 though the  view  that  the  third  tithes  superseded  the  second  is  the 
 most  prevalent.  (Hott.  p.  201).  This,  too,  shows  that  the  dif- 
 ficulty is  merely  artificial.  If  the  regulations  had  been  really  in- 
 compatible, it  would  not  have  been  found  so  easy  at  all  times  to 
 reconcile  them. 
 
 .TUDGES. 
 Deut.  i.  9-17,  compared  with  Exod.  xviii. 
 
 First  of  all,  it  has  been  asserted  that  these  passages,  which  ma- 
 nifestly refer  to  the  same  transaction,  are  chronologically  contra- 
 dictory to  one  another.  In  Deuteronomy,  the  choice  of  Judges 
 is  placed  in  the  time  immediately  preceding  the  departure  from 
 Horeb  ;  in  Exodus,  on  the  contrary,  it  occurs  before  the  arrival 
 of  the  Israelites  at  Sinai.  Vater,  p.  499 ;  De  Wette,  Stud, 
 und  Krit.  1830,  p.  354.  This  objection  is  founded  on  taking 
 the  words  sinn  nyn  in  too  definite  a  sense,  in  Deut.  i.  9.  The  ex- 
 pression ''  ahotit  this  timej'  is  not  intended  to  fix  a  point  of  time 
 during  the  sojourn  at  Mount  Horeb,  but  presents  this  time  in  its 
 whole  extent  by  way  of  contrast  to  a  later  period.  The  narrative 
 of  the  choice  of  the  Judges  stands  in  close  relation  to  the  preced 
 ing  summons  to  enter  upon  the  march  to  Canaan.  Gerhard 
 {Comm.  in  Beut.  p.  30)  remarks — Kactenus  recensuit  Moses 
 prius  dei  henejicium  populo  Israeliiico  pracstitum,  quod  est  vo- 
 catio  ad pjossessionem  terrae  Canaan  apprehendendam  ;  sequi- 
 tur  po  stein  us,  quod  est  poUtiae  Mosaicae  constitutio."  Moses 
 reminds  the  people  how,  at  the  time  when  this  summons  was  is- 
 sued, their  internal  relations  were  already  so  arranged  as  would 
 
JUDGES.  341 
 
 be  suitable  for  a  residence  in  the  promised  land,  where  the  cen- 
 tralization was  still  less  practicable  than  in  the  desert. 
 
 Another  difficulty  is  more  important.  "  The  Judges,"  Vatke 
 remarks,  "  were  appointed  on  the  decimal  system,  as  overseers  of 
 1000,  100,  50,  10,  which  would  lead  to  a  subordination  of  one 
 under  the  other,  and  to  a  comphcated  administration  of  justice. 
 The  whole  relation  of  one  part  to  another  is  obscure,  since  the 
 decimal  division  was  little  suited  to  judicial  arrangements,  and 
 must  have  created  an  immense  number  of  Judges.  In  the  pro- 
 phetical laws  it  is  always  implied  that  the  administration  of  justice 
 was  in  the  hands  of  the  Judges  and  Elders  of  each  separate  town." 
 
 The  difl&culty  arises  from  the  circumstance  that  the  author  as- 
 sumes the  existence  of  a  commentary  on  his  representation,  which 
 is  wanting  to  us.  As  the  institution  of  which  he  speaks  was  im- 
 mediately put  in  practice,  and  struck  its  roots  deep,  it  was  suffi- 
 cient for  the  original  readers,  not  merely  those  of  the  Mosaic  age, 
 but  also  those  who  lived  some  centuries  later,  to  point  out  how 
 existing  institutions  arose ;  the  farther  changes  in  its  constitution 
 it  was  needless  to  state.  W^e  must  be  content,  if  we  succeed,  by 
 bringing  together  the  scattered  hints,  in  obtaining  a  tolerably  clear 
 conception  of  the  nature  of  the  institution. 
 
 This  object  appears  to  us  attainable.  The  whole  institution 
 was  formed  in  the  following  manner  : — Already  in  Egypt  the  natu- 
 ral jurisdiction,  as  it  was  given  to  the  Israehtes  with  the  patriar- 
 chal constitution,  fell  into  desuetude,  so  that  only  a  shadow  of  it 
 remained.  It  was  for  the  interest  of  theii'  oppressors  to  destroy 
 to  the  utmost  the  internal  organization  of  the  people  whom  they 
 held  in  bondage.  The  Judges  wanted  power  to  can-y  their  deci- 
 sions into  effect — those  who  were  amenable  to  their  jmisdiction 
 found  ready  support  in  the  Egyptians.  The  dissolution  of  the 
 judicial  constitution  is  exhibited  to  us  in  what  occuiTed  when  Moses 
 took  on  himself  the  office  of  a  judge  between  two  contending  par- 
 ties (Exod.  ii.  11),  evidently  because  no  justice  was  to  be  obtained 
 in  an  ordinary  way.  At  the  departure  from  Egypt,  the  stream 
 might  have  returned  unhindered  into  its  ancient  channel.  But 
 the  eiToneous  reUgious  zeal  of  the  people  who  wished  to  receive 
 justice  as  immediately  as  possible  from  God,  moved  them  to  con- 
 centrate in  Moses  the  whole  judicial  authority  which,  under  a  cer- 
 tain aspect,  had  become  a  refi  miUitis.      He  at  first  lent  himself 
 
842  THE  COxNTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 to  this  zeal,  but  soon  the  inconveniences  of  centralization  became 
 so  apparent,  that  it  was  necessary  to  apply  a  remedy.  Moses  now 
 wished,  not  without  hesitation,  to  restore  the  ancient  judicial  con- 
 stitution, and  as  little  also  to  invent  a  new  one  on  his  own  res- 
 ponsibility. It  was  desirable  tliat  the  institution  should  proceed 
 from  the  mind  of  the  people,  in  order  that  it  might  more  easily 
 take  root  among  them.  He,  therefore,  issued  the  summons, 
 Deut.  i.  13,  "  Take  your  wise  men,  and  understatidinc/,  and 
 known  anionrj  yaur  tribes,  and  I  will  make  them  rulers  over 
 yau."  The  peo2>le  answered  to  tliis  summons.  Judges  were 
 chosen,  probably  in  conformity  with  the  advice  of  Moses,  accord- 
 ing to  the  gradations  of  the  tribes,  greater  and  smaller  famihes. 
 Among  these  Judges  a  natural  subordination  existed.  The  heads 
 of  the  tribes  were  the  presidents — the  heads  of  the  greater  and 
 smaller  families  the  assessors,  with  greater  or  less  right  of  voting'. 
 It  hardly  need  be  observed,  that  if  they  were  capable,  the  natural 
 superiors  were  chosen  Judges ;  and,  therefore,  on  the  whole,  the 
 choice  was  only  an  acknowledgment  of  natural  relations.  The 
 pei^ons  thus  chosen  were  then  confirmed  in  their  office  by  Moses  ; 
 Deut.  i.  15,  ''  So  I  took  the  chief  of  your  tribes,  wise  men,  and 
 known,  and  made  them  heads  over  you,  captains  over  thousands, 
 and  captains  over  hundreds,  etc.,  and  Shoterim  among  your 
 tribes."  These  judges  possessed  the  jurisdiction  in  its  whole  ex- 
 tent, only  that  in  cases  of  peculiar  difficulty  they  were  to  consult 
 Moses— certainly  only  in  reference  to  the  quid  juris,  which,  be- 
 fore the  completion  of  tlie  giving  of  the  law,  was  far  more  difficult 
 to  determine  than  afterwards.  To  confirm  this  view  we  make  the 
 following  remarks  : — 
 
 First,  The  supposition  of  a  decimal  division,  which  is  so  very 
 opposite  to  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  world,  is  grounded  merely  on 
 the  numbers  1000,  100,  &c.  But  that  this  is  not  a  vahd  reason 
 is  clear,  from  the  following  circumstances.  The  si^s,  a  thousand, 
 frequently  occurs  as  the  de,signation  of  a  tribe,  because  its  liighest 
 number  commonly  reaches  to  thousands;  compare  Num.  i.  16, 
 where  it  is  said  of  the  princes  of  the  twelve  tribes,  "  they  are 
 heads  of  thousands  in  Israel;"  also  Num.  x.  4  ;  Josh.  xxii.  14, 
 21  ;  Judg.  vi.  15  ;  1  Sam.  x.  19.  Now  if  the  ''  thousands"  moxks 
 a  tribe,  why  should  not  the  "  hundreds"  and  the  "  tens"  mark  a 
 larger  and  a  smaller  familv,  either  natural  or  artificial,  the  latter 
 
JUDGES.  M3 
 
 of  which  was  formed  by  the  union  of  such  persons  as  were  not  of 
 themselves  sufficiently  numerous  to  form  a  family ;  compare  an 
 example  in  1  Chron.  xxiii.  1 1 ,  where  it  is  said  of  four  brothers, 
 that  "  tlieij  had  not  many  sons'  and  on  that  account  "  were  in 
 one  reckoning  for  tlieir  father  s  house"  as  ri^aV,  which  implies 
 that  the  division  of  families  was  connected  with  certain  numerical 
 relations.     Compare  Michaelis  Mos,  Becht.  §  48.     In  Arabic 
 
 also,  the  word  i^x  family  X;>yis,  is  derived  from  the  numeral  teu 
 
 Secondly,  The  passage  in  Deut  i.  13,  15,  will  not  sanction  the 
 notion  of  a  rude  decimal  division.  According  to  this,  the  whole 
 organism  of  the  judicial  power  was  closely  connected  with  the  di- 
 vision into  tribes  ("according  to  your  tribes"  ^?''!??^^  ver.  13); 
 the  chief  of  thousands,  hundreds,  &c.,  were,  at  the  same  time, 
 "  chiefs  of  the  tribes,"  ver.  15,  oftaata  •^•^s;.  How  could  both  be 
 otherwise  combined  unless  the  subdivision  of  the  tribes  w^ere  de- 
 termined by  numerical  relations,  and  that  the  numbers  1000,  100, 
 &c.,  are  to  be  taken  as  round  and  approximating. 
 
 Thirdly,  We  are  perfectly  justified  in  including  among  the  laws 
 belonging  to  this  judicial  constitution  those  that  concerned  the 
 Israelites  as  resident  in  Canaan.  For  Exod.  xviii.  does  not  con- 
 tain a  syllable  which  would  imply  that  the  institution  formed  on 
 this  occasion  by  Moses  was  merely  provisional ;  in  Deuteronomy 
 the  opposite  appears  from  ver.  11,  where  it  is  said  that  the  great 
 increase  of  population  that  was  to  be  expected  hereafter  render  a 
 complicated  system  of  justice  still  more  necessary.  That  the  in- 
 stitution was  pecuHarly  adapted  for  the  Israelites  when  settled  in 
 the  promised  land,  may  also  be  gathered  from  its  immediate  con- 
 nection with  the  summons  to  pursue  their  march  to  Canaan. 
 Otherwise  it  would  not  be  easy  to  explain  why  precisely  here  the 
 details  of  the  institution  are  given.  But  these  prophetic  laws 
 constantly  imply,  or  directly  determine,  that  in  every  city  a  Court 
 of  Elders  or  Judges  was  to  be  formed.  Tliis  is  incompatible  with 
 a  rude  decimal  division ;  for,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis  remarks,  men 
 do  not  dwell  together  in  round  numbers.  Compare,  for  instance, 
 Deut.  xvi.  18,  "  Jndyes  and  officers  shall  thou  make  thee  in  all 
 thy  gates,  ivhich  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee,  throughout  thy 
 tribes:"  xix.  12;   xxv.  8. 
 
344  THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 THE   SPIES. 
 
 Deut.  i.  20-?^3,  it  is  asserted  (Vater,  p.  497,  De  Wette, 
 Einl.  §  150)  stands  in  contradiction  to  Num.  xiii.  1,  2.  In 
 Numbers,  God  gave  the  command  at  once  to  Moses;  in  Deuter- 
 onomy, on  the  contrary,  the  people  acquainted  Moses  with  their 
 plan,  and  God  approved  of  it.  It  may  be  supposed  that  this  dis- 
 crepancy is  no  new  discover}^ — it  has  been  thoroughly  canvassed  ; 
 compai'e  Gerhard  on  Deut.  p.  53. 
 
 That  the  contradiction  is  only  apparent  is  clear  from  Num.  xiii. 
 26,  ''And  they  icent  and  came  to  Moses  and  Aaron,  and  to  all 
 the  congreyation  of  the  children  of  Israel,  unto  the  icilderness  of 
 Varan,  to  Kadesh ;  and  brought  back  word  unto  them,  and  to  all 
 the  congregation."  Since  those  to  whom  the  answer  was  brought 
 back  must  be  identical  w^ith  the  persons  who  sent  out  the  spies,  it 
 appears  from  this  passage  that  not  merely  Moses  and  Aaron,  but 
 also  the  congregation,  had  a  share  in  giving  the  commission.  The 
 autlior,  therefore,  cannot  intend  to  deny  this,  when,  in  ver.  1  and 
 2,  he  refers  the  matter  to  God.  The  evidence  of  ver.  26  will  ap- 
 pear more  striking  if  we  compare  it  with  Deut.  i.  22,  "  And  ye 
 came  near  unto  me  and  said,  every  one  of  you,  We  will  se?id 
 men  before  us,  and  they  shall  search  us  out  the  land,  and  bring 
 us  word  again."  "^2  ^^^^  ^^''^^]  in  Numbers  xiii.  26,  ^?"  *i^^?C^  which 
 also  occurs  in  Deut.  i.  26,  in  the  account  of  the  return  of  the  spies. 
 
 Further,  it  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  it  is  self-evident,  and 
 must  necessarily  have  been  so  understood  by  the  "svriter  of  Num. 
 xiii.,  that  the  first  movement  for  sending  out  the  spies  proceeded 
 from  the  congregation,  for  this  undertaking  presupposes  the  un- 
 belief, or  at  least  the  weak  faith,  of  the  people. 
 
 But  let  it  also  be  observed,  that,  even  according  to  Deuteronomy, 
 not  mere  leave  or  permission  on  the  part  of  God  was  granted. 
 Many  expositors  erroneously  maintain  (for  instance  Gerhard,  p. 
 54)  that  God  gave  permission  in  his  wrath.  In  that  case,  it 
 would  not  have  been  said  in  the  Book  of  Numbers  so  plainly, 
 "  A/id  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Se?id,"  &c.  Jarchi's 
 paraphrase,  Mitte,  si  vis,  ego  non  praecipio  tibi,  gives  every  one 
 the  impression  of  something  arbitrary  and  forced.  The  opposite 
 is  decidedly  expressed  in  Deut.  i.  28,  '•  And  the  saying  pleased 
 
THE  SPIES.  345 
 
 jue  (Moses)  well ;  tuul  I  took  twelve  men  of  your  How  irrecon- 
 cilable these  words  are  with  the  idea  of  a  mere  permission,  is  evi- 
 dent from  the  gloss  by  Bechai,  aed  non  in  ocitlis  Dei,  quanivis 
 jiermitteret,  while  manifestly  the  matter  was  good  in  Moses'  eyes, 
 because  it  pleased  God. 
 
 The  sending  of  the  spies  was  strictly  a  part  of  God's  plan,  and 
 hence  was  expressly  commanded  by  him,  as  soon  as  its  indispen- 
 sable condition,  the  proposal  on  the  part  of  the  people,  had  taken 
 place.  For  one  thing,  it  would  ensure  to  the  well-disposed  a 
 strengthening  of  their  weak  faith.  On  a  special  point,  the  fruit- 
 fulness  of  the  land,  God's  word  would  receive  a  visible  confirmation 
 — the  spies  would  be  obhged  to  testify.  Num.  xiii.  17,  xiv.  8,  "  The 
 land Jioweth  with  milk  and  honeij  ;^  the  same  terms  which  God 
 had  made  use  of  to  describe  its  fruitfulness  in  his  own  promises — 
 and  thus  it  would  be  easier  to  trust  his  simple  word  in  reference 
 to  another  principal  point — the  conquest  of  their  enemies.  Tliis 
 part  of  the  Divine  purpose  has  been  clearly  acknowledged  by  Cal- 
 vin— Minime  ahmrdum  est,  he  xem^ik^,  Mosen fee isse  jwjnili  ra- 
 gatu,  quod  deus  simiil  jjraecejnt ;  quia  videbat  hoc  stimulo  indi- 
 (/ere,  qui pigri  alioqui  erant  vel  minus  ad  perage?idum  alacres. 
 Projjosita  igitur  teorae  dulcedine,  quae  ipsas  alliceret,  voluit 
 eorum  accendere  studia  ad  j^eragendum.  Nam  si  sincere  officio 
 suo  fundi  essent  exj)loratores,  adductus  quodammodo  fuisset 
 populus  in  rem  praesentem  ;  quod  optimum  erat  compendium 
 tollendis  otnnihus  remoris. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  it  formed  a  part  of  God's  design,  that  the 
 evil  disposed  should  take  occasion  by  tliis  undertaking  to  mani- 
 fest their  unbehef,  and  be  ripened  by  it  for  judgment.  This  de- 
 sign we  learn  from  the  result,  which  can  never  be  contrary  to  the 
 design. 
 
 If  the  Divine  purpose  was  the  essential  point,  and  the  proposal 
 of  the  people  the  mere  conditio  sine  qua  non  of  its  being  carried 
 into  effect,  it  will  be  easily  understood  how  the  latter  might  be 
 passed  over  in  silence  in  the  Book  of  Numbers,  although,  as  we 
 have  already  seen,  it  is  presupposed. 
 
 After  what  has  been  remarked,  Calvin's  view  of  the  mutual  re- 
 lation of  the  two  passages  will  clearly  appear  to  be  the  correct  one. 
 Secunda  narratio  plenior,  uhi  altius  repetit  Moses,  quod prius 
 o  miser  at ;  nempe  factum  esse  timiditate  populi  ac  pusillis  ani- 
 
iUt^  THK  CONrKADiniONS  OF  THK  rENTATEl  CH. 
 
 Min.  nv  tno.v  /rsfhtdrtfy  quo  dvNit  rocabaf  ;  ttam  si  sinq^Ucitcr 
 ohscuiti  esseHty  nuUa  mora  inlerposita  potiti  fuisscut  terra  hos- 
 tinm  ;  verum  itidueias  sibi  dari jmstuhnruNf. 
 
 THE  AMORITES  AND  AMALKKITES. 
 
 Pe  Wktte  ivmarks.  [Sft/d.  n.  Krit.  I80O,  p.  ooo),  **  lu 
 Pent.  i.  44,  tliose  are  called  Amoritrs.  who  in  Num.  xiv.  40  are 
 called  Atnahkitt's."  That  no  real  discrepancy  existi;.  will  at  once 
 be  seen  by  merely  looking  at  tlie  passages  in  juxtaposition. 
 
 NlMBKR*;. 
 
 •*  Tlieu  tlie  Amalekites  oanie  down,  nnd 
 the  Cauaanites  which  dvrelt  in  that  hill, 
 and  smote  them,  and  discomfited  them. 
 
 PkI  TERONOMY. 
 
 "  And  the  Amorite«s  which  dwelt  in  that 
 monntaiu,  came  oiit  apiiust  you,  and 
 ch.sseil  you.  ivs  bees  do,  .^ud  destroyed  you 
 
 even  unto  Hormsili.'"  I  in  Seir.  even  unto  Hormah." 
 
 Auv  one  may  perceive  at  a  glimce,  that  the  Amorites  of  Deu- 
 teronomy do  not  correspond  to  the  Amalekites  of  tlie  Book  of 
 Numbers,  but  to  the  Ctmaimites. 
 
 The  real  difference.,  as  wivs  long  ago  noticed  by  eiuiier  exposi- 
 tors, (compare  for  instance  Gerhard  in  Deut.  p.  67),  consists  in 
 two  things  :  that  in  Deuteronomy,  \\^  the  Amorites  luv  named 
 instead  of  the  CimaiUiites  :  iii.)   and  the  Amalekites  are  left  out. 
 
 But  that  there  is  no  sort  of  contradiction  here  will  be  evident, 
 if  we  consider. 
 
 First,  That  according  to  the  four  tirst  books,  by  the  Cimaan- 
 it^  of  the  book  of  Numbers,  tlie  Amorites  are  specially  to  be 
 understood.  Compare  Gen.  xiv.  7,  according  to  which  the  Am- 
 orites and  the  Amalekites  were  near  neighbours. 
 
 Secondly,  That  the  Amalekites  took  part  in  the  battle  is  hinted, 
 though  not  expressly  mentioned  in  Deuteronomy.  The  "  ///  -St^/r" 
 of  Deuteronomy  is  tautimioimt  to  tlie  notice  of  the  Book  of  Nimi- 
 bers,  that  the  Amalekites  joined  in  attacking  the  children  of  Israel. 
 Since  Seir  wjis  the  seat  of  war,  which  is  noticed  only  in  Deuter- 
 onomv.  it  is  self-evident,  that  the  attack  did  not  proceed  solely 
 from  the  Canaanites  According  to  1  Chron.  v.  4*2,  43,  the  Ama- 
 lekites dwelt  in  Moimt  Seir,  on  whose  descent  from  Esau  com- 
 pare what  has  been  ah^ady  said.      From  Gen.  xiv.   7.   it  ap- 
 
S/lfON.  .'547 
 
 pears  tliai  Karlf.sh  lay  iu  the  tcrritor)-  of  tlie  Amalekitef^,  or  at 
 least  near  it.  B'ne  Jaakan  in  the  distriet  of  Kadesh  was  situated 
 in  Seir,  l)eut  x.  0.  Kadesh  was  not  within  the  territon-  of  the 
 king  of  P^doni  ;  it  is  descrihed  in  Num.  xx.  10,  as  a  city  close 
 upon  his  borders,  ~^f  ^:?<  "*?.  If  it  lay  in  Seir,  and  yet  belonged 
 not  to  Kdorn,  it  must  have  been  in  tliC  possession  of  the  Amalek- 
 ites. 
 
 When  De  Wp:ttp:  remarks  (p.  35ij,  '' -tzz  in  JJeut.  i.  44,  is 
 possibly  an  erroneous  addition  to  Num.  xiv.  4.';,  since  the  scene 
 appears  to  be  at  a  considerable  distance  from  Seir,"  he  only  lets 
 his  readers  see  that  he  is  at  fault  in  his  geography.  The  Israelite's 
 on  their  arrival  at  Kadesh  had  reached  the  mountain -range  of  the 
 Amorites,  JJeut.  i.  10,  20,  "...  and  we  came  to  Kadef(h-har- 
 /tea;  and  I  naid  unto  you,  ye  are  come  unto  the  mountain  of 
 the  Amor  if  es.^'  Here  Moses  called  upon  them  to  press  forward  into 
 the  promised  land  ;  "  Behold  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  net  the  land 
 before  thee  ;  yo  uj,  and  poHnenH  it,"  ver.  21.  If  the  Lsraelites 
 were  on  the  borders  of  Canaan,  where  could  they  be  but  in  Seir? 
 And  if  they  were  driven  back  and  pursued,  where  would  tliis  hap- 
 pen but  in  Seir? 
 
 SIHON. 
 
 Dk  Wette  remarks  (Stud.  und.  Krit.  lh'6(),  p.  850;,  *'in 
 Ueut.  ii.  24,  Jehovah  promises  the  Israelites  the  conquest  of  the 
 land  of  Sihon,  and  encourages  them  to  make  war  upon  him. 
 "  Behold  I  have  yiven  into  thine  hand  Sihon  the  Amorite,  king 
 of  Henhhon,  and  hin  la7id :  heyin  to  jiOHsesM  it,  and  contend  with 
 him  in  battle."  This  is  contradictory  to  Num.  xxi,  21,  where  it 
 is  stated,  that  Moses  requested  this  king  to  grant  a  peaceful  pas- 
 sage through  liis  territories.  And  even  in  Deut.  ii.  2C,  Moses 
 sends  "  uieHsenyera  with  words  of  iteace"  to  Sihon;  so  that  the 
 author  contradicts  himself  and  represents  Jehovah's  command  as 
 nugatory." 
 
 It  is  s^>mewhat  strange  to  present  a  difficulty  as  newly  disco- 
 vered, which  centuries  ago  underwent  the  severest  scrutiny.  Com- 
 pare C.\LviN  on  the  passage. 
 
 The  notion  of  a  contradiction  is  founded  on  the  assmuption 
 
348        THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 that  the  embassy  could  have  no  other  object  than  to  induce  Sihou 
 to  grant  the  thing  requested. 
 
 But  that  this  assumption  is  false,  is  evident  from  the  analogous 
 case  of  Pharaoh.  There  would  be  equally  good  reason  for  say- 
 ing, in  reference  to  him,  that  there  was  a  contradiction  between 
 the  declaration  that  he  would  not  let  Israel  go,  and  the  summons 
 addressed  to  him  before  every  plague  to  do  so. 
 
 Sihon  did  not  stand  on  the  same  footing  as  the  rest  of  the  Ca- 
 naanites.  His  tenitory  was  originally  a  possession  of  the  Moab- 
 ites.  Had  it  not  been  so,  this  embassy  of  peace  would  not  have 
 been  sent  to  him.  What  was  offered  him  must  have  been  in 
 itself  allowable.  Magnae  temeritatis  fuisset,  Calvin  remarks, 
 promittere  quod  divinitus  negatmnfnerat.  In  the  embassy  to 
 Sihon  (Num.  xxi.  21),  his  land  is  expressly  distinguished  from 
 **  the  land  ivhich  the  Lord  our  God  giveth  us."  A  similar  mis- 
 sion to  the  country  "  on  this  side  Jordan"  would  have  been  a 
 practical  denial  of  the  Divine  promises,  and  base  hypocrisy.  There 
 such  language  as  "//'thou  wilt  let  me  pass,  then  I  will  not  do 
 so  and  so,"  would  have  been  totally  out  of  place.  No  such  em- 
 bassy was  sent  to  Og,  whose  country  stood  under  quite  a  differ- 
 ent relation  to  the  Israehtes. 
 
 But  nevertheless  Sihon's  destmction  was  decreed  by  God,  and 
 the  object  of  the  embassy  was  no  other  than  to  show  how  neces- 
 sarily the  completion  of  it  followed  the  Divine  purpose.  The 
 guilt  of  the  Amorites  was  full — the  execution  was  to  begin  with 
 them,  in  order  that  the  inevitability  of  the  Divine  judgment  might 
 be  visible — that  it  might  be  clearly  acknowledged  that  God's  pur- 
 poses are  not  dependant  on  the  determination  of  a  pitiful  ho- 
 muncio ;  the  way  is  opened  for  him,  by  which,  if  he  were  disposed, 
 he  might  escape  his  fate ;  but  he  cannot  be  so  disposed.  His 
 deliverance  is  placed  in  his  own  hands,  but  he  must  fling  it  away 
 and  bhndly  rush  on  his  own  destruction.  The  proposal  was  de- 
 signedly made  as  humbly  and  persuasively  as  possible,  but  he 
 could  not  but  reject  it  with  disdain. 
 
 That  this  was  the  object  of  the  embassy,  plainly  appears  from 
 Deut.  ii.  30,  "  Btit  Siho?i  king  of  Heshhon  would  not  let  us  pass 
 by  him,  for  the  Lord  thy  God  hardened  his  spirit,  and  made 
 his  heart  obstinate,  that  he  might  deliver  him  into  thy  hand. 
 
 This  language  is  not  used  of  a  moral  hardening ;  it  was  not 
 
THE  PUNISHMENT  OF  MOSES.  340 
 
 Sihon's  duty  to  let  the  children  of  Israel  pass  through.  It  refers 
 only  to  the  confirmation  in  his  foolish  resolution  not  to  grant  the 
 thoroughfare.  A  child  might  see  that  in  this  he  did  evil ;  hut  he 
 saw  it  not,  for  God  closed  his  eyes. 
 
 Otiiissis  ergo,  pnerilihus  nugia,  Calvin  remarks,  tenendum  est 
 einn  arcano  instinctu  sic  movere,  formare,  regere  ac  trahere  ho- 
 minum  corda,  ut  etiam  per  inijnos  quidquid  statuat  exequatur. 
 
 To  impress  this  truth  on  the  minds  of  men,  which  for  the  peo- 
 ple of  God  is  so  full  of  improvement  and  consolation,  was  the 
 object  of  die  embassy.  The  victory  over  Sihon's  heart  was  a 
 greater  proof  of  God's  al mightiness  and  grace,  than  the  victory 
 over  his  arms. 
 
 THE  PUNISHMENT  OF  MOSES. 
 
 De  Wette  {Stud,  und  Krit.  1830,  p.  356)  remarks,  "In 
 Deut.  iii.  26  (compare  i.  37),  it  is  given  as  the  reason  why  Moses 
 was  not  permitted  to  enter  the  land  of  Canaan  that  God  had  been 
 wroth  with  Moses  on  account  of  the  Israelites ;  while  in  Num. 
 xxvii.  14,  and  even  in  Deut.  xxxii,  51,  the  misconduct  of  Moses 
 himself  is  named  as  the  reason." 
 
 We  are  ready  to  present  this  in  a  still  stronger  light.  Besides 
 Deut.  i.  37  ;  iii.  26,  the  blame  is  also  laid  on  the  people  in  Deut. 
 iv.  21,  '"  Furthermore  the  Lord  was  angry  with  me  for  your 
 tvords  ('=.?^'?='7"^?  which  never  means  simply  "for  your  sakes,"  as  is 
 shown  by  the  more  exact  consideration  of  the  passages  quoted  by 
 Gesenius  {Thesaurus,  p.  317),  for  this  meaning  ;  namely,  be- 
 sides the  one  before  us,  Jerem.  vii.  22  ;  xiv.  1  ;  Ps.  vii.  1,  in 
 which  •''^m  hy  not  only  may  but  must  mean  on  account  of  the 
 words  or  speeches)  and  sware  that  I  should  not  go  over  Jordan, 
 and  that  I  should  not  go  unto  that  good  land,  tvhich  the  Lord 
 thy  God  giveth  thee  for  an  inheritance." 
 
 But  even  according  to  the  Book  of  Numbers,  did  not  the  guilt 
 and  punishment  of  Moses  proceed  peculiarly  from  the  people  ? 
 Only  compare  the  principal  account  in  ch.  xx.  1-13.  The  guilt  of 
 the  leader  is  here  manifestly  recognised  as  a  result  of  the  guilt  of 
 the  people.  Without  the  unbelief  of  the  latter,  there  would  not 
 have  been  weakness  of  faith  in  the  former.     Exhausted  by  the 
 
350  THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THK  TFA'TATEUCH. 
 
 long  struggle  of  opposition,  it  was  fit  last  in  a  moment  of  weak- 
 ness carried  away  by  the  torrent  of  popular  excitement.  But  how 
 little,  even  according  to  the  Book  of  Numbers,  was  his  error, 
 compared  wdth  that  of  the  people,  may  be  best  learned  from  the 
 circumstance  that  it  has  been  disputed  wherein  it  consisted.  As 
 to  the  punishment,  God  would  certainly  have  pardoned  the  com- 
 paratively small  error  of  the  leaders  of  the  people,  if  he  had  not 
 wished  to  produce  an  effect  on  the  people  by  their  punishment. 
 This  is  shown  in  the  continuance  of  God's  gracious  relation  to 
 Moses  and  Aaron.  Their  punishment  w^as  a  practical  call  to  re- 
 pentance for  the  people.  Those  sins  must  be  hated  which  ex- 
 cluded their  leader  from  the  promised  land. 
 
 We  conclude  that  there  is  no  contradiction  here,  strictly  speak- 
 ing. Is  it  not  evident  that  in  the  Book  of  Numbers  one  side  of 
 the  subject  is  brought  fonvard,  and  another  in  Deuteronomy  ? 
 Let  it  be  noticed  that  in  Num.  xx.  12,  23,  24  ;  xxvii.  14,  God 
 speaks  to  Moses  and  Aaron  ;  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  passages 
 adduced  from  Deuteronomy,  Moses  speaks  to  the  people ;  and  let 
 the  object  be  noticed  for  which  Moses  mentions  the  transaction. 
 Only  as  far  as  it  was  their  fault,  w^ould  it  answer  this  object. 
 
 The  correctness  of  this  explanation  we  have  given,  is  evident 
 fi'om  the  circumstance,  that  in  Deuteronomy,  where  God  speaks 
 to  Moses,  his  own  offence  is  made  conspicuous.  Let  any  one 
 compare  Deut.  xxxii.  50,  57,  *'  Die  in  the  mount  whether  thou 
 goest  up,  and  he  gathered  unto  thy  people ;  as  Aarofi  thy  brother 
 died  in  Mount  Hor,  and  was  gathered  unto  his  people.  Be- 
 cause ye  trespassed  against  me  among  the  children  of  Israel  at 
 the  ivaters  of  strife  at  Kadesh  ;  because  ye  sanctified  me  not 
 in  the  midst  of  the  children  of  Israel y 
 
 DEUT.    X.  G,  &C. 
 
 This  passage  lias  from  early  times  been  a  source  of  perplexity. 
 It  is  as  follows — ver.  6,  "  And  the  children  of  Israel  took  their 
 journey  from  Beeroth  B'ne  Jaakan,  {from  Beeroth  of  the  child- 
 ren of  Jaakan,  Eng.  A.  Yer.)  to  Moserah;  there  Aaroji  died, 
 and  there  he  was  buried,  and  Eleazar  his  so?i  ministered  in  the 
 priest's  office  in  his  stead ;"  ver.  7,  *'  From  thence  they  journeyed 
 
DETJT.  X.  G,  &C'.  .151 
 
 unto  Gudgodahy  and  from  Gudgodah  to  Jolhath,  a  land  of 
 rivers  of  ivaters  ;  ver.  8,  At  that  time  the  Lord  separated  the 
 tribe  of  Levi  to  hear  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  I^ord,  to 
 stand  before  the  Lord  to  minister  unto  him,  and  to  bless  in  his 
 name  unto  this  day ;  ver.  9,  Wherefore  Levi  hath  no  part  nor 
 inheritance ivith  his  brethren;  the  Lord  is  his  inheritance,  ac- 
 cording as  the  Lord  thy  God  promised  him!' 
 
 To  several  critics  (Cappel,  crit.  sac.  c.  7,  §  11,  p.  987; 
 Dathe,  Eosenmuller,  and  others),  the  difficulties  appear  so 
 great,  that,  despairing  of  untying  the  knot,  they  take  refuge  in 
 supposing  an  interpolation  ;  but  by  this  means  the  reason  which 
 they  borrow  from  the  sudden  use  of  the  third  person,  is  reduced  to 
 nothing  by  the  expression,  "  as  the  Lord  thy  God  promised 
 him"  in  ver.  9.  Yet  even  those  who  possess  more  courage, 
 cannot,  with  all  their  attempts,  obtain  a  feeling  of  perfect  security 
 and  agreement  with  one  another. 
 
 The  difficulties  are  the  following — (i.)  The  passage  appears  to 
 stand  out  of  its  proper  connection,  (ii.)  The  setting  apart  the 
 Levites  appears  to  be  transferred  here  to  the  period  after  Aaron's 
 death  in  the  fortieth  year  of  the  journey  to  Canaan,  while, 
 according  to  the  Book  of  Numbers  i.  1,  and  iii.  1,  it  had  taken 
 place  in  the  second  year  after  the  departure  from  Egypt.  The 
 following  we  state  in  the  words  of  Buxtorf  {antic,  p.  983). 
 (iii.)  c.  X.  C,  Aharon  dicitur  mortnus  in  Moserah  at  Num. 
 xxiiii.  38.  Aharon  dicitur  mortuus  in  Hor  monte,  qui  locus 
 septem  mansionibus  distat  a  Moserah^  inter  quas  numerantur 
 duo  sequentes  Gudgod  et  Jothbah.  (iv.)  Ibid.  Israelitae 
 dicuntur  movisse  costra  sua  ex  Beeroth  B'ne  Jahacan  Mose- 
 ram.  At  Num.  xxxiii.  30,  nbi  singulae  mansiones  accurate 
 et  ordine  enumerantur,  dicuntur  castra  movisse  ex  Moseroth 
 et  venisse  in  B'ne  Jahacan.  We  will  canvass  tliese  difficulties 
 in  their  order. 
 
 I.  The  theme  of  ch.  ix.  and  x.,  is  expressed  in  the  words 
 (ix.  0) — "  Understand,  therefore,  that  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth 
 thee  not  this  good  land  to  possess  it  for  thy  righteousness,  for 
 thou  art  a  stiff-necked  people!'  Moses  led  tlie  people  to  re- 
 collect how  the  Lord,  notwithstanding  all  their  sins,  had  still 
 remained  the  same  in  his  grace.  He  had  given  them — though 
 they  had  rendered  themselves  unworthy  of  this  blessing  by  the 
 
3r)2  THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 worship  of  the  golden  calf — the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  witli  the 
 new  tables  of  the  law  therein,  ch.  x.  1-5.  In  connection  with 
 this  gift  of  his  grace,  he  had  instituted  the  high -priesthood,  and 
 allowed  it,  after  Aaron's  death,  to  be  transferred  to  his  son 
 Eleazar,  ver.  6  and  7.  He  had  separated  the  tribe  of  Levi  to 
 serve  him,  and  to  bless  the  people  in  his  name,  thus  making  it  a 
 medium  of  his  grace,  ver.  8  and  9.  In  short,  he  had  omitted  nothing 
 that  might  serve  to  place  Israel  in  full  possession  of  the  dignity  of 
 the  people  of  God.  This  train  of  thought,  which  would  be  too  re- 
 condite for  a  mere  writer  of  glosses,  is  only  somewhat  interrup- 
 ted by  ver.  7,  which  may  be  regarded  as  a  parenthesis ;  with  one 
 of  the  two  stations  here  named  an  important  circumstance  be- 
 longed, which  was  connected  with  the  author's  main  object;  he 
 mentions  it  on  account  of  the  ^^T'^^^i^  "  tlie  water  brooks ;"  an 
 illustration,  in  passing,  of  the  Divine  goodness.  To  this  the 
 mind  of  the  author  is  ahvays  directed,  and  here  the  parenthetical 
 mention  agrees  very  well  with  the  special  object  of  the  discourse. 
 II.  The  choice  of  the  Levites  is  only  transferred  to  the  time 
 after  Aaron's  death,  in  appearance.  The  ^^"^  ^r?^,  is  rather  to  be 
 referred  to  the  time  when  Moses  laid  the  tables  in  the  Ark,  ver.  5, 
 '^  And  I  turned  myself,  and  came  down  from  the  Mount,  and. 
 put  the  tables  in  the  Ark  which  I  had  made;  and  there  theij 
 he,  as  the  Lord  commanded  me;  then  ver.  8,  "  At  that  time  the 
 Lord  separated  the  tribe  of  Levi,  to  bear  the  Ark  of  the  Cove- 
 nant of  the  Lord."  As  soon  as  the  Ark  was  made,  it  was  neces- 
 sary to  appoint  persons  to  cqiyj  it.  The  same  time  is  also  spoken 
 of  in  ver.  10,  without  any  change  being  indicated.  The  reference 
 to  the  time  of  the  sojourn  at  Sinai  runs  through  the  whole  section, 
 and  is  only  departed  from  parenthetically;  compare  ch.  ix.  22-24. 
 To  this  time  the  ^''^'  ^^t  in  ver.  1  refers.  And  the  contrast  be- 
 tween ^^^'l'  ^.V?  and  '^'^  ^'^V  "?  could  hardly  be  made,  if  no  longer 
 interval  had  elapsed  between  the  time  when  the  Levites  were 
 chosen,  and  that  of  the  discourse.  The  contents  of  ver.  6  and  7 
 refer  also  to  this  time.  For  that  the  superintendance  of  the  sanc- 
 tuary was  intrusted  to  Aaron,  and  that  he  was  called  by  God  to 
 this  mediatorial  office,  is  presupposed — the  connection  requires  it 
 — it  is  as  if  Moses  had  said.  And  the  Lord  separated  Aaron  to 
 be  high  priest,  and  after  his  death,  at  the  place  here  named, 
 Eleazar  his  son  was  made  priest  in  his  stead.    Moreover  a  con- 
 
DEUT.  X.  (L  &c.  853 
 
 tradiction  to  the  Book  of  Numbers  is  so  much  less  admissible, 
 since  ver.  9 — "  Wherefore  Levi  hath  no  part  nor  inheritance 
 with  his  brethren,  the  Lord  is  his  inheritance,''  alludes  directly 
 to  Num.  xviii.  20 — "  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Aaron — Thou 
 shalt  have  no  inheritatice  in  their  land,  neither  shalt  thou 
 have  any  part  among  them  ;  I  am  thy  part  and  thy  inheri- 
 tance among  the  children  of  Lsrael.'' 
 
 III.  That  any  material  discrepancy  should  exist  in  reference 
 to  such  an  event  as  the  death  of  Aaron,  is  certainly  not  antece- 
 dently probable.  Even  our  opponents  must  join  us  in  quest  of 
 a  solution.  That  Aaron  died  on  Mount  Hor  is  stated  in  this 
 book,  as  plainly  as  in  Num.  xx.  22,  and  xxxiii.  87,  88  ;  com- 
 pare Deut.  xxxii.  50 — *'  And  die  in  the  mountain  whither  thoti 
 goest  up,  and  he  gathered  unto  tJty  jieople ;  as  Aaron  tliy  bro- 
 ther died  in  Mount  Hor,  and  was  gathered  unto  his  peopled 
 A  comparison  of  these  two  passages  with  one  another  will  show 
 how  firm  and  distinct  was  the  historical  belief  in  reference  to  tlie 
 time  and  place  of  Aaron's  death.  We  here  assume  what  can 
 be  fully  established  in  the  following  pages,  tliat  Moserah  was 
 situated  in  the  district  of  Mount  Hor.  Only  let  this  be  admitted, 
 and  the  difficulty  is  easily  removed.  Israel  was  encamped  in  the 
 "^7-^,  there  lay  Moserah.  In  Num.  xx.  and  xxxiii.,  the  station  of 
 the  Israelites  is  named  after  the  place  of  Aaron's  death  ;  here  it  is 
 reversed.  But  it  is  worth  while  to  observe  that  it  is  not  said 
 here  abruptly,  that  Aaron  died  at  Moserah.  If  the  children  of 
 Israel  had  not  been  mentioned  just  before,  Hor  would  have  been 
 named.  That  the  children  of  Israel  were  not  encamped  on 
 Mount  Hor,  but  under  it,  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  it 
 is  expressly  said  in  Num.  xx.  25 — "  Take  Aaron  and  Eleazar 
 his  son,  and  bring  them  up  unto  Mount  Hor ;'  compare  ver. 
 27,  "  and  they  went  up  into  Mount  Hor,  in  the  sight  of  all  the 
 congregation."  But,  to  justify  our  assump)tion  that  Mosei'ah 
 was  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Mount  Hor,  we  need  only  remark 
 (after  Gerhard,  Comm.  in  Deut.,  p  629,  and  Lilienthal, 
 Gute  sache  der  ojfenb.  vii.  650),  that  Bene-Jaakan,  according 
 to  Num.  xxxiii.  31,  and  according  to  the  passage  before  us,  the 
 nearest  station  to  Moserah,  certamly  was  situated  in  that  dis- 
 trict. For  Akan  or  Jaakan,  after  whose  descendants  the  place 
 was  named,  appears  in  Gen.  xxxvi.    27,  and   1    Chron.  i.   42, 
 
 VOL.  II.  z 
 
8f)4       THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 amoiis  the  descendants  of  Seir  the  Horite,  of  whose  land  the 
 
 o 
 
 Israelites  took  possession.    Therefore,  Bene-Jaakan  and  Moserah 
 must  be  situated  on  the  borders  of  Idumaea. 
 
 IV.  But  the  most  important  point  to  be  determined  is — Whe- 
 ther the  passage  in  Num.  xxxiii.  30,  and  following  verses  (ver. 
 30 — "  And  they  departed  from  Hashmonah  cuid  encamped  at 
 Moseroth.  Yer.  31,  And  tlieij  departed  from  Moseroth  and 
 jntched  in  Bene-Jaaluui.  Ver.  32,  And  they  removed  from 
 Bene-Jaahan  and  pitched  in  Hor-hagidgad.  Ver.  33,  And  they 
 went  from  Hor-hagidyad  and  pitched  in  Jothathah"),  be 
 really  parallel  to  Deut.  x.  6,  7,  and  relates  to  the  same  route,  or 
 not.  The  determination  of  this  point  must  depend  on  the  in- 
 vestigations respecting  the  whole  catalogue  of  stations  in  Num. 
 xxxiii ;  and  these  investigations  must  be  preceded  by  determin- 
 ing, from  accounts  given  elsewhere,  the  line  of  march  along 
 which  the  various  stations  are  to  be  distributed  ;  with  these, 
 therefore,  we  begin. 
 
 According  to  the  narrative  in  the  Book  of  Numbers,  the  Is- 
 raelites marched  twice  from  the  Red  Sea  to  the  southern  border  of 
 Canaan,  and  from  the  southern  border  of  Canaan  to  the  Red  Sea. 
 The  first  time,  in  the  second  year  of  the  Exodus,  they  journeyed 
 from  Sinai  to  that  border,  and  in  consequence  of  what  happened 
 in  reference  to  the  spies,  they  were  condemned  to  retrace  their 
 steps.  To  this  first  return  Num.  xiv.  25  relates,  "  To-morroiv 
 turn  ye,  and  get  you  into  the  wilderness  hy  the  ivay  of  the  Red 
 Sea."  In  the  first  month  of  the  fortieth  year,  the  people  came 
 again  to  the  southern  border  of  the  promised  land,  and  encamped 
 in  Kadesh.  This  was  their  second  march.  From  Kadesh  Moses 
 sent  messengers  to  the  king  of  Edom,  Num.  xx.  14.  But  Edom 
 would  not  giwit  Israel  a  thoroughfare;  ver.  21.  Now  was  the 
 second  return  to  the  Red  Sea  ;  ver.  22,  "  And  the  children  of 
 Israel,  even  the  whole  congregation,  journeyed  from  Kadesh, 
 and  came  unto  Mount  Hor."  There  Aaron  died,  xxi.  4,  "  And 
 they  journeyed  from  Mount  Hor,  hy  the  way  of  the  Red  Sea,  to 
 compass  the  land  of  Edom."  With  this  account,  Deuteronomy 
 exactly  agrees.  Deut.  i.  40  relates  to  the  first  return  after  their 
 misconduct  relative  to  the  spies,  "  But  as  for  you,  turn  you  and 
 take  your  journey  into  the  wilderness  hy  the  way  of  the  Red 
 Sea :"  and  ch.   ii.  1-3  to  the  second  return,  "  Then    tve  turned 
 
DKUT.  X.  0,  7.  355 
 
 and  took  our  journey  into  the  wilderness  hi/  the  way  of  the  Red 
 Sea,"  (after  coming  again  to  Kadesli  in  tlie  fortieth  year),  "  as 
 the  Lord  spake  unto  me,  and  we  compassed  Mount  Seir  many 
 days.  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  me,  sayiny,  Ye  hare  compas- 
 sed this  mountain  long  enouyh,  turn  you  northward" 
 
 It  will  assist  our  enquiries  if  we  here  quote  the  geographical 
 comment  which  Leake  (in  Bukckhardt's  Travels,  i.  22)  gives 
 on  this  passage,  which  relates  to  the  second  return,  and  has  been 
 first  set  in  a  clear  light  by  recent  geographical  discoveries.  Since 
 the  Edomites  refused  to  grant  them  a  thoroughfare,  nothing  re- 
 mained for  them  but  to  march  through  the  vale  of  El  Arabah  in 
 a  southern  direction,  towards  the  extremity  of  the  Bed  Sea.  On 
 the  mountain  of  Hor,  which  rises  with  a  steep  ascent  from  this 
 valley,  on  the  borders  of  the  land  of  Edom,  Aaron  died.  The  Is- 
 raelites then  marched  from  Mount  Hor  to  the  Red  Sea,  so  that 
 they  went  round  the  land  of  the  Edomites,  "  through  the  way  of 
 the  plain  from  Elath  and  from  Ezion-yaher,"  until  "  they 
 turned  and  passed  by  the  leay  of  the  wilderness  of  Moah,"  and 
 came  to  the  brook  Zered.  Probably  they  marched  over  the  moun- 
 tain-ridge south  of  Ezion-geber.  They  then  came  to  the  great 
 table-land  behind  the  two  Akabas.  Here  they  received  the  com- 
 mand, *'  Thou  art  to  pass  orer  through  Ar,"  &c. ;  they  were  now 
 on  the  weak  boundary  of  the  land  of  Edom. 
 
 Let  us  now  turn  to  the  catalogue  of  the  stations.  Num.  xxxiii. 
 30-32,  "And  they  encamped  at  Moseroth.  And  they  departed 
 from  Moseroth,  and pitclted  in  Bene-Jaakan,"  refers  to  the  first 
 arrival  in  the  desert  of  Zin,  in  the  second  year  of  the  Exodus. 
 That  Moserah  or  Moseroth  was  situated  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Hor 
 we  have  already  seen  ;  Bene-Jaakan  nearer  the  southern  border 
 of  Canaan  must  have  been  situated  somewhere  about  the  district 
 of  Kadesh,  subsequently  mentioned.  All  the  stations  from  ver. 
 lG-30  lie  between  the  departure  from  the  desert  of  Sinai  and  the 
 first  arrival  at  Kadesh.  Ver.  33-36  relate  to  the  time  from  the 
 misconduct  respecting  the  spies  to  the  first  month  in  the  fortieth 
 year,  on  the  first  return  to  the  Red  Sea,  in  accordance  with  the 
 command  in  Num.  xiv.  25  and  Deut.  i.  40,  and  the  second  arri- 
 val at  Kadesh.  That  the  reference  cannot  be  to  the  first  journey 
 to  Kadesh  from  Mount  Sinai  is  evident,  among  other  things,  from 
 this,  that,  in  ver.  36,  it  is  said,  "  And  they  removed  from  Ezion- 
 
 A   2 
 
356       THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 geher  and  'pitched  in  the  wildernes.s  of  Zin,  ivhich  is  Kadesh" 
 for  the  long  distance  between  Ezion-geber,  on  the  Eed  Sea,  and 
 Kadesh  on  the  southern  border  of  Canaan,  no  intermediate  sta- 
 tions are  named,  conformably  to  the  author's  design,  never  to 
 name  the  same  stations  twice.    That  here  the  name  Kadesh  should 
 first  occur,  daring  the  first  sojourn  of  the  Israelites  in  this  dis- 
 trict of  Bene- Jaakan,  is  perfectly  natural,  since  the  name  Kadesh 
 was  first  given  to  the  place  from  the  events  that  occurred  during 
 this  second  sojourn.     Now  follows  the  second  return  from  Ka- 
 desh, ver.  37,  "  And  they  removed  from  Kadesh,  and  pitched  in 
 Mount  Hor,  in  the  edge  of  the  land  of  Edom."     There  Aaron 
 died,  ver.  38,  &c.     Thence  they  again  marched  back  first  to  the 
 western  side  of  the  Edomite  territory  towards  the  Ked  Sea,  then 
 to  the  eastern  side  of  the  Edomitish  territory  to  the  eastern  bor- 
 der of  Canaan  ;  ver.  41,  "  And  they  departed  from  Mount  Hor, 
 and  pitched  in  Zalmonah,"  ver,  42,  "  And  they  departed  from 
 Zalmonah,  and  pitched  in  Punon  ;"  ver.  43,  "  And  they  departed 
 from  Punon,  and  pitched  in  Oboth  ;"  ver.  44,  "  And  they  departed 
 from  Oboth,  and  pitched  in  Ije-abarim,  in  the  border  of  Moab." 
 Here  also  the  author  follows  his  own  plan,  not  to  mention  again 
 places  that  have  been  already  mentioned.     This  is  evident,  (i.) 
 Because  none  of  the  earlier  places  of  encampment  return  again  ; 
 yet  the  Israelites  must  have  passed  long  distances  on  the  same 
 road  as  before,  as  far  as  Ezion-geber.     (ii.)  The  second  encamp- 
 ment, Punon,  is  situated  on  the  eastern  border  of  Edom,  and  near 
 its  northern  extremity,  not  far  from  the  southern  extremity  of  the 
 Dead  Sea.     Jerome,  in  his  Locis  Hehr.  remarks,  "  Fnit  quon- 
 dam civitas  i^rincipum    Edom  nunc  vlculus  in  deserto,  uhi 
 aerum  metalla  damnatorum  suppticiis  effodiuntur,  inter  civi- 
 tatem  Petram  et  Zoaram.     (iii.)  The  fouith  encampment,  Ije- 
 abarim,  lies  on  the  eastern  border  of  Moab  ;  compare  ch.  xxi.  1 1 . 
 All  difficulties  are  now  easily  removed.     At  the  first  sojourn 
 on  the  western  border  of  Moab,  in  the  second  year,  the  children 
 of  Israel  marched  first  from  Moserah  or  Moseroth  (=  Hor)  to 
 Bene- Jaakan,  in  the  district  of  Kadesh.     Then  they  turned  back 
 after  their  condemnation,  and  marched  over  Hor-hagidgad  or 
 Hagud-god  to  Jotbathah.     Such  is  the  statement  in  the  Book 
 of  Numbers.     On  their  second  arrival,  in  the  fortieth  year  from 
 the  Exodus,  thev  marched  fi'om  Bene-Jaakan  down  to  Moseroth, 
 
DEUT.  X.  6,   7. 
 
 357 
 
 tlience  to  Gudgod,  and  thence  to  Jotbatliali.  In  the  Book  of 
 Numbers,  the  route  first  goes  upwai'ds,  then  downwards  ;  in  Deu- 
 teronomy, from  the  first  it  goes  downwards.  Hence  the  two  last 
 stations,  since  the  direction  of  the  route  was  now  the  same,  are, 
 in  both  cases,  Gudgod,  and  then  Jotbathah, 
 
 Moseroth . 
 
 Numbers. 
 Bene-Jaakan 
 
 Hor-Gidgad 
 Jotbathah 
 
 Deuteronomy, 
 
 Bene-Jaakan 
 Moseroth 
 Gudgod 
 Jotbathah 
 
 Cases  such  as  that  before  us  are  well  adapted  to  teach  us  modesty, 
 and,  at  the  same  time,  to  infuse  confidence  and  perseverance  in 
 unravelhng  even  the  most  intricate  and  dubious  questions.  He 
 who  has  formed  them  has  also  given  the  means  of  solving  them. 
 Everything  depends  on  the  faithful  use  of  these  means.  It  is  evi- 
 dent that  the  defence  of  our  opponents  has  here  changed  into  the 
 strongest  attack  against  them.  How  could  a  mythical  history 
 come  forth  victorious  from  such  attacks  ?  According  to  the  view 
 of  our  opponents,  the  Pentateuch  would  stand  on  about  the  same 
 level  as  Saxo  Grammaticus,  who  wrote  the  ancient  history  of  his 
 people  from  oral  traditions.  Who  could  extricate  this  writer 
 from  the  plight  into  which  he  has  been  brought  by  Dahlmann  ? 
 The  strange  anachronisms  and  discrepancies  which  occur  in  his 
 work,  when  once  exposed,  remain  for  ever.  The  strongest  bias 
 in  his  favour,  the  warmest  patriotism,  cannot  rescue  him.  The 
 more  closely  he  is  examined,  the  more  strongly  does  the  legend- 
 ary character  of  his  narrative  appear.  How  very  difierent  here  ! 
 The  appearances  of  contradiction  and  of  inaccuracy  are  only  on 
 the  surface,  and  for  those  w^ho  never  look  below  it. 
 
 THE  sabbatical  AND  JUBILEE  YEAR. 
 
 I.  It  is  striking,  Vater  remarks  (p.  499),  that  in  Deuteronomy 
 no  mention  is  made  of  the  year  of  rest  that  is  enjoined  in  Lev. 
 XXV.,  nor  of  the  Sabbatical  year  there  ordained,  but  merely  of  the 
 year  of  release,  of  which  the  law  is  given  at  length  in  Dcut 
 
•358  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 XV.  1-1 1  ;  "  must  not  these  two  dilierent  forms  of  sanctifying  the 
 seventh  year  be  exclusive  of  one  another  ?" 
 
 II.  De  Wette  [Krit,  p.  285)  says,  it  is  striking  that  in  Exod. 
 xxiii.  10,  11,  nothing  is  said  of  the  year  of  jubilee.  This  seems 
 almost  to  point  to  a  gradual  formation  of  this  law,  so  that  at  an 
 earlier  period  they  knew  nothing  of  a  year  of  jubilee.  The  same 
 tiling  is  indicated  by  the  circumstance,  that  in  the  whole  of  Deu- 
 teronomy nothing  is  said  of  the  year  of  rest  and  of  jubilee,  but 
 merely  the  year  of  release  is  mentioned.  Perhaps  only  this  latter 
 w^as  brought  into  actual  practice  since  Deuteronomy  manifestly 
 contains  a  later  legislation." 
 
 III.  George  {die  J'ud.  Yesie.,  p.  28)  has  enlarged  on  these 
 suggestions.  But  nothing  deserves  notice  except  the  assertion 
 expressed  in  p.  30,  that  Leviticus  places  the  release  of  the  bonds- 
 men in  the  seventh  year,  but  gives  for  it  the  year  of  jubilee,  which 
 so  far  agrees  with  the  year  of  release  in  Deuteronomy,  inasmuch 
 as  it  assigns  to  it  the  release  of  the  bondsmen. 
 
 We  wish  to  examine  these  assertions  in  order.  That  nothing- 
 is  said  of  the  year  of  jubilee  in  Deuteronomy,  can  only  appear 
 strange  to  persons  who  fail  to  perceive  the  object  and  character 
 of  that  book.  The  simple  reason  for  distinguishing  the  seventh 
 year,  not  as  the  year  of  rest,  but  as  the  year  of  release,  is,  that 
 Deuteronomy  does  not  treat  fully  of  the  things  to  be  observed  in 
 the  seventh  year,  but  only  of  one  single  point,  which  had  been 
 before  passed  over — the  release  or  the  respite  of  debtors,  the  con- 
 firmation of  which  peculiarly  agrees  with  the  whole  tendency  of 
 Deuteronomy.  So  far  fi'om  there  being  any  opposition  between 
 the  year  of  release  and  the  year  of  rest,  the  same  idea  predomin- 
 ates in  both.  By  both  institutions  the  sentiment  was  impressed 
 on  the  people,  that  none  of  their  possessions  were,  strictly  speak 
 ing,  their  own,  but  that  all  they  had  belonged  to  the  Lord. 
 
 But  we  are  able  to  combat  the  treacherous  argumentwm  e  ai- 
 lentio  by  other  far  more  important  considerations  in  reference  to 
 the  year  of  rest,  (i.)  If  every  seventh  yeai'  a  feast  was  celebrated, 
 it  is  inconceivable  that  it  should  be  confined  merely  to  the  release 
 or  respite  of  debtors.  Every  one  sees  immediately  that  this  is 
 only  one  use,  which  has  its  foundation  in  a  larger  scheme,  and 
 must  be  explained  by  it.  According  to  the  analogy  of  the  seven 
 davs,  and  the  seven  months,  in  which  these  feasts  fell,  the  celebra- 
 
DEUT.  X.  (),  7.  359 
 
 tiou  of  the  seventh  year  cannot  have  been  confined  to  this  alone. 
 (ii.)  What  is  said  in  Deut.  xxxi.  JO,  of  the  year  of  release,  that 
 in  it  the  law  was  to  be  read  to  the  assembled  people,  shows  that 
 it  must  have  been  intended  for  some  other  purpose  than  merely 
 the  relinquishment  of  claims  on  debtors.  Between  the  release  of 
 debtors,  thus  separated  from  its  connection,  and  the  reading  of  the 
 lav/,  there  is  no  internal  connection.  Hie  annus,  Mark  observes 
 on  this  passage,  erat  in  hanc  lectionem  aptissimus  tauquam  res- 
 jwndeus  non  modo  Sahhathis  hehdoniadariis  in  niajori  temporis 
 spatio,  sed  et  a  mundanis  ciiris  et  lahoribus  Israelitas  mayis 
 liheros  praestajis.  Nor  let  it  be  objected  that  the  seventh  year 
 is  not  here  called  also  the  year  of  release.  This  name,  even  in 
 Deut  XV.,  relates  not  alone  to  the  remission  of  debts.  It  marks 
 the  year  in  general  as  one  in  which  every  thing  was  left  to  take 
 its  own  course.  Let  it  be  observed  that  the  verb  ^^''^  is  applied  in 
 Exod.  xxiii.  10,  11,  to  the  seventh  year  in  reference  to  allowing 
 the  land  to  lie  fallow — "  And  six  years  thou  shalt  sow  thy  land, 
 and  shall  yather  in  the  fruits  thereof:  but  the  seventli  year 
 "i'f^'fC  thou  shalt  let  it  rest  and  lie  still."  (iii.)  Deut.  xiv.  28, 
 29,  distinctly  indicates  that  the  author  knew  the  seventh  year  to 
 be  the  year  of  rest.  Immediately  before  the  regulation  in  refer- 
 ence to  the  release  to  be  given  in  the  seventh  year,  it  is  here  pre- 
 scribed that  the  triennial  tithes  were  always  to  be  given  to  the 
 poor  every  thkd  and  sixth  year.  The  terminus  a  quo  can  here 
 only  be  the  seventh  year,  for  no  other  is  at  our  command  ;  com- 
 pare HoTTiNGER  De  decimis,  p.  193.  By  this  reference  to  the 
 seventh  year  as  a  solemn  one,  before  he  mentions  the  remission  of 
 debts  which  was  to  be  observed  in  it,  the  author  shows  that  the 
 celebration  of  the  seventh  year  would  not  consist  merely  in  that 
 act.  But  still  more  important  is  the  regulation  estabhshed  by 
 him,  that  the  year  of  tithes  could  never  coincide  with  the  seventh 
 year.  This  regulation  remains  inexplicable  if  the  seventh  year 
 was  merely  a  year  of  release,  but  is  explained  at  once  from  its 
 character  as  a  Sabbatical  year.  Since  it  was  such,  no  tithes  could 
 be  given  in  it.  The  land  was  not  cultivated  ;  and  what  grew  of 
 itself  belonged  to  the  poor  as  much  as  to  the  owners — it  was  com- 
 mon property. 
 
 IV.  That  nothing  is  said  of  the  year  of  jubilee  in  Exod.  xxiii., 
 is  not  more  singular  than  that  notliing  should  be  said  of  the  Sab- 
 
300  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THK  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 batical  year  in  the  decalogue.  It  can  only  appear  strange  to  those 
 persons  who  fail  to  perceive  the  true  character  of  Exod.  xxi.-xxiii., 
 which  contains  only  a  hrevis  cousjyectus  of  suhjects  to^he  enlarged 
 upon  afterwards. 
 
 V.  In  Exodus  and  Deuteronomy,  as  little  as  in  Leviticus,  is 
 the  manumission  of  Hebrew  slaves  assigned  to  the  Sabbatical 
 year,  or  year  of  release.  According  to  Exod.  ch.  xxi.j  the  bonds- 
 man, in  the  seventh  year  after  he  was  2)urchased,  was  to  be  released. 
 To  this  regulation  an  addition  is  made  in  Deut.  xv.  12-18.  The 
 master  was  not  to  let  the  bondsman  go  away  empty,  but  to  make 
 him  a  present  ("  furnish  him  hberally"  '?^^'?T'-  P^.??p)  of  sheep,  fruit, 
 oil,  and  wine,  wherewith  to  begin  housekeeping  afresh.  This  new 
 addition  forms  the  peculiar  object  of  the  regulation.  By  this  cir- 
 cumstance, the  observance  of  the  law  already  given  was  rendered 
 more  impressive.  The  regulation  respecting  the  release  of  the 
 bondsmen  in  Deut.  xv.  12-18,  is  joined  to  the  law  of  the  year 
 of  release  in  ver.  1-11,  not  because  the  release  followed  in  the 
 Sabbatical  year,  but  because  both  regulations  proceeded  from  a 
 tender  consideration  for  the  poor  and  the  suffering. 
 
 THE  RELEASE  OF  BONDSMEN. 
 
 1 .  The  regulation  for  the  release  of  bondsmen  in  the  seventh 
 year,  is  common  to  Deuteronomy  and  Exodus.  But  in  Deuterono- 
 my, the  maid- servants  are  mentioned  in  the  law,  and  placed  exactly 
 on  a  level  with  the  men-servants  ;  but  in  Exodus  special  and  ex- 
 clusive regulations  are  laid  down  for  them.  Thus  George  re- 
 marks (Die  Jiid.  Feste  p.  29.) 
 
 If  we  look  superficially  at  the  passages,  Exod.  xxi.  7,  ''  If  a 
 man  sell  his  daughter  to  be  a  maid-servant,  she  shall  not  go 
 out  as  the  men-servants  do  ;"  and  Deut.  xv.  7,  "  And  also  unto 
 thy  maid-servant  thou  shall  do  it  likewise"  they  certainly  ap- 
 pear to  contradict  one  another.  And  if  this  were  the  case,  we 
 could  not  satisfy  ourselves  with  the  opinion  held  by  several  de- 
 fendei-s  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  (Michaelts,  Mos. 
 Recht.  §  127  ;  Jahn,  Rosenmuller,  on  the  passage  in  Exodus, 
 Havernick),  that  Moses  had  himself  subsequently  altered  the 
 law,  and  advanced  a  step  furtlier. 
 
 But  on  nearer  consideration,  the  solution  of  the  apparent  dis- 
 
THE  RELEASE  OF  BONDSMEN.  301 
 
 crepancy  is  readily  obtained.  In  Exod.  xxi.  7,  Sec,  Hebrew 
 maid-servants  generally  are  not  spoken  of  (to  them  is  to  be  ap- 
 plied analogically  what  is  said  in  ver.  1-6  of  men-servants,  as  is 
 implied  in  the  particular  case  in  ver.  7,  and  is  expressly  asserted  in 
 Deuteronomy),  but  a  special  case  is  stated,  namely,  when  a  father 
 sells  his  daughter  to  be  a  maid-servant.  How  any  one  could 
 overlook  the  fact,  that  the  reference  is  here  to  one  peculiar  case, 
 is  almost  inconceivable.  That  a  maid-servant  should  be  reduced 
 to  servitude  by  a  voluntary  act  of  her  father,  was  certainly  not  a 
 common  occuiTence.  It  lay  in  the  nature  of  the  case  that  this 
 would  not  happen,  except  when  she  was  likely  to  become  a  wife  of 
 the  second  rank,  and  that  her  being  thus  sold  was  only  with  this 
 object  in  view,  is  impHed  throughout  in  what  follows.  This  case 
 therefore  only  constitutes  an  exception  to  the  general  rule.  Ei- 
 ther the  daughter  was  not  to  be  released,  or  she  w^as  to  be  released 
 without  waiting  for  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  year.  The 
 first  happened  when  a  man  either  took  her  himself  to  wife,  or  gave 
 her  in  marriage  to  his  son,  and  when  the  one  or  the  other  really 
 fulfilled  the  duties  of  a  husband  towards  her.  The  second  alter- 
 native took  effect,  when  either  the  purchaser  was  faithless  to  her, 
 and  broke  his  promise  of  mama ge,  or  when,  according  to  the  mar- 
 riage entered  into  either  with  himself  or  his  son,  the  one  or  the 
 other  would,  not  any  longer  fulfil  the  duties  of  a  husband.  Com- 
 pai-e  the  justification  of  this  interpretation,  as  fur  as  it  requires  to 
 be  justified,  in  Vitringa,  Obs.  s.  lib.  III.  ch.  xiv.  p.  097.  The 
 con-ectness  of  the  points  in  v^hich  we  differ  from  him  will  be  self- 
 evident. 
 
 How  easy  and  natural  our  opinion  is,  that  what  is  said  in  Exod. 
 xxi.  1-6  of  the  man-servant,  is  equally  to  be  understood  of 
 the  maid-servant,  may  be  learnt  from  comparing  that  passage 
 with  Deut.  xv.  12,  &c.  The  manner  in  which  the  maid-ser- 
 vant is  here  mentioned  is  so  perfectly  incidental,  that  we  may 
 see  that  the  author  considered  it  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  if  the 
 man-servant  was  free  so  also  would  be  the  maid.  "  1/  tliy  bro- 
 ther, an  Hebrew  man  {or  an  Hebrew  woman),  be  sold  unto 
 thee,  and  he  serve  thee,"  &c.  In  the  four  following  verses  only 
 the  bondman  is  spoken  of;  not  till  we  come  to  ver.  17  is  the 
 maid-servant  again  mentioned. 
 
 2.    Deuteronomy  and  Leviticus  both  contain  regulations 
 
302        THE  CONTRADICTIONS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 respecting  the  release  of  bondmen :  Deuteronomy  places  it  in 
 the  seventh  year,  Leviticus,  on  the  contrary,  in  the  fiftieth. 
 Thus  George  remarks  (p.  32).  But  this  discrepancy  has  long 
 ago  been  adjusted  in  a  very  satisfactory  manner ;  compare  especi- 
 ally MiCHAELis,  Mos.  Recht.  §  127.  The  law  determined  two 
 periods  in  which  the  bondman  might  become  free^ — the  seventh 
 year,  that  is,  from  the  time  when  he  was  sold;  and  also  the  fiftieth 
 year,  or  the  year  of  jubilee.  The  bondman  was  ordinarily  free 
 after  six  years  of  servitude ;  but  if  he  had  been  sold  a  few  years 
 before  the  year  of  jubilee,  he  did  not  wait  for  the  seventh  year, 
 but  his  freedom  was  restored  in  the  year  of  jubilee,  and  with  it 
 his  land  that  had  been  sold.  Let  the  following  particulars  be 
 noticed.  The  first  regulation  respecting  the  manumission  of 
 bondmen  stands  at  the  head  of  the  shorter  code,  Exod.  xxii.-xxiii. 
 In  this  passage  lies  the  foundation  of  the  law.  It  refers  to  the 
 declaration  in  ch.  xx.  2,  "  /  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  which  have 
 hrought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egifpt,  out  of  the  house  of 
 hondar/e."  An  immediate  consequence  was,  that  in  Israel  no 
 permanent  slavery  could  exist.  The  bondmen  of  the  Lord  could 
 not  be  made  the  bondmen  of  men.  Constant  bond-service  would 
 have  been  a  practical  denial  of  the  Lord's  sovereignty.  In  Le- 
 viticus XXV.  42,  this  fundamental  principle  of  the  law  is  empha- 
 tically expressed  ;  ''for  they  are  my  servants  which  I  hrouyht 
 forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt ;  they  shall  not  he  sold  as  hond- 
 men  ! "  Such  being  the  principle  of  the  law  by  which  its  ten- 
 dency is  so  unequivocally  expressed  in  Lev.  xxv.  that  in  Israel 
 there  should  be  no  slavery,  it  was  impossible  for  the  year  of  ju- 
 bilee to  be  the  only  arrangement  by  which  the  idea  might  be  re- 
 ahsedin  actual  life.  Moreover,  in  Lev.  xxv.  39,  &c.,  it  is  always 
 implied  that  the  Israelitish  slave  would  reach  the  legal  term  of 
 release  the  year  of  jubilee  ;  compare  for  instance  ver.  41,  ''And 
 then  shall  he  depart  from  thee,  both,  he  and  his  children  with 
 him,  and  shall  return  unto  his  own  family,  and  tmto  the  pos- 
 session of  his  fathers."  But  if  the  year  of  jubilee  was  the  only 
 legal  term,  there  would  be  no  ground  for  such  an  implication. 
 To  encourage  a  man's  hopes  from  such  a  source,  would  sound  hke 
 mockery.  It  would  be  reducing  manumission  to  a  thing  of  little 
 worth.  To  condemn  a  man  to  fifty  years'  captivity,  or  to  be  a 
 captive  ibr  life,  would  be  very  much  the  same  thing. 
 
CITIES  OF  KKFUGE.  .'iOJi 
 
 CITIES  OF  llEFUGE. 
 
 Vater  reimarks  (p.  458),  "In  Deut.  iv.  41-44,  we  are  told 
 that  Moses  set  apart  on  the  east  side  of  Jordan,  three  cities  of 
 refuge  for  persons  guilty  of  manslaughter,  and  ch.  xix.  contains 
 a  law  for  the  constitution  of  such  cities  in  Canaan  Proper,  which 
 as  good  as  exclude  every  reference  to  an  earUer  establishment  of 
 such  a  provision,  and  yet  is  so  copious,  that  account  must  have 
 been  taken  of  the  existence  of  these  cities  of  refuge  on  the  east 
 side  of  Jordan,  if  they  had  been  already  mentioned  in  the  same 
 book." 
 
 The  whole  difficulty  arises  from  a  misconception  of  the  words 
 in  Deut.  xix.  9,  "  then  thou  shalt  add  tJircc  cities  more  for  thee, 
 besides  these  three!'  This  does  not  mean  three  in  addition  to 
 the  three  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verses — but  rather  three 
 new  ones  (those  mentioned  before)  to  those  already  existing  ;  the 
 three  to  which  reference  would  at  that  time  be  made,  and  which, 
 according  to  ch.  iv.,  had  been  constituted  in  the  country  beyond 
 Jordan.  Ver.  8  and  9,  contain  no  addition  to  ver.  7,  but  are 
 only  an  amphfication  of  its  contents.  Thus  the  reference  is  found 
 which  Vater  supposed  to  be  wanting  to  the  cities  of  refuge  that 
 had  been  previously  set  apart. 
 
 And  ours  is  the  only  consistent  interpretation.  For  (i.)  eveiy- 
 where  only  six  cities  are  mentioned,  (ii.)  The  three  cities  in  ver. 
 1-7,  could  not  be  the  three  beyond  Jordan,  but  only  those  on  this 
 side  Jordan,  since  they  were  to  be  set  apart  in  the  land  that  yet 
 remained  to  be  conquered,  (iii.)  The  enlargement  of  territory 
 spoken  of  in  ver.  8  (*'  A^id  if  the  Lord  thy  God  enlarge  thij 
 coast  as  he  hath  sworn  unto  thy  fathers,  and  give  thee  all  the 
 land  which  he  promised  to  give  unto  thy  fathers'),  can  only 
 refer  to  the  Cis-jordanic  region.  For  this  enlargement  was  to  be 
 a  fidfilment  of  the  promise  given  to  the  fathers.  But  this  pro- 
 mise (^^dth  the  exception  of  the  Trans-jordanic  portions  of  tem- 
 toiy  already  conquered)  referred  merely  to  the  Cis-jordanic  region. 
 Thus  the  most  beautiful  harmony  exists  between  the  passages 
 of  the  Pentateuch,  which  treat  of  the  cities  of  refuge.  («)  Six 
 cities  of  refuge  in  all  were  to  be  set  apart,   Num.  xxxv.  14,  "  JV 
 
'6(Ji  THE  CONTRADICTIONS  0¥  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 s/iall  give  three  cities  on  this  side  Jordan,  and  three  cities 
 shall  ye  give  iti  the  land  of  Canaan,  which  shall  he  cities  of 
 refuge."  (b)  Three  cities  of  refuge  had  been  set  apart.  Deut.  iv. 
 41-43.  (c)  Three  cities  of  refuge  we?'e  still  to  be  set  apart, 
 Deut.  xix. 
 
 De  Wette  (Crit.  383),  further  asserts  that  Deut.  iv.  41  con- 
 tradicts the  Book  of  Joshua,  which  states  that  these  cities  were 
 first  set  apart  hy  Joshua.  But  this  assertion  may  he  regarded  as 
 having  been  already  disposed  of  hy  Maurer  On  Joshua,  p.  165. 
 
 ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE. 
 
 Vater,  p.  496,  remarks,  that  according  to  Numbers  xxxv.  24, 
 30,  the  ^^7?!  (Congregation,  Eng.  A.  V.)  was  to  judge  the  homi- 
 cide, and  condemn  only  on  the  testimony  of  two  witnesses. 
 On  the  contrary,  according  to  Deut.  xix.  12,  the  elders  of  the 
 city  (of  the  homicide)  were  to  fetch  the  man  who  had  committed 
 the  murder  from  the  city  of  refuge,  and  deliver  him  over  to  the 
 avenger  of  blood  that  he  might  be  put  to  death.  And  the  Judges 
 Bnt2£^  were  to  sift  most  diligently  the  evidence  of  the  witnesses, 
 ver.  18.  In  ch.  xxi.  2,  ta-^apt  and  tj^iss'ij  are  joined  together  in  the 
 investigation  of  a  murder.  We  therefore  find  difterent  representa- 
 tions of  the  administration  of  penal  justice  in  the  difi'erent  books. 
 Thus  also  De  Wette,  Einl.  §  L56. 
 
 But  no  contradiction  really  exists  here.  That  the  people  as 
 such  exercised  the  administration  of  justice,  no  trace  whatever 
 can  be  found,  and  thus  by  the  "v-  in  Num.  xxxv.  we  can  only  un- 
 derstand the  natural  representatives  of  the  ^;?,  the  '^^?.\j.  ^^^'y. 
 Num.  i.  16,  xxvi.  9,  the  elders  from  whom  the  judges  were  taken. 
 Compare  the  section  on  Exod.  xviii.  with  Deut.  i.  416.  How 
 little  the  elders  form  a  contrast  to  the  '^1^.  appears  from  Josh.  xx. 
 According  to  ver.  4,  the  homicide  had  to  do  with  the  elders  of 
 the  city  in  wliich  he  had  taken  refuge.  According  to  ver.  6  and 
 9,  he  was  brought  before  the  '^y..  of  the  city  in  which  the  murder 
 had  been  committed. 
 
 So  much  for  the  contradictions  of  the  Pentateuch. 
 
(  iHir,  ) 
 
 THK 
 
 THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 
 
 IS  RELATION  TO  ITS 
 
 GENUINENESS, 
 
 The  design  of  this  section  has  already  been  explained  in  vol.  i. 
 p.  64,  65.  We  here  give  cursorily  only  the  negative  side  of  the 
 investigation,  the  answers  to  the  attacks  on  the  Pentateuch  which 
 are  founded  on  its  Theology.  It  needs  scarcely  be  said,  that  not 
 every  asserted  imperfection  of  the  Israelitish  rehgion,  as  it  is  ex- 
 hibited in  the  Pentateuch,  can  be  made  the  subject  of  discussion. 
 Only  those  imperfections  come  under  consideration  which  are  not 
 at  the  same  time  relative  perfections — only  that  which  threatens  to 
 rob  the  Pentateuch  of  the  character  of  a  record  oitriie  religion,  not 
 of  absolute  religion,  to  which  it  never  lays  claim;  or  rather  almost 
 expressly  disavows,  and  points  beyond  itself,  since,  by  a  special  law, 
 it  laid  the  people  under  obligation  to  give  ear  to  the  future  organs 
 of  God,  and  in  its  often -repeated  announcement  of  a  blessing  on 
 all  nations,  presents  an  object,  for  the  attainment  of  which,  it  does 
 nothing  itself,  but  leaves  it  to  a  new  stage  of  revelation  to  realise. 
 
 The  accusations  which  it  is  our  business  to  repel,  are  the  follow- 
 ing. The  Hpiritualitij  of  God,  it  is  said,  is  injured  in  the  Penta- 
 teuch by  its  numerous  Anthropomorphisms — the  holiness  of  (lod 
 by  Antlu'opopathies,  making  God  the  author  of  sin  in  the  harden- 
 ing of  Pharoah's  heart ;  the  mutability  attributed  to  God  in  his 
 conduct  towards  Balaam  ;  the  command  attributed  to  (jod  for  the 
 extermination  of  the  Canaanites  ;  the  obtaining  by  fraud  the 
 vessels  of  the  Eg^qptians  at  his  alleged  command  ;  tlie  unholiness 
 of  those  who  are  represented  as  his  chosen,  nnd  the  organs  of  his 
 revelations ;  the  rif/hteousness  of  God  is  impugned  by  the  exten- 
 
•SOC  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 sion  of  the  punishment  of  transgressors  to  tlieir  innocent  posterity  ; 
 and  the  love  of  God,  by  his  partial  regard  {Particularismus). 
 The  Icf/islation  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  asserted,  conld  not  he  from 
 God,  since  it  does  not  put  in  action  the  true  moral  motive — the 
 doctrine  of  immortality — but,  on  the  contrary,  labours  to  give  force 
 to  an  immoral  motive,  that  of  temporal  reward — since  it  wears 
 throughout  the  character  of  outwai'dness — since,  by  its  ceremonial 
 ingredients,  it  contradicts  the  worship  of  God  in  spirit  and  in 
 truth  ;  and  lastly,  on  account  of  the  liierarchical  spirit  with  which 
 it  is  imbued. 
 
 THE  ANTHROPOMORPHISMS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 The  Deists  on  this  topic  are  lavish  of  contemptuous  expressions 
 on  the  Old  Testament  generally,  and  the  Pentateuch  in  particu- 
 lar. It  is  impious,  Bolingbroke,  for  instance,  maintains,  (Leland, 
 View  of  Deist ical  Writers,  vol.  ii.  letter  12),  to  assert  the  Divine 
 origin  of  writings  in  which  God  employs  the  language  of  men, 
 j  udges,  thinks,  repents,  as  men  are  wont  to  do,  allows  himself  to  be 
 animated  by  human  afl'ections,  appeals  to  human  knowledge,  and 
 performs  acts  which  can  only  be  done  by  the  organs  of  the  human 
 body.  And  thus  all  the  rest ;  (compare  Tindal  in  Lilienthal 
 iv.  788). 
 
 The  antideistical  apologists  were  not  properly  in  a  condition 
 to  w^ard  off  this  attack.  They  were  not  able  to  rise  liigher  than 
 Philo's  point-of-view,  who  explained  and  justified  this  mode  of 
 representation  on  the  principle  of  condescension  to  the  capacities 
 of  a  rude  multitude  ;  compare  the  collection  of  his  expressions  in 
 Gfrorer  i.  95.  And  even  Reinhard  {Dogm.  93),  avails  him- 
 self of  the  insuflficient  plea,  that  it  was  allowable  in  common  dis- 
 course to  speak  of  God  in  images,  which  are  borrowed  from  ma- 
 terial objects,  and  human  weaknesses. 
 
 In  modern  times  a  healthful  impulse  has  led  to  a  deeper  inves- 
 tigation of  the  nature  of  Anthropomorphisms,  by  Jacobi,  who,  in 
 his  Essay  on  Divine  things  (  Works  iii.  p.  418),  comments  on  his 
 own  pregnant  expression.  '*  God  in  creating,  theoniorphises 
 man ;  man,  therefore,  necessarily  anthropomorphises  God;'  and 
 concludes  with  the  words,  "  We  confess  ourselves,  therefore  to  have 
 
ANTHROPOMOliVIITSMS  OF  THE  PKNTATEUCH.  :{()7 
 
 the  conviction,  that  man  bears  in  hinisell"  the  image  of  God — an 
 indissokible  Anthropomorphism,  and  maintain  that,  apart  from 
 this  Anthropomoi-phism,  what  has  hitherto  been  called  'Mieism, 
 is  no  better  than  Atheism,  or  Fetischism." 
 
 What  Jacobi  has  remarked  in  favour  of  Anthropomorphisms 
 in  general,  De  Wette  has  allowed  to  be  applicable  to  those  con- 
 tained in  the  Scriptures;  {Bibl.  Doym.  §  55,  57,  102).  He 
 explains  the  Anthropomoi-phisms  of  the  Old  Testament  as  mere 
 images,  and  says  that  they  have  their  corrective  in  the  literal  and 
 purely  spiritual  representations  that  are  combined  with  them, 
 and  in  the  express  injunctions  against  material  representations  of 
 God,  but  especially  in  the  idea  of  the  Divine  Holiness.  But 
 Twesten  {Do(/m.  ii.  IG),  penetrates  much  deeper  into  the  sub- 
 ject than  De  Wette,  who  after  all  regards  Anthropomorphisms 
 as  a  kind  of  necessary  evil,  and  is  not  always  consistent  with  him- 
 self in  his  judgment  on  Anthropomoi-phisms  of  Scripture.  Still, 
 there  are  not  wanting  those  who  adhere  entirely  to  the  ancient 
 point-of-view.  We  could  expect  nothing  but  this  from  Hart- 
 man,  Yon  Bohlen,  and  other  wi'iters  of  that  stamp.  Butweai-e 
 surprised  to  find  assertions  in  such  a  writer  as  Schott  {Opun.  ii. 
 95),  which  almost  go  beyond  those  of  Bolingbroke  and  Tindal 
 in  grossness,  To  quote  only  one  specimen  ;  in  p.  116,  he  says, 
 "  Persuasissimum  mild  haheo  Hebraeos  antiquissimos,  ad  deum 
 humana  transferre  solitos,  de  causa  et  natura  venti  ita  jndi- 
 casse,  lU  halitum  esse  del  existimarent. 
 
 The  foundation  on  which  the  use  of  Anthropomorphisms  rests, 
 is,  as  Jacobi  has  rightly  acknowledged,  the  truth,  that  man  is 
 created  in  the  image  of  God.  Whoever  denies  this,  as  Boling- 
 broke does  in  the  remarkable  words  quoted  by  Leland,  "  that 
 we  resemble  God  no  more  in  our  souls  than  we  do  in  our  bodies; 
 and  that  to  say  his  intellect  is  hke  ours,  is  as  bad  as  the  An  thro - 
 pomorphites,"  (  View  ofDeistical  Writers,  letter  \'2.  ii. 438,  Lond. 
 1755)  ;  it  is  of  no  use  to  dispute  with  him.  But  whoever  ac- 
 knowledges it,  cannot  make  it  consist  merely  in  the  sjDirit  of  man, 
 but  must  recognise  in  the  human  body  a  worthy  substratum  for 
 the  representation  of  the  Deity.  That  tlie  human  body  is  not 
 framed  altogether  without  reference  to  the  image  of  God,  and  so 
 placed  on  a  level  with  that  of  the  brutes — has  been  acknowledged 
 bv  AuGUSTiN   {De  Gen.  ad  lib.  c.  xii.  in  Gerhard  iv.  271). 
 
808  THEOLOGV  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Quod  liomo  dicitnr  /actus  ad  die  imaginem  nan  secundum 
 corjnis,  sed  secundum  intellechim  mentis  accepienduni  est^  quan- 
 quam  et  in  ipso  corpore  haheat  quandani  proprietatem,  quae 
 hoc  indicet,  nimiruni  quod  erect  a  statura  fact  us  est,  tit  hoc 
 ipso  admoneatur,  non  sihi  terrena  esse  sectanda  velut  pecora, 
 quorum  voluptas  omnis  ex  terra  est,  unde  in  ahum  cuncta 
 pecore  prona  atque  prostrata  sunt.  While  this  writer  dwelt 
 too  much  on  particular  points,  the  schoolmen  advanced  to 
 a  more  general  conception.  They  said  (compare  Gerhard)  in 
 corpore  hominis  non  proprie  essse  imagineni  dei,  cum  deus  sit 
 incorporeus,  esse  tamen  in  eo  ut  in  signo,  vel  arguitive  et  signi- 
 Jicative.  The  human  body  is  the  image  of  the  image  of  God, 
 and  as  the  original  image  is  reflected  in  it,  so  it  is  suited  to  be 
 a  medium  of  representation  for  it. 
 
 Anthropomorphisms,  therefore,  are,  for  the  reasons  assigned, 
 not  merely  permitted,  they  are  absolutely  necessary.  Without 
 them,  nothing  positive  can  be  asserted  of  God.  God  himself  has 
 referred  us  to  them.  He  who  would  get  rid  of  them,  loses  God 
 entirely,  while  he  tries,  as  much  as  possible,  to  purify  and  refine 
 his  conceptions  of  him,  and  loses  all  reverence,  by  the  illusion 
 of  excessive  reverence.  His  position  towards  God  becomes,  of  all 
 others,  the  most  untrue  and  unworthy.  He  falls  from  Anthro- 
 pomorphism into  Nihilism.  The  nearest  becomes  to  him  the 
 farthest — reality  is  changed  for  him  into  shadow. 
 
 But  even  the  grosser  Anthropomorphisms  we  cannot  altogether 
 dispense  with,  as  perhaps  unfallen  man  might  have  been  able  to 
 do.  We  are  so  much  involved  in  the  visible,  that  we  must,  as  it 
 were,  prepare  a  body  for  God,  if  he  is  not  to  be  entirely  ex- 
 cluded by  the  visible,  and  vanish  from  us.  He  must  assume 
 flesh  and  blood,  if  we  are  to  have  his  aid  in  our  conflict  with 
 flesh  and  blood.  For  the  mere  "  naked  idea"  of  him,  will  leave 
 us  unprotected  when  we  most  need  it.  The  thought  of  God 
 may  be  deposited  in  the  intellect,  but  will  not  be  interfused  with 
 the  feelings,  inclinations,  and  passions. 
 
 The  best  justification  of  Anthropomorphisms,  the  best  proof 
 of  their  necessity,  lies  in  the  incarnation  of  God  in  Christ, 
 which  is  impugned,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  by  the  oppo- 
 nents of  Anthropomoi-phisms.  That  a  connection  between  both 
 must  exist,  appears   from   the  fact  that  almost  all  the  grosser 
 
ANTHKOPOMORI'HISMS  Ol-   THE  PENTATEUCH.  1300 
 
 Anthropomorphisms  of  the  New  Testament  (which  occur  much 
 seldomer  than  in  the  Old),  contain  an  express  reference  to  the 
 Old  Testament,  and  are  taken  from  it ;  the  Jitn/er  of  God,  in 
 Luke  xi.  20,  from  Exod  viii.  15;  the  hoso)n  of  God,  in  John 
 i.  1^^,  from  Pj'Ov.  viii.  SO  ;  a  fiiceet  smelling  savour  to  God,  in 
 Epl).  V.  2,  from  Lev.  i.  9,  kc.  When  the  necessity  which  Anthro- 
 pomorphisms partially  and  provisionally  relieved,  had  been  fully 
 and  definitively  satisfied  by  the  incarnation  of  God  in  Christ,  tlie 
 other  necessity,  which  always  accompanies  it,  the  highest  pos- 
 sible spiritualization  of  God,  who  is  a  Spirit,  now  became  pro- 
 minent. But  where,  on  the  contrary,  before  Christ's  appear- 
 ance, as  among-  the  Hellenistic  Jew^s  and  the  Samaritans,  and 
 without  Christ,  as  in  Deism,  we  find  an  effort  to  set  aside,  or  to 
 avoid  Anthropomorphisms,  a  want  of  vitality  in  religion  is  always 
 connected  w^ith  it,  and  appears  as  its  source. 
 
 Before  Christ  there  was  a  twofold  indissolubly  connected  cri- 
 terion of  the  true  religion,  (i.)  It  possessed  the  greatest  ful- 
 ness of  Anthropomorphisms;  and  (ii.)  the  most  decided  correc- 
 tive of  them  in  the  doctrine  of  God's  true  Divinity ;  by  which 
 Anthropomorphisms  were  kept  in  a  perpetual  flux,  and  preserved 
 their  quality  as  mere  media  of  representation.  Wherever  one 
 of  these  two  requisites  is  wanting,  religion  is  attacked  in  its 
 vitals.  Let  the  first  be  absent,  and  God  becomes  distant,  life- 
 less, heartless  ;  let  the  second  be  absent,  then  the  living  and  the 
 near  one  becomes  an  idol,  and,  therefore,  cannot  be  truly  living 
 and  near — a  mere  shadowy  image  of  the  true  God,  and  a  poten- 
 tized  man. 
 
 The  Israelitish  religion  satisfied  the  second  requisite,  as  com- 
 pletely as  the  first.  The  humanity  of  God  had  its  corrective  in 
 the  doctrine  of  his  true  Divinity,  by  which  it  was  infinitely 
 exalted  above  all  heathenism.  Their  God  was  called  and  was 
 Jehovah,  and  before  the  beams  of  this  sun  all  the  mists  of  false 
 Anthropomorphism  were  dispersed,  and  were  unable  to  withstand 
 its  effulgence. 
 
 There  are  two  classes  of  Anthropomorphisms — first,  those  in 
 which  the  human  forms,  limbs,  corporeal  qualities,  and  actions 
 are  transferred  to  God — anthropomorphisms  in  a  narrower  sense  ; 
 then  those  in  which  Iniman  nlfoctions  iue  nttribuled  to  God, 
 or  anthropopathisms. 
 
 VOL.    TI.  A  H 
 
<iTO  'niEOLOGV  OF  THE  PENTATErCII. 
 
 Those  of  the  fii'st  cluss  have  their  special  corrective  in  the 
 doctrine  of  the  spirituality  of  God.  This  meets  us  in  lines 
 most  distinctly  traced,  at  tlie  very  threshold  of  the  Israelitish 
 religion,  in  those  fundamental  laws  which  it  is  impossible  to 
 dispute.  In  Exod.  X7c.  4,  it  is  branded  as  a  crime  to  form  a 
 material  image  of  God ;  the  '*  sursum  corda,''  the  "  Schuitu/ 
 dich  iiber  die  Kali/r,"  there  resounds  aloud.  If  God  had  the 
 human  form,  it  must  also  be  allowable  to  worship  him  under  the 
 form  of  the  human  figure.  That  this  vv^as  forbidden,  that  it  was 
 marked  as  a  heinous  crime,  shows  that  all  Anthropomorphisms 
 can  only  be  vanishing  images.  No  image  of  God  was  to  be 
 made,  because  he  is  invisible,  incorporeal— because  he  is 
 Spirit.  This  only  conceivable  ralio  lef/is,  is  distinctly  brought 
 forward  in  Deut.  iv.  15,  There  the  prohibition  against  making 
 any  image  of  God,  begins  with  the  human  figure,  and  descends 
 to  that  of  the  inferior  creatures — "  For  ye  satv  no  manner  of 
 similitude  on  the  daij  that  the  Lord  ,sj)aJce  vnto  you  in  Horehy 
 out  of  the  midst  of  tJie  Jire."  Compare  ver.  12- — "  Ye  heard  the 
 voice  of  the  words,  hut  saw  no  similitude."  No  form  was  to  be 
 made,  because  God  had  no  form ;  in  order  to  shew  that  he  has 
 no  form,  he  took  no  form  at  this  original  revelation. 
 
 The  Theophanies  of  the  Old  Testament  have  been  frequently 
 noticed,  as  being  in  contradiction  to  the  spirituality  of  God,  and 
 De  Wette,  to  whom  such  a  contradiction  is  not  conceivable, 
 and  W'ho  yet  would  not  remove  it,  or  knew  not  how  to  do  it,  has 
 allowed  himself  in  the  erroneous  assertion  {Bihl.  Dogm.  §  101), 
 that  the  Theophanies  were  only  to  be  regarded  as  a  conscious  fiction, 
 which  merely  symbolised  the  sentiment  of  the  Deity  revealing 
 himself  in  the  w^orld.  But,  between  the  Theophanies  considered 
 as  real,  and  the  spirituality  of  God,  there  is  no  more  contra- 
 diction than  between  HNETMA  'O  GEO^  and  'O  AOFO^ 
 XAPa  'ETENETO.  As  God  in  Christ  assumed  the  human 
 nature  permanently,  so  he  appears  in  the  Theophanies  under  a 
 liglit  vesture  of  corporeity,  in  a  transiently  assumed  human  form. 
 TheTheophaniesrestonthe  same  basis  as  the  Anthropomorphisms, 
 to  which  they  invite,  and  which  they  legitimate.  They  are  the 
 preludes  and  surrogates  of  the  incarnation.  The  more  distinctly 
 in  the  Old  Testament  the  doctrine  of  the  spirituality  of  God  is 
 formed,  with   so   mucli   less   danger  would  that  craving  of  tlie 
 
THEOPHANIES  OF  TIIP]  PENTATEUCH.  371 
 
 heart  be  met,  for  which  the  Theojohunies  were  designed.  With 
 God's  intinity,  glory,  and  majesty,  the  depth  of  his  condesccu- 
 sion  went  hand  in  hand.  Where  the  latter  is  not  known,  there 
 the  acknowledgment  of  the  fonner  will  he  a  mere  semblance. 
 Becauae  Grod  is  a  Spirit,  he  would  not  despise  our  poor  flesh  and 
 blood ;  he  must  veil  himself  therein,  in  order  that  our  weak  eyes 
 may  recognise  him  under  this  veil.  Only  to  the  most  superficial 
 consideration  can  it  appear,  as  if  in  no  nation  the  Theophanies 
 ought  to  have  been  so  rare  as  among  the  Israelites,  and  likewise 
 the  Anthropomorphisms.  Deeper  consideration  will  prove  exactly 
 the  opposite.  John  says,  i.  18,  Qeov  ovSeU  ecopaKe  TrcoTrors'  6 
 fjbovo^evY]^  vlo^,  6  S)V  669  rov  koXttov  tov  Trarpb^,  eKelvo^;  i^rjyrj- 
 aaro;  and  Paul,  in  1  Tim.  vi.  IG,  describes  God  as  (f>(o<;  oIkcov 
 aiTp6(jLTov,  ov  elhev  ovSeh  avOponrcov,  ovBe  IBelv  hvvaraL*  And 
 yet  these  tw^o  apostles,  as  no  one  now  will  deny,  were  acquainted 
 with  the  Theophanies  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  believed  them ; 
 but  they  never  suspected  a  contradiction.  That  the  corporeity  in 
 which  God  appears  in  the  Theophanies  of  the  Pentateuch  w^as 
 only  assumed,  is  supported,  especially  by  those  passages  in  which, 
 with  an  evident  design,  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is  substituted  for 
 the  Lord;  compare  Lev.  ix.  4,  "  for  to-day  the  Lord  \n\\1  appear 
 unto  you ;  "  ver.  6,  "  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord,  shall  appear 
 unto  you  ;  "  ver.  23,  "  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  appeared  unto 
 all  the  people ;  "  Exod.  xvii.  7,  xxix.  43,  xl.  34,  36  ;  Num.  xiv. 
 22,  passages  on  the  basis  of  which  the  Chaldee  paraphrasts  rightly 
 speak  of  the  Shechinah  of  Jehovah,  where  in  the  Hebrew  text 
 merely  Jehovah  stands ;  compare  Danz  in  Meuschen,  N.  T.  ex 
 Talm.  ill.,  p  703.  Then  Exod.  xxxiii.  17  is  to  be  considered, 
 where  Moses,  when  he  prays  the  Lord  as  if  for  something  not 
 yet  granted  to  him,  that  he  would  show  him  his  glory,  thereby 
 distinctly  implied  that  the  earlier  forms  of  the  Lord's  appearance 
 were  only  forms,  and  that  of  a  subordinate  kind.  "  Deiim  viilt,'' 
 says  Calvin,  "  sibi  proprius  et  evident  lore  forma,  quam  ante 
 manifestari.  If  the  corporeity  had  been  fixed,  and  not  merely 
 assumed,  there  could  have  been  only  one  kind  of  Divine  appear- 
 ance. Lastly,  it  is  also  to  be  observed,  that  God,  in  the  Theo- 
 phanies of  the  Pentateuch,  made  himself  known  in  the  most 
 different  forms;  in  the  human  form,  as  in  Gen.  xviii.  :  in  the 
 fire  of  the  burning  bush  ;   in  th<'  pillar  of  cloud.     Tliese  forms 
 
 A  a    5^ 
 
37*2  THEOLOGY  OF  THi:  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 of  manifestation  annihilate  one  another,  as  soon  as  they  would  be 
 something  else  than  mere  foims  of  manifestation.  Only  where  a 
 clear  perception  existed  of  their  accidental  quality  could  they  co- 
 exist. Something  very  similar  occurs,  in  reference  to  Anthropo- 
 morphisms. They  not  unfrequently  contradict  one  another,  and 
 thereby  make  known  their  figurative  character. 
 
 The  special  corrective  for  the  Anthropomorphisms  of  the  second 
 class,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  holiness  of  God.  A  religion  over 
 whose  portal  is  inscribed  in  letters  of  flame,  "  I  am  holy,"  can 
 without  risk  represent  God  as  angry,  jealous,  mourning,  repent- 
 ing. Scrupulosity  under  such  circumstances  is  the  sign  of  an 
 evil  conscience. 
 
 After  these  general  remarks,  we  wish  to  occupy  ourselves  with 
 some  Anthropomorphisms  of  holy  writ  that  have  been  particularly 
 assailed. 
 
 THE  REPENTANCE  OF  GOD. 
 
 Great  offence  has  been  taken,  because  in  Gen.  vi.  6,  7,  it  is 
 said,  "  It  repented  the  Lord  that  he  made  man  on  the  earth!' 
 
 But  let  it  be  kept  in  view,  that  the  name  of  Jehovah  alone, 
 God  as  the  pure  Being,  thus  denoting  his  absolute  unchange- 
 ableness,  forms  an  impenetrable  shield  against  all  such  attacks. 
 Let  it  be  observed  that  in  the  Pentateuch  itself,  Num.  xxiii.  19 
 ("  God  is  not  a  man  that  he  should  lie,  nor  the  son  of  man  that 
 he  should  repent,")  repentance  is  represented  as  altogether  fo- 
 reign to  God.  And  if  it  be  thought  that  between  two  passages  so 
 far  apart,  a  contradiction  might  reasonably  exist,  let  it  not  be 
 forgotten  that  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  one  and  the 
 same  chapter,  it  is  said — God  had  repented — and  God  never  re- 
 pents— a  certain  proof  that  where  repentance  is  attributed  to  God, 
 degrading  conceptions  of  God  ought  not  to  mingle  with  the  as- 
 sertion. It  is  said  in  1  Sam.  xv.  11,  ''It  repenteth  m,e  that  I 
 have  made  Saul  to  be  a  king,  for  he  is  turned  hack  from  fol- 
 lowing me."  Od  the  other  hand,  in  ver.  29,  we  read,  "  The 
 strength  of  Israel  iinll  not  lie  nor  repent ;  for  he  is  not  a  man 
 that  he  should  repent ;  compare  Hosea  xiii.  14,  where  God  says, 
 ''Repentance  is  hid  from  mine  eyes." 
 
THE  JEALOUSY  OF  GOI».  :M:.\ 
 
 When  in  Gen.  vi.  it  is  said,  "  God  rej)ented  that  he  made  man," 
 it  is  apart  from  the  consideration  that  God  is  glorified,  ahhough 
 not  in  men,  yet  by  means  of  men.     Merely  with  regard  to  the 
 destiny  of  man,  God  is  to  he  glorified  voluntarily.     If  this  were 
 the  sole,  as  it  is  the  original,  destiny,  then  must  God  repent  that 
 he  created  degenerate  man.     What  God  would  do,  if  merely  this 
 one   consideration   were    taken   into    account,  is  here  described 
 as  his  own  act,  in  order  to  impress  men's  minds  deeply  how  far 
 they  have  fallen  short  of  their  original  destiny,  how  great  their 
 corruption,  and  how  intense  God's  abhorrence  of  sin.     This  unre- 
 fined mode  of  expression  strikingly  shews  how  very  much  we  are 
 disposed  to  deceive  ourselves  in  reference  to  the  greatness  and 
 desert  of  our  sins.     Quia  aliter  percipi  nan  potest,  Calvin  re- 
 marks, quantum  sit  odium  peccati  in  deo  et  quanta  detestatio, 
 idea  se  spiritus  ad  captum  nostrum  fermat.     .     .     Nempe  ut 
 sciamus  deum  hominem,  ex   quo  tantopere  corruptus  est,   non 
 censere  inter  creaturas  suas  acsi  dieeret  ;    non  est  hoc  opus 
 meuju,  noti  est  homo  ille,  qui  ad  meam  imayinem  formatus  et 
 tarn  egregis  dotibus  a  me  ornatus  fuerat;  hunc  degenerem  et 
 adulter inum  pro  meo  jam  agnoscere  dedignor.     Haec  tam  pa- 
 terna  honitas  et  indulgentia  non  parum  retrahere  nos  debet  a 
 peccandi  libidine,  quod  deus,  ut  ejficacius  penetret  in   corda 
 nostra,  affectus  nosiris  induit.     These  last  words  show  how  very 
 much  Calvin  had  gained  the  right  point-of-view  in  reference  to 
 Anthropomorphisms.     In  his  esteem  they  formed  a  glorious  orna- 
 ment of  holy  writ.     How  totally  different  the  apologists  since  the 
 times  of  Deism  !     One  remarks,  on  all  occasions,  how  gladly  they 
 would  dispense  with  Anthropomorphisms.     They  try  to  be  satis- 
 fied only  with  that  wliich  they  cannot  alter. 
 
 THE  jealousy  OF  GOD. 
 
 Among  the  standing  charges  which  are  brought  against  the 
 theology  of  the  Pentateuch,  this  is  one,  that  it  speaks  of  God  as 
 a  jealous  God.  Thus  Spinoza,  Tract,  theol.  pol.  c.  15,  ed. 
 Paulus  i.  352.  Forte  addet,  nihil  in  scriptura  repervii,  quod 
 rationi  repugnet.  Verum  ego  insto,  ipsam  expresse  affirmare 
 et  docero,  deum  esse  zelotypum,  nempe  in  ipso  decalogo  et  Deut. 
 
37J:  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 iv.  25,  et  pliirihus  aliis  locis  {Opera,  ed.  Bruder.  iii.  200) 
 Lips.   1846. 
 
 Here  ^Ye  must  first  of  all  remark  that  s:p  is  not  to  he  jealous, 
 but  zealous.  In  the  term  jealous  that  morbid  feeling  is  indi- 
 cated which  ardent  love  always  has  more  or  less,  when  it  occurs 
 among  men. 
 
 But  only  that  person  can  regard  zeal  as  unworthy  of  God,  who 
 malignantly  parodies  in  his  heart  the  sentiment,  "  Enjoy  what 
 God  assigns  thee,  cheerfully  dispense  with  what  thou  hast  not." 
 "  Enjoy  w^hat  I  assign  thee,"  &c.,  whose  heart  is  full  of  adulte- 
 rous desires.  The  accusation  against  holy  writ  changes  into  an 
 accusation  against  him  who  raises  it,  and  against  the  age  in  which 
 it  finds  acceptance. 
 
 To  deny  zeal  to  God  is  the  rudest  Anthropomoi'phism.  If  God 
 is  truly  God,  he  must  lay  claim  to  our  undivided  love,  and  must 
 be  indignant  at  every  attempt  to  withdraw  that  love  from  him 
 wholly  or  partially.  A  God  who  w^ould  allow  himself  to  be  bribed, 
 to  be  put  off  with  fair  speeches,  is  an  idol.  If  in  God  there  was  no 
 zeal,  we  could  not  venture  to  confide  in  his  love  to  us.  What  he 
 desires,  and  w^iat  he  gives,  stand  in  the  most  intimate  connection 
 with  one  another. 
 
 Let  it  not  be  asserted  that  the  aversion  to  God's  jealousy  is 
 justified  by  the  New  Testament.  The  expression  w^hich  in  Deut. 
 v.  24  ("  For  the  Lord  thy  God  is  a  consuming  jire,  even  a  jea- 
 lous God")  is  placed  as  parallel  with  ^'^_  ^.,  is  found  also  in  the 
 New  Testament,  6  ^eo?  t;/xwi/  irvp  KaravaXlaKov.   Heb.  xii.  29. 
 
 The  older  theologians  have  very  ably  justified  ^^«/ as  worthy 
 of  God.  Calvin  says  {Instil,  ii.  S,  18),  Conjunctio,  qua  nos 
 sihidevincit,  duni  in  ecclesiae  sin  urn  recipit,  sacri  cujusdani  con- 
 jugii  in  star  hahct,  quod  mutuajide  stare  oportet.  Ipse  ut  om- 
 nibus Jidelis  ac  veracis  mariti  officiis  defungitur,  ita  vicissim 
 a  nobis  stijrulatur  amorem  et  castitatem  conjugalem ;  h.  e,  ne 
 aninias  nostris  Satanae,  libidini ,foedisque  carnis  cujnditatibus 
 stuprandus  prostituamus.  .  .  .  Ergo  ut  niaritus,  quo 
 sanctior  est  ac  castior,  eo  gravius  accenditur,  si  tixoris  aid- 
 mum  ad  rivalem  inclinare  videt ;  ita  Dominus,  qui  nos  sibi  in 
 veritati  desponsavit,  ardentissimam  zelotypiam  esse  testatur, 
 quoties,  neglecta  sancti  sui  coyijugii puritate,  scelestis  libidini- 
 bus  conspurcamur. 
 
THE  WKATH  OF  GOD. 
 
 And  Gerhard  remarks,  U.  th.  v.  297 — Zehtypia  c^t  njj'cctufi 
 per  se  honest  us  et  laudahilis,  quo  mar  it  us  oh  violatam  co)iju<in 
 Jidem  iixori  adult  era  e  irascitur.  Tantum  ahest,  ut  deum  hie 
 zclus  dedeceat,  ut  a  fahis  (je)dillum  diis  euni  potius  discernat. 
 Gentium  dii  cultoribus  suin  sine  ulla  indignatione  peoniittunt, 
 ut  quosvis  alios  una  cum  ipsis  colant,  perindc  ut  lenones  uxores 
 suas  alioruni  libidini  pro-stituunt. 
 
 THE  WRATH  OF  GOD. 
 
 There  is  scarcely  any  objection  against  tlie  Old  Testament,  and 
 especially  against  the  Pentateuch,  more  current  than  this,  that  it 
 represents  God  as  a  wrathful  being,  while  the  God  of  the  New 
 Testament  is  the  loving  father  of  mankind. 
 
 This  charge,  if  traced  to  its  source,  will  be  found  to  arise  from 
 the  misapprehension  so  deeply  rooted  in  our  age,  of  the  heinous- 
 ness  of  sin.  When  man  himself  is  not  displeased  with  sin,  when 
 it  assumes  to  him  the  appearance  of  a  "  bagatelle"  {^'' peccatilio''), 
 he  no  longer  perceives  any  reason  for  regarding  it  as  an  essential 
 interruption  of  the  relation  of  God  to  man. 
 
 But  let  men  at  last  give  over  asserting  that  the  wrath  of  God 
 is  peculiar  to  the  Old  Testament  and  foreign  to  the  New,  and 
 make  up  their  minds  to  direct  the  objection  against  the  whole  of 
 holy  writ.  Such  passages  as  Kom.  i.  18  •  ii.  8;  Col.  iii.  0  ; 
 Eph.  v.  0  (on  the  inadmissibiJity  of  explaining  op^r)  by  punisli- 
 ment,  see  Harless  on  the  passage),  1  Thes.  i.  10  ;  v.  U,  speak 
 plainly  on  the  subject.  The  judgment  of  the  world  is  an  effect  of 
 the  wrath  of  God  ;  and  the  highest  proof  of  God's  love,  namely, 
 the  death  of  Christ,  is  at  the  same  time  the  strongest  evidence  of 
 his  wrath,  which  must  by  no  means  be  confounded  with  hatred ; 
 on  this  point  see  Meyer  GlaubensL  p.  17i.  To  Christ,  who  is  the 
 image  of  God,  wrath  on  account  of  the  insensibility  of  the  human 
 heart,  is  attributed  in  Mark  iii.  5  (compare  Tholuck,  Ausleyung 
 der  Beryprediyt,  170)  ;  and  what  are  the  heavy  woes  on  the 
 Pharisees  in  Matt,  xxiii.  but  an  overflowing  of  his  wrath  ? 
 
 Men  say  a  great  deal  about  the  wrathful  God  of  the  Jews,  as  if 
 the  God  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  especially  of  the  PentateucJi, 
 appeared  merely  as  wrathful.    But  nov.here  in  the  Old  T^--;;r".  -:: 
 
«n6  THKO].0(iY  Ol'   THK   PENTATEUCH. 
 
 is  wratliful  attributed  to  God  as  a  constant  predicate.  In  Exod. 
 xxxiv.  G  (compare  Num.  xiv.  I'ti)  God  describes  his  essential 
 character  in  the  words,  "  Jehovah,  Jehovah  God,  merciful  and 
 (/radons,  loitg-suffering,  and  abundant  in,  r/oodness  and  truth.' 
 Everywhere,  in  Deuteronomy  especially,  there  is  a  manifest  en- 
 deavour, by  the  exhibition  of  the  love  of  God,  to  kindh^  love  to 
 him  in  return.  If  God  were  merely  wrathful,  the  command, 
 "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God,"  &c.,  could  not  be  so  often 
 repeated.  The  love  of  God  corresponds  with  the  love  to  God,  as 
 God's  wrath  with  the  fear  of  God.  We  have  the  practical 
 proof  of  God's  love  in  his  relation  to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob. 
 In  Abraham's  history,  almost  nothing  is  to  be  perceived  of  the 
 wTath  of  God.  If  it  appears  stronger  in  the  four  last  books  of  the 
 Pentateuch,  yet  Genesis  shows  that  it  has  its  foundation  only  in 
 the  character  of  the  depraved  race  who  were  to  be  prepared  to  be 
 objects  of  the  Divine  love  by  the  manifestations  of  wrath.  By 
 the  prophet  the  Lord  spake  to  Israel,  "  Yea  I  have  loved  thee 
 with  an  everlastincj  love ;  therefore  ivith  loving-kindness  have  I 
 drawn  thee,"  Jerem.  xxxi.  8  ;  and  the  Psalmist  says,  "  The  Lord 
 is  my  Sliepherd — /  will  love  thee,  0  Lord,  my  strength  ;"  Ps. 
 xxiii.  xviii.  Such  fruits  do  not  flourish  in  the  soil  of  a  wrathful 
 God. 
 
 Instead  of  being  shocked  at  the  thought  that  God  is  wTathful, 
 we  should  rather  ask  icith  whom  ^w^for  what  1  A  God  without 
 wrath,  and  a  God  who  is  wrathful  on  other  accounts  than  for  sin, 
 is  not  a  God,  but  an  idol.  The  wrath  of  God  is  the  necessary 
 product  of  the  collision  of  his  holiness  with  sin.  Very  far  from 
 constituting  an  objection  against  the  Scriptures,  it  rather  belongs 
 to  the  evidences  of  their  Divine  origin. 
 
 It  is  self-evident  that  in  the  passages  of  the  Pentateuch  in  which 
 the  Divine  wrath  is  conspicuous,  the  dogmatical  contents  must  be 
 distinguished  from  the  representation  and  drapery.  The  latter 
 are  calculated  to  strike  and  move  the  insensible  human  heart  to 
 produce  a  lively  impression  of  God's  abhorrence  of  sin.  Human 
 wrath,  in  its  passionate  expressions,  must  here  lend  the  colours. 
 This  kind  of  language  so  far  being  perverted  into  a  ground  of 
 complaint  against  the  Scriptures,  ought  rather  to  serve  for  our 
 liumiliation. 
 
THE  VENGEANCE  01-  UOD. 
 
 THE  VENGEANCE  OF  GOD. 
 
 We  are  prepared  to  find  that  the  passages  iu  the  Pentateuch 
 which  speak  of  the  vengeance  which  God  will  take  on  his  enemies 
 (Lev.  xxvi.  25,  Deut.  xxxii.  35,  41,  "  Andl  willhring  a  sword 
 upon  you,  that  shall  avenge  the  quarrel  of  my  covenant ;"  *'  To 
 me  helongeth  vengeance  and  recompense  ;"  "/  ivill  render  ven- 
 geance to  my  enemies ;"  ver.  43,  "  For  he  will  avenge  the  blood 
 of  his  servants,  and  will  render  vengeance  to  his  adversaries') 
 have  not  heen  forgotten  by  our  opponents.  Compare,  for  instance, 
 Von  Bohlen,  Einl.,  p.  105. 
 
 Our  opponents  err,  likewise,  in  asserting  that  God  is  described 
 in  the  Pentateuch  as  vindictive,  as  eager  for  vengeance.  The 
 exact  reverse  of  this  is  conveyed  in  the  predicate  °???  1"?,  slow  of 
 anger;  vindictiveness  is  hasty. 
 
 But  if  persons  will  consider  vengeance  as  unworthy  of  God,  the 
 reproach  of  crude  representations  of  God  falls  back  in  a  lament- 
 able manner  on  those  who  raise  it.  Take  away  vengeance  from 
 God,  and  lie  is  placed  on  a  level  with  man — he  is  lowered  to  a 
 finite  individual — goodness  and  the  mora]  order  of  the  world  are 
 separated  from  him. 
 
 The  question  whether  the  attributing  of  vengeance  to  God  in 
 the  Pentateuch  must  be  regarded  as  a  faulty  anthropopathism — 
 the  product  of  a  corrupt  disposition  which  sees  the  reflection  of  its 
 own  vindictiveness  in  God — or  whether  it  rests  on  most  exalted 
 and  purest  conceptions  of  God,  that  God  is  Jehovah,  may  be  an- 
 swered at  once,  when  it  is  settled  whether  in  the  law  vengeance 
 among  men  is  called  good  or  bad.  But  this  decision  is  not  diffi- 
 cult. A  glance  at  Lev.  xix.  18  is  sufficient,  "  Thou  shalt  not  be 
 vindictive  {rachs'uchtig),  nor  bear  any  grudge  against  the  child- 
 ren of  thy  people,  but  thou  shalt  love  tliy  neighbour  as  thyself." 
 
 It  is  attended  witli  the  most  destructive  consc(piences,  when 
 vengeance  is  taken  away  from  God.  The  dread  of  sin  then  van- 
 islies  ;  in  fact,  sin  is  no  longer  spoken  of  as  sin.  In  this  respect 
 the  vengeance  of  God  is  alluded  to  in  Heb.  x.  30,  31 — otha^ev 
 'yap  Tov  eiTTOVTa'  i/juol  iKSU7](Ti<;,  ijo)  avraTroScoaco,  Xiyet  Kvpio<}, 
 Kal  iraXiv'  Kvpto<i  Kpcvel  tov  Xaov  avrov.  ^ajBepov  to  ifiTreaelv 
 €19  %etpa?  Oeov  fwi^To?.     And  then,  whenever  God  is  no  longer 
 
378  THEOLOGV  OF  Tin:  IMOXIATKUCII. 
 
 acknowledged  as  au  aveuger,  viiidicLiveness  has  iiicreast'd.  The  best 
 safeguard  against  this,  is  faith  in  the  control  of  a  holy  rrovidence, 
 which  reacts  against  every  violation  without  its  being  necessary 
 for  the  individual  in  whose  person  justice  has  been  violated  to  stir 
 himself.  Every  one  must  exercise  this  faith  who  is  tempted  to 
 vindictiveness.  Other  much  lauded  arguments  against  this  spirit, 
 however  beautiful  they  may  appear,  will  not  maintain  their  ground. 
 Hope  of  a  change  of  disposition  in  the  person  who  commits  the 
 injury,  vanislies  at  once  with  the  first  vinchctive  emotions.  It 
 can  only  be  entertained  where  these  emotions  are  previously  stifled 
 by  looking  to  God  the  avenger. 
 
 As  a  preservative  against  vindictiveness,  the  Divine  vengeance 
 is  exhibited  in  several  passages  of  holy  writ ;  a  certain  proof  that 
 faith  in  the  Divine  vengeance  cannot  grow  in  the  same  soil  with 
 vindictiveness.  It  is  si'.id  in  Prov.  xx.  22,  *'  Saf/  not  thou,  I 
 tvill  recompmse  evil ;  uait  on  the  Lord  and  he  shall  save  thee ;" 
 in  Prov.  xxv.  21,  22,  "  If  thine  enemy  he  hiinf/r}/,give  him  bread 
 to  eat,  and  if  he  he  thirst  ij,  give  him  water  to  drink,  for  thou  shall 
 heaji  coals  ofjire  on  his  head,  and  the  Lord  shall  reward  thee ;" 
 Ps.  xxxviii.  14  (13),  '*  But  I,  as  a  deaf  man,  heard  not ;  and  I 
 ivas  as  a  dumb  man  that  openeth  not  his  mouth.  For  in  thee, 
 O  Lord,  do  I  hope ;  thou  wilt  hear,  O  Lord  my  God ;"  in  1  Pet. 
 ii.  23,  0?  XoihopoviJievo^  ovk  dvre  XoiBopec,  iTda')((ov  ovk  rjireiXei, 
 irapehlhov  he  tm  KpLvovn  hiKaioi^;.  On  this  passage  Calvin  re- 
 marks, Addit  auicm  hoc  I^ctrus  ad  peorum  consolationcm, 
 quod  si patientcr  ferant  impiorum  prohra  et  violentiam,  deum 
 hahituri  sint  vindicem.  Esset  enini  istud  valde  durum  suhjici 
 nos  improhorum  Uhidini  et  deo  curae  non  esse  )iostras  miserias. 
 Lastly,  Rom.  xii.  19,  20,  ^r)  eavrov^  iKhiKovvre^  d'^/awrirol,  oXkd 
 Sore  TOTTOV  rfj  opyfj'  'yeypairrai  yap'  ifioL  e/cS//C7;cr9,  iyco  avrairo- 
 S(t)(jco,  Xeyec  /cvpco<^,  iav  ovv  ireiva  6  i^6p6^  aov,  ■xlrcofCL^e  avrov, 
 idv  hcyjra,  Trori^e  avrov  rovro  jdp  ttolcov  av6paKa<;  irvpo^  acope- 
 vaei^  eirl  ri]v  K€(pa\7]v  avrov.  Here  it  is  said  that,  w^hoever 
 earnestly  wishes  to  be  avenged  on  his  enemy,  must  abstain  so 
 entirely  from  ail  self- revenge  upon  him,  that  he  must  not  witli- 
 hold  from  him  acts  of  kindness,  which  would  be  an  indirect  kind 
 of  vengeance.  Many  expositors  have  in  vain  tried  to  substitute 
 another  meaning  to  the  words  rovro  jdp  ttolmv — avrov.  That 
 the  expression,   "  Thou  shall  heap  coals  ofjire  on  his  head," 
 
THE  VENGEANCE  OF  (lOI).  .'H  !) 
 
 is  equivalent  to,  "TJiou  bliult  prepare  for  him  a  painful  })unisli- 
 meut,"  appears  from  comparing  it  with  the  original  passage  in  tlu^ 
 Proverhs,  where  the  pnrallehsm  so  plainly  requires  this  sense,  that 
 it  cannot  properly  be  misunderstood.  That  the  apostle  meant  to 
 contradict  that  passage  is  still  less  conceivable.  But  the  passage, 
 considered  by  itself,  leads  to  the  same  result.  For  the  relation  of 
 ver.  20  to  ver.  10,  necessarily  requires  us  to  refer  the  av6paKa<; 
 irvpo^  (Tcop6va-€L<i  to  the  Divine  punishment.  For  as  the  iav  ovv 
 — TTOTL^e  avTov  coi'responds  to  the  ft?)  6aurov<; — rf}  opyfj,  so  the 
 TOUTO  <yap — Kecpa\7]v  avrov  corresponds  to  the  jeypaTrrat  yap — 
 Kvpco^.  "  Avenge  thyself  not  on  thine  enemy,  for,  according  to  the 
 Scriptures,  God  hath  reserved  vengeance  for  himself;  for  if  thou 
 avengestnot  thyself,  thou  wilt  set  the  Divine  vengeance  in  motion." 
 Also  ver.  21,  /jlt}  vckcj  vtto  tov  KaKov,  dWa  vUa  ev  rw  dyaOiv  to 
 KaKov,  is  to  be  referred,  according  to  the.  connection,  not  to  the 
 doubtful  influence  which  a  generous  disposition  will  exact  on  the 
 evil  mind  of  an  adversary,  but  to  the  infalhble  effect  which  the  ex- 
 tinction of  all  vindictiveness  so  far  brings  Avith  it,  as  God,  who 
 has  in  no  degree  been  forestalled,  must  now  interpose. 
 
 It  has,  indeed,  been  thought  that  such  a  remedy  appHed  to  the 
 spirit  of  revenge  is  much  worse  than  the  disease  itself;  that  it 
 w^ould  rather  tend  to  aggravate  than  expel  it.  But  let  any  one  at- 
 tempt so  to  act,  and  he  will  find  that  he  will  no  longer  indulge 
 the  spirit  of  revenge.  The  vengeance  which  is  truly  and  not 
 merely  in  appearance  committed  to  God,  is  altogether  different 
 from  what  man  takes  himself.  Then  real  injustice  at  once  sepa- 
 rates itself  from  what  is  only  apparent,  the  injury  of  the  ])erson 
 from  the  injury  of  justice;  all  passionate  over-estimate  of  the  in- 
 justice committed  vanishes.  To  use  Calvin's  words,  man  speaks 
 with  quiet  calmness  to  God  :  Tu  domine  animum  mcum  iiusii, 
 ut  salvos  optem,  (jui  mc j)erdi(uni  lolnnt.  Si  couvcrsi Jueiint, 
 illis  f/ratalabor,  qiiodsi  obslinati  in  nialitia  pcrsiitcrint,  quia 
 scio  te  (wcuhare  pro  salute  ntca,  causa ni  tihi  mcani  rcliufjuo. 
 
 Lastly,  if  man  takes  av>ay  vengeance  from  God,  he  at  the  same 
 time  takes  it  from  God's  servant,  the  magistracy,  which  carries 
 the  sword  of  vengeance  over  evil-doers.  Funishnient  then  sinks 
 down  into  a  mere  instrument  of  correction  and  security,  a  view 
 the  injtu'ious  consequences  of  which  we  sufficiently  see  before  our 
 eves. 
 
880  THEOLOGY  OF  TFIE  PKNTATEUCH. 
 
 ON  THE  HARDENING  OF  PHARAOH  S  HEART. 
 
 It  has  been  objected  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  especially  to 
 the  Pentateuch,  that  the  religious  representations  are  so  gross, 
 that  God  is  made  the  author  of  sin.  In  proof  of  these  assertions 
 an  appeal  is  made  to  the  history  of  the  plagues  of  Egypt,  in  which 
 the  observation  is  seven  times  repeated,  that  Pharaoh's  heart  was 
 hardened.  Ex.  vii.  13,  22  ;  viii.  11,  15,  28,  (15,  19,  32)  ix.  7, 
 34,  and  as  many  times  it  is  remarked  that  God  had  hardened 
 Pharaoh's  heart  iv.  21;  vii.  3;  ix.  12;  x.  1,  20,  27;  xi.  10. 
 The  equality  of  the  numbers  is  not  accidental.  It  indicates  that 
 Pharaoh's  hardening  himself  coiTesponded  to  God's  hardening,  as 
 the  effect  to  the  cause.  It  is  also  not  accidental,  that  the  harden- 
 ing is  attributed  to  God  in  the  announcement,  and  in  the  sum- 
 ming up.  Pharaoh's  hardening  is  enclosed  by  God's,  and  is  thereby 
 marked  as  conditionated  by  it.  It  also  appears  to  proceed  fi'om 
 design,  that  the  hardening  at  the  beginning  of  the  plagues  is 
 attributed,  in  a  preponderating  degree,  to  Pharaoh,  and  towards 
 the  end  to  God.  The  higher  the  plagues  rise,  so  much  the  more 
 does  Pharaoh's  hardening  assume  a  supernatural  character,  so 
 much  the  more  obvious  is  it  to  refer  it  to  its  supernatural  caus- 
 ality. The  number  seven  indicates  that  the  hardening  rested  on 
 God's  covenant  with  Israel,  of  which  this  number  was  the  token, 
 and  that  it  belongs  not  less  to  Pharaoh's  hardening  than  to 
 God's  hardening  ;  it  leads  us  to  consider  the  former  not  as  inde- 
 pendent of  the  second,  but  as  its  product.  These  remarks,  wdiich 
 collectively  serve  to  strengthen  the  force  of  our  opponents'  attack, 
 may  show,  at  the  same  time,  how  little  we  have  cause  to  be  afraid 
 of  it. 
 
 The  older  Lutheran  theology  had  already  prepared  this  attack. 
 Carrying  its  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  predestination  too  far, 
 it  believed  that  the  co-operation  of  God  for  evil  must  be  hmited 
 to  permission  alone ;  and  it  forced  the  idea,  which  is  altogether 
 foreign  to  the  Scriptures,  on  all  those  passages  which  contained 
 something  more.  Thus,  for  example,  Pfeiffer's  decisio,  in  re- 
 ference to  the  hardening  of  Pharaoh's  heart,  is  thus  expressed 
 in  his  Duhia  vex.  p.  229 — Deus  dicitur  cor  Vharaonis  in- 
 durare,  permissive,  permittendo  scilicet  jusfo  judicio,  ut  ille, 
 qui  se  emolliri  nonpatiebafur,  sif>i  j)er/?iiss?/s  durus  maneret  in 
 
ON  THE  HARDENING  OF  PHAKAOH  S  HEART.  i\Hl 
 
 j)rojiria//t  jieniicieni.  The  rationalist  theology  suited  the  ration 
 ulism  of  the  orthodox  more  readily,  since  the  co-operation  of  God 
 for  good  had  already  not  extended  itself  beyond  permission.  But 
 when  the  Scriptures  appeared  no  longer  as  the  word  of  God,  it 
 ceased  to  attach  the  idea  of  permission  to  the  passage  in  question  ; 
 first  of  all  only  to  those  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  afterwards  to 
 those  in  the  New,  when  reverence  for  that  had  also  vanished  ;  and 
 now  an  argument  was  drawn  from  them  for  the  imperfection  of  the 
 biblical  theology.  But  in  the  most  recent  times,  more  favourable 
 views  have  been  taken .  Not  merely  Twe ste n  ( Dogm.  Th.'n.  131), 
 and  Olshausen  (Comin.  z.  d.  Br.  cm  die  Romer,  p.  323),  have 
 given  up  the  notion  of  bare  permission,  but  De  Wette  also  (Br. 
 a.  d.  K.  p.  109)  has  acknowledged  it  to  be  unsatisfactory.  The 
 idea  of  permission  is  as  Little  the  growth  of  Clnristian  experience 
 as  of  holy  writ.  It  belongs  merely  to  dogmatics,  and  is  for  that 
 very  reason  of  no  dogmatic  value.  It  is  one  of  those  unfortunate 
 fi'actions  of  thought  {unseligeui  Halbheiten),  which  must  be  com- 
 pleted by  something  added  to  the  top  or  bottom.  The  difficul- 
 ties, for  removing  which  it  was  invented,  it  really  does  not  remove. 
 It  only  substitutes,  so  to  speak,  sins  of  omission  for  those  of  com- 
 mission. Quis  enim,  Beza  justly  remarks  {Quaest.  et.  resp.  li- 
 ber., in  his  tract,  theol.  p.  679),  magis  in  culpa  est,  qi/am  qui 
 malum  imminens  loiigissime prospiciat  idque  solo  nutu  impedire 
 possit,  ei  tatnen  illud  non  modo  impediat,  verum  etiam  permit- 
 tat,  id  est  ejus  mali patrandi  facultatem  concedati  On  the 
 other  hand  it  involves  the  subject  in  a  whole  train  of  new  diffi- 
 culties and  hazardous  consequences.  First,  It  is  not  adequate  to 
 explain  the  facts  under  consideration.  How  little  does  mere 
 permission  suffice  in  the  case  of  Judas  !  Why  was  he  taken  by 
 our  Lord  among  the  number  of  his  apostles  ?  Why  was  the  bag 
 (John  xii.  6)  committed  to  his  care  ?  People  often  speak  of  an 
 insanity  of  crime.  On  the  ground  of  such  observations  there  has 
 been  a  strong  tendency  in  modem  times  to  deny  the  accountabi- 
 lity of  many  criminals.  And  it  cannot  be  denied  that,  looking 
 merely  at  individual  outbreaks  of  sin,  the  transgressor  often 
 appears  to  be  governed  by  a  power  foreign  to  himself,  of  which 
 he  is  the  sport,  from  which  he  would  fain  escape,  but  is  un- 
 able to  do  so,  in  spite  of  all  his  eflbrts.  It  is  his  destiny  ( Ver- 
 hangniss)  that  he  has  committed  this  or  that  sin.     Let  any  on© 
 
'i^'Z  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 only  read  some  volumes  of  Hitzig's  Criminalistichcr  Zeitschrift, 
 and  he  ^vill  be  convinced  of  it.     The  aphorism,  Iratus  ad  poenam 
 si  quos  traliit  Deus,  anferre  mentcm  lirius  illLs  sanain  solet — 
 has  been  confirmed  by  ample  experience.      An  age  that   only 
 knows  siuii,  but  misapprehends  sin   {das  mir  H'anden  kennt,  die 
 Silnde  verkouit),  must  necessiuily  make  mistakes  respecting  ac- 
 countability, and  it  is  altogether  in  vain  to  attempt  to  combat  it 
 on  its  own  ground.     On  its  own  point-of-view  it  is  quite  right. 
 It  can  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  the  apostle,  who,  in  Eomansi.  24, 
 26,  refers  sins,  especially  unnatural  ones,  to  a  Divine  destiny  (Sta 
 Tovro  TrapeScoKev  avTov<;  6  Oeo^  et?  TrdOrj  dn/uLia^.)      Seco?idlf/, 
 The  idea  of  permission  perverts  the  relation  of  ( xod  to  his  creatures, 
 and  consequently  destroys  the  idea  of  God.    It  changes  the  one  God 
 into  a  mere  Supreme  Being.  And  in  whose  favour  does  it  injure  mo- 
 notheism ?  The  wiched — whom  it  places  in  a  kind  of  independence 
 by  the  side  of  God,  and  exalts  them  to  a  species  of  demi-  gods.    Ae- 
 quumfuerit  scilicet,  Beza  remarks,  idcirco  eximi  isias  conditoris 
 dei  imperio ;  qiioniam  in  ipsunifHerint  continnaces.      Thirdlij, 
 Where  the  idea  of  permission  has  become  j)i'actical,  it  palsies 
 trust  in  God,  and  leaves  those  who  are  exposed  to  the  attacks  of 
 the  wicked,  a  prey  to  despondency.     This  can  only  be  conquered 
 when  that  independence  is  taken  away  from  the  wicked,  and  God 
 is  acknowledged  as  the  Being  who  lends  them  hands,  and  feet, 
 and  tongues.     Fotirthli/,  The  doctrine  of  permission  is  not  capa- 
 ble of  suppressing  the  natural  impulse  to  unallowable  self-depend- 
 ance  and  to  revenge.    Joseph's  brethren  feared  his  vengeance.    He 
 knew  that  he  could  give  them  no  more  certain  pledge  that  this 
 fear  was  groundless,  than  to  declare  that  he  considered  them  only 
 as  involuntary  instruments  in  God's  hand  ;  compare  Gen.  xlv.  8, 
 "  It  lias  not  you   that  sent  me  hither,   hut  God;"  1.  19,  20, 
 "  Fear  not ;  for  am  I  in  the  place  of  God)     As  for  you,  ye 
 thought  evil  ayainst  me ;   hut  God  meant  it  unto  good."     God 
 does  not  come,  as  it  were,  ex  post,  and  turns  evil  to  good,  but 
 from  the  first,  God's  thoughts  move  parallel  with  the  thoughts  of 
 his  brethren.     With  all  their  apparent  independence,  they  are  onlv 
 blind  instruments.     Who  would  raise  himself  against  the  axe 
 which  struck  him  ?     How  would  it  appear  if  David,  when  Shimei 
 had  in^ted  him,  liis  sovereign,  in  the  most  ofiensive  manner, 
 instead  of  saying,  as  he  does  in  2  Sam.  xvi.  10,  cVc.  "  Let  him 
 
ON  THE   HARDENING  OF  I'lIAllAOHS  HEART.  388 
 
 cui'tie,  because  the  Lord  liatli  said  unto  liiui,  Curse  David.  Who 
 shall  then  say,  Wherefore  hast  thou  done  so  ?  Let  him  alone,  and 
 let  him  curse,  for  the  Lord  hath  hidden  him" — if,  instead  of  this, 
 he  had  said,  "  The  Lord  \mi\\  jn'rmi (ted  him."  In  that  case,  it 
 would  he  no  easy  matter  to  show  the  logical  correctness  of  the 
 ^"^.for.  Let  only  a  minimum  of  independence  on  the  part  of  the 
 opponent  he  left,  and  the  struggle  against  vindictiveness  is  vain. 
 F  if  til  J  11,  The  doctrine  of  permission  is  little  suited  to  alarm  the 
 shnier.  On  the  faith  of  it,  he  flatters  himself  vdth  the  notion  of 
 a  certain  independence  If,  after  all,  he  is  obliged  to  give  in,  yet 
 he  has  contested  the  matter  with  God  ;  he  may  venture  to  boast 
 that,  for  a  while,  he  did  what  God  did  not  intend  him  to  do. 
 
 The  difficulties  which  the  doctrine  of  permission  have  raised, 
 not  less  than  those  on  the  ojiposite  side,  are  avoided  by  the  fol- 
 lowing view.  Sin  belongs  to  man  ;  he  can  at  any  moment  become 
 free  from  it  by  repentance.  But  if  this  does  not  take  place,  \hQ  forms 
 in  which  sin  makes  itself  known,  are  no  longer  in  his  power ;  they 
 stand  under  God's  dispensation,  and  God  therefore  determines  as 
 it  pleases  him,  or,  what  comes  to  the  same  thing,  as  it  suits  the 
 scheme  of  his  moral  government.  He  puts  the  sinner  in  situa- 
 tions in  which  exactly  this  or  that  temptation  will  meet  him  ;  he 
 leads  the  thoughts  to  distinct  objects  of  sinful  desire,  and  efifects 
 that  they  adhere  to  them,  and  do  not  fly  off  to  others.  Potiphar's 
 wife,  for  example,  had  the  unchaste  desire  from  herself;  that  she 
 cast  her  eyes  precisely  on  Joseph,  came  from  God.  She  was 
 obliged  to  do  this;  it  was  prepared  for  her.  Malice  belonged  to 
 Shimei's  heart.  But  it  was  God's  work  that  this  malice  should 
 vent  itself  pre-eminently  on  David,  and  that  it  operated  exactly 
 in  such  a  way.  By  his  own  fault  David  indulged  in  pride  ;  the 
 mode  of  manifesting  this  disposition  was,  as  far  as  it  regarded  him, 
 accidental ;  it  belonged  to  God,  who  "  tunis  the  hearts  of  kinr/s 
 as  the  water-hrooks."  "  And  the  anf/er  of  the  Lord,"  it  is  said 
 in  2  Sam.  xxiv.  1,  "  was  kindled  ar/ainst  Israel,  and  he  moved 
 David  against  them  to  say.  Go  number  Israel  and  Judah'^ 
 But  David  was  not,  on  this  account,  the  less  culpable.  "  And 
 David  said  to  the  Lord  (v.  10),  /  have  sinned  (ireathi  in  that  I 
 have  done ;  and  note  I  beseech  thee,  O  Lord,  take  aicaij  the  ini- 
 fjiiitij  of  thy  servant,  for  I  have  done  very  foolishly." 
 
 By  this  view,  the  rights  of  God  are  preserved,  and,  at  the  some 
 
'384  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 time,  the  accouutability  of  man  maintained.  For  what  is  properly 
 sinful  in  sins  is  sin,  and,  according  to  this  view,  its  anthor  is  not 
 God,  but  man,  who,  at  any  moment,  is  free  to  come  forth  from 
 the  state  of  bondage  in  which  he  finds  himself.  If  he  will  not  do 
 this,  it  is  his  merited  punishment  that  God  makes  use  of  him  as 
 an  instrument  for  his  designs. 
 
 If,  after  these  general  investigations,  we  turn  our  special  atten- 
 tion to  the  Pentateuch,  we  cannot  imagine  that  God,  when  the 
 hardening  of  Pharaoh's  heart  is  attributed  to  him,  became  the  au- 
 thor of  his  sin.  This  would  be  contrary  to  the  whole  spirit  of 
 this  book,  which  is  so  thoroughly  moral,  and,  for  that  reason,  is 
 diametrically  opposed  to  all  Pantheists.  The  manner  in  which 
 it  represents  how  sin  first  came  into  the  world,  shows  how  very 
 far  the  author  was  from  placing  its  origin  in  God.  Its  whole 
 legislation  rests  on  the  presupposition  of  accountabihty.  Its  de- 
 cided "  Thou  shalt" — the  awarding  justice  of  God  which  it  pro- 
 claims— the  blessing  and  the  curse  which  it  every  where  announces 
 — all  this  is  unintelligible  on  any  other  supposition.  Especiallv 
 in  reference  to  Pharaoh,  how  could  Moses  always  treat  him  as 
 laden  with  guilt,  if  his  sin  belonged  not  to  himself,  but  to  God  ? 
 How  else  could  the  heavy  woe  which  came  upon  him  be  always 
 regarded  as  merited  punishment  ?  "  Certe,"  Gerhard  justly  re- 
 marks, "  deus  illiiis  rei  non  est  aiictor,  cujus  est  tdtor."  In  all 
 systems  which  refer  sin  to  God,  punishment  is  out  of  the  question. 
 
 Pharaoh  might  have  been  an  equally  bad  man,  and  yet  have 
 let  the  IsraeHtes  go.  That  he  did  not  do  this — that  he  re- 
 fused to  listen  to  the  voice  of  prudence,  and  regarded  neither  his 
 own  priests,  who,  after  the  third  plague,  declared,  "  This  is  the 
 Jinger  of  God"  nor  his  courtiers,  who,  without  being  better  than 
 himself,  said  to  him  (Exod.  x.  7),  ''How  long  shall  this  man  he 
 a  snare  unto  us  ;^  let  the  men  go  that  they  may  serve  the  Lord 
 their  God  :  knowest  thou  not  yet  that  Egypt  is  destroyed  V — 
 that  he  could  not  be  free  fi'om  this  for tn  of  the  manifestation  of 
 sin,  although  he  saw^  before  his  eyes  that  it  would  lead  to  his  de- 
 struction— was  the  work  of  God. 
 
 The  reasons  for  which  this  side  of  the  transactions  is  ]oresented 
 in  so  strong  a  hght,  may  be  easily  gathered  from  the  naiTative  itself. 
 It  must  obviate  the  offence  which  might  have  been  justly  taken  if 
 Pharaoh,   though  at  last  conquered,  had  been  able  so  long  to 
 
THE  MUTABILITY  OF  GOD — NUM.  XXIT.  Hf^O 
 
 withstand  the  will  of  the  Almighty.  A  counteraction  was  required 
 against  the  despondency  of  Israel  and  the  pride  of  Pharoah.  From 
 this  point-of-view,  Pharoah's  opposition,  not  less  than  his  destruc- 
 tion, served  to  gloiify  God.  He  nif/si  harden  his  heart,  in  order 
 that  God  might  display  his  almightiness,  justice,  and  grace,  in 
 the  whole  succession  of  events.  Ch.  vii.  4,  5;  ix.  15,  16.  From 
 this  position  we  also  gain  an  elevated  view  of  the  history  of  the 
 world.  We  see  God  everywhere  ;  and  t/ie?'e,  most  of  all,  where, 
 to  natural  reason,  he  is  least  visible,  in  the  fury  of  a  God-for- 
 getting tyrant — in  a  case  of  the  most  decided  moral  hardening. 
 
 THE  MUTABILITY  OF  GOD NUM.  XXII. 
 
 "  God  the  unchangeable,"  Hartmann  remarks  (p.  499),  "  to- 
 day forbids  Balaam  to  go  with  the  messengers,  ver.  12  ;  and  the 
 next  day,  as  if  he  had  altered  his  mind,  he  commands  him  to  un- 
 dertake the  journey  in  their  company,  ver.  20.  And  when  he  was 
 now  upon  the  road,  according  to  ver.  22,  the  anger  of  Jehovah 
 was  kindled  against  him.  When  now  Balaam,  confounded  by 
 this  inexplicable  appearance,  is  disposed  to  return  ("  now,  tliere- 
 fore,  if  it  displease  thee,  1  tvill  get  me  hack  ac/ain")  he  all  at 
 once  receives  the  order,  '  Go  with  the  men,'  ver.  35." 
 
 We  may  feel  assured  that  this  statement  is  founded  on  a  mis- 
 understanding. The  name  Jehovah  is  a  pledge  that  it  could 
 never  enter  the  thoughts  of  any  Israelite  to  attribute  such  childish 
 fickleness  to  God.     And,  moreover,  Balaam  himself  says, 
 
 God  is  not  a  man,  tliat  he  slioulcl  lie; 
 
 Neither  the  son  of  man,  that  he  should  repent ; 
 
 Hath  he  said  it,  and  shall  he  not  do  it  ? 
 
 Or  hath  he  spoken,  and  shall  he  not  make  it  good  ? 
 
 Num.  xxiii.  15, 
 
 Pie,  and  the  author  who  introduces  him  speaking  thus,  had  there- 
 fore the  clearest  knowledge  of  the  unchaugeableness  of  God. 
 
 In  ver.  6-17,  the  mention  of  the  journey  is  always  in  close 
 connection  w4tli  the  cursing.  Ver.  6,  "  Coine  now,  thereforcy 
 curse  me  this  people ;"  ver.  11,''  Come  now,  curse  me  them  ;"  ver. 
 12,  "  And  God  said  unto  Bahuim,  Thou  shall  not  go  with  them  ; 
 thou  shall  not  curse  the  people''  To  go  is  here  so  absolutely  tanta- 
 VOL.  II.  B  b 
 
880  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 mount  to  curse,  that  the  cojnda'm  omitted ;  ver.  14,  16,  17.  How 
 could  this  he  otherwise  ?  Neither  Balak  nor  Balaam  would  have 
 gained  anything  hy  the  mere  going  of  the  latter.  Neither  Balak's 
 striving  for  the  destruction  of  the  Israehtes,  nor  Balaam's  avarice 
 and  ambition,  would  have  found  their  account  in  that. 
 
 In  ver.  20  this  connection  is  removed  hy  a  limiting  clause — 
 '*  And  God  came  unto  Balaam  at  night,  and  said  unto  him,  If 
 the  men  come  to  call  thee,  rise  up  and  go  with  them ;  hut  yet  the 
 word  that  I  shall  say  unto  thee,  that  shall  thou  do!'  The  for- 
 mer injunction  had  been  given  against  the  going  in  concreto,  with 
 a  specific  design,  but  here  only  the  going  in  ahstracto  is  permitted; 
 so  that  nothing  is  here  permitted  to  Balaam  which  was  before  for- 
 bidden him.  On  the  contrary,  the  former  prohibition  is  expressly 
 repeated  in  the  clause  that  is  appended  to  the  permission. 
 
 The  words,  "Rise  up  and  go  with  them^'  can  be  considered 
 only  as  permissive  on  account  of  the  clause,  "  hut  yet  the  word 
 that  I  shall  say  unto  thee"  which  is  also  evident  from  the  words, 
 *^  if  the  men  come  to  call  thee!'  If  thou  thinkest  that  thou 
 canst  not  absolutely  refuse  the  invitation,  why,  so  let  it  be  !  thou 
 mavst  2^0. 
 
 As  we  have  already  remarked,  the  prohibition  against  the  going 
 in  concreto  was  directed  at  the  same  time  against  the  going  alto- 
 gether, since,  apart  from  what  was  forbidden,  it  would  have  no 
 rational  object.  That  the  two  are  here  separated  from  one  an- 
 other— that  the  one  is  forbidden  and  the  other  permitted — takes 
 place  only  in  reference  to  Balaam's  sinful  inclination.  It  was  from 
 the  beginning  agreeable  to  God's  will  that  Balaam  should  go. 
 God  meant  to  employ  him  as  an  instrument  for /{/s  purpose.  But 
 this  could  not  happen,  till  Balaam's  inchnation  had  j)rompted  him 
 to  make  God  an  instrument  for  his  own  purpose.  At  first,  there- 
 fore, his  welfare  is  consulted,  by  simply  forbidding  the  going 
 which  would  lead  him  to  destruction  ;  aftervv^ai^ds,  as  a  punishment 
 for  his  sinful  inclination,  the  going  is  permitted. 
 
 There  is  no  necessity,  with  De  Geer  {de  Bileamo,  Utrecht, 
 1816,  p.  39)  and  others,  to  torture  the  twenty-second  verse  by 
 forced  interpretations.  The  meaning  of  the  clause,  "And  God's 
 anger  ivas  kindled  hecause  he  ivent!'  is  evident  fi'om  the  preced- 
 ing remarks.  It  was  unnecessary  to  add,  "  in  order  to  curse  Is- 
 rael," or  something  of  the  kind,  as  the  Arabic  translation  correctly 
 
THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  ISRAELITES  TO  PALESTINE.  387 
 
 translates,  according  to  the  matter  of  fact,  ideo  quod  lucri  cupidi- 
 tate  ductus  ahierat.  For  if  Balaam  had  not  had  an  evil  design, 
 running  counter  to  God's  command,  he  would  not  have  gone.  He 
 thought  to  himself,  I  have  (to  begin  with)  got  leave  to  go,  every 
 thing  else  will  be  sure  to  follow. 
 
 Since  God's  anger  was  directed  against  Balaam's  going  ivith  a 
 definite  intention,  it  involves  no  contradiction  when  afterwards 
 his  going  was  permitted.  The  T^^'J2  in  ver.  32,  because  thy  way 
 is  perverse  before  me,  was  erroneously  interpreted  by  Balaam  of 
 the  journey  in  abstracto  ;  and  very  naturally,  for  he  was  going 
 only  in  order  to  do  what  he  ought  not  to  do.  In  ver.  35  he  is 
 taught  that  the  journey  in  concreto  was  intended. 
 
 THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  ISRAELITES  TO   PALESTINE. 
 
 That  the  proceedings  of  the  Israelites  against  the  Canaanites 
 were  not  merely  permitted  but  commanded  by  God,  has  served, 
 from  ancient  times,  the  opponents  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  es- 
 pecially of  the  Pentateuch,  as  a  foundation  for  their  attacks.  The 
 heathen  were  the  first  to  make  use  of  it,  (see  the  passages  quoted 
 by  Serarius  on  Josh.  vi.  iwooem.)  The  Manicheans  grounded 
 upon  it  their  argument  that  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  could 
 not  be  the  God  of  the  New  Testament,  as  appears  from  the  ear- 
 nest refutation  of  it  by  Augustin  in  several  passages,  especially 
 c.  Faustum,  B.  22,  C.  73,  &c.  The  Enghsh  Deists  inferred 
 from  it,  that  the  God  of  the  professed  Revelation  could  not  be  the 
 true  God,  laying  down  the  correct  principle,  that  no  action  could 
 proceed  from  the  true  God  which  contradicted  the  law  of  nature 
 implanted  by  him,  and  resulting  from  his  own  character — a  prin- 
 ciple which,  resting  on  the  necessary  relation  of  God's  law  to  his 
 own  character,  of  which  it  is  the  expression  and  mirror,  is  sanc- 
 tioned by  the  Scriptures  themselves,  in  numerous  passages — ■ 
 "  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  riyht  V  Gen.  xviii. 
 25;  ''Doth  God  prevent  judgment  }  or  doth  tlie  AlmiglUy  pre- 
 vent justice  V  Job.  viii.  3.  This  attack  is  made  by  Tindal  at 
 length,  and  with  much  acuteness,  in  his  Christianity  as  old  as 
 the  Creation  (p.  451  of  the  German  translation).  Others,  as 
 Morgan  and  Chubb,  &c.,  are  noticed  in  Lilienthal,  iii.  891. 
 In  Germanv  it  was  renewed  by  the  earliest  forerunuers  of  modern 
 
 B  b  2 
 
388  THEOLOGY  Ol-  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 illumination;  see  EdelmaNxN's  Moses  mit  aufgedecktem  lu- 
 ges ichte,  i.  107.  It  is  repeated  so  regularly  in  the  writings  of  the 
 nationalists  who  have  any  opportunity  of  touching  on  the  subject, 
 that  it  would  not  be  worth  while  to  quote  individual  writers.  But 
 how  deeply  this  opinion  is  rooted  may  be  learnt  from  the  follow- 
 ing passage  in  Yon  Ammon  {Handl.  der  SiUenlehre,  III.  ii.  p.  61) 
 — "  Morality  rejects  every  war  of  extermination.  That  passages 
 are  found  in  the  Old  Testament  which  favour  such  atrocities, 
 cannot  excuse  this  kind  of  warfare,  since  such  principles  are  never 
 approved  in  the  New  Testament;  and  a  truly  religious  moraUty 
 can  only  acknowledge  that  command  as  truly  Divine  which  will 
 abide  the  test  of  justice  and  morality." 
 
 Before  we  proceed  to  examine  the  various  solutions  of  our 
 problem,  we  have  to  consider  some  attempts  that  have  been 
 made  to  take  away  a  part  of  the  odium  by  a  different  view  of  the 
 facts  themselves.  The  chief  attempt  of  this  kind  is  the  following. 
 It  has  been  falsely  assumed  (so  some  writers  assert)  that  the 
 Israelites  were  comuianded  to  exterminate  the  Canaanites  without 
 exception.  On  the  contrary  they  were  commanded,  previously  to 
 offer  terms  of  peace  to  all  the  Canaanitish  cities,  and  only  in  the 
 event  of  the  rejection  of  this  offer,  were  the  inhabitants  to  be 
 destroyed.  Vv'hatever  city  received  this  offer,  its  inhabitants  were 
 to  become  the  vassals  of  Israel,  a  lot  which,  according  to  the  mild 
 laws  of  servitude,  was  very  tolerable.  This  opinion  has  been  very 
 widely  spread  ;  it  is  found  in  the  writings  of  the  philosopher 
 Maimonides  ;  and  likewise  (which  is  not  suited  to  awaken  a 
 prejudice  in  favour  of  its  correctness)  almost  in  all  writers  who, 
 since  the  rise  of  Deism,  have  treated  the  subject  apologetically. 
 Thus  in  Shuckford's  Connection,  in  Lilienthal,  Bachiene, 
 Hess  {GescJiichte  Josua,  p.  46),  and  others. 
 
 The  chief  proof  of  its  correctness  is  founded  on  Deut.  xx.  10,  &c. 
 "  Whe}(  tliou  comest  nigh  unto  a  city  tojight  against  it,  then  pro- 
 claim peace  unto  it.  And  it  shall  he,  if  it  make  thee  answer  of 
 peace,  and  open  unto  thee,  then  it  shall  he,  that  all  the  people  that 
 is  found  therein  shall  hetrihutaries  unto  thee, and  tliey  shall  serve 
 thee."  But  we  need  only  look  at  this,  to  be  assured  that  the  sentiment 
 we  are  considering  has  its  foundation  somewhere  else  than  here, — 
 in  the  impression  of  the  argumentation  of  the  opposite  side,  which 
 could  not  be  altogether  withstood,  since  they  were  not  in  possession 
 
THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  ISRAELITES  TO  PALESTINE.  380 
 
 of  the  only  correct  solution  of  the  problem, — or  where  this  wa^s  the 
 case,  in  the  endeavour  to  make  the  matter  less  repulsive  to  the 
 opponents,  even  from  their  own  point-of-view, — resting  on  wliicli 
 rather  than  on  the  knowledge  of  a  living  God,  the  correct  solution 
 was  unattainable.  It  is  no  doubt  expressly  stated  in  this  passage, 
 that  when  about  to  besiege  a  city,  the  Israelites  were  bound  to 
 offer,  in  the  first  place,  terms  of  peace,  which,  if  accepted;  the  lives 
 of  the  inhabitants  v>'ere  to  be  spared,  but  they  were  to  become 
 vassals.  But  in  ver.  15,  it  is  stated  with  equal  explicitness,  that 
 this  regulation  applied  only  to  foreign  enemies ;  (^'  Thus  sJialt 
 thou  do  unto  all  the  cities  which  are  very  far  off  from  thee,  which 
 are  not  of  the  cities  of  these  nations ;")  in  ver.  lG-18,  its  false 
 apphcation  to  the  Canaanites  is  expressly  disallowed,  and  their 
 total  extermination  commanded.  "  But  of  the  cities  of  tliese 
 jjeojile,  icJiich  the  Lord  thy  God  doth  give  thee  for  an  inheritance, 
 thou  shall  save  alive  nothing  that  hreatheth.  But  thou  shall 
 utterly  destroy  them ;  the  Hittites,  and  the  Amoriies,  the  Can- 
 aanites and  the  Perizzites,  the  Hivites,  and  the  Jebusites,  as  the 
 Lord  thy  God  hath  commanded  thee:  that  they  teach  you  not 
 to  do  after  all  their  ahominations,  which  they  have  done  unto 
 their  gods  ;  so  should  ye  sin  against  the  L^ord  your  God!'  This 
 passage  proves  exactly  the  contrary  to  what  it  is  brought  to  prove. 
 Besides,  an  appeal  is  made  to  Joshua  xi.  19,  20  ;  where  it  is  said, 
 that  it  was  of  the  Lord  that  the  hearts  of  the  Canaanites  were 
 hardened  to  "  come  against  Lsrael  in  battle,  that  he  miglit  de- 
 stroy them  utterly  {^^^'I^Ti),  and  that  they  miglit  liave  no  favour, 
 but  that  he  might  destroy  them  as  the  Lord  commanded  Moses  ;" 
 on  which  Cunaeus,  {de  rejmbl.  Hebr.  ii.  20),  makes  this  remark  : 
 "  Hence  it  appears  that  these  nations  were  destroyed  because  they 
 preferred  trying  the  fortune  of  w^ar,  rather  than  accept  the  condi- 
 tions of  peace  with  the  Israelites ;  had  they  listened  to  the  mes' 
 sage  of  peace,  their  safety  would  have  been  secured."  Even 
 Steudel  {Blicke  in  die  alt.  Test.  Off'enb.  Tlib.  Zeitschr.  1885. 
 p.  165),  infers  from  this  passage,  that  the  extermination  of  the 
 Canaanites  would  not  have  been  effected,  if  the  inhabitants  had 
 not  hazarded  a  conflict.  But  that  this  explanation  cannot  be 
 correct,  is  very  evident,  for  in  the  passage  itself,  the  total  exter- 
 mination of  the  Canaanites  is  represented  as  unconditionally  com- 
 manded by  God  to  Moses.     It  lias  been  correctly  observed  by 
 
390  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Mich AE LIS  {Mos.  Recht.  i<  §  62),  the  author  meant  only  to  say 
 that  the  Israelites  would  have  been  kinder  than  the  law,  if  the 
 Canaanites  had  sought  for  peace,  and  the  Israehtes  had  granted 
 what  Moses  had  forbidden  them  to  grant.  By  God's  providence 
 they  were  preserved  from  this  temptation.  But  even  granting  that, 
 according  to  this  passage,  the  preservation  of  the  Canaanites,  in  the 
 event  of  their  submission,  was  legitimate,  still  this  will  not  avail. 
 For,  according  to  this  same  passage,  God  had  so  ordered,  that  such 
 an  event  neither  should  nor  could  happen.  A  condition,  the  reahs- 
 ing  of  which  is  made  impossible  by  him  who  appointed  it,  may  be 
 regarded  as  a  nonentity.  Still  it  is  urged,  that  David  and  Solo- 
 mon never  rooted  out  the  Canaanites  that  were  left  in  the  land,  but 
 merely  made  use  of  them,  without  being  ever  blamed  for  so  doing  ; 
 1  Kings  ix.  20,  21,  ''  And  all  the  people  that  were  left  of  the 
 Amorites,  Hittites,  Perizzites,  Hivites,  and  Jebusites,  which 
 icere  not  of  the  children  of  Israel ;  their  children  that  ivere  left 
 after  them  in  the  land,  whom  the  children  of  Israel  also  were 
 not  able  utterly  to  destroy,  upon  these  did  Solomon  levy  a  tri- 
 bute of  bond-service  unto  this  day."  But  we  see,  at  the  same 
 time,  that  the  circumstances  were  then  quite  altered.  The  order 
 for  extermination  was  only  given  to  the  Israehtes  on  their  first 
 entrance  into  Canaan ;  when,  by  the  miracles  of  the  Divine  Omni- 
 potence, they  were  sanctioned  as  the  ministers  and  instraments 
 of  the  Divine  justice,  what  they  neglected  could  never  be  done 
 by  other  hands ;  every  attempt  of  this  kind  woidd  have  been 
 murder,  and  so  much  more  criminal,  because  these  Canaanites 
 who  were  left  in  the  land,  entered,  in  the  course  of  time,  into 
 manifold  connections  with  the  Israelites.  What  prince,  indeed, 
 would  believe  that  he  was  obliged  to  make  up  for  the  misplaced 
 lenity  of  one  of  his  predecessors ;  that  he  must  execute  the  pos- 
 terity of  a  malefactor  whose  hfe  had  been  spared  contrary  to  the 
 law  ?  Lastly,  it  is  argued  that  the  history  shows  that  a  great, 
 perhaps  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  Canaanites,  saved  them- 
 selves by  flight.  But  let  this  be  admitted,  what  does  it  prove  ? 
 No  more  than  that  the  Israelites  were  not  in  a  condition  to  carry 
 into  effect  that  Divine  command  which  is  precisely  the  gist  of  the 
 objection.  And  even  as  it  regards  the  Israelites,  is  not  every 
 one  judged  according  to  the  design,  not  the  consequences  of  his 
 actions  ? 
 
THE  RIGHT  OF  THE   [SRAELTIES  TO  PALESTINE.  501 
 
 But  futile  as  the  arguments  are  in  favour  of  this  attempted 
 mitigation,  equally  irrefragable  are  the  arguments  against  it.  It 
 has  been  thought  salHcient  to  prove  that  the  Israelites  held  them- 
 selves strictly  bound  to  exterminate  the  Canaanites,  to  quote  the 
 narrative  of  the  submission  of  the  Gibeonites,  in  Josh.  ix.  But 
 why  should  the  Gibeonites  have  thought  it  necessary  to  secure  for 
 themselves,  by  artifice,  a  result  which,  according  to  that  view,  lay 
 open  to  all  the  Canaanites  ?  Several  critics  indeed,  as  Le  Clerc 
 and  BuDDEUS,  who  likewise  advocate  the  mitigated  view,  have 
 supposed  this  artifice  of  the  Gibeonites  was  quite  unnecessary, 
 and  was  only  prompted  by  their  erroneous  apprehensions  ;  and 
 that  nothing  more  was  required  than  their  voluntary  submission 
 to  the  Israehtes ;  their  lives  would  then  be  spared  without  any 
 scruple.  But  this  view  is  decidedly  erroneous.  For  how  then 
 could  it  be  mentioned  in  ver.  14,  by  way  of  censure,  that  Joshua, 
 deceived  by  the  artifice  of  the  Gibeonites,  had  hastily  granted 
 them  their  lives  ?  How  could  the  people  murmur  against  Joshua 
 and  the  princes  of  the  congregation  ?     Ver.  18. 
 
 But  every  doubt  is  excluded  by  die  clear  passages  in  Exod. 
 xxiii.  32,  83:  xxxiv.  12-lG  ;  Deut.  vii.  1-5;  xx.  15-18,  in 
 which  the  Israelites  are  expressly  forbidden  to  receive  the  Ca- 
 naanites by  agreement,  either  as  subjects  or  vassals.  This  pro- 
 hibition is  included  in  the  term  a^n,  which  constantly  occurs  in 
 reference  to  the  Canaanites.  For  this  always  implies  total  exter- 
 mination. And  that  this  was  intended  in  the  Mosaic  injunctions, 
 and  that  they  could  not  be  otherwise  understood  by  the  people, 
 is  evident  from  the  circumstance  that  the  neglect  of  the  entire 
 extermination  is  severely  censured  by  the  angel  of  the  Lord, 
 Judges  ii.  1-4  ;*  and  in  the  Book  of  Judges  all  the  misery  of  the 
 people  during  the  period  of  the  Judges,  is  deduced  from  their 
 disobedience  to  this  Divine  command. 
 
 *  1.  "  Aud  an  augel  of  the  Lord  came  up  from  Gilgal  to  Bocbim,  aud  said,  1  made 
 you  to  go  up  out  of  Egypt,  and  have  brought  you  into  the  laud  which  I  sware  unto 
 your  fathers  ;  aud  I  said,  I  will  never  break  my  coveuaut  with  you.  2.  Aud  ye  shall 
 make  uo  league  with  the  inhabitants  of  this  land ;  ye  shall  throw  down  their  altars ;  but 
 ye  have  not  obeyed  my  voice — why  have  ye  done  this  ?  3.  Wherefore  I  also  said,  I 
 will  not  drive  them  out  from  before  you;  but  they  shall  be  as  thorns  in  your  sides,  and 
 their  gods  shall  be  a  snare  unto  you.  4.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  angel  of  the 
 Lord  spake  these  words  unto  all  the  children  of  Israel,  that  the  people  lifted  up  their 
 voice  and  wept." 
 
392  THEULOGV  or  TilK  PENTATELX'H. 
 
 But  yt't  it  caniiot  "be  overlooked,  that  this  opinion  only  en- 
 creases  the  difficulties  of  the  whole  matter  which  it  is  designed  to 
 lessen,  indeed  renders  their  removal  utterly  impossible.  It  will 
 afterwards  appear,  that  tliis  object  can  be  attained  only  by  admit 
 ting  that  the  Israelites  were  the  instruments  of  the  Divine  jus- 
 tice, which  had  devoted  the  Canaanites  to  destruction.  If  this 
 were  the  case,  it  would  malie  little  difference  whether  they  volun- 
 tarily surrendered  or  offered  resistance ;  and  if  their  safety  or  de- 
 struction were  connected  with  this  circumstance,  this  whole  jus- 
 tification must  appear  as  very  suspicious.  To  this  must  be  added, 
 that,  as  a  concurrent  cause  for  the  Divine  determination  respect- 
 ing the  Canaanites,  it  is  constantly  stated  that  they  were  likely  to 
 infect  the  Israelites  with  their  detestable  vices  and  their  idolatry. 
 This  cause  must  perplex  those  who  hold  the  opinion  we  are  con- 
 troverting ;  for  the  danger  to  the  Israelites  would  arise  as  much 
 from  those  who  voluntarily  submitted  themselves,  as  from  those 
 who  were  subdued  by  force. 
 
 No  better  success  has  attended  another  attempt  at  a  mitigated 
 view— the  supposition  that  the  Israelites  had  caused  their  inva- 
 sion of  the  land  to  be  preceded  by  a  formal  declaration  of  war. 
 That  not  a  syllable  respecting  such  an  occurrence  is  found  in  the 
 Scriptures,  shows  at  least  that  it  can  form  no  very  important  item 
 in  the  justification  of  the  Israelites.  But  for  the  only  admissible 
 justification,  it  is  not  only  unnecessary  but  unsuitable,  and  can 
 at  most  be  of  very  small  service  for  any  other  pleas  which  have 
 been  set  up. 
 
 While  we  are  now  reviewing  these  various  attempts,  we  would 
 not  trespass  on  the  patience  of  our  readers,  by  occupying  their 
 time  with  those  that  are  palpably  absurd.  Of  this  class  is  the 
 assumption  that  the  right  of  the  Israehtes  was  founded  on  the 
 division  of  the  whole  earth  among  Noah's  three  sons,  by  which 
 Palestine  fell  to  the  descendants  of  Shem — probably  a  Jewish  fig- 
 ment originally,  which,  by  the  authority  of  Epiphanius,  acquired 
 extensive  currency,  especially  among  theologians  of  the  Eomish 
 Church,  and  so  late  as  the  year  1755,  was  defended  by  a  Dr 
 NoNNE  of  Bremen  in  a  special  essay,  so  that  J.  D.  Michaelts,  in 
 his  Mos.  Recht.  1,  §  29,  thought  it  worthy  of  a  full  refutation. 
 Such  also  is  the  notion  that,  without  the  Divine  appointment,  it 
 was  allowable  to  declare  war  on  an  exceedingly  wicked  people. 
 
THE  RIGHT  01'  THE  ISRAELITES  TO  PALESTINE.  393 
 
 without  any  previous  provocation,  since  in  dishonouring  hiunan 
 nature  by  its  vices,  it  offered  an  insult  to  the  whole  human  race. 
 Such,  liistlv,  is  the  hypothesis,  that  the  Canaanites,  by  wrongs  in- 
 flicted on  the  Israelites,  had  given  tliem  occasion  to  make  war, 
 and  had  been  themselves  the  aggressors,  which,  as  Michaelis 
 observes,  reminds  one  of  the  fable  of  the  wolf  and  the  lamb. 
 
 After  deducting  these  attempts  at  justifying  the  -war  on  the 
 Canaanites,  the  following  remain  which  have  a  claim  to  our 
 attentive  consideration. 
 
 I.  We  begin  with  that  which  has  acquired  a  certain  value  from 
 the  authority  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  [Mas.  liecht.  §  31),  though 
 very  weighty  objections  were  raised  against  it  even  by  his  con- 
 temporaries, particularly  by  the  learned  and  acute  Faber  {Ar- 
 chaeol.  p.  79,  &c).  Michaelis  himself  states  it  briefly  in  the 
 following  words  : — "  Palestine  was  from  time  inmiemorial  a  land 
 of  Hebrew  shepherds,  and  the  Israelites,  who  had  never  surren- 
 dered their  rights,  required  it  again  from  the  Canaanites  as  un- 
 lawful possessors."  The  Phoenicians  (thus  he  endeavours  to 
 support  his  view),  were  not  the  original  occupiers  of  this  country, 
 but  dwelt  at  first  (according  to  the  best  authorities)  near  the  Eed 
 Sea.  When  they  began  to  extend  their  traffic,  they  made  their 
 way  into  Palestine,  which  was  very  advantageously  situated  for 
 this  purpose.  At  first  they  merely  built  commercial  towns  and 
 factories  ;  but  by  degi'ees  they  spread  over  tlie  country,  and 
 finally  expelled  the  ancient  inhabitants.  Even  in  Abraham's  time, 
 it  was  a  matter  of  complaint  that  the  Canaanites  dwelt  in  the  land, 
 and  had  rendered  the  space  too  narrow  for  the  flocks  and  herds 
 of  the  patriarchs.  But  their  encroachments  advanced,  and  when 
 the  Israelites  had  been  for  some  time  in  Egypt,  the  Canaanites 
 had  appropriated  the  whole  of  the  country.  This  land  of  their 
 ancestors  the  Israelites  had  never  resigned  to  the  Canaanites ;  they 
 had  rather  asserted  their  own  rights  very  significantly,  by  the  so- 
 lemn interment  of  Jacob  in  Palestine.  That  they  intended  to 
 return  thither  at  some  future  time  was  generally  known,  even  in 
 Egypt.  "  But  should  they  not  at  least  have  left  to  the  Canaan- 
 ites their  commercial  towns,  which  were  erected  without  the  oppo- 
 sition of  their  forefathers  ?  The  question  is  easily  decided. 
 When  a  foreign  nation,  whom  we  have  not  prevented  from  erect- 
 ing factories  and  commercial  towns  in  our  country,  so  abuse  our 
 
394  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 kindness  in  order  to  oppress  us,  and  gradually  appropriate  the 
 whole  of  the  land, — if  this  people,  when  we  wish  to  occupy  again 
 our  ancient  land,  meet  us  sword  in  hand, — when,  lastly,  they  are 
 vicious  to  such  a  degree  that  we  cannot  inhahit  the  same  country 
 with  them,  without  destroying  our  own  moral-,  are  we  then  bound 
 to  leave  them  in  possession  of  their  factories  and  towns,  and  to 
 expose  ourselves  to  the  danger  of  new  ones  ?" 
 
 This  reasoning  rests  on  the  assumption,  that  Canaan  was  ori- 
 ginally the  possession  of  the  progenitors  of  the  Israelites,  which 
 the  Canaanites  afterwards  invaded.  But  this  \dew  is  decidedly 
 objectionable.  Even  if  we  attributed  to  the  Canaanites  a  different 
 earlier  residence,  it  must  be  admitted  that  their  settlement  pre- 
 ceded that  of  Abraham.  For  even  then  the  land  bore  the  name  of 
 Canaan,  and,  in  Gen.  xii.  6  and  xiii.  7,  it  is  expressly  mentioned 
 that  the  Canaanites  were  then  in  the  land,  and  that  Abraham  was 
 obliged  to  separate  from  Lot,  because  the  pasture  lands  not  oc- 
 cupied by  the  Canaanites  were  not  sufficient  for  the  herds  of  both  ; 
 all  accounts  give  us  the  idea  of  a  long-cultivated  country  fixedly 
 and  regularly  divided  amongst  its  inhabitants.  But  the  whole  as- 
 sumption that  the  Phoenicians  or  Canaanites  originally  resided 
 elsewhere,  is  to  be  rejected  without  hesitation,  as  I  have  more  fully 
 proved  in  the  essay  de  rehus  Tyriorum,  Berlin,  1832,  p.  93. 
 
 But  though  this  point  is  disposed  of,  the  whole  hypothesis  is 
 not  entirely  set  aside.  A  new  turn  has  been  given  to  it,  to 
 enable  it  again  to  enter  the  lists.  The  Canaanites,  it  is  allowed, 
 were  the  original  inhabitants  of  Palestine.  But  they  had  not 
 taken  possession  of  the  whole.  The  pasture  lands  lay  open 
 for  those  who  wish  to  appropriate  them.  This  was  done  by  the 
 ancestors  of  the  Israelites.  During  their  sojourn  in  Egypt,  the 
 Canaanites  unlawfully  occupied  them.  After  leaving  Egypt,  the 
 Israelites  again  asserted  their  claims,  and,  since  the  Canaanites 
 would  not  acknowledge  them,  the  Israelites  took  possession  over 
 part  of  the  country  in  virtue  of  their  ancient  occupancy  of  it,  and 
 the  other  by  right  of  conquest. 
 
 With  this  new  modification  the  hypothesis  has  so  much  greater 
 claims  to  consideration,  since  Ev^ald  {uher  die  Coinjmsition  der 
 Genesis,  p.  270),  has  endeavoured  to  show,  that  the  author  of  Ge- 
 nesis constantly  aims  to  establish  such  a  human  claim  of  the  Is- 
 raehtes  to  Palestine.     He  directs  attention  to  the  facts,  that  Lot 
 
THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  ISRAELITES  To  PALESTINE.  300 
 
 at  first  went  eastward — that  his  posterity  were  separated  from 
 Canaan — that  Isaac  is  always  represented  as  the  successor  and 
 heir  of  Abraliam  in  Canaan — that  Esau  his  first-horn,  and,  at 
 first,  much-loved  son,  removed  from  Canaan,  which  was  connected 
 only  with  the  patriarch  Israel — that  everywhere  it  appears  that 
 Abraham  and  his  posterity  dwelt  in  Palestine  at  peace,  and  undis- 
 turbed and  independent  of  the  other  inhabitants.  But  this  aim 
 of  the  author  is  most  distinctly  seen  in  the  narrative  of  Abraham's 
 purchase  of  a  burial-place,  Gen.  xxiii.  How  much  importance 
 the  liistorian  attaches  to  this  transaction  appears  from  the  extreme 
 care  with  which  ho  always  describes  the  site  of  the  field,  and  the 
 peculiar  jDrominence  he  gives  to  the  circumstances  that  Abraham 
 purchased  it  with  pure  gold.  With  land  so  formally  purchased, 
 the  claims  of  his  descendants  are  most  strictly  connected.  Hence, 
 the  narrator  always  returns  to  this  subject,  mentions  at  Abraham's 
 death  the  same  place  as  the  burial-ground,  and  represents  Israel, 
 when  sojourning  in  Egypt,  as  earnestly  charging  his  sons  to  bury 
 him  there,  and  Joseph  as  wishing  his  bones  to  be  laid  in  the  same 
 spot. 
 
 But,  on  closer  examination,  the  hypothesis,  even  thus  modified, 
 appears  quite  untenable.  Who  ever  doubted,  that,  to  a  people 
 who  first  take  possession  of  a  country,  even  those  parts  belong, 
 which,  for  a  time,  are  not  brought  into  cultivation,  and  that  the 
 usufruct  of  them,  which  other  persons  enjoy  by  permission,  does 
 not  justify  them  in  assuming  a  right  of  possession  ?  That  in  the 
 Scriptures  the  relation  of  the  patriarchs  to  the  Cannanites  is  re- 
 garded as  of  this  kind — that  no  possessions  are  attributed  to  them 
 beyond  and  except  their  moveable  property,  may  be  proved  by  nu- 
 merous passages  of  Scripture.  In  Genesis,  the  standing  designa- 
 tion of  the  patriarchs  is  that  of  strangers,  and  their  state  is  repre- 
 sented as  a  pilgrimage.  But  this  phraseology  imphes  an  exactly 
 contrary  state  of  things  to  that  which,  according  to  the  hypothesis, 
 must  have  existed.  Mich ae lis  himself,  in  another  passage,  (M. 
 R.  ii.  §  138),  lays  down  as  the  characteristic  of  the  condition  of 
 a  stranger,  the  total  want  of  all  landed  property.  The  same  term 
 is  used  to  designate  their  relation  to  the  land  of  the  Phihstines, 
 whose  king,  without  scruple  and  without  objection  on  Isaac's  pnrt, 
 refused  him  the  further  usufruct  of  the  pasture  land  situate  in  his 
 territories,  when  it  no  longer  suited  his  convenience  ;  compare, 
 
396  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 for  instance,  Gen.  xxi.,  xxiii.,  xxxiv.  Everywhere  present  cir- 
 cumstances are  contrasted  with  the  future  ;  hope  with  possession. 
 The  Divine  promises  always  speak  oi giving,  never  oi  restoring. 
 The  principal  passages  are  the  following :  xvii.  8,  *'  And  I  will 
 give  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land  wherein  thou 
 art  a  stranger  i^^'^.^yi^,  the  land  of  thy  sojournings,  Eng.  Marg. 
 Read.)  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlasting  possession!' 
 xxiii.  4,  Abraham  says  to  the  sons  of  Heth,  "  /  am  a  stranger 
 and  a  sojourner  with  you,  give  me  a  possession  of  a  burying- 
 place  tvith  you!'  xxvi.  3,  "  Sojourn  iti  this  land,  and  I  tvillbe 
 with  thee,  and  I  will  bless  thee ;  for  unto  thee  and  unto  thy 
 seed  I  will  give  all  these  countries,  and  I  will  perform  the  oath 
 which  I  sware  unto  Abraham  thy  father."  Compare  xxviii.  4  ; 
 xxxvii.  1  ;  and  vol  i.  407.  If  the  pasture-lands  were  the  pro- 
 perty of  the  Hebrews,  what  need  had  iVbraham  to  purchase  a 
 burial-ground  of  the  Canaanites?  Why  should  Jacob,  when  he 
 wished  to  build  a  house  (Gen.  xxxiii.),  secure  a  right  to  the 
 ground  by  the  purchase  of  a  parcel  of  a  field  belonging  to  the 
 Shechemites  ?  After  such  plain  proofs  from  the  same  book,  of 
 which  the  statements  are  perfectly  decisive,  we  need  scarcely  ap- 
 peal on  this  subject  to  Psalm  cv.  12,  wdiere  it  is  said  of  the  patri- 
 archs that  *'  they  were  strangers  in  the  land,"  and  to  the  dis- 
 course of  Stephen,  Acts  vii.  5,  Kal  ovk  eScoKev  avrtp  KXTjpovofilav 
 ev  avrfj  ovSe  ^rjixa  iroho'^,  Kal  eTrijyyetXaTo  avrai  hovvat  eh  ica- 
 Tdo-')(6cnv  avTTjV  Kal  tm  airep/jLarL  avrov  fier'  avrov,  ovk  6vto<;  avrco 
 T6KV0V.  Nor  need  we  urge,  that,  in  the  Scriptures  themselves, 
 the  typical  relation  of  the  sojourn  of  the  patriarchs  in  Canaan  to 
 the  course  of  believers  on  earth  is  founded  on  the  view  we  ai'e  ad- 
 vocating. 
 
 By  what  has  been  already  said,  we  may  be  certain  that  the 
 whole  argumentation  of  Ewald  must  be  founded  on  an  error. 
 How  could  the  same  author  who  so  directly  repudiates  all  human 
 right  on  the  part  of  the  IsraeUtes  to  Palestine,  seek  earnestly  to 
 establish  it  ?  On  closer  examination,  the  error  appears  to  arise 
 principally  from  confounding  the  right  of  the  Israehtes,  in  refer- 
 ence to  the  possessors  of  the  land,  the  Canaanites,  with  their  right 
 in  reference  to  their  own  blood  relations.  To  prove  the  latter,  to 
 show  how  Israel  alone,  by  the  Divine  providence,  became  the  heir 
 of  the  land  of  Canaan,  is  certainly  an  object  which  is  pursued 
 
THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  ISRAELITES  TO  PALESTINE.  807 
 
 tlirougli  Genesis  with  a  consequentuoss  that  alone  is  sufficient  to 
 refute  the  hypothesis  of  the  formation  of  this  hook  from  uncon- 
 nected fragments  of  various  authors.  What  Ewald  has  here 
 confounded  has  been  well  distinguished  hy  an  earlier  writer,  Wit- 
 ter, Jura  Israelii ariun  in  Falaestinam,  from  whom  also  much 
 is  to  be  learned  on  other  points.  He  deduces  the  right  of  the 
 Israelites  from  the  Divine  promise  alone.  A  second  source  of 
 error  is,  that,  in  quoting  passages  which  speak  of  Abraham's 
 power  and  unshackled  freedom,  he  has  confounded  the  ideas  of 
 independence  and  the  right  of  possession.  The  former  certainly 
 belonged  lo  Abraham  ;  he  was  a  free  shepherd- chief,  standing  on 
 a  perfect  equality  with  the  Canaanitish  kings  ;  he  conducted  wars, 
 and  concluded  treaties.  But  if  the  Canaanites  had  refused  him 
 the  further  use  of  the  pasture-lands,  and  he  had  nevertheless  re- 
 mained in  the  land,  he  would  have  been  obliged,  just  as  his  de- 
 scendants were  afterwards  in  Egypt,  to  sacrifice  a  portion  of  his 
 independence.  But  no  one  could  prevent  his  maintaining  it  by 
 changing  the  place  of  his  residence.  A  third  source  of  error  lies 
 in  the  false  view  of  the  narrative  of  the  purchase  of  the  burial- 
 ground.  W^e  have  already  seen  how  little  this  could  prove  the 
 right  of  the  Israelites  to  Palestine.  All  history,  abounding  as  it 
 does  with  so  many  unjust  wars,  can  hardly  furnish  an  example  in 
 which  the  right  of  conquest  would  be  based  on  so  exceedingly 
 pitiful  a  reason.  It  appears  so  much  the  more  in  this  light,  because 
 the  possession  of  this  burial-place  by  the  Israelites  was  never  dis- 
 puted by  the  Canaanites.  But  we  cannot  better  express  the  true 
 object  which  the  historian  had  before  him  in  this  full  and  minute 
 delineation,  than  in  the  words  of  Calvin,  "  He  was  not  anxious 
 to  have  a  foot  of  land  for  erecting  a  tent ;  he  cared  only  for  a  se- 
 pulchre ;  but  he  particularly  wished  to  have  a  family  grave  in  the 
 land  which  was  promised  to  him  for  an  inheritance,  by  which  he 
 testified  to  posterity,  that,  neither  by  his  own  death  nor  that  of 
 his  nearest  kindred,  was  the  promise  rendered  void  ;  on  the  con- 
 trary, it  would  not  be  fulfilled  till  their  decease,  and  those  who  were 
 deprived  of  the  light  of  the  sun,  and  of  the  commc^n  air,  would 
 nevertheless  remain  partakers  of  the  promised  inheritance.  For 
 if  they  were  silent  and  dumb,  yet  the  grave  would  be  a  silent  wit- 
 ness, so  that  even  death  could  not  rob  them  of  tlieir  inheritance." 
 That  purchase  was  important  for  Israel  as  a  witness  of  Abraham's 
 
398  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 living  faith  ;  important  also,  since  then  a  single  spot  of  the  pro- 
 mised land  acquired  a  marked  importance,  which  is  also  noticed 
 in  the  narratives  of  Genesis,  so  that  the  Israelites  were  accom- 
 panied by  outward  mementoes  of  those  in  whose  believing  foot- 
 steps they  were  to  follow. 
 
 We  could  bring  forward  many  other  considerations  against  the 
 whole  view  of  Michaelis,  if  those  already  adduced  were  not  suf- 
 ficient. We  might  ask,  whether,  even  admitting  that  tlie  Israel- 
 ites originally  had  a  right  to  the  pasture-lands  of  Canaan,  this 
 right  would  not  become  null  and  void  in  the  lapse  of  several  cen- 
 turies ?  This  question  could  only  be  answered  in  the  negative, 
 on  the  supposition  that  the  Israelites  had  reserved  their  rights. 
 But  if  no  trace  is  found  of  that,  it  is  also  certain  that  among  the 
 Israelites  themselves,  the  remembrance  of  the  Divine  promise 
 relative  to  the  land  of  Canaan  was  never  lost.  The  narrative  of 
 Jacob's  burial  in  Canaan  proves  the  contrary.  For  had  the  Ca- 
 naanites  conceived  of  this  transaction  in  its  true  sense,  as  a  prac- 
 tical declaration  that  the  living  would  one  day  possess  the  land, 
 where  for  the  present  the  dead  were  resting,  they  would  hardly 
 have  regarded  the  matter  in  so  peaceable  and  friendly  a  spirit. 
 Moreover,  the  more  natural  it  was  for  the  Canaanites  to  make 
 themselves  masters  of  the  alleged  possession  of  Israel,  which  had 
 been  so  long  forsaken,  so  much  the  more  necessary  was  it,  at  all 
 events,  that  first  the  way  of  kindness  towards  them  should  be 
 tried.  But  of  this  we  find  not  the  least  trace.  From  the  first, 
 the  Israehtes  made  known  their  design  of  occupying  the  whole 
 land.  Then,  apart  from  all  these  objections,  the  question 
 would  still  remain,  Whether  it  would  be  just  for  those  who  ab- 
 stained from  making  their  title  to  the  less  important  to  rest  on 
 God's  command,  to  use  it  as  a  plea  for  seizing  on  the  infinitely 
 more  important  lawful  possession.  A  people  who  should  act  in 
 a  similar  manner  from  their  own  suggestion,  we  should  never  con- 
 sider noble  and  magnanimous.  But  lastly,  which  is  the  principal 
 point,  Michaelis  himself  is  obliged  to  admit  that  of  the  rights 
 of  the  Israehtes  to  Canaan,  which  he  professes  to  have  discovered, 
 not  a  trace  is  found  in  Scripture.  But  this  is  indeed  far  more 
 suspicious  than  he  will  allow  it  to  be.  If  this  deduction  is  requi- 
 site for  justifying  the  Divine  command,  how  could  God  have  left 
 it  to  human  ingenuity  to  find  it  out  ?     How  comes  it  to  pass, 
 
THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  ISRAELITES  TO  PALESTINE.  399 
 
 that  in  such  numerous  passages,  there  is  no  reference  to  it,  though 
 it  would  have  heen  of  real  importance  to  remove  the  suspicion, 
 that  God  commanded  what  was  unrighteous,  and  thus  violated 
 himself  that  holy  law  which  he  had  prescribed  to  his  people,  as 
 an  unchangeable  rule  of  conduct  ?  If  we  glance  at  the  originating 
 principle  of  this  hypothesis,  it  will  appear  to  us  as  the  spirit  of  an 
 age,  in  which  even  in  those  who  had  not  entirely  apostatized  from 
 the  faith,  God  had  been  pushed  back  into  the  other  world,  and 
 the  living  sentiment  respecting  the  living  God  had  vanished. 
 Since,  therefore,  the  alone  true  right  of  the  Israehtes,  which  had 
 its  root  in  God,  could  not  be  discerned  and  acknowledged,  either 
 the  justification  of  the  Israelites  on  this  ground,  and  along  with 
 it  the  Pentateuch,  must  be  given  up,  or,  for  those  who  have  too 
 mucli  faith,  or  too  little  boldness  to  do  this,  a  fictitious  right  must 
 be  sought  for  on  earth. 
 
 II.  Another  method  of  justification  has  been  attempted  by  Fa- 
 BER ;  but  it  is  of  a  kind  that  one  might  almost  believe  that  it 
 was  designed  for  an  oj^posite  pui^ose,  if  its  repetition  by  the 
 worthy  Hess  did  not  show  that  it  could  be  proposed  in  earnest- 
 ness and  with  an  honest  design  ;  it  shows  also  to  what  risk  of 
 error  the  Christian  writer  is  exposed,  when,  in  an  unbelieving 
 age,  he  directs  his  attention  principally  outwards,  and  like  Justi 
 in  his  essay  uher  die  den  Aegyptern  von  den  Israeliten  ahf/efor- 
 derten  Gerathe.  p.  76,  longs  to  bring  it  about,  "  that  even  a  fool 
 must  say,  there  is  nothing  to  blame  therein,"  an  endeavour  which, 
 if  we  look  at  the  peculiar  nature  of  Divine  revelation,  involves  an 
 absurdity.  In  nature  and  in  history,  the  perplexity  and  the 
 difficulty  can  only  be  explained  for  those  whom  God  himself  has 
 furnished  wit]?,  the  true  key  for  the  whole,  for  which  no  false 
 key  can  be  substituted.  In  the  account  of  this  hypothesis  we 
 follow  Hess,  who  has  endeavoured  more  than  Faber  to  hide  its 
 nakedness.  We  must,  he  says,  in  deciding  on  the  right  of  the 
 Israelites,  transport  ourselves  completely  into  the  state  at  that 
 time  of  the  world's  concerns,  and  the  ideas  then  prevalent  of  right 
 and  wrong,  and  the  relations  in  which  the  nations  stood  to  one 
 another.  The  right  of  possession  was  then  in  respect  of  certain 
 species  of  property,  not  by  any  means  so  definite  as  at  the  present 
 day.  The  meum  and  taum  prevailed  chiefly  respecting  moveable 
 articles,  such  as  cattle,  household  furniture,  &c.     Lands  were  not 
 
400  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 called  nor  considered  as  properly,  since  persons  for  a  long  time 
 might  make  use  of  therh  alone  and  unmolested.  The  rifjht  of 
 possession  rested  simply  on  the  miglit.  Whoever  had  the  latter, 
 without  scruple  expelled  the  original  possessors.  Lands  became 
 property  gradually  by  mutual  compact,  in  virtue  of  which  two  or 
 more  neighbours  gave  reciprocal  pledges,  that  they  would  not  dis- 
 turb one  another  in  the  possession  of  lands  that  they  had  culti- 
 vated or  built  upon.  "  Hence  it  follows,  to  deprive  any  one  with- 
 out a  special  reason  of  his  moveable  property,  was  unjust ;  but 
 to  extend  into  the  neighbouring  lands,  as  far  as  one  required 
 room,  was  not  unjust  (even  though  accomphshed  by  force),  where 
 no  treaty  respecting  the  boundaries  had  determined  the  exact  meum 
 and  tuiim."  What  every  tribe,  if  not  in  covenant  with  their  neigh- 
 bours, allowed  themselves  in  doing,  as  soon  as  their  necessities 
 required  it,  that  a  people  w^ould  allow  themselves  much  sooner 
 who  had  no  land  of  their  own.  Must  they  remain  nomades,  from 
 a  dread  of  a  fixed  residence  ?  Or  must  they  betake  themselves 
 to  the  ocean,  in  order  to  discover  some  uninhabited  country  ? 
 They  had  the  same  right  to  Canaan  as  the  possessors  themselves. 
 Equally  they  might  have  ventured  to  make  themselves  masters  of 
 Egypt,  had  they  been  able.  Hence,  in  the  justification  of  the 
 conduct  of  the  Israelites,  God  may  be  left  entirely  out  of  the 
 question.  "  The  God  of  Abraham  did  not,  by  the  arrangements 
 of  his  providence,  cause  it  (the  occupation  of  Palestine)  to  cease 
 to  be  unjust,  but  it  was  not  so  in  itself."  Truly,  if  they  are  right 
 who  believe  that  such  a  small  country  as  Palestine  could  never 
 have  contained  so  numerous  a  people  as  Israel  was  under  David 
 and  Solomon,  they  ought  not  to  find  fault  with  the  Israelites,  if 
 they  had  also  conquered  the  Syrians." 
 
 Considered  as  a  mere  argument  it  m  ad  Itominem,  it  must  be 
 admitted,  that  this  is  tolerably  well  managed.  It  relies  entirely  on 
 the  ideas  of  right  peculiar  to  the  age,  as  a  mere  human  invention ; 
 it  assumes  not  that  right  makes  the  terms,  but  that  the  terms  make 
 the  right.  Yet  it  may  make  an  impression  on  those  who  do 
 homage  to  the  spirit  of  the  age  in  this  respect.  But  conscience 
 is  so  powerful,  that  men  in  practice  do  not  equally  approve  what 
 theory  sanctions,  or,  carried  otit  consequentially,  must  sanction, 
 and  if  it  makes,  on  other  grounds,  a  struggle  against  acknow- 
 ledging a  war  of  conquest  as  lawful,  how  much  more  here,  where 
 
THE  EIGHT  OF  THE  ISRAELITES  TO  PALESTINE.  101 
 
 the  whole  matter  is  referred  to  God.  Besides,  it  would  be  urged, 
 that  tlie  whole  rehition  of  the  patriarchs  to  the  Canaauites — the 
 purchase  of  parcels  of  ground  from  tliem — tlieir  ready  satisfaction 
 with  the  portions  of  land  wliich  they  granted  them — their  own 
 dechiration  that  they  were  only  straayers  in  the  land,  that  the 
 Canaanites  were  the  possessors — all  this  amounts  to  a  practical 
 recognition  of  the  rights  of  the  latter.  It  would  be  thought  un- 
 just that  they  should  invade  the  country,  without  any  declaration 
 of  war  ;  detestable,  that  they  should  avow  the  intention  of  putting 
 to  death  all  the  inhabitants ;  horrible,  that  they  should  refer  this 
 design  to  God. 
 
 But,  far  stronger  are  the  scruples  which  arise  in  the  mind  of 
 a  Christian  critic.  He  must,  in  the  first  place,  protest  against 
 the  often  repeated  attempt  of  Hess  to  justify  transactions  which, 
 according  to  our  idea  of  riglit  and  wrong,  are  to  be  repudiated, 
 on  the  ground  that  these  ideas  were  not  in  existence  at  that  time. 
 The  law  of  God  is  written  iu  the  human  heart,  and  the  know- 
 ledge of  it  can  never  be  so  obhterated,  not  merely  in  the  life  of 
 whole  nations,  but  also  in  the  individual,  that  its  violation  should 
 be  no  longer  sin  ;  and  even  should  it  be  obhterated,  yet  the  igno« 
 ranee  would  still  be  sinful,  as  a  man  who  commits  murder  when 
 intoxicated  is  not  thereby  guiltless.  This  viev»-  is  confirmed,  if 
 we  go  through  the  most  remarkable  ancient  narratives  in  the 
 Scriptures  with  a  scrutinizing  eye.  We  there  find  not  a  few  vio- 
 lations of  law  and  right;  but  never  that  they  were  committed 
 with  a  good  consciences^— never  that  God  measured  them  by  a 
 different  standard  than  in  later  times ;  in  these  cases,  it  is  evident 
 that  the  narrator  commonly  lets  the  judgment  be  expressed  by 
 the  facts  themselves,  as  in  the  instance  of  Jacob,  by  the  striking 
 retributions  which  go  parallel  with  all  his  individual  transgres* 
 sions  ;  in  the  instance  of  Abraham,  by  the  perplexities  into  which 
 he  was  thrown  by  his  violation  of  veracity  in  Egypt.  Yet  the 
 inventors  of  the  hypothesis  have  expressed  themselves  as  if,  even  in 
 our  days,  property  in  land  was  morally  secured  only  by  compacts, 
 so  that,  by  their  boldness,  the  counter-argument  first  urged,  does 
 not  affect  them  here  so  forcibly  as  elsewhere.  But  the  difficuhies, 
 on  other  accounts,  are  only  so  much  the  greater.  They  must  bliish 
 for  their  theory,  when  they  see  it  carried  out  in  practice,  Yet,  so 
 many  w^orthless  solutions  of  the  difficulties  in  sacred  history  have 
 
 VOL.  II.  c    0 
 
402  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 been  propounded,  that  persons  have  abandoned  too  much  the  posi- 
 tion of  the  present  times  and  of  active  life — they  have  not  considered 
 whether  they  would  pass  the  same  judgment,  if  the  events  passed 
 before  our  own  eyes,  which  is  ■  always  a  good  touchstone  for  the 
 correctness  of  a  moral  judgment.  Who  would  be  willing  to 
 undertake  to  justify  the  conduct  of  the  Spainards  in  America, 
 which,  according  to  this  theory,  was  perfectly  innocent  ?  Or  the 
 conduct,  much  less  stained  by  cruelty,  of  the  European  settlers 
 in  Nortli  America  ?  The  man  who  would  do  this,  would  have 
 witnesses  rise  up  against  him  from  among  his  own  clients.  The 
 first  colonists  who  left  their  native  land  on  account  of  religion,  and 
 were  auimated  by  a  living  Christian  spirit,  took  no  land  against 
 the  will  of  the  aborigines,  though  the  smallest  part  only  was  used 
 by  them,  and  there  was  much  more  plausibility  in  questioning 
 their  right  of  possession  to  huge  uncultivated  forests,  than  that 
 of  the  Canaanites,  in  a  well  tilled,  regularly  divided  country,  like 
 Palestine,  in  a  state  of  general  cultivation.  And,  when  the 
 multitudes  who  in  later  times  have  emigrated,  animated  by  a 
 different  spirit  (in  part  the  transported  scum  of  the  English 
 nation),  pursued  a  different  course,  a  prohibition  was  sent  out 
 from  the  Enghsh  sovereigns.  Every  Englishman  who  pene- 
 trated further  into  the  forests,  and  wished  to  bring  them  to  a 
 state  of  cultivation,  was  obliged  to  purchase  a  place  from  the 
 natives,  or  otherwise  make  terms  with  them.  To  consider  the 
 subject  more  closely,  what  reason  is  there  for  distinguishing  the 
 relations  of  whole  nations  to  one  another,  in  this  respect,  from 
 those  of  individuals  ?  If,  in  the  latter  case,  he  who  forcibly 
 takes  possession  of  another  man's  property,  without  noticing 
 whether  he  has  formally  recognised  it  as  his  own,  or  not,  is 
 called  a  robber  or  a  thief — why  not  in  the  former  instance  ? 
 What  reason  is  there  for  distinguishing  in  the  case  of  nations, 
 between  moveable  and  fixed  property  ?  Moreover,  the  trivial 
 reason,  that  in  the  former  there  was  the  labour  of  acquisition,  is 
 here  not  applicable.  Eor  the  Canaanites  had  really  apphed 
 themselves  most  industriously  to  the  improvement  of  the  soil, 
 which,  more  than  many  others,  as  its  present  state  sufficiently 
 indicates,  required  culture  to  make  it  what  the  Scriptures  testify 
 it  once  was,  "  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and  lioney."  It  is 
 founded  in  the  arrangements  of  Providence,  of  which  the  recog- 
 
THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  ISRAiaiTES  TO  PALESTINE,  403 
 
 nition  is  implanted  in  every  human  breast,  that  every  land,  that, 
 in  short,  every  thing  which  hitherto  has  had  no  owner,  from  the 
 instant  that  a  nation  takes  possession  of  it,  becomes  their  lawful 
 property.  From  that  instant  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  gift  of  the 
 Divine  Providence,  so  tiiat,  who  ever  seeks  to  deprive  them  of  it, 
 fights  against  God.  This  view  is  expressed  in  many  parts  of 
 Scripture. 
 
 When  tlie  Most  High  divided  to  the  nations  their  inheritance, 
 
 When  he  separated  the  sons  of  Adani — 
 
 He  set  the  bounds  of  the  people, 
 
 According  to  the  number  of  tlie  chihlren  of  Israel. 
 
 Deut.  xxxii.  ?. 
 
 *'  God  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men,  for  to  dwell 
 on  all  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  hath  determined  the  times 
 before  appointed,  and  the  bounds  of  their  habitation^  Acts 
 xvii.  26. 
 
 After  it  has  been  shown,  therefore,  that  the  Israelites,  con- 
 sidered from  this  point- of- view,  had  no  right  to  take  possession 
 of  Canaan,  the  w^iole  argument  that  they  did  not  seek  to  gain 
 possession  of  the  country  from  the  love  of  conquest,  but  from  ne- 
 cessity, loses  all  its  importance.  For  this  plea  could  only  serve 
 to  place  the  Israelites  on  a  level  with  those  who  rob  or  murder, 
 not  from  wanton  cruelty,  but  from  necessity ;  and  even  this  plea 
 is  not  perfectly  applicable  to  their  case,  since  necessity  would  only 
 in  a  ver)'  imperfect  sense  be  predicated  of  them — about  as  much 
 so  as  of  a  man  of  title,  who  has  quite  enough  for  his  daily  susten- 
 ance, but  not  enough  to  keep  up  the  style  and  splendour  of  his 
 rank.  The  way  back  to  Egypt  was  not  closed  against  them ; 
 those  who  so  unwillingly  let  them  go,  would  gladly  have  received 
 them  again  on  the  same  conditions  as  before,  or  probably  not 
 quite  so  severe.  What  morality,  that  of  the  heathens  not  excepted, 
 permits  us  to  purchase  freedom  from  our  own  hard  lot  by  inflict- 
 ing far  heavier  sufferings  on  others  ?  The  Arabian  desert  served 
 them  as  a  dwelling-place  for  forty  years  ;  could  it  not  have  done 
 so  for  a  longer  period  ?  And  must  not  their  Almighty  leader 
 have  known  ways  and  means  to  prepare  an  abode  for  them,  which 
 they  could  have  occupied  without  perpetrating  injustice  ? 
 
 III.  We  come  now  to  a  solution  which  demands  peculiar  atten- 
 tion, since  it  is  not  peculiar  to  a  few  of  the  learned,  but  may  be 
 
 c  c  2 
 
404  TIIEOLOCY  UI-   TIIK   PENTATEUCH. 
 
 considered  as  tliat  of  the  Cliurcli.  We  meet  with  it  ahiiost  uni- 
 versally from  the  times  of  Augustin  until  it  was  exchanged  for 
 others  altogether  untenable,  in  the  period  of  unbelief,  not  on  ac- 
 count of  its  objective  inadequacy,  but  from  causes  grounded  in 
 persons  which  have  been  already  noticed.  Its  ablest  advocates 
 are  SEiiARirs,  Staffer,  {Polemik,  p.  1003),  Ltlienthal,  Low- 
 man,  and  Bachiene,  {Geagr  I.  ii.,  p.  184.)  It  is  as  follows: — 
 The  Israelites  had  no  human  right  whatever  to  Canaan.  Their 
 right  rested  entirely  on  God's  gift.  By  this  no  injustice  was  done  to 
 t})e  Canaanites.  By  their  great  depravity  they  had  rendered  them- 
 selves unworthy  of  being  any  longer  possessors  of  the  land,  which 
 God,  as  in  the  case  of  all  other  nations,  only  gave  tliem  condi- 
 tionally. The  Israelites  were  sent  against  them  as  ministers  of 
 the  Divine  justice  ;  so  that  their  destruction  only  differed  mform 
 from  that  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  God's  giving  Canaan  to  the 
 Israelites  was  at  once  an  act  of  grace  and  of  justice. 
 
 We  begin  with  what  is  of  tlie  most  importance — the  proof  that 
 this  solution  has  its  firm  foundation  in  the  Scriptures. 
 
 The  possession  of  Canaan  by  the  Israelites  is  constantly  repre- 
 sented as  the  free  gift  of  the  Divine  grace,  by  which  all  human 
 right  is  completely  excluded ;  thus,  for  example.  Gen.  xii.  7,  xiii. 
 14—17,  where  God  says  to  Abraham,  "  Unto  tliij  seed  will  I  give 
 this  koid  f  ''Lift  up  now  thine  eyes,  and  look  from  tlie place 
 where  thou  art  northward,  and  southward,  and  eastward,  and 
 westward ;  for  all  the  land  which  thou  seest,  to  thee  will  I  give 
 it,  and  to  th//  seed  for  ever.  .  .  .  Arise,  walk  through  the 
 land,  in  the  length  of  it,  and  in  the  breadth  of  it :  for  I  will 
 give  it  unto  thee."  The  latter  act  was  symbolical,  denoting  the 
 future  possession  by  his  descendants  of  the  present  land  of  his 
 pilgrimage,  by  which  Abraham  at  the  same  time  expressed  his 
 firm  faith  in  the  Divine  promise. 
 
 Against  this  statement  Michaelis  objects  {Mos.  Becht.  ii.  § 
 28),  that  this  cannot  be  considered  as  a  token  of  the  right  of  the 
 Israelites  to  invade  Canaan.  All  countries  which  a  people  take 
 by  force  of  arms,  are  given  to  it  by  Providence,  and  victories 
 themselves  are  his  gift.  But  if  a  Divine  gift  of  this  sort  were  not 
 intended,  which  makes  those  to  whom  it  is  imparted  lawful  pos- 
 sessors, but  rather  one  of  those  by  which  they  are  only  installed 
 in  their  rightful  possession,  how  comes  it  to  pass  that  this  right 
 
THl;:  RIGHT  OF  THE  1SRAKL1TK8  TO  TALKSTINE.  405 
 
 is  not  mentioned  in  any  of  tlie  numerous  passages  referring  to  the 
 subject  ?  that  in  tlie  Scriptures  nothing  appears  in  reference  to 
 this  right,  but  only  what  proves  that  it  never  existed.  But  if 
 such  a  human  riglit  did  not  exist,  then  the  right  of  possession 
 must  be  given  in  tliat  promise.  For  a  good  which  is  purchased 
 at  the  cost  of  heavy  transgression,  God  will  not  promise  as  a  gift 
 of  his  grace  ;  so  much  the  less  when  this  promise  appeal's  as  an 
 enticement  to  this  transgression  ;  and  here  it  would  be  simply  such 
 since  it  plainly  includes  the  exhortation  to  get  possession  of  the 
 promised  good  when  the  time  appointed  by  God  should  arrive. 
 
 But  the  conquest  of  Canaan  is  distinguished  equally  as  an  act 
 of  God's  justice  against  the  Canaanites,  as  an  act  of  his  grace  to- 
 wards Israel.  The  principal  passage  is  Gen.  xv.  18-10 — "  And 
 God  said  unio  Ahraliam,  Know  of  a  surety  that  thy  seed  shall 
 he  a  strange^'  in  a  land  that  is  not  theirs,  and  shall  serve 
 them ;  and  they  shall  afflict  tJicnt  four  hundred  years  :  And 
 also  that  nation,  whom  they  shall  serve,  will  I  judge  ;  and 
 afterward  shall  they  come  out  with  great  substance.  And  thou 
 shall  go  to  thy  fathers  in  peace ;  thou  shall  he  huried  in  a  good 
 old  age.  But  in  the  fourth  generation  they  shall  come  hither 
 again:  for  the  iniquity  of  the  A  mo  rites  is  not  yet 
 full."  These  last  words  are  important  in  more  than  one  res- 
 pect, (i.)  They  exclude  all  human  right  of  the  Israelites  to  Pales- 
 tine. For  had  such  a  right  existed,  why  for  its  being  enforced 
 should  the  filling  up  of  the  iniquity  of  the  Amorites  be  required, 
 i.e.,  of  the  Canaanites  generally  ;  for  a  single  division  of  tliem  is 
 named  in  order  to  avoid  the  long  enumeration  already  given,  since 
 it  would  be  understood  that  the  same  remark  would  apply  to  all 
 the  other  tribes  that  stood  under  the  same  relations,  (ii.)  If  the 
 cause  why  Abraham's  descendants  were  not  now,  but  after  a  long 
 interval,  to  obtain  possession  of  the  promised  land,  was,  that  the 
 iniquity  of  the  Amorites  was  not  yet  full,  had  not  reached  its  cul- 
 minating point  (at  which  the  carcase  calls  the  eagles  together),  it 
 is  by  that  equally  intimated  that  this  fiUing  up  of  iniquity  would 
 justify  the  Divine  act,  which,  under  existing  circumstances,  would 
 have  been  unjust — exactly  as  God,  before  he  destroyed  Sodom 
 and  Gomon-ah  by  his  immediate  judgment,  first  of  all  permitted 
 the  abandoned  depravity  of  their  inhabitnuts  most  notoriously  to 
 manifest  itself. 
 
406  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  i'ENTATEUCH. 
 
 We  derive  another  proof  of  this  representation  from  the  fact, 
 that  the  conduct  wliich  the  Israehtes  were  commanded  to  observe, 
 and  actually  observed  towards  the  Canaanites,  is  constantly  desig- 
 nated as  Kn.  This  designation  shows  that  the  highest  object  of 
 the  war  of  extermination  against  the  Canaanites  was  the  vindica- 
 tion of  the  Divine  glory  which  had  been  dishonoured  by  them. 
 The  idea  of  a-^M  is  that  of  the  forcible  dedication  of  those  persons 
 to  God,  who  had  obstinately  refused  to  dedicate  themselves  volun- 
 tarily to  him — the  manifestation  of  the  Divine  glory  in  the  destruc- 
 tion of  those  who,  during  their  lifetime,  never  served  as  a  mirror 
 for  it,  and,  therefore,  would  not  realize  God's  end  in  the  creation 
 of  the  world.  God  will  sanctify  himself  o?i,  or  b?/  means  of,  all 
 those  in  whom  he  is  not  sanctified.  The  destruction  of  any  thing 
 which  serves  him  not,  publishes  his  praise.  This  idea  of  a^n 
 which  J.  D.  MiCHAELis  {Mos.  Recht.  §  145)  explains  in  a 
 highly  characteristic  manner  as  '' a  master-stroke  of  legislative 
 policy,"  is  prominent  in  the  command,  Deut.  xiii.  16-18,  to  des- 
 troy every  Israelitish  city  which  should  be  seduced  into  idolatry ; 
 see  particularly  ver  17,  "And  there  shall  cleave  nought  of  the 
 cursed  thing  ^"v""!^  to  thine  hand,  that  the  Lord  may  turn 
 from  the  fierceness  of  his  anger T  So  in  the  narrative,  Num. 
 xxi.  1-3,  the  Canaanitish  king  of  Arad  came  out  against  Israel, 
 ''  And  Israel  vowed  a  vow  unto  the  Lord,  and  said,  If  thou 
 wilt  indeed  deliver  this  peojjle  into  my  hand,  then  I  will  utterly 
 destroy  ''^^^!?.^^  their  cities.  And  the  Lord  hearkened  unto  the 
 voice  of  Israel,  and  delivered  iqi  the  Canaanites  ;  and  they 
 utterly  destroyed  °?l;!:  them  and  their  cities :  and  he  called 
 the  name  of  the  place  Hormah,  "3?C  (^•^-  utter  destructioji,  Eng. 
 Marg.  R.)  Here  the  a^^i  plainly  appears,  not  as  something  pro- 
 ceeding from  Imman  wilfulness,  and  serving  human  ends,  but  a 
 sacred  act  commanded  by  God,  which  Israel  required  as  a  sacrifice 
 made  for  God.  Exactly  thus  in  the  narrative,  1  Kings  xx.,  where 
 the  king  of  Israel,  not  having  carried  into  effect  the  ban  pronounced 
 by  God  on  Benhadad,  the  king  of  Syria,  the  bold  despiser  of  God 
 — was  himself  devoted  to  destruction.  The  ban  against  the  Ca- 
 naanites was  in  general  directed  only  against  their  persons,  wliich 
 alone  were  the  proper  objects  of  it.  Their  cities  and  their  property 
 was  divided  among  the  Israelites.  But  in,  order  to  show  that^ 
 their  former  owners  were  exterminated,  not  bv  human  wilfulness, 
 
THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  l^RAEITTES  TO  PALESTINE.  407 
 
 but  by  the  vengeance  of  God — that  their  land  and  property  was 
 not  to  be  considered  as  booty,  but  as  a  fief  held  of  God,  which  he 
 had  only  committed  to  other  vassals  if  they  would  faithfully  per- 
 form the  service  to  which,  by  accepting  it,  they  were  pledged — on 
 ihe first  city  that  was  taken,  Jericho,  the  n-^!-;  was  laid  and  on  all 
 the  property  in  it. 
 
 A  third  reason,  lastly,  is  contained  in  the  passages  in  which 
 God  declares  to  the  new  inhabitants  of  the  land,  that  their  apos- 
 tacy  from  him  would  deprive  them  of  the  possession  of  it.  That 
 tliis  it  was,  which  led  to  the  destruction  of  the  earlier  inhabitants, 
 would  be  probable  from  analogy,  even  if  it  had  not  been  many 
 times  expressly  said.  The  principal  passages  are  the  following. 
 Lev.  xviii.  24,  28,  ''Defile  not  ye  yourselves  in  any  of  these 
 things"  (the  various  cases  of  unchastity  and  impiety  of  the 
 grossest  kind  enumerated  in  the  context),  ''for  in  all  these  things 
 the  nations  are  defiled  ichich  I  cast  out  before  you.  And  the 
 land  is  defiled  ;  therefore  I  do  visit  the  iniquity  thereof  upon  it, 
 and  the  land  itself  vomiteth  out  her  inhabitants.  Ye  shall  there- 
 fore keep  my  statutes  and  my  judgments,  and  shall  not  commit 
 any  of  these  abominations,  neither  any  of  your  own  nation,  nor 
 any  stranger  that  sojourneth  among  you.  (For  all  these  abomi- 
 nations have  the  men  of  the  land  done,  which  were  before  you, 
 and  the  land  is  defiled.)  That  the  land  spue  not  you  out  also, 
 whenye  defile  it,  as  it  spued  out  the  nations  that  were  before  you!' 
 Dcut.  xii.  29,  "  When  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  cut  ofi^  the  na- 
 tions from  before  thee,  ivhithcr  thou  goest  to  possess  them,  and 
 thou  succeedest  them,  and  dwellest  in  their  land ;  ver.  30,  Take 
 heed  to  thyself,  that  thou  be  not  snared  by  following  them,  .  .  . 
 ver.  31,  Thou  shall  not  do  so  unto  the  Lord  thy  God ;  for  every 
 abominatio?i  to  the  Lord  which  he  hateth  have  they  done  unto 
 their  gods ;  for  even  their  so?is  a?id  their  daughters  they  have 
 burnt  in  the  fire  to  their  gods;"  xxviii.  G3,  64,  "  And  as  the 
 Lord  rejoiced  over  you  to  do  you  good  and  to  multiply  you  •'  so 
 the  Lord  will  rejoice  over  you  to  destroy  you  and  to  bring  you 
 to  nought ;  and  ye  shall  be  plucked  from  off'  the  land  whither 
 thou  goest  to  pwssess  it.  And  the  I^ord  sJiall scatter  tJiee  among 
 all  people  from  the  one  end  of  the  earth  even  unto  tJte  other." 
 Compare  also  Deut.  vii.  28 ;  viii.  10,  20. 
 
 After  having  shown  that  the  right  of  the  Israelites  to  Palestine, 
 
408  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 as  we  liuvc  stated  it,  is  the  only  one  sanctioned  by  the  Scriptures, 
 we  have  still  to  refute  numerous  ohjections  that  have  been  made 
 against  it. 
 
 We  begin  with  that  which  we  regard  as  the  source  of  all  the 
 rest,  although  most  of  the  opponents  of  our  view  have  not  openly 
 advocated  it,  or  even,  like  J.  D.  Michaelis,  have  actually  spoken 
 of  it  as  untenable.  It  is  the  assertion  that  it  is  not  God's  method 
 to  punish  idolatry  and  wickedness  by  extermination ;  which  we 
 find  for  example  expressed  in  the  posthumous  works  of  the  Wol- 
 fenbiittler  Fragmentist,  edited  by  Schmidt,  p.  160.  This  senti- 
 ment is  indeed  rejected  by  many  in  theory;*  but  they  manifest 
 the  strongest  aversion  to  admit  the  opposite  into  actual  life, 
 especially  on  so  large  a  scale  as  would  here  be  the  case.  And 
 quite  naturally  ;  for  their  God  is  an  abstraction,  confined  to  hea- 
 ven ;  they  would  prefer  anything  rather  than  that  he  should  be 
 known  on  earth  ;  they  are  not  sensible  of  the  abominable  nature 
 of  sin  and  the  depths  of  human  depravity,  nor  of  God's  holiness 
 and  righteousness;  hence,  to  their  feelings,  a  judgment  so  stern 
 appears  an  act  of  barbarity.  Such  persons  cannot  be  effectually 
 confuted,  since  their  aversion  is  rooted  in  the  inmost  depths  of 
 their  disposition,  and  they  could  only  rehnquish  it  with  their  being ; 
 yet  it  may  not  be  superfluous,  if  we  make  some  counter -remarks 
 for  the  sake  of  those  who  are  partially  infected  with  this  aversion. 
 
 It  would  be  superfluous  if,  in  proof  of  the  punitive  justice  of 
 God  affecting  the  destiny  of  nations  as  w^ell  as  of  individuals,  we 
 wished  to  appeal  to  the  numerous  passages  relating  to  the  subject 
 in  the  Old  Testament.  But  we  must  call  attention  to  the  fact, 
 that  in  the  New  Testament  also,  the  same  strict  idea  of  God's 
 punitive  justice  is  maintained — that  even  there,  "  God  is  a 
 consuminr/fire."    Only  notice  wdiat  the  Saviour  said  to  those  who 
 
 *  Yet,  even  in  the  present  day,  this  is  not  unfrequently  avoided  in  express  terms,  as 
 it  is  with  remarkable  distinctness  by  Von  Colln  (Bibl.  Theol.  i.  262).  "  If  God  de- 
 stroyed all  men  (eight  excepted)  by  a  flood,  because  they  lived  in  sin  ;  if  he  extermin- 
 ated the  inhabitants  of  Sodom  for  their  vices,  by  fire  from  heaven  ;  if  he  annihilated 
 nations  who  worshipped  him  not — such  representations  are  at  variance  with  the  pure 
 conception  of  the  Divine  justice,  according  to  wliichit  employs  punishment  as  a  means 
 of  moral  education  and  culture."  But  all  history,  not  less  than  those  representations, 
 is  at  variance  with  this  "  pui'e  conception  of  the  Divine  righteousness."  It  remains 
 only  to  choose  either  to  acknowledge  that  this  conception  is  not  pure,  or  to  admit  a 
 dualism  that  is  destructive  of  the  true  tiieistic  principle. 
 
THK  RIGHT  OF  THE  ISRAELITES  TO  PALESTINE.  400 
 
 told  liim  of  "  tlie  (lalileans  whoso  blood  Pilate  had  mingled  with 
 their  sacrifices.  "  Siqjpose  ye  that  these  Galileans  were  sinners 
 above  all  the  Galileans,  because  theij  suffered  such  things  !  1 
 tell  ijou,  JSuf/ ;  hut  except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise  perisli. 
 Or  these  eiyJtfeen  upon  wJioni  the  tower  of  Hiloani  fell,  and  slew 
 them,  think  ye  that  they  were  sinners  above  all  men  that  dwelt 
 in  Jerusalem  I  I  tell  you,  Nay  ;  but  except  ye  repent,  ye  shall 
 all  likewise  perish"  Luke  xiii.  i-5.  According  to  the  theology  of 
 natural  reason,  Christ  ought  here  to  have  struck  at  the  root  of  the 
 Jewish  superstition,  which  saw  in  what  had  occurred  a  Divine 
 judgment.  But  instead  of  that,  he  assumes  that  it  was  such,  and 
 only  warns  them  against  the  Pelagian  delusion  of  hmiting  the 
 Divine  punitive  justice,  which  one  day  would  he  manifested  in  a 
 far  more  comprehensive  manner.  On  that  strict  idea  of  the  Divine 
 justice  rests  all  that  our  Lord  said  of  the  impending  destruction 
 of  Jerusalem,  and  his  whole  announcement  of  its  most  perfect 
 manifestation  in  the  judgment  of  the  world,  which  was  only  future 
 in  its  absolute  completion.  It  is  our  Lord  himself  who  expresses 
 the  general  principle,  of  which  the  distinction  of  the  Canaanites 
 was  only  a  special  application;  "  Wliere  the  carcase  is,  there  ivill 
 the  eagles  be  cjathered  together  ^  where  sin  has  become  rank, 
 there  will  the  Divine  punishment  fall.  If  all  who  stood  on  this 
 same  point-of-view  were  as  open  and  consequential  as  the  author 
 of  the  vf oiks  Christus  nnd  der  Vernuj/ft  {Christ  and  Reason), 
 who  from  the  expression,  "  Woe  unto  thee  Chorazin,"  &c.,  infers 
 that  the  religious  ideas  of  Christ  were  very  unrefined  !  ("  dass 
 die  reliyiosen  Einsichten  Christi  hochst  nnyeldutert  y ewe- 
 sen  I")  But  even  those  who  have  courage  enough  to  present  this 
 offering  to  their  fancy,  by  which  they  bring  God  down  to  their 
 own  level,  would  not  thereby  get  rid  of  the  matter.  After  they 
 have  once  begun  to  give  way,  they  can  never  find  a  firm  footing 
 till  they  have  reached  the  dreary  region  of  Atheism.  Let  us  set 
 revelation  aside,  and  merely  maintain  that  there  is  a  God,  and, 
 consequently,  a  Providence  ;  for  one  without  the  other  is  incon- 
 ceivable. Then  let  us  pass  on  to  the  ground  of  history.  What 
 do  we  behold  ?  Everywhere  destruction  ;  a  multitude  of  nations 
 sunk  in  ruins,  almost  every  leaf  stained  with  blood  ;  destruction 
 by  the  ravages  of  disease  ;  destruction  by  the  fury  of  the  elements ! 
 If  God  be  not  the  original  author  of  all — He  wliom  every   na- 
 
410  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 tural  cause  must  serve,  must  know  and  will  them,  or  else  what  is 
 Providence  ?  But  if  he  be  the  original  author,  how  can  every 
 strict  idea  of  his  punitive  justice  be  denied  ?  O  what  a  totally 
 different  aspect  would  history  present,  if  Mani  and  God  were 
 such  as  they  are  in  your  fancies  ! 
 
 To  this  leading  objection  we  may  add  another,  which,  while  this 
 is  directed  against  the  right  itself,  is  directed  against  the  way  and 
 manner  in  which  God,  in  this  case,  must  assert  his  rights.  "  That 
 God  had  this  right,"  observes  J.  D.  Michaelis,  "  does  not  admit 
 of  a  doubt,  but  would  he  determine  thus  to  act,  and,  by  enforcing  this 
 right,  dishonour  religion  ?  He  had  equally  the  right  to  commis- 
 sion each  individual  to  put  a  villain  to  death.  But  does  he  use 
 this  right  ?  Does  he,  by  immediate  inspiration,  abohsh  for  his 
 favourites  the  commandments.  Thou  shalt  not  kill;  Thou  shalt  not 
 steal,  &c.  ?  If  he  did  so,  true  rehgion  would  appear  on  the  earth 
 in  a  most  hateful  and  suspicious  form  ;  and  at  the  sight  of  a  re- 
 generate person,  we  should  have  the  same  sensations  as  on  being 
 stopped  by  a  highwayman.  But  if  God  does  not  give  such  com- 
 mands to  the  individual  objects  of  his  favour,  how  could  a  whole 
 nation  plead  his  commission  for  making  war  on  a  people  by  whom 
 they  had  never  been  injured  ?  True  and  false  religion  have  equal 
 risfhts  against  one  another ;  for  everv  man  considers  his  own  re- 
 ligion  the  true  one ;  as  soon  therefore  as  T  attribute  a  certain 
 right  to  religion,  every  man  may  require  it  for  his  own  religion. 
 .  In  fact,  the  neighbours  of  sudi  a  nation  could  never  feel 
 secure,  if  it  thought  itself  justified  on  the  mere  command  of  God 
 to  go  to  war ;  they  must  fear  that  sooner  or  later  it  would  imagine 
 or  invent  such  a  command  to  make  wnr  upon  them  ;  for  whether 
 the  command  really  comes  from  God  or  not,  the  aggressive  party 
 constitutes  itself  the  judge.  Nothing  would  be  left  for  other 
 nations  but  to  unite  in  crushing  such  a  fanatical  monster." 
 
 How  pitiful  such  a  mode  of  arguing  is,  appears  from  the  fact, 
 that  its  author,  who  borrowed  it  from  the  English  Deists,  saw  him- 
 self obHged  to  affect  ignorance  of  the  unuiiimous  answer  that  is 
 given  by  its  opponents,  since  he  felt  that  by  this,  which  was  so 
 obvious,  the  whole  force  of  the  argument  would  be  lost.  Who 
 does  not  see  that  it  can  only  be  urged,  supposing  that  the  Israel- 
 ites had  invaded  Canaan  without  any  visible  co-operation  of  Pro- 
 vidence ?     But  the  same  Being  who  gave  the  command  for  the 
 
THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  ISRAELITES  TO  IMLESTINE.  ll  i 
 
 invasion  of  the  country,  and  the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites, 
 gave  also  to  the  IsraeUtes  and  the  rest  of  mankind  the  pledge  that 
 they  had  not  mistaken  a  fancy  of  their  own  for  a  Divine  commu- 
 nication. 
 
 We  have  lieai'd  with  our  ears,  O  God, 
 
 Our  fathers  have  told  us. 
 
 What  work  thou  didst  iu  tlieir  days  ; 
 
 In  the  times  of  old. 
 
 How  thou  didst  drive  out  the  heathen  with  thy  hand, 
 
 And  plantedst  them ; 
 
 How  thou  didst  afflict  the  people, 
 
 And  cast  them  out. 
 
 For  they  got  not  the  land  in  possession  by  their  own  sword, 
 
 Neither  did  their  own  arm  save  them ; 
 
 But  thy  right  hand,  and  thine  arm,  and  the  light  of  thy  countenance, 
 
 Because  thou  hadst  a  favour  \mto  them. 
 
 Vs.  xliv.  1  S. 
 
 The  miraculous  passage  through  the  Red  Sea,  and  through  the 
 Jordan,  the  overthrow  of  the  walls  of  the  first  city  in  Palestine  to 
 which  they  laid  siege — the  hail-storm  at  Giheon  which,  without 
 touching  the  Israelites,  slew  more  enemies  than  the  sword — all 
 these  events,  which  prove  that  Israel  could  here  he  regarded  only 
 as  an  instrument  in  God's  hand,  sufficiently  distinguish  these 
 transactions  from  the  fanatical  proceedings  of  those  who,  while 
 following  the  lusts  of  their  own  hearts,  pretend  that  they  are  act- 
 ing at  the  command,  and  in  the  service,  of  God.  We  may  confi- 
 dently concede  to  any  individual  or  any  collective  hody  of  men, 
 the  right  of  doing  the  like,  when  legitimated  in  a  similar  manner. 
 For  example,  could  Sand  have  given  the  same  proofs  of  a  Divine 
 commission,  he  would  not  have  heen  branded  as  a  criminal.  The 
 declaration,  "  Whoso  sUeddeth  mmis  hlood,  hy  man  shall  his 
 blood  he  shed,"  would  have  heen  as  little  applicable  to  his  case 
 as  to  those  who  condem-ued  him  to  death  as  a  just  punishment,  and 
 a  warning  to  deter  others.  So  far  from  these  transactions  serv- 
 ing to  excuse  hypocritical  impiety,  they  rather  tend  to  its  complete 
 exposure.  For  they  shew  how  God  legitimates  a  people  wdien  he 
 Avishes  to  employ  them  as  his  guiltless  instruments  for  the  punish- 
 ment of  others.  They  place  an  impassable  gulf  between  Israel 
 and  those  nations  whom  God  employs  unconsciously  to  themselves, 
 and  contrary  to  thar  intentions,  as  the  instruments  of  his  justice, 
 in  order,  when  thev  have  fulfilled  their   destiny,  to   arm   other 
 
]*2  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 iustrumeiits  of  his  justice  in  their  turn  against  them,  and  so  on 
 continually. 
 
 If  we  have  now  shown  that  the  way  and  manner  in  which  God 
 gave  the  Israelites  possession  of  their  promised  inheritance  has 
 nothing  in  it  ohjectionable,  it  still  remains  to  give  the  reasons  w^hich 
 determined  the  Divine  wisdom  to  select  precisely  this,  and  not  that 
 desired  by  our  opponents,  the  extinction  of  the  former  inhabitants 
 by  an  immediate  judgment  from  heaven,  like  that  on  the  old 
 world,  and  on  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  by  a  flood,  or  fire,  or 
 plague.  The  principal  reason  here  is,  that  for  which  also  under 
 the  New  Covenant  God  does  not  receive  believers  at  once  to 
 glory,  and  cliange  immediately  the  Church  militant  into  the  Church 
 triumphant. 
 
 "  Israel  belialt  den  Sieg 
 Nacli  gefiihrtem  Karapf  and  Krieg 
 Canaan  wird  nicLt  gefunden 
 Wo  man  uiclit  hat  uberwunden." 
 
 "  Israel  gains  the  victory  after  conflict  and  war;  no  man  reaches 
 Canaan  without  struggling  for  it."  Faith  acquires  strength  only 
 by  conflict ;  trust  in  God  is  confirmed  by  trial.  The  more  fre- 
 quent opportunities  a  man  has  to  be  made  sensible  of  his  own 
 weakness,  so  much  the  more  deeply  does  he  learn  to  acknowledge 
 that  it  is  God's  power  wiiich  works  in  us  to  will  and  to  do.  The 
 secret  abysses  of  doubt  and  unbelief  are  disclosed,  and  then  God 
 takes  occasion  to  fill  them  up ;  then  the  valleys  are  exalted,  and 
 the  mountains  are  made  low.  By  manifold  difficulties  in  the 
 narrow  way,  a  thorny  path  by  the  side  of  precipices,  men  learn  to 
 look  up  for  the  hand  from  the  clouds,  and,  when  it  is  stretched  forth, 
 to  grasp  it  with  love  and  thankfulness.  Such  a  school  of  faith 
 was  the  conflict  with  the  Canaanites  for  Israel.  Had  God  led 
 them  into  a  land  already  emptied  of  inhabitants,  they  would  soon 
 have  forgotten  that  he  had  made  it  so  ;  they  would  have  ascribed 
 the  whole  operation  to  natural  causes.  But  from  this  indolent 
 forgetfulness,  which  proceeds  from  the  disposition  of  the  natural 
 man,  estranged  from  God,  who  keeps  God  before  his  eyes  only 
 as  long  as  the  spectacle  is  forced  upon  him — they  were  constantly 
 aroused.  Let  us  only  consider  what  happened  at  Ai.  How 
 strictly  God  dealt  with  his  people,  was  shown  in  his  making  the 
 whole  nation  answerable  for  the  transgression  of  an  individual. 
 
THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  ISRAELITES  TO  PALESTINE.  41.'] 
 
 That  nothing  can  stand  in  the  way  of  his  grace,  that  sin  is  the 
 only  wall  of  separation  between  liim  and  his  people,  w^as  shewn 
 by  the  success  of  their  arms,  as  soon  as  tlie  ban  resting  on  Israel 
 was  atoned  for  by  the  death  of  tlie  transgressor.     Moreover,  since 
 God  did  not  destroy  the  Canaanites  at  once,  but  made  tlieir  con- 
 quest dependent  on  the  faith  of  Israel,  he  thus  provided  himself 
 with  an  instrument  by  which  to  chastise  their  nnbehef,  and  the 
 disobedience  which  was  its  fruit,  and  thus  gave  a  practical  proof 
 that  his  partiality  for  Israel  was  not  carnal,  but  that  they  must 
 share  the  lot  of  the  heathen  if  they  resembled  them  in  apostatizing 
 from  Him — a  procedin-e  in  the  Divine  administration  which  is 
 still  maintained.     He  who  places  himself  on  a  level  with  the  world, 
 will  be  punished  by  the  world.     This  truth  was  plainly  announced 
 to  Israel,  "Bui  if  ye  will  not  drive  out  tlie  inhabitants  of  the 
 land  from  before  you,  then  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  those  which 
 ye  let  remain  of  them  shall  be  pricks  in  your  eyes,  and  tJiorns 
 in  your  sides,  and  shall  vex  you  in  the  land  wherein  ye  dwell,'' 
 Num.  xxxiii.  55.     Lastly,  the  Israelites,  in  undertaking  the  exe- 
 cution of  the  sentence  on  the  enemies  of  God,  and  announcing 
 themselves  as  the  instruments  of  the  Divine  justice,  by  that  act 
 formally  and  solemnly  declared,  that  they  w^ould  merit  the  same 
 punishment  if  they  incurred   similar    guilt,   and   thus  justified 
 beforehand  the  Divine  judgments  which  in  that  case  it  w^as  declared 
 would  fall  upon  them  ;  they  acknowledged  the  land  was  only  held 
 as  a  fief  of  God,  and  that  he  could  demand  it  back  again,  when- 
 ever the  conditions  he  had  affixed  were  not  fulfilled.     How  must 
 this  have  increased  the  dread  of  forfeiting  the  favour  of  the  Most 
 Holy  by  unholy  conduct!     What  a  sanction  would  thereby  be 
 given  to  the  holy  men  of  God  for  chastising  them  when  tliis  really 
 happened ! 
 
 After  fully  meeting  the  two  principal  objections,  we  can  more 
 quickly  dispose  of  the  rest.  A  somewhat  plausible  objection  may 
 be  taken  against  us,  which  we  shall  examine  in  the  next  section — 
 On  borrowing  the  vessels  of  the  Egyptians, 
 
 If  God's  commands  can  never  be  at  variance  with  his  law,  which 
 is  the  expression  of  his  character,  and  the  rule  for  those  who  are 
 to  represent  his  hoUness  on  earth,  if  he  can  never  legitimate  false- 
 hood, how  could  he  give  order  for  the  violation  of  his  command- 
 ment—  Thou  shall  not  kill  '.      But  the  solution  here  is  not  diffi-. 
 
414  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 cult.  Falsehood,  under  all  circumstances,  is  inadmissible,  as  may 
 be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  God,  under  no  circumstance,  utters 
 falsehood.  But,  to  take  away  life  is,  under  certain  circumstances, 
 not  only  allowable,  but  a  duty.  Falsehood,  therefore,  stands 
 parallel,  not  with  taking  away  life,  but  with  murder,  which  alone 
 is  forbidden  in  the  law  of  God.  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill,''  i.e., 
 thou  shalt  not  with  malignant  wilfulness  assume  rights  which 
 belong  alone  to  God  and  his  servants.  If  God  takes  away  life  by 
 means  of  his  dumb  and  unconscious  servants,  why  should  he  not 
 also  give  commission  and  authority  for  that  purpose  to  his  rational 
 creatures,  the  servants  who  *'  k7iow  their  Lords  will,"  provided 
 that  they  can  legitimate  their  commission  in  the  manner  that 
 has  been  already  described  ? 
 
 The  Israehtes,  Tindal  remarks,  were  not  less  wicked  than  the 
 Canaanites.  How  strange,  therefore,  that  God  should  commis- 
 sion them  to  punish  their  companions  in  sin  !  There  would  be 
 certainly  force  in  this  objection,  if  the  assumption  on  which  it 
 rests  were  correct.  We  should  perhaps  not  venture  to  urge  that 
 God,  as  history  teaches,  commonly  makes  use  of  the  greatest  sin- 
 ners as  the  instruments  of  retribution.  There  is  here  an  essential 
 difference  between  those  who,  like  the  Assyrians  and  Chaldeans, 
 unconsciously,  and  without  being  thereby  at  all  justified,  were 
 ministers  of  the  Divine  justice,  and  those  w4io  received  a  clear 
 and  distinct  commission  from  God.  To  maintain  that,  in  refer- 
 rence  to  the  latter,  no  account  was  to  be  taken  of  their  moral 
 fitness,  would  be  just  the  same  as  to  assert  that  a  government 
 might  appoint  a  notorious  cut -throat  to  the  office  of  execu- 
 tioner, or  make  a  thief  overseer  of  a  house  of  correction.  If  the 
 Israelites,  in  the  time  of  Joshua,  had  been  in  the  same  moral 
 condition  as  they  were  in  the  greater  part  of  the  times  of  the 
 kiugs,  such  a  commission  would  not  have  been  given  them  ; 
 nor  could  it  have  been  granted  them  in  the  state  of  their  dis- 
 positions when  they  left  Egypt.  At  that  time  the  ban  was 
 denounced  on  Israel  itself.  Num.  xiv.  29,  &c.  But  the  state 
 of  Israel  under  Joshua  was  very  different  from  this.  The  old 
 corrupt  generation  had  been  worn  away  by  God's  judgment  in 
 the  wilderness.  The  new  generation  that  had  grown  up  was  ani- 
 mated with  the  best  spirit.  They  were  powerfully  actuated  by  a 
 conviction  of  their  calling,  and  the  feeling  that  the  war  they  had 
 
THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  ISRAELITES  TO  PALESTINE.  415 
 
 undertaken  was  a  holy  war.  This  is  shown  in  a  twofold  respect, 
 by  their  undergoing  the  rite  of  circumcision  at  Joshua's  com- 
 mand, after  passing  through  the  Jordan.  It  had  been  omitted  dur- 
 ing their  march  through  the  desert,  since  the  people,  after  being 
 inwardly  desecrated  by  their  apostacy  from  the  Lord,  were  to  be 
 outwardly  desecrated  by  not  receiving  this  sign  of  the  Covenant. 
 What,  therefore,  could  be  the  ground  for  renewing  that  sacrament 
 but  this,  that  the  people,  by  once  more  returning  to  the  Lord, 
 had  fitted  themselves  for  receiving  the  sign  of  their  election  ? 
 But,  as  the  command  of  God  bore  witness  to  the  altered  disposi- 
 tion of  the  people,  so  also  did  the  ready  obedience  with  which 
 the  whole  people  submitted  to  that  command.  This  could  only 
 be  considered  as  the  product  of  a  living  faith,  strengthened  by 
 their  fresh  experience  of  the  miraculous  power  of  the  Lord,  which 
 caused  them  to  turn  their  eyes  from  the  risk  they  encountered 
 from  performing  this  rite  in  the  sight  of  their  enemies  (of  which 
 Gen.  xxxiv.  25  furnishes  an  example).  If  we  look  further  into 
 the  Book  of  Joshua,  we  shall  nowhere  find  that  stiff-necked  and 
 rebellious  people,  which  we  meet  with  in  the  Books  of  Moses. 
 It  would  lead  us  too  far  from  our  main  subject,  if  we  were  to 
 follow  the  traces  of  a  living  piety  in  Israel  through  the  whole 
 book.  We  shall  only  quote  the  general  testimony  which  is  given 
 to  that  generation  in  the  Book  of  Judges.  "  The  peojde,"  it  is 
 said  in  ch.  ii.  7,  "  served  the  Lord  all  the  days  of  Joshua,  and 
 all  the  days  of  the  elders  that  outllred  Joshua,  who  had  seen 
 all  the  great  ivorks  of  the  Lord,  that  he  did  for  Lsrael."  This 
 applies,  it  will  be  at  once  understood,  to  the  people  generally,  and 
 in  the  gross.  It  would  be  contrary  to  all  experience,  and  to  the 
 scriptural  idea  of  human  nature,  to  assume  that  every  individual 
 was  free  from  idolatry,  and  its  immoral  influences.  But  this  is 
 not  necessary  for  our  object.  It  is  sufficient  that  the  predominant 
 disposition  of  the  people  was  worthy  of  their  high  calling.  Those 
 members  of  the  community  who,  without  sharing  in  this  disposi- 
 tion, took  part  in  the  execution  of  the  Divine  command,  could 
 not  nuUif)^  the  right  of  the  Israelites  to  Palestine,  but  only  their 
 own  claims.  Personally,  though  not  so  as  to  affect  the  whole 
 body,  they  became  changed  from  servants  of  the  Lord  into  rob- 
 bers and  murderers ;  they  passed  sentence  of  death  on  themselves, 
 in  aiding  the  execution  of  it  on  the  Canaanites  ;  this  was  brought 
 
41  G  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATErCH. 
 
 home  to  Israel  by  the  example  of  Aehan,  wlio  liimself  ^vas  sub- 
 jected to  the  Cherem,  because  lie  had  regarded  it,  if  ^ve  may 
 judge  by  his  actions,  *'  as  a  mere  master-piece  of  ler/islative 
 in g en  nit II y 
 
 The  Canaanites,  Tindal  again  objects  to  us,  were  not  more 
 wicked  than  other  heathen  nations.  Why  should  they  alone 
 be  visited  with  so  fearful  a  punisliment  ?  Here,  first  of  all,  a 
 doubt  arises  as  to  their  not  being  more  wicked.  If  we  consult 
 the  only  historical  documents  which  are  within  our  reach  for  those 
 times,  it  will  appear  that  the  common  depravity  had  attained, 
 among  no  nation  of  the  known  world,  so  fearful  a  maturity, 
 Iiad  never  so  loudly  called  for  the  Divine  justice,  as  among  the 
 Canaanites.  The  moral  degeneracy  of  the  Phoenicians,  and  of 
 their  descendants,  the  Carthaginians,  was  proverbial,  even  in  all 
 heathen  antiquity.  "'  The  advance  of  civilization,"  says  Munter 
 {die  Kelirjion  der  Carthager,  p.  152),  ''had  aimost  entirely  put 
 an  end  among  other  nations  to  the  abomination  of  human  sacri- 
 fices ;  but  nothing  could  induce  the  Carthaginians  to  aboHsh  it, 
 although  it  made  them  the  object  of  abhorrence  to  all  men  of 
 good  morals."  Better  would  it  have  been,  says  Plutarch,  to 
 have  had  a  Critias  or  a  Diogoras,  avowed  athiests,  for  their  law- 
 givers, than  have  retained  a  religion  so  detestable  for  its  human 
 sacrifices.  The  Typhous  and  the  Giants,  those  enemies  of  the 
 gods,  if  they  had  prevailed,  could  have  instituted  nothing  worse. 
 It  is  lamentable  to  pass  so  disadvantageous  a  judgment  on  a 
 whole  nation.  But  how  can  it  be  otherwise,  where  so  many  facts 
 speak  for  themselves,  and  such  men  as  Polybus,  Cicero,  and 
 Plutarch,  express  themselves  so  decidedly.  The  Carthaginians 
 were  morose,  austere,  severe  towards  their  tributaries,  and  dread- 
 fully cruel  in  their  anger.  This  inhuman  spirit  of  the  nation, 
 not  sparing  their  own  people,  and  showing  no  pity  towards  their 
 conquered  enemies,  was  tempered  by  no  fear  of  benevolent  gods, 
 and  the  commercial  spirit  which  pervaded  the  whole  people  must, 
 as  it  met  here  with  no  counterbalance,  have  operated  still  more 
 injuriously  on  their  morals,  than  in  other  mercantile  states,  in 
 which  a  milder  religion  was  received." 
 
 But  this  "  alone  "  must  not  be  allowed  to  pass  without  further 
 notice.  As  if  (what  indeed  the  very  heathens  perceived)  the 
 whole  liistory  of  the  world  were  not  a  judgment  of  the  world  ! 
 
PUKLOINING  OF  THE  VESSELS  OF  THE  EGYPTIANS.  417 
 
 Have  not  jilinost  all  the  iiiitions  of  antiquity  disappeared,  even  to 
 their  very  names  ?  And  by  what  is  the  judgment  on  the  Canaan- 
 ites  distinguished,  as  far  as  this  is  concerned,  above  every  other 
 nation  ?  The  difference  that  the  Divine  decree  in  this  case  was 
 fulfilled  by  those  who  knew  it,  and  were  appointed  by  it,  was  of 
 importance  only  for  the  IsraeHtes.  Moses  places  another  nation 
 by  the  side  of  the  Canaanites,  who  would  meet  with  similar  aw^ful 
 destruction  from  the  Lord,  and  this  is  no  other  than  Israel  itself, 
 the  people  of  the  Lord. 
 
 We  believe  that  our  task  is  now  finished,  and  we  only  add  the 
 wish,  that  our  representation  may  call  forth,  not  merely  the  ac- 
 knowledgment on  the  part  of  our  readers,  that  the  Scripture  can 
 justif>^  itself,  if  required,  but  that  they  may  not  leave  unemployed 
 the  rich  treasures  of  edification  which  that  command  of  God  con- 
 tains in  itself,  but  obtain,  by  means  of  it,  a  deep  insight  into 
 God's  holiness  and  justice,  and  be  awakened  to  renewed  efforts, 
 that  God  may  be  sanctified  in  them,  and,  as  much  as  depends  on 
 them,  in  their  people,  that  he  need  not  be  (which  otherwise  is  an 
 unavoidable  consequence)  glorified  on  them  and  on  their  people. 
 
 THE  ALLEGED  PURLOINING  OF  THE  VESSELS  OF  THE  EGYPTIANS 
 BY  THE  ISRAELITES. 
 
 Gen.  XV.  18,  14—"  And  God  said  unto  Abram,  Know  of  a 
 surety  that  thy  seed  shall  be  a  stranger  in  a  land  that  is  not 
 theirs,  and  shall  serve  them ;  and  they  shall  afflict  them  four 
 hundred  years.  And  also  that  nation  whom  they  shall  serve  will 
 I  judge  ;  atid  afterivard  shall  they  come  out  ivith  great  suh- 
 stance,  ^^~l  ^J.?.^?  ^^^.^  1?."'.':'::??  •. 
 
 ExoD.  iii.  20-22 — "  And  I  will  stretch  out  my  hand,  and  smite 
 Eg^'pt  with  all  my  wonders  wliich  I  will  do  in  the  midst  thereof; 
 and  after  that  he  will  let  you  go.  And  I  will  give  this  people  favour 
 in  the  sight  of  the  Egyptians  ;  and  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that 
 when  ye  go,  ye  shall  not  yo  empty.  But  every  woman  shall 
 desire  of  her  neighbour,  and  of  her  that  sojourneth  in  her  house, 
 vessels  of  silver,  and  vessels  of  gold ;  and  ye  shall  put  them  upon 
 your  sons  and  your  daughters,  and  ye  shall  spoil  the  Egyptians," 
 (others  translate  it,  "  steal  or  purloin  from  the  Egyptians.") 
 
 ExoD.  xi.  1-8 — "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Yet  will  I 
 
 VOL.  IT.  D    d 
 
418  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 bring  one  plague  more  upon  Pliaroah  and  upon  Egypt ;  after- 
 wards he  will  let  you  go  hence ;  when  he  shall  let  you  go,  he 
 shall  surely  thrust  you  out  hence  altogether.  Speak  now  in  the 
 ears  of  the  people,  and  let  every  man  ask  of  his  neighbour,  and 
 every  woman  of  her  neighbour,  jewels  of  silver  and  jewels  of 
 gold.  And  the  Lord  gave  the  people  favour  in  the  sight  of  the 
 Egyptians.  Moreover,  the  man  Moses  was  very  great  in  the 
 land  of  Egypt,  in  the  sight  of  Pharoah's  servants,  and  in  the 
 sight  of  the  people." 
 
 ExoD.  xii.  35,  3G — "  And  the  children  of  Israel  did  accord- 
 ing to  the  word  of  Moses  ;  and  they  asked  of  the  Egyptians 
 jewels  of  silver  and  jewels  of  gold,  and  raiment.  And  the  Lord 
 gave  the  people  favour  in  the  sight  of  the  Egyptians,  so  that  they 
 gave  them  gladly  {lent  them,  other  Transl.)  And  they  spoiled 
 the  Egyptians,  (jmrloincd  from  the  Egyptians,  other  Transl.)" 
 
 This  narrative  has,  from  ancient  times,  served  the  enemies  of 
 Eevelation  as  a  principal  object  of  their  attacks.  That  the  hea- 
 then knew  how  to  make  use  of  it  for  this  purpose,  is  shown  by 
 the  earnest  endeavour  to  remove  their  objections  by  Philo  in  his 
 Life  of  Moses,  as  w^ell  as  by  the  Jewish  fable,  handed  down  to  us 
 by  Tektullian,  of  a  lawsuit  between  the  Egyptians  and  the  Jews 
 before  Alexander  the  Great,  about  the  gold  and  silver  vessels,  in 
 which  the  Egyptians  were  altogether  repulsed  in  their  accusations. 
 That  the  Gnostics,  particularly  Marcion,  availed  themselves  of 
 it,  in  order  to  justify  their  depreciation,  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 appears  from  Irenaeus,  iv.  49,  and  Tertulltan,  c.  Marcionem, 
 ii.  20 ;  in  reference  to  the  Manicheans  also,  Augustin,  c.  Faus- 
 tiim,  ii,  7L  The  English  Deists  took  occasion  from  it  to  cast  ridi- 
 cule on  a  rehgion  which  sanctified  Msehood,  deceit,  and  theft, 
 (see  Tindal's  Christianity  as  old  as  the  Creation.)  That  the 
 French  Atheists  and  Freethinkers  did  not  neglect  it,  need  scarcely 
 be  said,  and  that  from  them  it  passed  over  to  our  rationalists, 
 might  be  expected,  from  the  general  contents  of  their  store-house, 
 in  which  every  thing  which  wears  only  the  appearance  of  an  objec- 
 tion against  the  Scriptures  is  laid  up,  however  miserable  and 
 worn  out  it  may  be.  The  editor  of  the  posthumous  works  of  the 
 Wolfenbtittel  Fragmentist,  Berlin,  1787,  remarks  (p.  53),  that  if 
 the  transaction  be  considered  in  itself,  every  one  must  say  that  it 
 was  nothing  but  falsehood,  deceit,  and  theft.  But  if  the  words,  "  The 
 
ITRLOINIXG   OF  THK  VESSELS  UF  TIIK  EGYPTIANS.  419 
 
 Lord  hath  said  or  commanded,"  be  added,  will  they  change  un- 
 truth and  dissimulation  into  a  Divine  Revelation  ?  If  so,  it  will 
 not  cost  much  to  make  a  Revelation  out  of  falsehood,  cr  virtue 
 and  piety  out  of  wickedness ;  all  the  marks  of  what  is  divine  or 
 undivine  are  obliterated — religion  and  worsliip  are  distinguished 
 from  the  most  shocking  lies  and  knavery  by  the  magic  of  an 
 empty  phrase — "  God  hath  said  it."  And  down  to  the  present 
 day,  similar  sounds  are  heard  from  all  quarters,  from  the  studies 
 of  the  learned,  up  to  the  Hegelian  Philosophers  (Daumer's 
 expressions  are  not  a  whit  behind  those  of  the  Fragmentist  in 
 bitterness  and  violence),  and  from  pot-house  critics. 
 
 The  defenders  of  Holy  Writ  cannot,  alas,  be  free  from  the  re- 
 proach of  having  played  into  their  adversaries'  hands.  If  the  nar- 
 rative could  not  be  justified  otherwise  than  it  has  been  by  most 
 of  them,  the  attacks  would  be  successful.  This  will  appear,  if 
 w^e  here  enumerate  the  principal  of  these  objectionable  vindica- 
 tions. Common  to  all  of  them  is  the  concession  to  our  oppo- 
 nents, that  the  statement  in  the  text  involves  lending  on  the  part 
 of  the  Egyptians,  and  purloining  on  the  part  of  the  Israelites. 
 From  this  point  of  view,  which  admits  of  no  justification,  the 
 following  vindications  have  been  attempted. 
 
 I.  The  right  of  the  Israelites  to  the  vessels  has  been  founded 
 on  God's  unlimited  right,  as  Lord  of  the  whole  creation,  to  trans- 
 fer the  earthly  goods  of  one  possessor  to  another.  This  view  of 
 the  matter  has  been  most  extensively  adopted.  It  occurs  in  some 
 of  the  ancient  Jewish  expositors,  as,  for  instance,  in  Aben  Ezra, 
 who  says,  "  God,  as  he  created  all  things,  so  he  bestows  them 
 according  to  his  free  pleasure  on  whomsoever  he  will ;"  he  takes 
 from  one  and  gives  to  another ;  and  in  all  this  no  guilt  is  incurred, 
 because  all  is  God's."  In  the  Lutheran  Church,  it  was  quite  the 
 traditional  vindication  ;  compare  Pfeifer,  (df/h.  ve.v.,  p.  226)  ; 
 Calov,  {hibl.  illustr..  Ex,  iii.  21)  ;  Buddeus  (hist.  Eccles.,  v. 
 7),  and  others.  Calvin  thus  states  it,  "  Those  to  wdiom  this 
 method  of  enriching  the  people  appears  to  be  little  agreeable  to 
 God's  justice,  little  consider  how  far  that  justice,  of  which  they 
 speak,  extends.  I  grant  that  it  belongs  to  it,  to  ensure  to  every 
 one  his  rights,  to  prevent  theft,  to  condemn  deceit  and  robbery. 
 But  let  us  see  what  belongs  to  every  one.  Who  can  pretend  to 
 have   any  property  but  what  is  the  gift  of  (4od  ?   and  therefore 
 
 T)  (1  'i 
 
\:'20  TPIKOLOGY  OF  THE  rENTATEUCH. 
 
 individuals  possess  as  a  loan  what  God  pleases,  who  is  at  liberty 
 to  take  away  at  any  moment  what  he  has  given.  The  Hebrews 
 spoiled  the  Egyptians.  Were  they  allowed  to  contend  with  God, 
 that  he  had  transferred  his  benefits  from  them  to  others  ?  Does 
 this  complaint  deserve  to  be  heard,  that  God,  in  whose  hands  are 
 the  boundaries  of  the  earth,  who,  according  to  his  pleasure,  ap- 
 points their  bounds  to  the  nations,  and  reduces  kings  to  poverty, 
 had  deprived  a  few  men  of  their  household  furniture  and  their 
 jewels  ?  Another  vindication  has  been  proposed  by  several  wri- 
 ters, that  the  Hebrews  really  took  away  nothing  that  did  not  be- 
 long to  them,  but  only  received  their  due  wages,  since  they  had 
 been  unjustly  reduced  to  a  state  of  servitude,  in  which  they  had 
 lived  on  a  poor  pittance.  And  certainly  it  was  fair  that  they  should 
 receive  a  compensation  for  their  labour.  But  it  is  not  necessary 
 to  estimate  God's  judgment  according  to  the  common  laws,  since 
 we  have  already  seen,  that  his  are  all  the  goods  of  the  world,  which 
 he  distributes  to  individuals  as  it  may  best  please  him.  Yet  I  do 
 not  place  him  in  this  way  beyond  the  law  ;  for  though  his  power 
 is  exalted  above  all  laws,  yet,  since  his  will  forms  the  most  certain 
 rule  of  the  most  perfect  equity,  everything  which  he  does  is  most 
 righteous,  and,  on  that  account,  he  is  free  of  the  law,  since  he  is 
 a  law  to  himself  and  to  all.  I  do  not  absolutely  say  with  Aug  us - 
 TIN,  that  there  may  be  a  command  of  God  respecting  which  we 
 are  not  to  judge,  but  to  which  we  must  listen,  since  he  knows  how 
 justly  he  commands,  but  it  is  incumbent  on  his  servants  to  do  all 
 things  obediently  wdiich  he  commands.  This  is,  indeed,  true  ; 
 but  we  must  hold  fast  that  higher  principle,  since,  of  God's  fi-ee 
 bounty  alone,  individuals  possess  what  they  call  their  own,  so  that 
 there  cannot  be  a  juster  title  to  possession  than  his  gift.  We  shall 
 therefore  say,  the  Hebrew  women  had  seized  that  which  God  com- 
 manded them  to  take,  and  what  he  intended  to  give  them ;  but 
 since  he  only  gave  what  was  his  own,  no  one  could  charge  him 
 with  injustice."' 
 
 Is  is  scarcely  conceivabje  that  a  man  of  so  much  acuteness  did 
 not  perceive  that  this  whole  argumentation  only  proves  what 
 needed  no  proof ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  leaves  quite  untouched 
 the  point  in  which  the  difficulty  pecuharly  lies.  That  God  is  the 
 Lord  and  Proprietor  of  his  whole  creation — that  hence  he  is  at 
 liberty  to  make  a  fresh  distribution  of  the  goods  of  this  world — 
 
rURLOINING  OF  THE  VESSELS  OF  THE  EGVITIANS.  421 
 
 that  he  to  whom  he  gives  what  before  was  possessed  by  another, 
 may  consider  what  is  so  given  as  his  lawful  property — who  will 
 deny  ?  A  stream  floats  to  one  place  what  it  tore  away  from  ano- 
 ther— a  man  finds  a  treasure  whose  owner  he  cannot  discover — a 
 vessel  is  wrecked  whose  proprietor  is  unknown — who  would  main- 
 tain that  it  w)uld  be  unjust  to  receive  the  advantages  accruing 
 from  these  events  as  a  gift  from  the  hand  of  God,  or  that  God 
 has  not  a  right  to  bestow  them  ?  To  maintain  this  would  be  to 
 attack  the  universal  government  of  God.  For  the  position,  that 
 he  is  the  proprietor  of  his  whole  creation — that,  according  to  his 
 free  choice,  he  raises  up  and  puts  down,  gives  and  takes  away, 
 enriches  and  impoverishes,  lies  at  its  very  foundation.  A  limited 
 monarchy  (eine  constitalioneUe  Iter/ieriuig)  has  not  yet  been 
 introduced  into  heaven.  To  come  nearer  to  the  case  in  hand  : 
 there  could  be  no  doubt,  that  the  vessels  of  the  Egyptians  would 
 have  been  the  lawful  property  of  the  Israelites,  if  they,  as  nation 
 against  nation,  had  been  engaged  in  a  lawful  war  against  tlie 
 Egyptians,  and  God  had  granted  success  to  their  arms,  and  had 
 thus  given  up  to  them  the  booty  of  their  enemies.  Who  would 
 ever  assert  that  Hezekiah,  when  the  host  of  Assyria  had  been 
 destroyed  by  the  angel  of  God  before  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  was 
 bound  to  send  back  the  treasm'es  found  in  the  camp,  carefully 
 collected  and  packed,  to  Assyria  ?  But  the  relation  of  the  Israelites 
 to  the  Egyptians  was  totally  different.  On  their  coming  down  to 
 Egypt,  they  became  Pharaoh's  subjects,  although  invested  with 
 more  privileges  than  the  rest.  Their  relation  was  essentially 
 different  from  their  former  one  in  Canaan,  where  they  found 
 the  ground  and  soil  wliich  they  settled  upon  still  free,  and  were 
 invested  with  it  by  no  one — where  their  progenitors  were  ac- 
 knowledged as  independent  cliiefs,  whose  right  no  one  disputed  of 
 exercising  within  their  own  circle  the  supreme  authority,  and  out 
 of  it  to  form  treaties  and  carry  on  wars.  In  Egypt,  on  the  con- 
 trary, Jacob  was  formally  invested  by  Pharaoh  with  the  land  of 
 Goshen  ;  his  whole  bearing  towards  him  shows  that  he  considered 
 himself  as  his  vassal,  not  as  a  chief  standing  in  an  independent 
 position  towards  him.  Had  Pharaoh  afterwards  not  fulfilled  his 
 duties  as  a  sovereign  towards  them,  it  was  God's  concern  to 
 punish  him  for  it ;  they  would  not  thereby  have  been  freed  from 
 their  duties  as  subjects,  any  more  than  a  son  would  be  released 
 
422  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 from  his  filial  obligations  by  the  unjust  conduct  of  his  father. 
 Justice  is  not  a  relative  duty,  one  which  ceases  as  soon  as  another 
 violates  it ;  or,  which  comes  to  the  same  thing,  as  soon  as  we 
 think  he  has  violated  it.  To  assert  this  would  be  to  separate 
 human  justice  from  its  source  and  rule,  the  divine,  and  thus 
 to  abohsh  it  altogether.  Hence  a  war  between  the  Israelites 
 and  the  Egyptians  could  not  take  place  as  long  as  the  former 
 remained  in  the  country,  but  only  a  rebellion,  and  whatever  they 
 might  have  gained  in  this  w\ay  would  not  have  been  a  just  pos- 
 session. This  view  of  the  relation  of  the  Israelites  is  confirmed 
 by  God's  whole  conduct  towards  them  at  their  deliverance.  As 
 God  generally  makes  natural  causes  and  human  means  a  sub- 
 stratum on  which  he  manifests  his  supernatural  power  and  grace, 
 so  he  commonly  assists  his  people  in  the  same  way,  by  arming 
 them  with  strength  against  their  enemies.  But  here  he  takes 
 quite  a  different  course.  He  alone  acts  ;  his  people  must  be 
 still.  This  course  is  not  continued,  when  the  Israelites  had 
 reached  the  extreme  borders  of  the  land,  not  as  before,  in  separate 
 groups,  but  in  military  order  (Exod.  xiii.  18),  infinitely  surpassing 
 their  enemies  in  numbers,  and  merely  w^anting  in  martial  energy, 
 which  the  Lord,  the  possessor  of  the  spirit  of  power,  could  impart 
 to  them  in  an  instant,  as  he  often  did  in  later  times.  "  The  Lord 
 shall  fight  for  you,"  said  Moses  to  Israel,  xiv.  14,  *'  and  ye  shall 
 hold  your  peace''  But  if  the  possession  of  the  vessels  could  not 
 be  justified  as  lawful — if  Israel  had  taken  them  from  the  Egyp- 
 tians in  open  war,  and  therefore  not  by  a  Divine  command,  how 
 much  less  here  ?  The  Israelites  had  not  to  do  with  a  hostile 
 king,  nor  with  a  collective  people,  who,  as  such,  shared  in  his 
 guilt,  but  only  with  individuals,  with  such  whom  (as  the  often- 
 repeated  expression,  *'  TJie  Lord  gave  them  favour"  &c.  shows) 
 their  misery  had  filled  with  sympathy  and  love  towards  them,  who, 
 according  to  Exod.  iii.  20-22,  had  lived  on  neighbourly  and 
 friendly  terms  with  them.  To  these  they  applied,  abusing  the 
 confidence  which  their  former  habits  of  intercourse  had  produced, 
 spoke  only  of  a  short  absence,  and  then,  making  sport  of  their 
 good-natured  credulity,  take  the  borrowed  articles  as  a  rich  booty. 
 What  can  lying,  deceit,  and  theft  be,  if  this  be  not  ?  Who  would 
 not  blush  to  maintain  that  such  things  are  allowable,  even  between 
 Tiations  that  are  at  open  war  ? 
 
PURLOINING  OF  THE  VESSELS  OE  THE  EGYPTIANS.  428 
 
 But  several  writers  have  maintained  that  the  act  of  the  Israehtes 
 was  certainly  against  natural  law,  but  that  God,  as  the  supreme 
 lawgiver,  has  the  right,  in  particular  cases,  to  abolish  natural  law, 
 and  to  grant  a  dispensation  from  it.  But  this  is  a  very  bad  de- 
 fence of  a  bad  cause.  It  is  to  degrade  at  once  God  and  his  law 
 to  the  utmost,  when  the  latter  is  regarded  as  a  mere  arbitrary 
 enactment.  The  law  is  the  efflux  and  expression  of  God's  moral 
 being.  As  God  cannot  be  other  than  what  he  is,  so  also  he  can- 
 not desire  of  his  creatures  that  they  should  be  other  than  like 
 himself.  His  language  is,  ''Be  ije  hohj,  for  I  am  hohjr  To 
 assert  that  he  could  sometimes  command  an  unholy  act,  is  tanta- 
 mount to  uttering  the  blasphemy,  that  in  his  own  being  holiness 
 and  uuholiness  are  blended  together.  The  expedient  which  Au- 
 GUSTiN  seems  to  apply  to  the  passages  we  have  quoted,  that  the 
 command  may  be  justified  by  a  reference  to  the  carnality  and 
 hardheartedness  of  Israel,  is  also  inadmissible.  "  That  people," 
 he  says,  "  were  still  carnal,  and  captivated  by  the  desire  of  earthly 
 things.  But  the  Egyptians  w^ere  impious  and  unjust.  For  as  to 
 the  first,  they  made  a  vile  use  of  that  gold,  i.e.  of  a  creature  of 
 God,  and  insulting  their  Creator,  served  idols ;  and  as  to  the  second 
 point,  they  had  afflicted  strangers  unjustly  and  sorely  with  unre- 
 quited labour.  The  one  was  worthy  to  receive  such  a  command, 
 and  the  other  to  suffer  its  consequences."  Here  it  is  overlooked 
 that  the  moral  law  is  the  same  for  all  stages  of  revelation,  and 
 since  it  is  founded  in  the  very  being  of  God,  must  necessarily  be 
 the  same.  The  Divine  condescension  moves  only  in  a  sphere 
 where  the  moral  law  exerts  no  influence.  God  can  veil  his  al- 
 mightiness  and  majesty,  in  order  to  render  himself  comprehen- 
 sible to  weak  mortals  ;  but  his  holiness  and  justice  never.  For 
 then  true  religion  would  be  placed  in  the  same  category  as  false 
 religions.  A  good  human  father  and  instructor  will  never  com- 
 mand any  thing  in  itself  unjust,  on  account  of  the  lower  moral 
 standing  of  those  whom  he  has  to  educate.  God  can  be  j)atient 
 and  forbearing  in  this  respect,  of  which  the  whole  history  of  Israel 
 is  a  proof;  but  that  is  not  the  point  to  be  considered  here,  but  a 
 command,  and  one,  too,  which  was  given  by  God  without  any 
 inducement  on  the  part  of  the  people.  What  a  glaring  contradic- 
 tion between  this  command  and  these  that  were  shortly  after  uttered 
 from  Sinai,  "  Thou  shalt  not  steal,"  and  "  Thou  shall  not  covet  /'" 
 
421  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 II.  Still  weaker  is  another  attempt  at  a  vindication — the  asser- 
 tion that  the  Israelites  had  done  nothing  more  than  obtain  pay- 
 ment of  a  small  part  of  the  wages  unjustly  withheld  from  them 
 for  their  hard  labour.  This  attempt  appears  to  he  the  earliest. 
 It  is  found  in  Philo  and  the  Fathers  ;  besides  Tertullian  and 
 Irenaeus,  it  is  proposed  with  great  confidence  and  approbation 
 by  Clemens  Alexandrinus  {Stromata  i.),  and  Theodoret  ; 
 Grotius  {dejitre  h.  et.j).  ii.  7,  §  2)  has  endeavoured  to  set  it  off. 
 Admitting  that  the  transaction  is  narrated  merely  as  belonging  to 
 the  Israelites  without  any  Divine  intervention,  yet  tliis  argument 
 would  prove  nothing  more  than  that  they  had  as  greatly  trans- 
 gressed, as  would  have  been  the  case  with  Jacob  and  his  sons,  had 
 they  done  the  like.  As  a  vindication  it  is  not  fit  to  be  offered. 
 The  notion  of  making  reprisals  is  not  here  admissible.  For  we 
 have  already  shown  that  the  Israelites  did  not  stand  to  the  Egyp- 
 tians in  the  relation  of  one  independent  power  to  another.  And 
 even  where  this  relation  exists,  and  the  two  powers  are  at  open 
 war  with  one  another,  natural  morality  requires  that  the  property 
 of  private  persons  should,  as  much  as  possible,  be  spared.  But 
 here  we  have  before  us  a  pure  relation  of  one  individual  to  an- 
 other. Individual  Israelites  laid  claim  to  the  property  of  indi- 
 vidual Egyptians  with  whom  they  were  nearly  connected.  They 
 pretended  to  be  fiiends  and  acted  as  enemies.  The  man  who 
 would  not  return  a  loan  to  an  individual  belonging  to  a  hostile 
 nation — a  merchant  who  should  refuse  to  pay  his  debts — would  not 
 be  shielded  by  the  hostile  relation  of  the  two  nations  from  the  just 
 reproach  of  knavery.  How  much  more  would  this  reproach  be 
 merited  here,  where,  under  the  same  relations,  articles  were  bor- 
 rowed and  not  returned  !  And  now  the  command  for  this  mis- 
 deed proceeds  from  God,  with  whom  every  excuse  is  of  no  avail 
 — of  whom  every  act  is  unworthy  which  is  not  in  the  most  perfect 
 harmony  ^vith  his  own  holy  law  !  Could  not  he,  who  by  so  many 
 miracles  had  broken  Pharaoh's  obdurate  disposition,  procure  for 
 his  people  a  number  of  vessels  without  their  being  led  to  employ 
 a  miserable  fiilsehood  ? 
 
 III.  Some  assume  that  the  request  to  lend  on  the  part  of  the 
 Israelites,  was  only  a  kind  of  refined  expression  for  giving,  and 
 that  it  was  thus  understood  by  the  Egyptians,  who  were  aware 
 that  the  Israelitos  were  about  to  quit  the  country  for  ever,  so  that 
 
PUKLOINING  OF  THE  VESSELS  OF  THE   EGYPTIANS.  4'2^) 
 
 a  return  of  the  articles  was  out  of  the  question.  This  is  the  view 
 JosEPHUS  appears  to  have  taken  when  he  says,*  "  They  also  pre- 
 sented gifts  to  the  Hebrews ;  some  in  order  to  hasten  their  depar- 
 ture, and  others  on  account  of  having  heen  on  neighbourly  terms 
 witli  them."  For  that  he,  as  is  commonly  thought,  understood 
 the  narrative  as  intending  gifts,  without  qualification  on  the  part 
 of  the  Egyptians,  is  not  probable,  since  the  Greek  version,  which, 
 owing  to  his  very  defective  acquaintance  with  Hebrew  he  was 
 accustomed  to  follow,  speaks  only  of  lending.  Le  Clerc  also 
 has  defended  this  view.  We  cannot  deny  that  it  is  less  objection- 
 able than  the  preceding.  But  it  is  not  suited  to  remove  all  diffi- 
 culties. How  far  every  individual  Egyptian  took  the  requisition 
 according  to  its  literal  terms,  or  attached  to  it  another  sense,  the 
 Israehtes  could  not  tell.  Hence  they  could  not  receive  the  ves- 
 sels with  a  good  conscience  if  the  requisition  proceeded  from  them- 
 selves. But  if  the  remaining  quantum  of  wrong  is  too  much  for 
 them,  how  infinitely  more  for  God  ! 
 
 IV.  J.  D.  MiCHAELis,  not  satisfied  with  the  explanations 
 hitherto  given,  invented  a  new  one,  or  rather  he  endeavoured  to 
 put  on  a  firmer  footing  and  embellish  one  that  had  been  already 
 proposed. t  It  is  as  follows  : — The  Israehtes  were  directed  to 
 borrow  gold  and  silver  articles,  but  not  a  word  was  said  before- 
 hand that  they  were  to  keep  what  was  borrowed  ;  for  w^hat  was 
 said  long  before  on  this  subject  (Exod.  iii.  22)  was  not  known  to 
 the  Israelites,  it  appears  only  in  an  address  of  God  to  Moses. 
 They,  therefore,  borrowed  with  the  intention  of  returning  what 
 w^as  borrowed  without  knowing  the  secret  intentions  of  Provi- 
 dence. Suddenly  they  were  gone,  on  the  very  night  of  their 
 feast,  and  driven  out  of  Egypt ;  no  time  was  allowed  them  to 
 think  of  any  thing  but  instantly  to  withdraw.  This  Pharoah  and 
 the  Egyptians  desired,  for  in  every  house  there  w^as  a  corpse. 
 Now,  let  any  one  imagine  how  we  ourselves  should  do  in  such  a 
 case  with  borrowed  things.  We  should  not  leave  them  lying 
 about,  for  so  they  would  never  reach  their  right  owners,  but  fall 
 
 *  ilwpoi^  T£  Tous  ' E[3paL0v^  tTifxaiv,  ol  fjilv  vTTtp  Tov  xtij^iov  i^aX^eXv,  ol  Sk  xul 
 KccTo.  ytLTviaKi]v  TT/oos  ain-ov^  avvij^tiav.     Antq.  Jiul.  II.  14.  §  0. 
 
 +  One  that  iu  essential  points  agi-ees  with  Ids  own,  had  been  already  examined  and 
 refuted  by  Lilienthal  gute  Savhc  d.  fjoltl.  OJf'enh.  iv.  O-SO. 
 
420  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 into  the  hauds  of  the  first  person  that  met  with  them.  We  should 
 take  them  with  us,  but  with  the  intention  of  returning  them  on 
 the  first  opportunity  to  their  proprietors.  Thus  the  Israehtes 
 acted.  They  took  the  things  with  them,  that  they  might  restore 
 them  on  the  first  opportunity  to  their  proprietors.  But  in  a  few 
 days  the  state  of  their  affairs  was  quite  changed.  The  Egyptians 
 pursued  Israel  with  a  great  host.  This  was  a  breach  of  promise 
 between  the  two  nations,  and  on  the  part  of  the  Egyptians  an 
 unjust  offensive  war.  Now  the  Israelites  could  keep  the  vessels 
 of  the  Egyptians,  and  regard  them  as  booty.  Providence  so  or- 
 dered it  that  Pharoah  broke  his  promise,  and  thereby  gave  them 
 a  right  to  reimburse  themselves  with  the  goods  of  his  subjects. 
 But  this  view,  on  closer  inspection,  appears  to  be  untenable.  It 
 is  of  the  same  character  as  most  of  the  vindications  of  its  acute 
 author.  They  recommend  themselves  at  the  first  glance,  but 
 almost  always  some  difficulty  comes  out  to  view  which  had  been 
 concealed  by  deceptive  argumentation.  As  to  the  principal  point, 
 it  only  forms  an  apology,  not  a  perfect  justification  of  the  con- 
 duct of  the  Israelites.  In  order  to  compass  the  latter,  the  author 
 changes  the  Israelites  into  a  people  of  equal  rank  with  the  Egyp- 
 tians, which  they  were  not  till  the  moment  that  they  left  the  Egyp- 
 tian territory  ;  and  what  is  still  worse,  he  lays  down  the  principle 
 already  refuted,  that  the  private  relations  between  individuals  be- 
 longing to  hostile  nations  need  not  be  held  sacred ;  and  if  this 
 nevertheless  were  the  case  in  common  practice,  its  only  motive 
 would  be  private  advantage.  That  Pharaoh  acted  unjustly  to  the 
 Israelites  would  be  no  sort  of  justification  for  breaking  their  word 
 to  their  friends.  But  how  improbable  is  the  whole  course  of  pro- 
 ceedings according  to  this  supposition  !  Can  it  be  assumed  that 
 the  Israehtes  borrowed  with  the  intention  of  returning  the  loan  ? 
 And  who  would  think  it  probable  that  the  Israelites  would  take  the 
 articles  they  had  borrowed,  with  conscientious  care,  to  Canaan,  that 
 they  might  not  be  lost  to  their  original  proprietors  ?  How  should 
 we  scout  a  thief  who  should  have  the  eflrontery  to  offer  such  an 
 excuse  !  The  proprietors  were,  in  truth,  for  the  greater  part,  close 
 at  hand.  It  is  said  expressly,  that  the  Israelites  borrowed  of  theii' 
 neighbours  and  lodgers.  And  even  allowing  all  the  suppositions 
 of  MiCHAELis  (which  have  been  shown  to  be  false)  to  stand,  yet 
 the  whole  aflairis  so  much  like  a  fraud,  that  no  Egyptian  could  be 
 
PURLOINING  OF  THE   VESSELb  OF  THE  EGYPTIANS.  427 
 
 blamed  for  considering  it  to  be  so  ;  and  certainly  to  many  an 
 Israelite  it  would  have  been  difficult  to  get  clear  of  the  moral  em- 
 barrassments of  this  interpretation,  as  has  been  felt  by  all  the 
 Jewish  and  Christian  expositors  before  Michaelis.  But  would 
 that  God  who  enjoins  us  to  "  avoid  all  appearance  of  evir  act 
 himself  so  little  in  accordance  with  that  injunction  ?  Would  he, 
 without  cause,  keep  it  so  entirely  out  of  sight  ?  We  have  hitherto 
 shown  that  all  the  views  which  presuppose  lending  on  the  part  of 
 the  Egyptians,  and  purloining  on  the  part  of  the  Israelites,  are 
 beset  with  insuperable  difficulties.  On  the  other  hand,  several  of 
 the  earlier  expositors  and  apologists  have  advocated  the  idea  of  a 
 gift  by  which  every  difficulty  is  naturally  obviated.  Thus,  for 
 example,  Hahenburg,  in  an  essay  on  the  subject  in  the  Bihlio- 
 theca  Bremensis,  vii.  G25.  Lilienthal,  Eosenmuller,  Winer, 
 {Lex.  s.  V.  Vsu;),  and  Tholuck,  in  his  critique  on  Daumer's  work 
 in  liis  Litt.  Aiizeiger.  Even  supposing  that  both  interpretations 
 are  equally  consistent  with  the  words  of  the  text,  yet  for  the  latter 
 the  following  reasons  may  be  urged. 
 
 First,  the  circumstances  under  which  the  Israelites  made  their 
 request  to  the  Egyptians  were  such  as  are  only  consistent  with 
 the  idea  of  a  gift.  It  occurred  immediately  before  their  departure. 
 At  such  a  time  how  could  borrowing  be  thought  of  ?  It  could 
 only  be  admitted  on  the  supposition  that  the  Egyptians  expected 
 the  Israehtes  to  return  after  they  had  celebrated  a  feast  in  the 
 wilderness.  But  this  supposition  is  certainly  false.  It  cannot  be 
 maintained  on  the  ground  that  Moses  requested  nothing  more  of 
 Pharaoh.  This  moderate  request  was  made  only  at  the  period  of 
 the  earlier  plagues.  It  served  to  put  Pharaoh  to  the  proof  God 
 did  not  come  forth  with  his  whole  plan  and  desire  at  first,  that  his 
 obduracy  might  appear  so  much  the  more  glaring,  and  not  find  an 
 excuse  in  the  greatness  of  the  requirement.  Had  Pharaoh  granted 
 this  request,  Israel  would  not  have  gone  beyond  it ;  but  had  not 
 God  foreseen  what  he  repeatedly  says  (compare,  for  instance,  ch. 
 iii.  18),  that  he  would  not  comply  with  it,  he  would  not  thus  have 
 presented  it — he  would  from  the  beginning  have  revealed  his 
 whole  design.  Thus  Augustin  {qnaest.  13  in  Ex.)  remarks, 
 "  Although  God  knew  what  he  intended  to  do,  yet  he  spoke  thus, 
 since  he  beforehand  knew  that  Pharaoh  would  not  consent  to  let 
 the  people  go  :  at  first  only  what  would  have  happened  originallv 
 
428  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 had  Pharaoh  let  them  go, — but  afterwards  Pharaoh's  obduracy, 
 caused  all  things  to  happen  as  the  Scriptures  testified."  By  this 
 contrivance  the  furtherance  of  the  object  was  attained,  to  make 
 Pharaoh  more  suited  for  his  destiny,  which  was,  to  represent  in 
 his  own  person  a  Hving  image  of  a  hardened  sinner,  who  rejects 
 all,  even  the  most  moderate  requirements  of  God,  and  advances 
 from  one  step  of  hardening  to  another,  until  at  last  the  Divine 
 judgment  crushes  him  ;  a  point-of-view  from  which  alone  the 
 whole  conduct  of  God  towards  Pharaoh  appears  in  its  just  light, 
 which  breathes  into  the  dry  bones  of  history  the  breath  of  hfe, 
 and  causes  it  to  appear  as  a  doctrine  clothed  in  flesh  and  blood, 
 and  makes  us  behold  the  Pharaoh  in  our  own  hearts.  But  as  to 
 the  Egyptians,  they  from  the  first  regarded  Moses'  request  as 
 what  it  was  not,  a  mere  pretext.  So  much  relating  to  the  pro- 
 mises made  to  the  Patriarchs  had  been  circulated  among  them, 
 that  before  Moses  was  born  they  had  been  moved  with  the  appre- 
 hension that  the  people  would  remove  out  of  the  land.  Exod.  i. 
 10.  After  Pharaoh  had  been  severely  punished  on  account  of 
 his  total  denial  of  the  request,  he  desired  first  to  keep  back  the 
 children,  and  afterwards  the  cattle,  as  pledges  ;  and  when  the 
 Israelites  would  not  consent,  he  regarded  it  as  a  practical  admis- 
 sion that  they  designed  something  quite  different  from  what  they 
 alleged.  But  after  the  last  and  heaviest  judgment,  how  could  a 
 thought  be  entertained  of  the  return  of  the  Israelites  ?  This  was 
 no  longer  promised  by  Moses,  and  the  Egyptians  desired  it  so 
 little  that  they  rather  wished  to  be  free  for  ever  from  their  danger- 
 ous guests  at  any  price.  Ch.  xii.  32.  Tbey  took  all  their  sub- 
 stance with  them,  and  therefore  had  nothing  more  to  recal  them 
 to  Egypt.  That  Pharaoh  afterwards  pursued  the  Israelites,  shows 
 that  when  he  could  not  keep  them  back,  he  thought  them  lost 
 for  ever;  and  the  remark  in  ch.  xiv.  5,  that  after  their  departure, 
 ''  the  heart  of  Pharaoh  and  of  his  servants  ivas  turned  arjainst 
 the  i^eople"  leads  us  to  conclude  that,  before  this  change  in  their 
 disposition,  they  were  disposed  to  let  Israel  depart  for  ever  from 
 their  borders. 
 
 Secondly,  In  all  the  three  passages  relating  to  tliis  subject,  it 
 is  emphatically  represented  that  the  consent  of  the  Egyptians  to 
 the  requisition  of  the  Israelites  was  a  work  of  Divine  omnipo- 
 tence, which  filled  the  hearts  of  the  Egyptians,  that  naturally  were 
 
PrRLOINING  OF  THE  VESSELS  OF  THE  EGYPTIANS.  4*20 
 
 averse  from  tlie  Israelites,  v;itli  compassion  and  love  towards  them  ; 
 on  which  Calvin  remarks,  "  God  does  not  always  form  men  to 
 mildness  by  the  spirit  of  regeneration,  so  that  from  wolves  they 
 become  changed  to  sheep,  but  sometimes  softens  them  without 
 their  knowing  it,  by  a  secret  impulse,  in  a  short  time."  In  one 
 passage  (ch.  x.  7)  a  second  cause  is  added  to  that  secret  inward 
 influence  for  which  superficial  observation  would  substitute  the 
 natural  sympathy  of  the  Egyptians  (which  had  been  aroused  to 
 such  a  degree  by  the  proud  hardness  of  the  king,  that  it  had  over- 
 come their  aversion  from  the  Israelites) — namely,  the  awe  with 
 which  Moses  was  regarded  both  among  high  and  low,  arising  from 
 the  mighty  proofs  he  had  given  that  a  higher  hand  was  with  him. 
 If  there  was  nothing  more  than  a  loan,  we  cannot  perceive  why 
 so  much  ado  should  be  made  about  so  insignificant  an  afi'air.  It 
 required  no  such  powerfully  operating  causes.  In  that  case  the 
 chief  agency  was  not  in  God,  but  in  the  Israelites  themselves,  who 
 appropriated  what  had  been  lent  to  them. 
 
 Tliirdhj,  Only  on  the  supposition  of  a  gift  can  this  transaction 
 appear  in  its  true  light.  It  could  certainly  not  have  been  its 
 only  object,  no  matter  in  w^hat  way,  to  place  in  the  hands  of  the 
 Israelites  a  certain  number  of  valuables.  This  would  be  very 
 little  in  harmony  with  the  whole  assemblage  of  Divine  operations, 
 from  which  we  cannot  forcibly  dissever  a  single  one.  The  object 
 everywhere  is,  to  represent  in  real  life,  how  God's  miraculous 
 power  exerts  retribution  on  the  enemies  of  his  Church,  and  over- 
 comes them;  and  that  the  exercise  of  this  Divine y?/.9  talionis, 
 which  in  later  times  forms  the  soul  of  the  prophetic  announce- 
 ments, may  be  so  much  more  phiinly  recognised,  there  is  an  analogy 
 between  the  for tn  of  the  punishment  and  the  transgression.  Let 
 the  following  particulars  be  noticed.  The  staff*  with  which  Moses 
 brought  the  plagues  over  the  land  of  Egypt  has  an  obvious  refer- 
 ence to  the  staff"  with  which  the  Egyptian  taskmasters  corrected 
 the  Israelites.  This  is  confirmed  by  comparing  Is.  x.  24,  with 
 ver.  26— 
 
 24.  Therefore  thus  saitb  the  Lord  God  of  Hosts, 
 O  my  people  thatdwellest  in  Zion, 
 Be  not  afraid  of  the  Assyrian  : 
 He  shall  smite  thee  xvith  a  rod, 
 And  shall  lift  up  his  staff' against  thee  after  the  manner  of  Eqi/pt. 
 
480  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 2o.  And  yet  a  very  little  while,  and  the  indignation  shall  cease. 
 
 And  mine  anger,  in  their  destruction. 
 26.  And  the  Lord  of  Hosts  shall  stir  up  a  scourge  for  him, 
 
 According  to  the  slaughter  of  Midiau  at  the  rock  of  Oreb ; 
 
 And  OS  his  rod  was  upon  the  sea, 
 
 So  shall  he  lift  it  up  after  the  manner  of  Egypt. 
 
 The  dying  of  the  first-horn  throughout  Egypt  points  to  Pharaoh's 
 detention  of  God's  first-horn  Israeh  Pharaoh  declared  that  he 
 would  not  let  the  cattle  of  the  Israelites  go ;  Moses,  on  the  other 
 hand,  declared  that  as  a  punishment  for  this  ohstinacy,  he  should 
 give  sacrifices  and  burnt- offerings  from  his  own  cattle,  Ex.  x.  25,  and 
 we  cannot  doubt  that  this  was  done.  That  very  element  which  the 
 Egyptians  wished  to  employ  for  the  destruction  of  Israel  (though 
 they  failed  in  their  design,  since  the  people,  as  the  Church  of  the 
 Lord  has  always  done,  by  a  secret  blessing  granted  under  the  cross, 
 the  more  they  were  afflicted  (Exod.  i.  12)  the  more  they  multi- 
 phed) — afterwards  swallowed  up  Pharaoh  and  all  his  host.  If 
 here  a  giving  and  not  lending  is  intended,  it  is  admirably  suited 
 to  the  whole  connection.  The  Egyptians  had  robbed  the  Israel- 
 ites, and  enriched  themselves  with  their  property  and  their  labour  ; 
 now,  for  satisfaction,  Israel  carries  off  the  spoil  from  Egypt,  and 
 the  powerless  people  is  enriched  by  its  mighty  oppressor.  The 
 triumph  of  God,  whom  the  Egyptians,  according  to  the  notions 
 of  the  idolatrous  world,  thought  to  degrade  by  the  humihation  of 
 his  people  (compare  for  instance  Exod.  v.  2),  was  so  much  more 
 complete,  since  he  did  not  wrest  their  property  from  the  Egyptians 
 by  any  outward  means,  but,  what  is  infinitely  greater,  conquered 
 by  a  secret  influence  on  their  hearts,  so  that  without  any  outward 
 compulsion,  they  did  homage  to  him  and  his  people  by  their  gifts. 
 On  the  contrary,  if  a  loan  be  admitted,  the  occurrence  loses  all 
 its  importance,  it  is  altogether  without  an  idea,  an  act  of  God 
 which,  separated  from  his  nature,  does  not  contain  in  it  the  germ 
 and  pledge  of  a  succession  of  similar  events.  The  quintessence — 
 God's  omnipotence  operating  in  the  service  of  his  justice  for  the 
 good  of  his  Church — is  altogether  lost.  Not  God,  but  Israel, 
 deserves  honour,  if  any  such  thing  can  be  found. 
 
 We  have  hitherto  argued  on  the  supposition,  that  the  words  in 
 the  Hebrew  text  may  be  used  with  equal  propriety  of  a  loan  or 
 of  a  gift.  But  this  supposition  is  manifestly  erroneous.  The 
 idea  of  a  gift  is  the  only  one  which  the  language  admits,     (i.)  It 
 
PURLOINING  OF  THE   VESSELS  OF  THE  EGYPTIANS.  481 
 
 is  qiiite  arbitrary  to  give  to  the  verb  h^aii'n  in  ch.  xii.  35,  3G,  the 
 meauing  of  lenduig.  This  it  cannot  have  in  and  for  itself.  Tlie 
 verb  Vs':?,  to  ask,  can  in  Hiphil  only  mean  to  induce  another  to 
 ash.  This  is  used  only  for  voluntary  and  spontaneous  gifts,  in 
 opposition  to  those  which  are  only  imparted  from  compulsion,  or 
 on  account  of  shameless  importunity.  Whoever  gives  volun- 
 tarily, requires,  as  it  were,  another  person  to  ask  him — he  cannot 
 ask  too  often  or  too  much. 
 
 The  meaning  is  confirmed  by  the  usus  loquendi  in  the  only 
 passage  besides  where  the  Hiphil  of  the  verb  ^s©  occurs,  1  Sam. 
 i.  28,  where  Hannah  says  of  Samuel  ^T"\  ^^T^Yf^.  the  transla- 
 tion, I  have  wiUinghj  and  freely  presented  him  to  the  Lord,  is 
 the  only  admissible  one — /  have  lent  him  to  the  Lord,  is  perfectly 
 absurd.  Such  is  the  meaning  required  by  the  context  in  the  pas- 
 sage under  consideration.  "  They  (the  Egyptians)  made  or 
 caused  them  (the  Israelites)  to  ask,"  stands  in  evident  reference 
 to  the  preceding — "  They  (the  Israelites)  asked,"  and  this  refer- 
 ence leads  to  a  contest  of  ashing  and  giving,  in  which  the  latter 
 gains  the  upper  hand.  It  is  immediately  connected  with  "  The 
 Lord  gave  to  the  people  favour  in  the  sight  of  the  Egyptians,"  and 
 is  marked  as  a  consequence  of  it.  The  liberal  giving  of  the 
 Egyptians  proceeded  from  the  love  and  good- will  which  the  Lord 
 awakened  in  their  hearts  towards  Israel. 
 
 (ii.)  The  meaning  to  imrloin,  steal,  has  been  given  to  the 
 verb  S::3  in  ch.  iii.  and  xii.  But  this  it  can  never  have.  It  has, 
 without  exception,  the  meaning  of  a  taking  away  which  is  effected 
 by  force,  never  such  as  is  eft'ected  by  fraud.  And  yet  only  the 
 latter  could  be  applicable  to  horroiving  ;  but  if  we  admit  that  the 
 Israehtes  received  gifts  from  the  Egyptians,  the  former  sense  is 
 quite  suitable.  The  author  represents  the  Israelites  as  going 
 forth,  laden  as  it  were  with  the  spoils  of  their  formidable  enemy, 
 trophies  of  the  victory  which  God's  power  had  bestowed  on  their 
 weakness.  While  he  represents  the  gifts  of  the  Egyptians  as 
 spoils  which  God  had  distributed  to  his  host  (as  Israel  is  called 
 in  ch.  xii.  41),  he  leads  us  to  observe  that  the  bestowment  of 
 these  gifts  which  outwardly  appears  to  be  the  effect  of  the  good- 
 will of  the  Egyptians,  if  viewed  more  deeply,  proceeded  from 
 another  Giver — that  the  outwardly  free  act  of  the  Egyptians  was 
 effected  by  an  inward  Divine  constraint  which  they  could  not 
 
432  THEOLO(iY  OF  THK  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 withstand.  At  the  same  time  the  expression  is  chosen  with  a 
 reference  to  the  previous  conduct  of  the  Egyptians,  for  which  they 
 were  obliged  to  make  satisfaction  to  God  and  his  people.  They 
 had  spoiled  Israel ;  now  Israel  carries  away  the  spoil  of  Egypt. 
 
 The  question  still  presents  itself  to  us,  with  such  clear  counter- 
 arguments, how  could  that  unfortunate  interpretation  originate, 
 which  yet  has  met  with  general  acceptance  ?  Apparently  a  cir- 
 cumstance in  itself  quite  insignificant,  an  error  in  the  very  faulty 
 Alexandrian  Version,  which  substitutes  lending  for  giving. 
 Jerome,  who  commonly  follows  it,  was  led  by  it  into  a  similar  mis- 
 take, and,  through  him,  Luther,  who  adheres  mostly  to  his  trans- 
 lation, the  Vulgate.  The  fathers  and  theologians  of  the  middle 
 ages  could  not  restore  the  true  meaning,  since,  from  their  unac- 
 quaintance  with  Hebrew,  they  were  confined  to  the  use  of  the 
 Greek  or  Latin  translations.  On  the  meaning  as  expressed  in 
 these  versions,  in  an  innocent  presumption  of  its  correctness,  they 
 founded  their  vindications,  and  the  longer  these  continued,  and 
 their  difficulties  were  concealed  by  custom,  the  less  was  thought, 
 even  in  the  times  after  the  Reformation,  of  examining  the  sound- 
 ness of  the  foundation  on  which  they  were  built.  The  individuals 
 who  denied  this  were  repulsed,  since  it  was  feared  that  an  attempt 
 which  should  give  up  the  established  intei*pretation,  might,  in  the 
 event  of  its  failure,  be  regarded  as  a  practical  confession  of  the 
 insufficiency  of  the  vindications  that  had  already  been  given,  and 
 this  fear  had  more  influence,  because  the  insufficiency  was  really 
 felt,  as  it  could  not  be  otherwise.  From  the  rationalistic  exposi- 
 tors no  correction  of  this  error  could  be  expected,  since  they  had 
 an  interest  in  not  noticing  it.  Excepting  on  account  of  this  in- 
 terest, it  is  scai'cely  explicable  how  such  men  as  Gesenius  and 
 De  AVette  could  act  as  if  this  false  interpretation  w^ere  the  only 
 existing  and  possible  one. 
 
 ON  THE  UNHOLINESS  OF  SACRED  PERSONS. 
 
 What  influence  this  point  has  had  on  the  investigations  respect- 
 ing the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  we  have  already  shown  in 
 vol.  i.  p.  4.5. 
 
THE  UNIIOI.INESS  OF  SACRED  PERSONS.  [DS 
 
 It  is  strikiug  to  observe  how  the  friends  of  the  Pentateuch  have 
 here  played  into  the  hands  of  its  enemies.  A  two-fokl  reason — 
 on  the  one  side,  a  non -perception  of  the  rehgious  point-of-view 
 which  the  author  of  the  Pentateucli  always  occupies — on  the  other, 
 a  want  of  insight  into  the  nature  of  justification,  of  imputed 
 righteousness,  has  been  the  cause,  that  the  theology  based  on  the 
 Scriptures,  in  many  of  its  advocates  and  in  all  ages,  has  been  pressed 
 by  many  perplexities ;  and  through  the  inadmissible  expedients 
 which  it  has  adopted  to  get  rid  of  them,  has  exposed  its  weakest 
 points  to  opponents,  and  given  them  the  feeling  of  superiority  which 
 they  have  ahvays  possessed  in  opposition  to  such  perversities. 
 
 It  is  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  attempt  to  estabhsh  a  right- 
 eousness by  works  of  the  Inw  which  pi'evails  in  later  Judaism,  that 
 the  Rabbles  do  their  utmost  to  wipe  away  every  stain  from  the 
 characters  and  lives  of  the  most  eminent  persons  under  the  ancient 
 economy.  The  faith  of  their  fathers  was  of  no  value  to  them, 
 since  they  themselves  were  not  in  the  faith.  They  know  no  God 
 wdio  justifies  sinners,  but  only  one  who  rewards  saints.  Now,  in 
 order  to  transform  the  recipients  of  Divine  revelation  into  saints 
 according  to  their  notion,  they  proceeded  not  unfrequently  to 
 absurdities.  Compare  the  account  of  their  vain  attempts  to  free 
 Jacob  and  Rebecca  from  all  blame  in  reference  to  their  fi'audu- 
 lently  obtaining  the  blessing,  in  Heidegger,  hht.  Fair.  ii.  2G5. 
 Jarchi,  for  example,  gives  as  his  opinion,  that  Jacob  did  not 
 utter  a  falsehood,  but  only  availed  himself  of  an  allowable  ambi- 
 guity. "  I  am  he  who  brings  the  meat — Esau  is  thy  first-born 
 son."  It  is  very  characteristic,  that  here,  and  in  the  conversations 
 between  Abraham  and  Pharaoh,  they  regard  the  moral  fault,  the 
 falsehood,  as  the  stone  of  ofience  which  must  be  removed  out  of 
 the  way ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  religious  culpability,  the  want  of 
 living  godliness  from  which  the  falsehood  proceeded,  is  not  taken 
 into  account.  Besides  this  legal  righteousness,  their  national  vanity 
 is  very  conspicuous.  They  keep  in  mind  the  maxiia,  that  he  who 
 cuts  ofi"  his  nose  disfigures  his  own  face.  The  object  which  the 
 author  of  the  Pentateuch  alone  pursued  and  attained,  that  the 
 God  of  Israel  might  be  glorified,  was  not  enough  for  them.  For 
 "  unto  thee,  O  Lord,  helongeth  the  (jlorij,  hut  to  us  shame  and 
 confusion  of  face"  they  would  substitute,  '' To  thee,  O  Lord, 
 and  unto  us,  helongeth  glory!' 
 
 VOL.  II.  E  e 
 
434  THKOLO(iY  OF  THE   PENTATEUCH. 
 
 We  see  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  hke  the  Jews,  employed  here 
 in  rolhng  the  stone  of  Sisyphus.  In  them  also,  the  deepest 
 ground  of  error  is  the  want  of  a  clear  insight  into  the  nature  of 
 justification.  But  even  those,  who  stood  in  this  respect  higher 
 than  the  rest,  could  not  free  themselves  from  the  shackles  of  an 
 error  to  which  they  had  become  habituated.  Not  only  a  Chry- 
 SOSTOM,  but  an  Augustin,  endeavours  at  any  rate,  and  by  the  ap- 
 plication of  the  most  artful  sophisms,  to  free  Abraham  from  the 
 charge  of  falsehood,  and  to  show  that  the  act  was  not  only  with- 
 out blame,  but  even  praiseworthy.  Compare  Heidegger  ii.  98. 
 For  the  vindication  of  the  ancient  saints,  maxims  are  often  made 
 use  of,  which,  if  attempted  to  be  applied  to  men  and  things  in  the 
 present  day,  would  be  rejected  with  horror.  Thus  Origen,  Chry- 
 sosTOM,  and  Jerome,  attempted  to  rescue  Jacob  fi^-om  the  charge 
 of  deceit  by  remarking,  "  quod  fraudes  illae  atque  mendacia  non 
 processerint  a  studio  nocendi,  sed  maximo  bono  promovendo  ser- 
 vierint ;  a  view  against  which  Augustin  earnestly  protests,  but  yet 
 tries  to  justify  Jacob  in  a  very  artificial  and  even  absurd  manner, 
 (Heidegger  260,  267).  And  not  content  with  vindicating  the 
 principal  personages,  they  expend  a  large  amount  of  useless  labour 
 on  the  subordinate  characters,  however  remotely  connected.  How 
 fond  they  are  of  attempting  to  wash  an  Aethiop  white,  is  shown 
 in  reference  to  Lot's  wife  and  daughters.  It  is  a  sufficient  apology 
 for  the  latter,  that  they  fancied  that  there  was  not  another  man 
 left  on  the  earth, -and  that  they  Avished  to  become  the  ancestors  of 
 the  Messiah  ! 
 
 The  Catholic  Theologians  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  the  Fathers. 
 NicoLAUS  Abraham,  for  instance,  asserts,  in  vindication  of  Abra- 
 ham, that,  under  the  circumstances,  he  might  lawfully  utter  false- 
 hood.   Others,  who  are  not  so  lax,  say  that  it  was  inspired  by  God. 
 
 As  to  the  antideistical  apologists,  the  ground  on  which  alone 
 the  correct  judgment  of  the  facts  in  question  can  be  formed,  is 
 mostly  lost  sight  of.  We  may  see  this  partly  in  Lilienthal,  who, 
 in  Part  6,  enters  very  fully  into  the  attacks  on  sacred  persons. 
 He  has,  indeed  a  correct  knowledge  of  the  object  of  the  author, 
 and  of  the  nature  of  the  righteousness  of  the  saints,  but  this  know- 
 ledge, for  the  most  part,  wants  vitality.  He  continually  sinks  down 
 again  to  the  position  of  his  moralising  and  carping  opponents. 
 To  quote  a  few  specimens, — The  drunkenness  of  Noah,  he  thinks 
 
THE   rNIIOLTNESS  OV  SACKED  PERSONS.  LST) 
 
 (p.  498),  Avas  probably  a  mere  sin  of  ignorance,  "  Even  if  wine 
 had  been  known  before  tlie  jBood,  still  the  circnmstances  might 
 have  been  such  as  to  lessen  Noah's  guilt.  One  year  produces 
 stronger  wine  than  another.  Is  it  not  possible,  that  just  when 
 the  earth  had  been  manured  by  the  rich  soil  of  the  deluge,  and 
 by  so  many  dead  bodies,  such  generous  wine  might  be  produced, 
 that  a  quantity  which  Noah  would,  at  another  time,  have  taken 
 with  impunity,  now  intoxicated  him  ?  "  To  excuse  Lot,  in  refe- 
 rence to  the  choice  of  his  sons-in-law,  it  is  remarked  (p.  519) — 
 "  Perhaps  these  men  were  not  so  wicked  as  the  other  inhabitants 
 of  Sodom."  "  He  knew  not  how  to  make  a  better  match  for  his 
 daughters." 
 
 Where  a  clear  and  vital  knowledge  of  righteousness  by  faith 
 exists,  we  see  these  difficulties  aud  forced  expedients  immedi- 
 ately vanish.  If  in  Luther  we  do  not  see  this  result,  when, 
 for  instance,  he  says  of  Abraham — "  he  formed  this  design  from 
 a  very  strong  faith,  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit;" 
 (JVerke,  i.  118(S,  ed,  Walch.)  this  must  be  regarded  only  as 
 an  inconsequence,  and  an  inability  to  free  himself  at  once  fi'om 
 deeply  rooted  prejudices.  In  the  later  genuine  Lutheran  the- 
 ology we  find  this  inconsequence  almost  completely  removed. 
 Compare,  for  example,  in  reference  to  Abraham's  conduct  in 
 Egypt,  the  perplexed  assertions  of  the  Fathers,  with  the  lumi- 
 nous remarks  of  Eambach  {Kirchengesch,  d.  A.  Test.  i.  273) — 
 "  Since  he  directed  the  eyes  of  his  reason  far  too  much  to  the 
 danger,  so  the  promise  of  God  was  lost  to  his  view,  and  his  faith 
 began  to  waver.  But,  as  Christ  reached  forth  his  hand  to  Peter, 
 when  he  began  to  sink,  at  the  sight  of  the  mighty  billows,  so 
 here  God  reached  forth  his  hand  to  Abraham,  that  he  might  not 
 utterly  sink  in  this  peril."  But  still  more  decided  than  among 
 the  Lutherans  was  the  principle  applied  in  the  Reformed  Church 
 to  the  present  subject.  We  meet  with  some  valuable  examples 
 in  Calvin.  How  far  he  was  from  forcing  a  legal  righteousness, 
 instead  of  the  righteousness  by  faith,  on  the  saints  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  is  shown  by  his  remark  on  Gen.  xxv.  28 — Ecud 
 nunc  Judaei  et  in  came  ylorientur  ;  quiim  Isaac  jiluris  cihinn 
 faciens,  qitam  destinatam  ,/iIio  haereditateni  gratuituni  del 
 foedus,  quantum  in  se  erat,  perrerterit.  It  in  general  gives  him 
 satisfaction  to  point  out  the  infirmities  of  the  elect,  in  order  that 
 
 E  p  2 
 
4;} 6  TIIKOl.OGY  OF  THE  rENTATKUCH. 
 
 glory  may  be  given  to  God  alone.  That  the  later  reformed  the- 
 ology continued  in  the  direction  it  had  received  from  him,  may 
 be  learned  from  some  expressions  of  Heidegger.  He  says 
 (ii.  245),  in  reference  to  the  transactions  on  account  of  the  birth- 
 right, between  Jacob  and  Esau  r  quodsi  in  re  j)rociiranda  wjir- 
 mitas  Jacohi  admixta  fait,  eo  major  fuit  gratia  del,  quod 
 indulserit  tam  henigne,  iit  ostenderet  totum  id  ah  electione  jpen- 
 dere,  7wn  ah  operihus,  quod  tinus  alii  praeferrctur ;  and  in 
 p.  268,  in  reference  to  the  fraudulent  obtaining  of  the  blessing  by 
 Jacob,  he  says — "  Froinde  Jacohus  a  peccato  minime  immunis 
 fuit,  quippe  qui  contra  rei  veritatem  et  animi  sui  sensum  se  et 
 facto  et  verhis  Esavuni profe^sus  est.  Haec  sententia  turn  divi- 
 nam  sapientiani,  turn  potentiam,  turn  humanam  et  ingenitam 
 omnihus  injirmitateni  demonstrat.  Ostendit  enim  non  ohstante 
 injirmitate  huma)ia  deuni  opus  suum  potenter  et  sapienter  exse- 
 qui.  But  one  thing  is  wanting  even  here.  The  reason  was  not 
 yet  understood,  why  the  sacred  historian  did  not  expressly  cen- 
 sure the  objectionable  transactions,  supposing  that  he  really  dis- 
 approved of  them.  A  clear  knowledge  of  his  object  had  not  yet 
 been  attained,  and  thus  it  could  not  be  seen  that  the  expression 
 of  an  opinion  on  the  morality  of  actions  was  not  in  harmony 
 with  it.  Had  this  point  been  clearly  understood,  there  would 
 not  have  been  so  much  said  backwards  and  forwards  on  the  trans- 
 actions recorded  in  Scripture,  and  the  argumentation  respecting 
 them  would  have  been  cut  short.  Still,  there  would  be  a  weak  side 
 left  open  to  opponents,  and  a  point  of  connection  for  their  attacks. 
 
 The  crudest  form  of  the  attack  is  that  which  proceeds  on  the 
 assumption  that  all  the  actions  of  the  Old  Testament  believers, 
 which  the  sacred  historian  reports,  and  does  not  expressly  cen- 
 sure, were  approved  by  him,  and  considered  as  worthy  of  imita- 
 tion ;  a  view  which  is  openly  expressed  by  Yon  Bohlen,  p.  259, 
 293,  364.     In  opposition  to  it  we  make  the  following  remarks — 
 
 First,  The  one  great  theme  of  the  Pentateuch,  is  the  glorifi- 
 cation of  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel.  This  is  the  point  of  view 
 from  which  the  author  always  proceeds.  He  writes  as  a  theolo- 
 gian, and  not  as  a  moralist,  and  carping  censor.  If  this  be 
 allowed,  it  is  evident  that  no  inference  respecting  his  approval 
 of  certain  persons  or  their  actions,  can  be  drawn  from  his  silence. 
 
THE  UNHOLINESS  01'  SACKED  PERSONS.  437 
 
 Approval  and  disapprovfil  are  equally  out  of  the  question.  In 
 our  time,  this  object  attracts  little  notice.  At  least,  it  is  thought 
 that  to  the  object  of  glorifying  the  God  of  Israel,  the  glorifica- 
 tion of  Israel  itself  ought  to  be  appended.  The  attention  to 
 human  doings  and  aims,  so  very  much  outweighs,  in  men's  hearts, 
 the  attention  to  God's  ways,  that,  even  when  the  object  of  a 
 writer  is,  on  the  wdiole,  correctly  appreciated,  they  always  lend 
 him  their  own  subjective  point-of-view,  so  that  they  are  incap- 
 able of  perceiving  the  marked  difference  between  a  Moses  and  a 
 Herodotus,  who,  at  the  beginning  of  his  work,  describes  his 
 object  to  bo  co?  /^^Jre  ra  yevo/jueva  cf  uvOpcoircov  rS  '^pcovM 
 €^LT7}\a  yevrjraL,  fii^re  epya  fieyaXa  re  kol  OcovfjLaara,  ra  fiev 
 "EWrjcri,  ra  Be  ^ap^dpoKTL  a'Trohe')(6evTa  aK\ea  jevrjTaL.  With- 
 out a  clear  perception  of  this  difference,  no  deep  insight  into  the 
 nature  of  the  Pentateuch  is  possible.  We  would  show  here,  by 
 a  series  of  examples,  how  the  one  object  of  glorifying  God  regu- 
 lates the  wdiole  of  its  representations.  In  Gen.  xii.  10-20,  the 
 main  design  of  the  narrative  is  to  manifest  God's  watchful  care 
 of  his  chosen  servant,  how  he  delivered  him  from  a  peq)lexity 
 that  was  humanly  inextricable,  in  which  he  had  been  involved  by 
 his  ow^n  fault ;  how,  while  Abraham,  by  his  carnal  policy,  did  his 
 utmost  to  make  tlie  promise  of  none  effect,  Jehovah  took  care 
 that  the  chastity  of  the  mother  of  the  chosen  race  should  be  pre- 
 served inviolably ;  how^  the  most  powerful  monarch  of  that  day 
 was  made  to  bow  before  the  defenceless  Abraham,  and  render 
 back  his  i)rey.  If  we  keep  in  mind  this  point-of-view,  it  will 
 appear,  that  moral  reflections  on  Abraham's  conduct,  whether  he 
 told  a  lie  or  not,  &c.,  have  no  more  to  do  with  this  section  of 
 sacred  history,  than  the  prolix  discussion  on  the  natural  history 
 of  the  ass,  on  the  difference  between  the  oriental  and  occidental 
 breeds,  in  Hendewerk's  Commentary,  has  to  do  with  Is.  i.  3 — 
 *'  T/te  ass  knoiceth  his  master  s  crib."  The  world  has  still  in 
 store  falsehoods  and  ambiguities  enow  on  which  such  reflections 
 may  be  much  more  properly  bestowed.  In  the  narrative  of  Abra- 
 ham's parting  from  Lot,  in  Gen.  xiii.  5,  clc,  the  tenderness  of 
 God's  grace  towards  the  chosen  race,  and  the  Divine  guidance 
 are  shown,  for  whicli  reason  circumstances  lU'e  introduced,  which 
 otherwise  would  liave  no  connection  with  this  race.  Under  this 
 guidance,  he  spontaneously  J^urrendered  to  Lot  all  his  preteiili()ns 
 
4;38  THEOLOGY  01-   THJi  I'ENTATDUCIl. 
 
 to  the  land  of  promise,  to  ^vliicli  the  vale  of  Jordan  no  more 
 belonged.  That  the  whole  significance  of  the  transaction  depends, 
 in  the  historian's  opinion,  on  this  point,  is  plain,  from  ch.  xiii. 
 14,  where  the  renewal  of  the  promise  of  the  land  of  Canaan  to 
 Abraham  is  introduced  with  the  w^ords — "  And  the  Lord  said  to 
 Ahraliam,  after  that  Lot  was  separated  from  him.'  Reflec- 
 tions on  Abraham's  generosity,  peaceableness,  and  love  of  his 
 kindred,  which  are  commonly  founded  on  this  narrative,  are  quite 
 out  of  place.  The  leading  idea  of  the  narrative  in  ch.  xiv.  is 
 God's  grace  towards  his  chosen  servant,  by  which  he  enabled  him 
 to  wage  w^ar  with  kings,  and  gave  him  the  victory  over  them  ; 
 and,  even  on  his  return  from  battle,  kings  came  out  to  meet  him, 
 one  with  respectful  hospitality,  and  another  as  a  humble  vassal. 
 If  this  main  object  be  not  perceived,  there  will  be  ample  room 
 for  descanting  on  Abraham's  honour,  magnanimity,  humility,  and 
 disin  ter  este  dness . 
 
 Second!}/,  That  the  historian's  design  could  not  be  to  glorify 
 Israel  and  his  ancestors  we  have  proved,  in  showing  that  the  only 
 object  he  pursued  w^as  the  glorification  of  the  Lord.  But  we 
 arrive  at  the  same  result  in  another  way.  The  author  contradicts, 
 us  distinctly  as  possible,  the  fancy  of  the  moral  perfection  of  the 
 Old  Testament  believers.  At  first  lie  might  appear  to  grant  this 
 to  Abraham,  and  yet  of  him  it  is  said,  in  Gen.  xv.  6,  "  And  he 
 believed  in  the  Lord,  and  he  counted  it  to  him  for  righteous- 
 ness"  Here,  as  Paul  has  proved  in  Rom.  iii.  1-5,  it  is  presup- 
 posed that  Abraham  was  a  poor  sinner.  If  faith  was  reckoned 
 to  him  for  righteousness,  it  follows  that  he  wanted  righteousness 
 of  fife,  for  he  who  has  that,  to  him  it  will  be  imputed.  The  Song 
 of  Moses  in  Deut.  xxxii.  could  never  be  in  a  more  unsuitable 
 position  than  in  a  work  of  which  the  object  was  the  glorification 
 of  Israel.  Only  compare  the  striking  contrast  between  the  faith- 
 fulness of  the  Lord  and  the  unfaithfulness  of  the  people  in  ver. 
 4  and  5.  The  whole  section,  Deut.  ix.  10,  is  pei*vaded  by  the 
 sentiment,  that  to  the  Lord  alone  belonged  glory,  but  to  Israel 
 shame  and  confusion.  How  little  spotless  purity  is  attributed  to 
 the  Lawgiver  is  shown  by  what  we  have  adduced  in  p.  143. 
 
 TJiirdli/,  Though  the  author  refrains  from  passing  a  direct 
 judgment  on  the  morahty  of  the  actions  of  God's  chosen  ser- 
 vants,   since  it  would  have  been  foreign   to  his  object,  yet  this 
 
THE   UNHOLIXESS  OF  SACKED  PERSONS.  489 
 
 judgment  is  almost  always  contained  in  the  facts  themselves. 
 Abraham,  for  instance,  by  Sarah's  advice,  forms  a  connection 
 with  Hagar.  This  is  not  expressly  blamed  by  the  author,  but 
 the  disapproval  is  contained  in  the  consequences  that  are  told  of 
 it.  This  violation  of  the  Divine  arrangements  soon  punishes 
 itself.  The  unnatural  relation  in  which  the  bondwoman  was 
 placed  to  him,  at  the  instigation  of  her  mistress,  prepared  for  her 
 the  severest  mortification.  But  this  judgment  resulting  directly 
 from  the  facts,  is  peculiarly  apparent  in  the  history  of  Jacob. 
 If  the  author  approved  his  proceedings,  what  are  we  to  think  of 
 the  striking  retribution  that  followed  them  ?  The  over-reaching 
 Jacob  is  shamefully  deceived  by  his  father-in-law^  and  his  own 
 sous.  The  heaviest  cross  he  had  to  bear  was  prepared  by  deceit 
 and  guile.  Moreover,  he  performed  penance  by  twenty  years 
 service,  and  by  the  dread  of  his  brother  on  his  return.  Jacob's 
 aversion  to  Leah,  who  had  been  forced  upon  him,  to  which  tlie 
 author  makes  a  pointed  allusion  in  Gen.  xxix.  31,  was  first 
 punished  by  Eachel's  barrenness  for  several  years,  and  then  by 
 her  early  death.  Rebecca  was  severely  punished  by  the  removal 
 of  her  darling  son,  who  was,  in  consequence,  to  her  as  if  dead. 
 These  facts  will  appear  more  important  when  contemplated  from 
 the  Israelitish  point- of- view,  which,  in  all  the  vicissitudes  of  the 
 present  w^orld,  regarded  the  retributive  hand  of  God.  But  not 
 merely  by  facts,  but  in  another  way,  is  a  disapproving  judgment 
 expressed  on  facts  wliich  the  author  has  narrated  without  inter- 
 posing his  opinion.  The  most  striking  example  is  the  following. 
 The  atrocious  action  which  the  sons  of  Jacob  pei'petrated  on  the 
 Shechemites  is  simply  reported  by  the  author.  He  gives,  it  is 
 true,  the  censure  which  Jacob  passed  on  his  sons,  but  this  cen- 
 sure does  not  relate  to  the  immorality  of  the  act,  but  to  its 
 probable  injurious  consequences  ;  and  we  might  feel  tempted  to 
 conclude  from  that,  that  Jacob  and  the  author  did  not  cherish  a 
 detestation  like  our  own  of  the  deed,  if  from  ch.  xxxv.  5  light 
 had  not  been  cast  on  the  subject,  which  shows  why  precisely 
 these  words  of  Jacob  are  recorded.  The  representation  therein 
 contained,  of  his  very  dangerous  situation,  serves  as  a  foundation 
 for  the  statement  respecting  the  providential  care  of  God,  by 
 which  he  escaped  all  evil  consequences.  Still  we  remain  in  un  ■ 
 certainty  as  to  the  judgment  of  the  author  on  the  narrative.      In 
 
440  THEOLOGY  OF  TilK   PKNTATKUC'if . 
 
 cli.  xlix.  he  records  tlie  last  address  of  Jacob  to  his  sons.  Here, 
 after  a  hipse  of  years,  the  deepest  abhorrence  of  the  deed  is  ex- 
 pressed. A  similar  remark  apphes  to  Reuben's  incest.  It  is 
 simply  told  in  ch.  xxxv.  22.  We  first  obtain  a  judgment  upon 
 it  in  ch.  xlix.  3,  4,  from  the  lips  of  the  dying  Patriarch.  These 
 facts  alone  are  sufficient  to  refute  the  views  of  our  opponents. 
 
 Fourtlihj,  The  untenability  of  this  view  is  rendered  very  conspi- 
 cuous when  the  chosen  race  is  divided  into  two  parties.  Accord- 
 ing to  it,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  Eebecca,  must  be  acquitted  of  all 
 blame,  since  the  author  pronounces  no  censure  on  either  of  them  ; 
 and  yet  it  is  impossible  to  justify  one  side  without  criminating 
 the  other.  Moreover,  in  reference  to  the  non-elect  as  well  as  the 
 elect,  the  author  generally  abstains  from  passing  any  direct  judg- 
 ment on  their  blameable  actions.  The  shght  allusion  to  Esau's 
 profane  disposition  in  Gen.  xxvii.  34  is  almost  insulated  in  this 
 connection.  In  the  narrative  of  Lot  and  his  daughters,  there  is 
 not  a  syllable  expressive  of  disapproval.  If  from  this  silence  we 
 do  not  infer  approval,  but  only  conclude  that  the  author's  j)oint- 
 of-view  was  not  in  these  oases  that  of  a  moral  censor,  why  should 
 not  this  hold  good  in  reference  to  his  account  of  the  actions  of 
 the  elect  ? 
 
 The  ideal  of  historical  composition  is  objectivity.  This  end 
 was  not  attained  by  all  the  profane  historians  of  antiquity.  (Com- 
 pare Ulkici  Character istik  der  antiken  Historiograjihie,  p.  5.) 
 The  historians  stood  in  the  midst  of  the  confusion  and  turmoil  of 
 human  affairs — the  human  was  to  them  the  highest ;  they  could 
 not  free  themselves  from  partialities  and  aversions — it  was  impos- 
 sible that  their  feelings  and  biasses  should  not  affect  their  repre- 
 sentations— that  they  sJiould  preserve  historic  impartiality,  and 
 abstract  tliemselves  from  their  own  time  and  its  relations.  It 
 was  totally  different  in  sacred  history.  The  human  here  formed 
 a  very  subordinate  element.  Its  attention  is  directed  incessantly 
 to  the  great  acts  of  the  Lord.  It  was  above  all  temptation  to 
 distort,  or  to  act  the  part  of  the  moralist,  the  politician,  or  rheto- 
 rician. 
 
 Thus  we  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  no  injurious  inference 
 can  be  drawn  from  the  author's  recording  the  reprehensible  actions 
 of  God's  people,  without  expressly  disapproving  tliem.  But  the 
 attack  thus  repelled  soon  returns  in  another  form.     Whether  the 
 
THE    UNIIOI.INESS  OF  SACKED   I'ERSONS.  4il 
 
 aiulior.  it  is  said,  a])proved  of  these  actions  or  not,  tlms  much  is 
 certain,  that  the  men  who  committed  them  were  not  worthy  to  be 
 the  bearers  of  a  Divine  lievehition.  In  this  form  the  objection 
 appears  in  Hartmann,  p.  -429,  "  With  the  idea  of  God  as  a  holy 
 being,  the  distinction  conferred  on  Jacob  ill  accords,  whom  the 
 Scripture  history  itself  charges  with  so  many  immoral  actions.  A 
 man  whom  Jehovah,  as  consecrated  to  himself,  would  esteem 
 worthy  of  his  most  secret  revelations,  ought  to  stand  forth  in  the 
 highest  moral  purity."  In  this  attack,  even  the  defenders  of 
 Kevelation  have  played  into  the  hands  of  its  enemies.  Less,  for 
 instance  {Ueber  da  Rely/ ion,  i.  p.  261),  represents  Jacob  in  the 
 darkest  colours.  The  incapacity  to  discern  the  bright  side  of  his 
 character,  goes  hand  and  hand  with  an  extreme  exaggeration  of 
 his  defects.  He  makes  it  even  a  crime  that  he  saw  an  angel,  and 
 whole  hosts  of  angels  collected  around  him  !  When  he  exclaims, 
 "  Who  of  my  readers  w^ould  not  rather  be  Esau  than  Jacob  ?" 
 and  yet  would  justify  the  Divine  choice  of  Jacob,  by  appealing  to 
 the  fact,  that  among  so  many  thousands  of  better  men  at  Rome, 
 God  constituted,  as  masters  of  the  world,  a  stupid  Claudius,  an 
 insane  Caligula,  a  satanic  Tiberius  and  Nero,  w^ho  does  not  see 
 the  crying  contradiction,  and  recognise  a  justification  of  the  attack 
 on  such  miserable  defenders  ?  In  reply  we  make  the  following- 
 remarks  : — 
 
 First,  It  is  of  the  utmost  importance,  that  before  we  direct  our 
 attention  to  individual  actions  of  God's  chosen  people,  we  should 
 cast  a  glance  at  the  interior  of  their  hearts.  If  this  be  neglected, 
 we  shall  be  unable  to  recognize  the  faith  w4iich  was  the  animat- 
 ing principle  of  their  lives ;  the  saying,  "  the  spirit  is  vanished, 
 the  caput  mortuum  remains,"  will  here  hold  good  ;  we  shall 
 have  no  more  to  do  with  men  of  God,  but  merely  be  dragging 
 about  their  corpses.  Such  a  method  of  viewing  history  has  been 
 constantly  practised  in  all  other  departments — he  who  has  no 
 other  standard  for  forming  a  judgment  of  Tuther  than  his  abusive 
 language,  or  of  Calvin  than  the  part  he  took  in  the  burning  of 
 Servetus,  must  bitterly  repent.  Only  in  this  department  has  this 
 most  absurd  mode  of  judging  been  retained.  Let  any  one,  for 
 instance,  before  proceeding  to  examine  the  charges  brought 
 against  Jacob,  read  his  prayer  in  Gen.  xxx.  10-18,  He  will 
 probably  be  indisposed  to  indulge  a  carping  humour,  and  rather 
 
4-42  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 reproach  himself,  and  pray  to  God  for  the  hke  faith  and  the  like 
 humility.  But  spirit  is  only  recognised  hy  spirit,  and  faith  by 
 faith ;  yet  the  most  abandoned  wretch  can  cant  and  cavil  about 
 morality,  and  thus  we  cannot  expect  that  the  requiremejit  we 
 have  made  will  be  universally  agreed  to.  How  can  those  persons 
 correctly  comprehend  and  appreciate  the  religious  element  in  the 
 Patriarchs,  whose  own  religious  views  are  so  crude,  that  wdtli 
 Hartmann  (p.  431),  they  explain  the  account  of  the  ladder  in 
 Jacob's  vision,  (which  our  Lord  himself,  in  John  i.  52,  marks 
 as  a  prophecy  fulfilled  in  his  appearance),  and  the  wrestling  of 
 Jacob,  as  inventions  of  human  conceit,  which  are  founded  on 
 absurd  conceptions  of  the  Divine  nature  !  But  whoever  possesses 
 a  capacity  for  deeper  apprehension,  such  a  man  will  never  ima- 
 gine that,  for  instance,  Esau  was  better  fitted  to  be  an  organ  of 
 Divine  Revelation  than  Jacob.  Esau  is  the  representative  of 
 natural  good  nature  and  generosity,  combined  with  a  rudeness 
 and  unsusceptibihty  for  spiritual  objects.  He  was  a  man  without 
 aspirations  and  anxieties  of  a  higher  order,  who  found  his  satis- 
 faction in  visible  things;  in  short,  a/SeyST^Xo?,  Heb.  xii.  IG.  His 
 character  is  stamped  in  the  choice  of  his  calling.  He  is  the  type 
 of  "  the  worldly-minded  Esaus,  w4io  delight  in  tumult,  and  never 
 guard  against  an  enemy."  The  name  Edom  most  distinctly  marks 
 the  whole  complexion  of  his  life.  Gen.  xxv.  30,  "  Feed  me  with 
 that  red,  that  red  r  -^^  ^"^^^  '^'^^TCT.  H  ^^^TV^^.  expresses  his 
 whole  character.  Such  natures,  even  when  grace  softens  the 
 heart  (which  was  not  the  case  with  Esau),  are  not  suited  to  be 
 placed  at  the  head  of  a  religious  development.  For  this  purpose 
 not  merely  that  faith  belongs  to  which  every  individual  may 
 attain,  but  faith  as  a  ')((ipLcrfxa,  which  presupposes  a  natural  sub 
 stratum  not  found  in  such  characters.  Jacob's  natural  constitu- 
 tion was  much  more  complicated  than  Esau's.  He  had  a  far 
 greater  number  of  folds  and  chambers  in  his  heart,  more  difficult 
 for  himself  and  others  to  see  through,  while  such  a  man  as  Esau 
 might  be  known  tolerably  well  in  an  hour.  He  was  gentle  and 
 tender,  sensitive,  susceptible  of  every  impression  from  the  higher 
 world,  perfectly  fitted  to  see  the  heavens  open  and  the  angels  of 
 God  ascending  and  descending,  but  wdthal,  like  all  characters  in 
 which  imagination  predominates,  subject  to  greater  self-decep- 
 tion, stronger  temptation  to  impurity,  disposed  to  cunning  and 
 
THE   UNHOLINKSS  (»i    yACRKD   PERSONS.  44:5 
 
 guile,  and  wuntiiig  in  openness.  This  nnin  God  took  into  his 
 school,  in  order  to  free  him  from  many  shades  which  always  are 
 found  where  there  are  many  lights,  but  a  school  in  which  alone 
 anything  can  he  learnt  thoroughly,  and  in  which  Jacob  became 
 Israel,  wdiile  the  unteachable  Esau  remained  always  Esau. 
 
 Secondli/,  Viewing  the  facts  of  the  case  as  they  are  presented 
 to  us,  it  appears  that  the  errors  of  God's  chosen,  where  they  really 
 exist,  and  are  not  falsely  imputed  to  them,  are  sins  of  infirmity, 
 which  are  not  incompatible  with  a  state  of  grace,  but  only  prove 
 the  necessity  of  further  purification.  John  xv.  2,  "  Every  hranch 
 that  heareth  fruit,  he  purgeth  it,  that  it  may  hriny  forth  more 
 fruit."  It  may  be  proper  here  to  dispose  of  what  has  been  un 
 justly  laid  on  the  Patriarchs,  or  has  had  the  worst  construction 
 put  upon  it ;  but  we  must  satisfy  ourselves  with  a  few  hints.  The 
 sentence  passed  on  Jacob's  conduct  towards  Esau  in  reference  to 
 the  birth-right,  will  be  less  severe,  if  it  be  recollected,  (i  )  That 
 it  relates  only  to  future  good  things  belonging  to  faith — spiritual 
 blessings.  Jacob  never  attempted  to  appropriate  the  inferior,  the 
 temporal  prerogatives  of  the  birth-right.  On  the  contrary,  on  his 
 return  from  Mesopotamia,  he  behaved  with  almost  excessive  defer- 
 ence towards  Esau,  as  if  to  obviate  every  suspicion  of  having  such 
 an  object  in  view ;  (ii.)  Jacob  knew  that  he  was  destined  by  God 
 to  the  birth-right ;  and  (iii.)  He  perceived  how  httle  suited  his 
 brother  was  to  be  an  organ  of  Divine  Eevelation.  It  is  not  in  the 
 remotest  degree  our  intention,  by  these  remarks,  to  justify  him  ; 
 but  yet  they  w^ill  make  it  appear  that  his  ofience  stands  altogether 
 on  a  different  footing  from  what  it  is  commonly  placed  upon. 
 But  it  deserves  special  notice,  that  throughout  this  aberration, 
 the  better  element  in  Jacob's  character  was  conspicuous.  He  still 
 had  faith  in  God's  word,  and  a  sense  of  God's  grace.  Probably 
 the  same  will  hold  good  of  Jacob's  fraudulently  obtaining  the 
 blessing.  That  Jacob  and  Rebecca  placed  so  high  a  value  on  it, 
 shows  that  the  root  of  the  matter  was  in  them,  while  the  faulty 
 means  they  took  for  attaining  their  object,  shows  how  much  they 
 needed  purifying.  Jacob  wished  not  to  seize  on  a  good  in  itself 
 totally  foreign  to  him,  but  to  prevent  one  that  befitted  him  from 
 falhng  into  wrong  hands,  and  for  this  good  object  he  made  use 
 of  unlawful  means.  That  Isaac  took  this  view  of  the  matter,  is 
 shown  by  his  conduct  after  the  discovery  of  the  fraud.     Although 
 
444  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 lie  regarded  it  as  a  fraud — compare  ^^r'??  in  Geuesis  xxvii.  35, 
 which  Onkelos  and  Jonathan  very  characteristically  translate 
 by  ^'^^.'i^^  2)er  scqjientiam — yet  he  acknowledges  God's  hand  in  the 
 event.  To  point  to  this  is  the  historian's  sole  concern.  What 
 would  those  human  means  have  effected  without  it  ?  The  fraud 
 was  so  easy  to  he  discovered.  That  it  was  not  so — that  the  bles- 
 sing became  Jacob's  contrary  to  the  will  of  him  who  uttered  it, 
 shows  plainly  that  God  intended  to  give  it  him.  Isaac's  blame- 
 worthiness was,  notwithstandmg  all  appearance  to  the  contrary, 
 greater  than  that  of  Jacob  and  Kebecca.  He  failed  to  bear  in 
 mind  that  the  transaction  related  to  the  inheritance  which  he  pos- 
 sessed as  Isaac  the  son  of  the  promise.  His  carnal  conduct  led 
 Rebecca  astray  to  the  employment  of  carnal  means  ;  her  sin  pro- 
 ceeded from  his  sin,  without  becoming  thereby  less  a  sin.  What 
 made  it  peculiarly  a  sin,  was  the  want  of  vital  piety  which  seduced 
 her  into  the  vain  notion  that  she  must  lend  a  helping  hand  to 
 God ;  the  deceit  was  only  derived  and  secondary.  Eoos  takes  a 
 very  correct  view  of  the  transaction — "  Isaac  erred  in  wishing  to 
 bless  only  Esau.  Rebecca  erred  in  not  trusting  God  that  he  would 
 order  matters  aright.  Jacob  sinned  in  uttering  falsehoods  accord 
 ing  to  his  brother's  advice,  when  he  ought  rather  to  have  obeyed 
 God.  But  since  they  sinned  not  from  wickedness,  but  from 
 ignorance  (infirmity),  and  their  faith  did  not  cease  to  exist,  so 
 they  were  still  preserved.  Their  faults  were,  after  all,  better  than 
 the  virtues  of  Esau,  and  all  the  cliildren  of  this  world."  It  is 
 characteristic  of  the  age,  that  in  the  Stunden  der  Andacht,  so 
 much  importance  is  attached  to  Esau's  tears  (which  the  Scrip- 
 tures know  better  how  to  estimate,  see  Heb.  xii.  17),  as  on  that 
 ground  to  make  him  half  a  saint,  and  thus  altogether  to  leave  out 
 of  the  account  his  design  of  murdering  his  brother,  which  indi- 
 cates the  extremely  rude  state  of  his  moral  feehngs.  Less 
 regards  it  as  praiseworthy  that  he  openly  expressed  his  intention 
 of  killing  Jacob  ! 
 
 Jacob's  conduct  towards  Laban  must  not  be  justified.  Here, 
 as  in  the  case  of  the  birthright  and  the  blessing,  the  wily  Jacob 
 would,  forsooth,  help  out  the  Almighty.  But  the  reasons  for  mo- 
 derating the  censure  on  his  conduct  are  so  obvious,  that  we  need 
 not  state  them  at  length.  But  we  must  show,  that  the  means 
 which  Jacob  employed  were  by  no  means  referred  by  him  and  ilw 
 
THK  UXHOLTNKSS  OF  SACRED  PERSONS.         (15 
 
 narrator  to  God.  Only  by  a  misunderstanding  can  tliis  he  de- 
 duced from  Gen.  xxxi.  1 1.  Jacob  is  not  there  commended  to  do 
 any  thing;  it  is  only  foretold  what  Avoiild  happen,  and  which 
 would  have  taken  place,  without  the  means  he  employed,  and 
 which  belonged  solely  to  him.  But  it  was  not  here  the  author's 
 concern  particularly  to  mark  his  criminality.  Only  God's  part 
 in  the  aiiair  required  to  be  noticed — God's  grace  in  the  fulfilment 
 of  his  promises  to  Jacob,  which  drew  from  him  the  confession, 
 "  /  aj?i  not  ivortliu  of  the  least  of  all  the  mercies,  and  of  all  the 
 truth,  which  thou  hast  shouecl  unto  thy  servant ;  for  with  my 
 Sit aff  I  passed  over  this  Jordan,  and  now  I  am  become  two 
 hands,  Gen.  xxxii.  10.  Human  means  would  have  had  a  very 
 trifling  effect,  if  God  had  not  added  his  blessing. 
 
 On  Jacob's  conduct  towards  Esau  on  his  return  from  Meso- 
 potamia, a  charge  has  been  founded  of  servility  and  mean-spirited 
 suspicion.  But,  as  to  the  first,  let  it  be  considered,  that  it  was 
 Jacob's  business  to  remove  all  suspicion  from  his  brother  of 
 wishing  to  maintain  a  temporal  superiority  over  him  ;  and,  in 
 reference  to  the  latter,  we  remark,  that  Jacob  was  a  better  psycho- 
 logist than  those  persons  who  have  cast  this  reproach  upon  him. 
 Jacob  knew  too  well  Esau's  rude  disposition,  shown  in  the  cruel 
 jest  he  practised  in  giving  no  reply  to  his  messengers  of  peace, 
 and  his  passionate  temper,  not  to  avoid  too  near  an  approach 
 which  might  affect  the  good  feeling  that  was  now  restored  between 
 them.  Great  stress  is  laid  on  Jacob's  promising  to  meet  his 
 brother  in  Seir,  while  it  was  not  his  intention  to  do  so.  If  this 
 was  really  the  case,  we  have  here  an  instance  in  which  the  old 
 Jacob  was  manifested  instead  of  the  new  Israel.  Yet,  since  the 
 historian  has  quite  a  different  object  in  view,  and  no  certain  data 
 are  furnished,  we  can  arrive  at  no  positive  conclusion,  but  neither 
 can  this  greatly  concern  us,  since  the  history  was  given  us  for  a 
 totally  different  object. 
 
 Against  Joseph  the  charge  has  been  made,  that  he  subjected  a 
 people  to  despotism  and  introduced  slavery.  (Von  Bohlen,  p. 
 423.)  We  do  not  mean  to  enter  here  upon  a  full  examination  of 
 this  charge  ;  but  the  following  extract  from  the  Essay  de  la  pro - 
 priete  fonder e  en  Eyypte  in  the  Correspo7idance  d' Orient  par 
 Michaudet  Poujoulat,  viii.  60,  Bruss.,  will  suffice  to  show,  that  it 
 is  not  to  be  urged  so  confidently  :   ''En  examinant  avec  attention 
 
440  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 a  quoi  ticnt  lafcrtilite  on  hi  sterilitc  du  sol,  on  com^oit  dahord 
 que  la  irrapriete  des  tcrres  n' a  pas  du  etre  soumise  aux  memes 
 conditions  ct  aux  memes  lois  que  dans  dautres  contrees  :  partout 
 ailleurs  la  projfriete  tcrritoriale  re^'oit  sa  valeur  de  la  nature 
 et  de  I  exposition  des  terrains,  de  I  influence  et  despluies  du  del, 
 du  travail  et  de  Tindustrie  de  lliomme ;  ici  tout  v\ent  du  Nil,  et 
 les  terres  avec  leurs  riches  productions,  pour  nous  servir  dune 
 expression  dHerodote,  sont  nn  veritable  present  du  Jleuve. 
 Toutefois,  pour  repandre  ses  hienfaits  sur  L'Egypte,  Le  Nil 
 avail  hesoin  dune  main  puissante  qui  lui  creusdt  des  canaux 
 et  qui  piit  diriger  ses  eaux  fecondantes  :  la  distribution  des 
 eatix  du  Jleuve  exigeait  le  concours  de  la  puissance  publique  et 
 de  Vautorite  souveraine ;  ilfallait  que  le pouvoir  des  gouverne- 
 mens  intervint,  et  la  necessite  de  cette  intervention  dut  changer 
 en  quelque  sorte,  et  modifier  les  droits  de  la  proprietefonciere." 
 Whatever  actions  in  the  lives  of  the  Patriarchs  appear  to  be 
 morally  objectionable,  are  infirmities,  which  cannot  be  considered 
 as  incompatible  with  a  state  of  grace,  (especially  if  we  observe, 
 that  most  of  them  occurred  at  the  commencement  of  the  relation 
 of  the  individuals  to  God),  without  destroying  all  possibility  of 
 the  connection  of  God  with  man.  It  is  quite  different  with  Jacob's 
 sons.  Among  them  there  are  certainly  actions  which  are  incon- 
 sistent with  a  state  of  grace.  But,  be  it  recollected,  that  the 
 election  of  a  family,  or  of  a  whole  nation,  is  essentially  different 
 from  that  of  an  individual.  Eeuben,  Simeon,  and  Levi  stand  in 
 a  very  different  relation  to  God  from  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob. 
 As  soon  as  a  family  or  a  nation  is  the  object  of  election,  it  is 
 sufficient,  if,  in  the  mass,  an  iKKo^rj  be  found.  In  Jacob's  family, 
 this  was  represented  by  Joseph.  Even  among  the  twelve  apostles 
 of  Christ,  was  there  not  at  least  one  Judas  I 
 
 VISITING  THE  SINS  OF  THE  FATHERS  ON  THE   CHILDREN. 
 
 A  charge  has  been  extensively  brought  against  the  Pentateuch 
 for  containing  the  doctrine,  that  the  sins  of  the  fathers  would  be 
 visited  on  the  children.  Thus  Kant,  treading  in  the  steps  of  the 
 English  Deists,  remarks,  that  all  the  consequences  arising  from 
 the  fulfilment  or  transgression  of  the  law  were  limited  to  those 
 
VISITING  THE  SINS  OF  THE  FATHERS  ON  THE  CHILDREN.    447 
 
 which  every  man  might  sliare  in  the  present  world,  "  and  even 
 these  were  not  at  all  according  to  moral  considerations,  since  Loth 
 reward  and  punishment  would  affect  the  descendants  who  had 
 taken  no  practical  part  either  by  what  they  did,  or  by  what  they 
 omitted  to  do,  which,  in  a  political  constitution,  might  be  a  pru- 
 dent contrivance  to  secure  obedience,  but,  in  an  ethical  one,  would 
 be  against  all  equity."  And  Von  Bohlen  says,  "  Exod  xxxiv. 
 7  expresses  the  united  representation  of  the  prophets,  that  Jehovah 
 forgives  iniquity,  and  yet  is  not  free  from  the  contradiction^  that 
 he  takes  vengeance  on  the  children  and  children's  children  even 
 to  the  third  and  fourth  generation — a  Levitical  dogma  (compare 
 Exod.  XX.  5,  Num.  xiv.  18),  which  ICzekiel  occupies  a  whole 
 chapter  in  combating." 
 
 It  must  he  confessed  that  here  also  the  opponents  of  Revelation 
 have  borrowed  aid  from  many  of  its  advocates,  who  have  set  out 
 with  them  on  the  assumption,  that  the  law  threatens  harm  to  the 
 children  on  account  of  sins  of  the  fathers  with  which  they  had 
 nothing  to  do.  That  with  this  assumption,  the  law  is  completely 
 indefensible,  their  very  justifications  of  it  may  suffice  to  show. 
 Grotius  (Dejure  belli  et paces,  ii.  593,ed.Barbeyrac),  says,  Deus 
 quidem  in  lege  Hehraeis  data  paternam  impietatem  in  posto^os 
 se  vindicaturuni  minatur ;  sed  ipse  jus  doniini  plenissimum 
 habet,  nt  in  res  nostras,  ita  in  vitani  nostrani.  But  this  passage 
 confounds  the  freedom  of  God  in  reference  to  human  claims  with 
 the  freedom  from  the  laws  of  his  own  nature.  God  is  not  bound 
 to  us,  but  he  is  to  himself,  to  punish  only  the  guilty.  Arbitrari- 
 ness is  only  the  semblance  of  freedom.  The  highest  freedom  is 
 the  most  complete  obligation  to  goodness.  Warburton,  who  has 
 expressed  himself  very  fully  on  this  regulation  {Divine  Legation 
 of  Moses,  iii.  135),  adopts  the  crude  representation  that  it  was 
 not  contrary  to  equity,  because  it  was  inserted  in  the  compact. 
 He  regards  it  merely  as  temporary,  as  the  surrogate  of  the  doctrine 
 of  a  future  life,  and  considers  that  Jeremiah,  in  ch.  xxxi.  29-33, 
 and  Ezekiel,  in  ch.  xviii.,  announce  its  aboHtion.  Michaelis 
 {Mosaisches  RecJit.,  v.  §  229,  and  in  his  Annotations  on  Exod. 
 XX.  5),  imagines  that  he  can  dispose  of  all  difficulties  by  the 
 remark,  that  only  temporal  evil  is  spoken  of.  In  what  happens 
 to  children,  on  whom  God  visits  the  iniquities  of  their  fathers,  no 
 injustice  is  done,  and  yet  there  is  an  infliction  on  their  fathers.   For 
 
448  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 temporal  evil  or  good  is  dealt  out  by  Providence  not  always  accord- 
 ing to  desert,  and  if  the  children  of  God  are  put  on  their  guard,  then 
 the  evil  with  which  they  are  visited  becomes  a  salutary  instrument 
 for  their  welfare,  but  if  they  follow  tlie  evil  courses  of  their  fathers, 
 it  will  be  a  merited  punishment."  But  against  this  view  the  simple 
 remark  is  sufficient,  that,  in  the  passages  in  question,  not  suffer- 
 ing, but  punishment  is  spoken  of;  whether  temporal  or  not  tem- 
 poral makes  no  difference.  A  God  wdio  can  suspend  temporal 
 punishment  over  the  innocent,  can  also  inflict  what  is  eternal. 
 Equally  untenable  is  the  solution  adopted  by  Flatt  {Maf/azin, 
 iii.  116),  that  only  the  natural  consequences  of  sin  are  intended. 
 This  distinction  is  not  indicated  in  these  passages,  nor  v/ould  any 
 thing  be  gained  by  it ;  for  natural  consequences  must  always  be 
 regarded  as  punishments,  and  therefore  stand  on  the  same  footing 
 with  positive  punishments. 
 
 The  correct  view  in  which  all  difficulties  vanish  (which  is  found 
 in  the  Chaldee  Pai'aphrast  Onkelos,  who  adds,  quando  peryunt 
 filii peccando  pone  parentes,  and  in  Jonathan,  and  is  defended 
 by  Gerhard,  {Loc.  th.  v.  298),  Steudel  {Glauhensl.  159,  and 
 many  others),  is  this,  that  the  threatening  is  directed  against  those 
 children  who  tread  in  their  fathers'  footsteps.  This  is  supported 
 by  the  following  reasons. 
 
 (i.)  That  among  the  heathens,  the  custom  of  extending  the 
 punishment  to  the  children  of  transgressors  was  widely  spread,  is 
 shown  by  an  expression  of  Cicero's  [ad  Brutum,  ep.  xv).  In 
 qua  videtur  lllud  es,se  crudele,  quod  ad  Hheros  qui  nihil  meru- 
 erunt^  poena  pervenit,  sed  id  et  antiguuniest  et  omnium  civita- 
 tum.  But  here  the  sentiment  is  certainly  false,  that  the  guilt  of  the 
 fathers,  in  the  sight  of  those  who  imposed  the  punishment,  was 
 merely  nominal  for  the  children.  The  following  words  of  Plutarch 
 {De  sera  num.  vind.)  point  to  the  ultimate  ground  of  the  custom. 
 "'  To  the  children  of  wicked  parents  the  principal  and  most  import- 
 ant part  is  innate,  which  never  remains  at  rest  and  inactive,  but 
 through  which  they  not  only  live  and  gi'OAv,  but  also  are  governed 
 in  their  disposition.  It  is  consequently  neither  cruel  nor  absurd, 
 if,  as  their  offspring,  they  also  have  j)art  in  their  reward."  "  The 
 apple  falls  not  far  from  the  stem,"  a  maxim  which  holds  good  in 
 reference  to  heathenism,  the  less  it  possessed  a  living  principle  of 
 regeneration,  was  the  foundation  of  this  custom,  and  it  is  certainly 
 
VISITING  THE  SINS  OF  THE  FATHERS  UN  THE  CHILDREN.     44  9 
 
 not  in  the  spirit  of  antiquity,  wlien  Cicero  (ad  Brnfum  ep.  xii.) 
 states  as  its  design  and  the  ground  of  its  existence  ;  ut  caritas 
 liherorum  amiciorcs  parcntes  reijmhUcae  rcdderet. 
 
 (ii.)  It  is  said  in  Deut.  xxiv.  16,  '' The  fathers  shall  not  he 
 put  to  death  f 07^  the  children;  neither  shall  the  children  he  put 
 to  death  for  the  fathers  ;  every  man  shall  he  put  to  death  for 
 his  oicn  sin."  We  find  a  remarkable  instance  in  wliicli  this  re- 
 gulation was  put  in  force  in  2  Kings  xiv.  C,  and  2  Chron.  xxv.  4. 
 This  would  he  inexplicable  if  Exod.  xx.  5,  "  Visiting  the  iniqui- 
 ties of  the  fathers  npon  the  children,  even  to  the  third  and 
 fourth  generation"  related  simply  and  universally  to  children. 
 For  then  no  reason  would  exist  why  the  magistracy,  God's 
 '' minister  to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil"  should 
 not  take  God's  procedure  for  his  rule  and  pattern.  But  if  the 
 sons  are  to  be  taken  in  a  spiritual,  as  well  as  corporal  sense,  the 
 ground  of  the  distinction  is  clear.  Only  God  looketh  on  the  heart. 
 Tliis  passage  at  the  same  time  plainly  shows,  that  the  ground  of 
 punishing  the  children  with  the  fathers,  is  not  to  be  explained  by 
 the  assertion,  that  subjectivity  was  not  sufficiently  recognised; 
 though  something  might  be  said  in  favour  of  this  explanation  ; 
 the  individuals  were  regarded  not  merely  as  members  of  the  whole. 
 
 (iii.)  The  passages  themselves  loudly  demand  this  interpreta- 
 tion. In  Ex.  xxxiv.  G,  7,  it  is  said,  ''And  the  Lord  passed  hy 
 hefore  him,  and  proclaimed,  the  Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful 
 and  gracious,  long-suffering  and  abundant  in  goodness  and 
 truth,  heeping  mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity,  trans- 
 gression, and  sin,  and  tvill  not  destroy,^  {^^T.  ^  '^f}))  visiting 
 the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children,  and  upon  the  child- 
 ren's children,  to  the  third  and  to  the  fourth  generation.  The 
 current  interpretation  is  irreconcileable  with  the  character  of  God 
 which  is  here  exhibited.  How  could — "  God  is  love  f"  be  more 
 strongly  expressed  than  in  this  passage  !  Such  a  God  punishes 
 only  where  he  must ;  he  has  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  a  sinner, 
 but  rather  that  he  should  turn  and  live.  If  in  Exod.  xx.  5,  G, 
 the  threatening  is  to  be  taken  so  externally  numerical,  so  also 
 must  the  announcement  of  the  blessing,  in  which  case  Israel  would 
 
 *  V.  Zecli.  V.  3.— [Tu.] 
 VOL.  II.  F  f 
 
450  TJIEULUliV  OF  TJIE  PENTATKI-CH. 
 
 be  quite  safe,  at  least  for  a  thousand  generations  after  Abraham, 
 Isaac,  and  Jacob.  But  that  this  cannot  be  the  meaning,  appears 
 from  a  mukitude  of  the  clearest  expressions.  Steudel  justly 
 remarks,  that  the  expression,  "  them  that  hate  tne,"  s1io\ys  that  the 
 children  were  to  be  considered  As  resembling  the  parents.  That 
 the  term  "'^^-f  must  not  be  limited  to  the  fathers,  is  evident  j&:om 
 the  corresponding  phrase,  "  them  that  love  me  and  keep  my  com- 
 mandments" in  the  annunciation  of  the  blessing.  Two  great  classes 
 are  set  in  contrast  with  one  another,  that  of  the  ungodly,  in  whom 
 the  curse  is  perpetuated,  and  that  of  the  godly,  to  whom  the  bless- 
 ing appertained.  In  Num.  xiv.  17,  where  God  is  likewise  described 
 as  the  Being  who  visits  the  sins  of  the  fathers  on  the  children,  we 
 have  a  case  in  which  the  punishment  was  stopped  in  its  course.  The 
 present  generation  (the  fathers)  He  under  the  punishment,  but  the 
 new  generation  then  rising  up  (the  sons)  are  objects  of  God's 
 favour.  This  is  inconceivable,  if  the  mere  external  sonship  of  itself 
 involved  them  in  the  participation  of  punishment;  if  the  curse 
 rested  as  an  inevitable  fate  on  the  children  of  ungodly  parents. 
 
 (iv.)  The  current  interpretation  is  irreconcileable  with  other 
 expressions  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  reference  to  imputation. 
 Abraham,  in  Gen.  xviii.  25,  says,  "  That  he  far  from  thee, 
 to  do  after  this  manner,  to  slay  the  righteous  with  the 
 wicked :  and  that  the  righteous  should  he  as  the  wicked,  that 
 he  far  from  thee  I  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right  V 
 But  as  the  best  comment  on  the  passage  before  us.  Lev.  xxvi.  39, 
 deserves  special  attention  ;  "  and  they  that  are  left  of  you  shall 
 pine  away  in  their  iniquity  in  your  enemies'  lands ;  and  also  in 
 the  iniquities  of  their  fathers  shall  they  pine  away  with  them," 
 (the  ^>?  and  the  ^C'?  are  not  to  be  overlooked)  ver.  40,  "  If  they 
 shall  confess  their  iniquity,  and  the  iniquity  of  their  fathers.  .  .  . 
 ver.  42,  Then  will  I  remember  my  covenant  with  Jacob,"  &c. 
 According  to  this  passage  the  blessing  was  not  inahenable,  nor 
 the  curse  inevitable.  The  blessing  was  not  imparted  to  the  mere 
 natural  descendants  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob ;  but  to  those 
 who  were  also  their  spiritual  descendants ;  the  curse  likewise  did 
 not  rest  on  the  mere  natural  descendants  of  sinners. 
 
 (v.)  It  is  a  doctrine  that  pervades  the  other  books  of  Holy  Writ, 
 that  no  one  is  punished  unless  he  is  personally  culpable;  that  only 
 the  ungodly  sons  are  involved  in  the  punishment  of  their  fathers. 
 
VTSrn\(i   THK   SINS  OF  THE  FATIIKIiy  UN  THE  CHILDREN.    451 
 
 Jereiiiiali,  in  eli.  xxxii.  18  ("  Thou  showest  lovin{/-kijidiies.<i  unto 
 thousands,  andrecompensest  the  iniquitjj  of  the  fathers  into  the 
 bosom  of  their  children  after  thetn'),  speaks  like  the  law,  and 
 with  a  verhal  reference  to  it,  of  the  punishment  of  the  fathers' 
 guilt  falling  on  the  children  ;  but  that  those  children  are  intended 
 to  whom  the  spirit  of  tlieir  fathers  was  transmitted,  in  whom  their 
 disposition  continued  to  flourish,  is  evident  from  ver.  19,  in  which 
 the  doctrine  of  personal  responsibihty  is  expressed  as  distinctly 
 as  possible  ;  "  thine  eyes  are  open  upon  all  the  ways  of  the  sons 
 of  men,  to  (jive  every  one  according  to  Ids  ways,  and  according 
 to  the  fruit  of  his  doings."  The  sons  to  whom  Jeremiah  alludes, 
 were  themselves  guilty  ;  compare  ver,  30,  ''for  they  have  only 
 done  evil  before  me  from  tlieir  youth  ;"  ver.  31,  "from  the  day 
 that  they  built  it  even  nnto  this  day  J'  Jonathan  very  properly 
 adds  after  the  words  "  their  sons,"  quando  complent  j)eccando 
 post  illos.  In  Jerem.  xxxi.  29,  80,  "  In  those  days  they  shall 
 say  no  more,  the  fathers  have  eaten  a  sour  yrape,  and  the  child- 
 ren s  teeth  are  set  on  edge,  hut  (therefore  thus  shall  they  say,  or  it 
 shall  be  universally  known)  every  man  shall  die  for  his  own  ini- 
 quity ;  every  man  that  eateth  the  sour  grape,  his  teeth  shall  be 
 set  on  edge  — lihe  current  exposition  of  the  passages  in  the  law 
 respecting  visiting  the  sins  of  the  fathers  on  the  children,  is 
 marked  as  a  gross  misunderstanding,  of  which  any  one  must  be 
 ashamed  who  traces  the  superabundant  manifestation  of  God's 
 grace.  Ezek.  ch.  xviii.  forms  a  commentary  on  this  passage,  in 
 which  the  misunderstanding  of  the  language  of  the  law,  touched 
 upon  by  Jeremiah,  on  the  ground  of  which  the  impenitent  charged 
 God  with  being  the  author  of  their  misfortunes,  is  fully  and  ex 
 professo  refuted.  It  is  a  gross  misapprehension  of  the  relation 
 in  which  Ezekiel  stands  to  the  Pentateuch  to  suppose  that  this 
 prophet  here  intended  to  improve  upon  the  law.  First  of  all,  in 
 ver.  1-3,  he  declares  that  the  impious  proverb  and  its  application 
 should  no  more  be  used  in  Israel.  Then,  in  ver.  4,  he  lays  down 
 the  position  which  must  destroy  the  misapprehension,  since  it 
 establishes  personal  accountability.  "  Behold  all  souls  are 
 mine  ;  as  the  soul  of  tJie  father,  so  also  the  soul  of  the  son  is 
 fnine;  the  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die."  This  principle  is  then 
 apphed  to  particulars.  According  to  ver.  .0,  and  the  following 
 verses,  in  three  generations,  the  relation  alters  three  times — to  the 
 
 F  f  2 
 
452  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 righteous  father  will  he  awarded,  life ;  to  the  unrighteous  sons, 
 death  ;  to  the  righteous  son  of  the  unrighteous  father,  life.  In 
 ver.  20,  all  is  summed  up  in  the  words,  "  The  soul  that  sinneth, 
 it  shall  die.  The  son  shall  not  hear  the  iniquity  of  the  father, 
 neither  shall  the  father  hear  the  iniquity  of  the  son  ;  the  righte- 
 ousness of  the  righteous  shall  he  upon  him,  and  the  wickedness 
 of  the  wicked  shall  he  upon  him.  But  if  the  wicked  will  turn 
 from  all  his  sins  that  he  hath  committed  .  ...  he  shall  surely 
 live,  he  shall  not  die  ....  Have  I  any  pleasure  at  all  that 
 the  wicked  should  die,  and  not  that  he  should  return  from  his 
 ways  and  live  V  After  dissipating  the  illusion,  that  their  suffer- 
 ings were  a  punishment  for  the  crimes  of  others,  and  therefore 
 rested  as  an  inevitable  fate  upon  the  people,  they  are  admonished 
 in  ver.  30,  by  true  conversion  to  save  themselves  from  death,  and 
 hve.  The  same  doctrine  is  found  in  the  New  Testament ;  com- 
 pare especially  Matt,  xxiii.  29,  and  following  verses.  In  ver.  31, 
 (coare  fjuapTvpelre  eavrol^,  ore  viol  iare  rcov  (fiovevcrdvTcov  tov<; 
 7rpo(f)7]Ta<;)  Christ  lays  a  stress  on  the  circumstance  that  the 
 Pharisees  distinguished  the  murderers  of  the  prophets  as  their 
 fathers.  Had  they  been  altogether  separated  from  them  in  dis- 
 position, the  natural  descent  from  them  would  not  have  been 
 made  a  prominent  object.  Therefore,  here,  as  in  Exodus,  the 
 more  spiritual  notion  of  sonship  is  kept  in  view,  such  as  hes  at 
 the  basis  of  the  language  of  God  to  Abraham,  ''  In  Isaac  shall 
 thy  seed  he  called;"  and  it  is  confirmed  by  our  Lord  against 
 the  Jews  in  John  viii.  39,  aireKpiOrjaav  Kal  elirov  avrtp-  6  irarrip 
 r][jbO}V  ^A^pad/JL  ecm.  Aeyet  avTo2<;  6  ^Ir^aov^'  el  reKva  rod 
 ^AjBpadfJi  eVre,  ra  epya  rod  'A^padfi  iTTOielre  ....  vfjuel^  €k 
 rev  Trarpo?  rod  Bta/SoXov  iare.  The  iipovevaare  in  ver.  35, 
 shows  that  the  sons  were  only  involved  in  their  fathers'  punish- 
 ment as  being  partakers  of  their  criminahty.  According  to  ver. 
 37,  the  curse  would  have  been  taken  off,  if  Jerusalem  had  re- 
 pented, for  which  the  Lord  presented  all  the  inducements ;  "  but 
 ve  ivould  not  f' 
 
 THE  PARTIALITY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 One  of  the  objections  against  the  Pentateuch,  which  has  been 
 most  pertinaceously  urged,  is  founded  on  its  partiahty  fParticu- 
 
PARTIALITY  OF  THK   PENTATEUCH.  J.5;J 
 
 hirismus).  It  was  brought  into  notice  by  the  EngUsh  Deists 
 (see  BoLiNGBROKE  in  Leland,  View  of  Deist  iced  Writers,  vol. 
 ii.,  Letters  11,  12.  London,  1755.)  From  them  it  was  borrowed 
 by  Kant,  who  presents  it  in  its  crudest  form.  '*  So  far,"  he  says, 
 "  from  Judaism  forming  an  epoch  belonging  to  the  universal 
 Church,  or  being  itself  this  universal  Church,  it  rather  excluded 
 the  whole  human  race  from  its  fellowship,  as  a  peculiar  people 
 chosen  by  Jehovah  for  himself,  which  bore  ill-will  to  all  other 
 nations,  and  was  regarded  with  ill-will  by  them  in  return."  That 
 Hegel  has  appropriated  this  sentiment,  will  be  only  thought  to  be 
 in  keeping  with  his  total  misapprehension  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 and  his  position  in  reference  to  religion  generally.  But  that  even 
 a  Schleiermacher  should  express  it  so  unreservedly  (he  says, 
 in  his  Glauhensl.  i.  52,  ''Judaism  shews  by  the  restriction  of  Jeho- 
 vah's love  to  the  race  of  Abraham  a  relationship  to  Fetichism)," 
 proves  how  deeply  the  prejudice  has  taken  root  in  the  present 
 age,  and  how  difficult  it  is  even  for  the  more  enlightened  to  free 
 themselves  from  it,  when  general  intelligence  is  not  supported  by 
 special  knowledge  resting  on  personal  examination.  Originally 
 the  outcry  against  Jewish  Particularism  proceeded  from  those  who, 
 destitute  themselves  of  all  intimate  relation  to  God,  could  not 
 bear  that  others  should  enjoy  such  a  blessing.  They  had  nothing 
 to  lose  ;  and  this  made  them  so  zealous  in  the  proclamation  of 
 equality.  It  would  have  been  self- accusation  if  they  had  allowed 
 others  to  stand  in  a  nearer  relation  to  God.  But  they  were  so 
 consequent  as  to  be  not  less  zealous  against  Christian,  than  Jewish 
 Pai'ticulai'ism.  The  base  coinage  from  their  mint  was  innocently 
 taken  by  many  who,  in  their  o-^ti  religious  experience,  possessed 
 the  key  for  understanding  the  Old  Testament  Particularism,  but 
 knew  not  how  to  make  use  of  it.  Thus  piety  has  not  unfrequently 
 joined  in  the  clamour  of  impiety. 
 
 We  begin  with  observing,  that  in  regard  to  the  charge  of  Par- 
 ticularism, it  is  not  allowable  to  separate  the  New  Testament 
 from  the  Old  ;  the  charge  must  be  entirely  given  up,  or  applied 
 to  both.  That  the  formation  of  opinions  is  so  dependent  on  the 
 bias  of  the  mind,  that  the  wish  is  so  often  father  of  the  thought, 
 is  the  only  adequate  explanation  of  the  fact  that  men  have  been 
 led  to  exalt  the  New  Testament  in  this  respect  at  the  expense  of 
 the  Old.     The  New  Testament  teaches,  in  reference  to  the  times 
 
454  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 of  the  New  Covenant^  that  a  special  providence  of  God  watches 
 over  the  Church — it  teaches  an  election  in  reference  to  nations 
 and  individuals  ;  it  declares  that  those  who  have  not  the  Son  have 
 not  the  Father ;  it  limits  the  command  of  brotherly  love  to  the 
 disciples  of  Christ.  And  more  than  this,  the  Old  Testament  Par- 
 ticularism is  decidedly  and  frequently  acknowledged  in  the  New 
 Testament.  The  heathen,  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  were 
 regarded  as  excluded  from  communion  with  God,  as  aOeoi  iv  tq) 
 Koo-fjio) ;  only  within  the  pale  of  the  congregation  of  Israel  was 
 there  a  participation  in  the  blessings  of  salvation.  Compare  our 
 Lord's  language,  quoted  in  vol.  i.,  p.  82,  and  take  as  the  repre- 
 sentation of  the  Apostles,  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  in 
 Eph.  ii.  11-22,  Rom.  ix.  4,  and  other  passages. 
 
 The  best  apology  for  the  Particularism  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 and  of  the  Pentateuch  especially,  lies  in  a  simple  representation 
 of  facts. 
 
 At  the  opening  of  the  Pentateuch  we  are  met  by  two  truths, 
 wdiich,  in  their  connection,  entirely  exclude  absolute  Particu- 
 larism, (i.)  The  God  of  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  is  God 
 in  the  fullest  sense — is  the  Godhead,  the  Creator,  and  Lord  of 
 heaven  and  earth  ;  and  (ii.)  this  God,  in  the  first  human  pair, 
 created  all  men  in  his  own  image.  Absolute  Particularism  must 
 necessarily  set  aside  both  or  one  of  these  truths.  Monotheism, 
 in  distinction  from  Monolatry,  is  at  the  same  time  Universalism. 
 "  In  all  times  and  places,"  Schleiermacher  observes  (i  50), 
 "  this  faith  has  pre-eminently  striven  to  extend  itself  further,  and 
 to  gain  access  to  the  hearts  of  men."  How  one  God  must  neces- 
 sarily be  the  God  of  all,  for  Gentiles  not  less  than  for  Jews,  the 
 Apostle  has  pointed  out  in  Rom.  iii.  29,  oO.  i)  'lovSalcov  6  ^eo? 
 fiovov ;  ov^i  KoX  lOvoiv  ;  val  koX  eOvcov  eVetTrep  el?  6  ^eo?  o? 
 hiKaL(£KT6L  7repcro/jL7]v  e/c  TrlaTecof;  koX  aKpo^varlav  Boa  ty}<;  ttIo-- 
 T6co^.  The  only  means  by  which  Monotheism  can  withdraw  itself 
 from  Universalism,  is  by  denying  the  original  equahty  of  men, 
 and  maintaining  that  from  their  creation  an  original  difference 
 existed  among  them,  as  has  been  done  by  the  advocates  of  slavery, 
 who  would  represent  the  negro  as  half-man  half-brute.  But  this 
 method  the  Israelitish  Monotheism  has  from  the  first  excluded 
 itself  from  adopting. 
 
 In  the  Mosaic  history,  from  the  creation  to  Abraham,  the  fr/?o/e 
 
PARTIALITY  01-'  THE  I'KNTATEUCII.  455 
 
 human  race  is  the  object  of  God's  guidance  and  government.  His 
 love  and  his  justice  are  exhibited  towards  collective  humanity. 
 How  could  a  God  who  for  centuries  hud  embraced  the  whole, 
 suddenly  contract  himself  to  a  particular  race  and  people,  unless 
 with  the  design  of  making  the  temporary  contraction  {Beschriin- 
 kung)  the  means  of  a  future  expansion  {Entshrankutir/).  In 
 Gen.  ix.  7,  the  blessing  is  pronounced  on  all  the  descendants  of 
 Noah. 
 
 With  the  call  of  Abraham,  Particularism  makes  its  first  aj)pear- 
 ance,  but  Universahsm  not  only  preceded,  but  accompanies  it. 
 Through  the  whole  of  Genesis,  the  blessing  that  would  be  on  all 
 nations  is  specified  as  the  final  end  of  the  election  of  Abraham 
 and  his  posterity.  The  separation  of  God  to  be  the  God  of 
 Israel,  so  far  from  being  to  the  injury  of  other  nations,  had,  on 
 the  contrary,  their  salvation  for  its  ultimate  object.  Israel  was 
 separated  in  order  that  all  nations  might  be  blessed. 
 
 That  the  temporary  withdrawment  of  God  from  the  heathen 
 originated,  not  in  God,  but  in  themselves,  in  their  apostacy,  which 
 rendered  a  nearer  relation  to  God  impossible ;  that,  therefore,  it 
 cannot  be  available  as  evidence  against  Universahsm,  is  evident 
 from  the  fact  that  the  line  of  demarcation  between  Abraham  and 
 his  posterity,  and  the  Gentile  world,  was  at  first  very  slight.  Mel- 
 chisedec  was  acknowledged  by  Abraham  as  priest  of  the  true  God  ; 
 and  centuries  later,  Moses  was  united  with  Jethro  in  the  bonds  of 
 rehgious  fellowship.  There  was  still  a  Gentile  piety  {eine  heid- 
 nische  ReliffidsUat)  '^^^'^f,^T^..  See  vol.  i.  p.  344.  In  Gen. 
 xviii.  23,  it  is  expressly  given  as  the  reason  why,  at  that  time, 
 principally  the  punitive  justice  of  God  was  manifested  to  the 
 heathen,  that  they  had  put  themselves  out  of  communication  with 
 other  attributes  of  the  Divine  Being.  Ten  righteous  men,  if  such 
 had  existed,  could  have  averted  entirely  the  doom  of  Sodom. 
 
 On  the  eve  of  the  total  eehpse  of  Divine  knowledge,  Abraham 
 was  called,  that  light  might  be  preserved  among  his  posterity  for 
 enlightening  the  heathen.  Will  any  one  contend  with  God  because 
 the  temporary  preference  belonged  precisely  to  him  and  his  pos- 
 terity ?  This  also  may  be  vindicated  on  good  grounds,  which  we 
 cannot  express  better  than  in  the  words  of  Lange,  {Ucbcr  den 
 r/eschichtl.  Char.  d.  Evangel,  in  answer  to  Strauss,  p.  9),  "  It 
 was  not  without  weighty  reasons  that  Abraham  was  chosen  and 
 
450  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PKNTATErC'H. 
 
 not  Lot;  aud  afterwards  Isaac  and  not  Islimael ;  Jacob  and  not 
 Esau.  Though  Israel  was  chosen  not  on  account  of  merit,  yet 
 neither  was  it  in  consequence  of  a  bhnd  Divine  arbitrariness,  tak- 
 ing them  at  random  from  the  mass  of  nations.  It  was  arranged 
 that  they  should  be  chosen  ;  the  choice  proves  itself  to  be  accord- 
 ing to  an  arrangement ;  for  from  the  womb,  in  the  primary  ele- 
 ments of  his  character,  he  was  predisposed  for  living  within  the 
 sphere  of  revelation;  he  had  a  susceptibility  for  true  religion  as  the 
 gift  of  God,  which  now  had  to  be  ethically  developed,  and  actually 
 unfolded  under  the  Divine  leadings.  The  history  justified  God's 
 choice.  As  a  people,  Israel,  through  thousands  of  years,  preserved 
 tlie  true  rehgion  as  a  dead  stock ;  the  iK\oyrj  who  w^ere  never 
 wanting  to  it  in  the  darkest  times,  served  as  a  nursery  for  the  king- 
 dom of  Christ,  and  realised  the  office  of  Israel,  to  be  God's 
 messenger  to  the  heathen.  If  it  be  objected  that  Israel  did  not 
 fulfil  this  office,  and  therefore  stands  self-condemned,  we  reply, 
 that  this  self-condemnation  is  a  witness  to  the  contrary. 
 
 In  the  four  last  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  Universalism  retires  ; 
 the  attention  is  principally  directed  to  God's  special  relation  to 
 Israel,  and  its  pre-eminence  before  the  heathen.  Who  can  cen- 
 sure tliis  ?  It  was  most  important  that  gratitude,  and  intense 
 love  to  God,  should  be  called  forth  in  Israel.  On  the  declara- 
 tion, "  This  I  have  done  for  thee,"  is  founded  the  interrogation, 
 "  What  wilt  thou  do  for  me  V  But  what  the  Lord  had  done 
 for  Israel  required  to  be  clearly  set  forth,  that  it  might  be  com- 
 pared with  what  he  had  not  done  for  the  heathen.  In  this  way 
 a  ground  of  hope  would  be  at  the  same  time  laid  for  the  heathen, 
 which  could  originate  in  no  other  way  among  the  people.  The 
 living  consciousness  of  what  God  had  done  for  Israel,  excited  the 
 hope  and  anticipation  of  what  he  would  do  in  later  ages  for  the 
 heathen.  De  Wette  {Bihl.  Bogm.  §  110),  and  Von  Colln  (i. 
 283),  have  advocated  the  view,  that  the  Particularism  of  the  law 
 was  symbolical — that  the  limitation  of  God's  government  to  a 
 single  nation  is  to  be  considered  as  a  aign,  and  Universalism,  on 
 the  other  hand,  as  the  tJiing  signijied,  as  the  very  reahty.  An 
 important  truth  is  at  the  basis  of  this  view.  The  proofs  of  love 
 towards  a  particular  people,  proceeding  from  that  God  who  was 
 called,  and  was  indeed  Jehovah,  must  always  be  likewise  practical 
 prophecies,  and  so  many  pledges  of  what  lie  would   do  for  other 
 
PARTIALITY  OF  THE  PEiNTATKUCH.  157 
 
 nations,  as  soon  as  the  lit  time  for  their  partaking  of  his  grace 
 should  arrive.  Yet  something  more  than  a  mere  sign  was  in- 
 tended. For  the  present  the  peculiar  relation  to  Israel  is  regarded 
 throughout  the  law  as  perfectly  real,  and  the  notion  that  God  was 
 then  no  more  Israel's  God,  than  he  was  the  God  of  all  other 
 nations,  w^ould  have  utterly  shocked  Moses.  Yet  a  more  vital 
 Universalism  took  its  rise  always  from  the  ground  of  Particularism. 
 Every  man  hopes  exactly  as  much  for  those  who  are  yet  at  a  dis- 
 tance from  Christ,  as  he  himself  has  experienced  of  his  love. 
 
 But  how  little  an  absolute  Particularism  is  favoured  by  the 
 four  last  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  will  appear  from  the  following 
 remarks  : — 
 
 (i.)  It  has  been  maintained  that  these  books  do  not  admit  the 
 universal  providence  of  God  ;  that  when  providence  is  spoken  of 
 in  reference  to  the  heathen,  it  is  only  so  far  as  they  are  connected 
 with  Israel.  Compare  Kust  {Phil.  a.  Chrhtenth,  175),  and  Von 
 CoLLN  (p.  186.)  But  the  contrary  is  shown  by  Deut.  ii.  21, 
 according  to  which  Jehovah  drove  out  the  Kephaim,  and  gave 
 their  land  to  the  Ammonites,  and  (ver.  22),  exterminated  the 
 Horites  before  the  Edomites.  That  the  general  providence  of 
 God  is  less  prominent,  finds  its  explanation  and  justification  in 
 the  special  design  of  these  books. 
 
 (ii.)  The  neighbour,  the  brother,  in  these  books  (as  only  pre- 
 judice can  fail  to  perceive),  is  constantly  not  a  fellow-man  but 
 the  member  r^?  iroKireia'^  tov  'lafjariX.  This  has  often  been 
 considered  to  favour  the  notion  of  absolute  Particularism.  But 
 the  warm  exhortations  to  kindness  towards  strangers,  oppose  such 
 a  conclusion,  "  And  thou  shall  not  oppress  a  stranger" — it  is 
 said  in  Exod.  xxiii.  9 — '"  For  ye  know  the  heart  of  a  stranger, 
 seeing  ye  were  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt!'  In  Deut.  xxvii. 
 19,  a  cm'se  is  pronounced,  as  for  a  capital  offence,  on  him  wdio 
 perverteth  the  judgment  of  the  stranger.  In  Lev.  xix.  0;3,  34, 
 it  is  said,  "  If  a  stranger  sojourn  with  you  in  your  land,  ye  shall 
 not  vex  him.  The  stranger  that  dwelleth  with  you,  shall  be  unto 
 you  as  one  born  among  you,  and  thou  shall  love  him  as  thyself. 
 for  ye  were  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt."  Compare  also  Exod. 
 xxii.  20  ;  Deut.  x.  10  ;  xxiv.  17.  These  passages  shew  tliat  the 
 brotherly  love  commanded  to  the  Israelites,  did  not  exclude  the 
 love  of  their  fellow-men,  but  rather  that  tlie  grounding  of  their 
 
458  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 duties  towai'ds  neighbours  on  the  Israehtish  brotherly  love,  was 
 only  occasioned  by  the  circumstance  that  in  general  the  Israelite 
 had  only  to  do  with  Israelites,  so  that  the  strongest  motive  was 
 selected.  They  likewise  show  the  falsehood  of  the  assertion,  that 
 the  God  of  the  Pentateuch  conducted  himself  towards  the  heathen 
 solely  in  the  way  of  exclusion  and  repulsion.  How  could  such  a 
 God  command  his  people  to  love  those  whom  he  himself  did  not 
 love  ?  How  could  he  whom  the  Israelite  was  bound  to  love,  be 
 an  object  of  indifference  or  hatred  to  God  ?  There  is  good  rea- 
 son for  asserting  that  those  passages  not  standing  isolated,  but 
 occurring  throughout  the  Pentateuch,  contain  an  indirect  Mes- 
 sianic prophecy.  In  order  rightly  to  estimate  the  significance  of 
 these  passages,  let  it  be  observed  how  repulsive  was  the  national 
 spirit  of  ancient  times.  This  is  impressed  on  their  language. 
 Hostis  vf'ds  oiiginally  =  pe?'e^?'imis ;  see  Forcellini.  But  of 
 all  the  nations  of  antiquity,  the  hatred  of  strangers  was  most  vio- 
 lent among  the  Egyptians.  Strangers,  who  before  the  times  of 
 Psammeticus,  came  to  Egypt,  were  either  put  to  death,  or  made 
 slaves  of;  compare  Diodorus  Siculus,  i.  78  ;  Strabo,  xvii.  p. 
 1142.  From  the  Egyptians,  whose  hatred  of  strangers  was  most 
 closely  connected  with  their  rehgion,  we  may  learn  the  nature  of 
 Particularism,  and  how  the  Pentateuch  would  have  been  con- 
 structed, if  Moses  had  introduced  into  Israelitish  life  what  he  had 
 been  taught  in  this  school.  These  regulations  in  reference  to 
 individual  members  of  foreign,  nations,  shew,  at  the  same  time,  that 
 the  attitude  which  was  commanded  to  the  Israelites  towards  all 
 these  people,  the  separation  from  them  that  was  prescribed,  could 
 only  be  founded  on  the  reason  assigned  in  the  law — the  danger 
 of  pollution — the  moral  weakness  of  the  Israelites.  To  have 
 placed  them  in  a  different  position  towards  heathen  nations  would 
 not  merely  have  been  unkindness  to  Israel,  but  to  the  heathen 
 themselves.  Israel  could  render  no  help  to  them,  partly  on  account 
 of  its  own  weakness,  partly  because  the  time  was  not  yet  fulfilled  ; 
 and  when  it  received  injury,  and  fell  into  heathenish  practices,  the 
 heathen  were  likewise  injured,  who  were  to  be  blessed  through  the 
 seed  of  Abraham.  How  little  it  was  the  design  of  the  law  to 
 cherish  that  odium  humani  generis  with  which  the  Jews  were 
 reproached,  besides  the  passages  already  quoted,  those  also  show 
 in  which  a  tender  regard  to  the  ties  of  blood,  love  to  the  nation 
 
FAKTIALITV  OF  THE    PENTATEUCH.  450 
 
 descended  from  the  same  stock,  is  inculcated  on  Israel.  It  is 
 also  to  be  noted,  that  only  intermarriages  wliich  involved  the 
 adoption  of  heathenish  religions  were  forbidden,  and  that  Moses 
 himself  married  a  Cushite. 
 
 (iii.)  That  the  exclusion  of  the  nations,  as  such,  from  the  king- 
 dom of  God,  was  not  founded  on  an  absolute  Particularism,  is 
 evident,  also,  from  the  fact  that  the  entrance  into  it  stood  open 
 for  individuals.  Even  Egyptians,  members  of  the  nation  from 
 whom  the  Israelites  had  suffered  so  much,  could  be  received  into 
 the  theocracy  in  the  third  generation,  Dent,  xxiii.  8,  9.  (Com- 
 pare, on  the  reception  of  the  heathen  among  the  people  of  God, 
 Christologie,  iii.  51.)  Thus,  it  was  evniced  that  the  heathen 
 were  capable  of  grace,  and,  if  they  were  so  then,  in  future  that 
 might  be  imparted  to  all  nations,  which  was  now  vouchsafed  to 
 individuals,  as  is  emphatically  expressed,  in  the  prediction  that 
 Japhet  would  dwell  in  the  tents  of  Shem,  Gen  ix.  27.  {Clirist- 
 oloffie,  i.  46.) 
 
 (iv.)  Deut.  xxxii.  43,  is  a  remarkable  passage. 
 
 "  Rejoice,  O  ye  nations,  with  his  people. 
 For  he  will  avenge  the  blood  of  his  servants." 
 
 This  passage,  hke  many  others  in  the  Psalms,  contains  an  indi- 
 rect announcement  of  the  call  of  the  Gentiles,  as  the  deep  dis- 
 cernment of  the  apostle  perceived  in  Rom.  xv.  10.  The  glorious 
 attributes  which  God  unfolded  in  the  guidance  qf  his  people, 
 could  only  be  the  subject  of  triumphant  joy  to  the  Gentiles, 
 when,  in  what  happened  to  Israel,  they  beheld  a  prophecy  of 
 what  would  one  day  be  their  own  lot.  If  God,  through  all 
 time,  was  merely  to  be  the  God  of  the  Jews,  this  call  upon  the 
 *'  nations"  to  "  rejoice"  would  be  unmeaning. 
 
 (v.)  An  infalhble  mark  of  absolute  Particularism,  is  the  exter- 
 nality of  the  conditions  with  which  the  reception  of  the  blessings 
 of  the  Divine  favour  were  connected,  for  the  members  of  the 
 favoiu'ed  people.  But,  who  does  not  perceive  that  the  exact  oppo- 
 site to  this  mark  is  found  in  tlie  Pentateuch  ?  Those  who  did 
 not  serve  the  Lord  from  the  heart,  were  not  merely  excluded 
 from  his  blessing,  but  a  curse  also  lighted  on  them,  the  greatness 
 of  which  corresponded  exactly  to  that  of  the  grace  offered  to 
 them.  Let  any  one  only  read  Lev.  xxvi.,  Deut.  xxviii.  xxxii., 
 and  judge  whether,  on  a  soil  which  produced  such  threatenings 
 
460  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 against  the  mere  cai'nal  descendants  of  Abraham,  a  carnal  Parti- 
 cularism could  flourish. 
 
 ON  THE   SILENCE  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  RESPECTING  THE 
 DOCTRINE  OF  IMMORTALITY. 
 
 Kant  {Rel.  d.  Veon.  177,  178),  remarks,  that  "  all  the  con- 
 sequences arising  from  the  transgression  or  observance  of  the 
 Divine  commands,  are  limited  to  those  which  every  man  may 
 experience  in  the  present  world.  And  since  we  cannot  conceive 
 of  a  religion  without  faith  in  a  future  life,  Judaism  contains  no 
 religious  belief." 
 
 This  objection  is  a  very  old  one.  The  Mohammedans  inferred 
 that,  since  the  Pentateuch  contained  no  reference  to  a  future  life, 
 it  must  have  been  falsified  by  the  Jews.  Thus  a  Mohammedan 
 writer,  quoted  by  Maracci,  Frodr.  ad  Alcor.  p.  13),  says — 
 "  Pentateuchus,  quern  nunc  hahemus,  indigniis  est  qui  liaheat 
 deum  auctorem.  Nihil  enitn  in  eo  legitur,  quod  j^ertinent  ad 
 res  aeternos,  ut  ad  Paradisum,  ad  Gehennani,  ad  judicium 
 extrenium,  sed  omnia,  quae  sunt  in  eo,  res  terrenas  ac  temjior- 
 ales  respiciunt!'  See  also  Herbelot  (s.  v.  Taourat).  The 
 Deists  attach  great  weight  to  this  argument  against  the  Divine 
 character  of  the  Mosaic  economy.  Bolingbroke  (in  Leland, 
 vol.  ii.,  letter  xiii.,  p.  491,  London,  1755),  does  this,  although 
 he  himself  does  not  believe  in  future  rewards  and  punishments. 
 German  Rationalism,  at  first,  followed  on  this  topic  in  the  foot- 
 steps of  English  Deism.  It  has  often  been  asserted,  that  by  the 
 omission  of  the  doctrine  of  immortality,  the  Mosaic  religion  was 
 degraded  below  Heathenism.  But  here  De  Wette  has  taken 
 some  steps  back  in  the  right  direction.  He  thinks  {Bihl.  Theo- 
 log.  §  113),  that  Moses  gained  the  knowledge  of  this  doctrine 
 from  the  Egyptians,  but  did  not  introduce  it  into  his  code,  be- 
 cause it  could  not  be  given  without  a  mythology,  and  might  have 
 led  to  the  worship  of  the  dead.  Yet  he  makes  a  distinction  in 
 reference  to  the  doctrine  of  immortality ;  it  is  acknowledged  that 
 an  entire  silence  respecting  the  doctrine  of  immortality  may  be- 
 long to  a  higher  point- of- view  than  the  behef  in  immortality  in 
 a  crude  form.     "  Of  a  happy  life  with  God,"  it  is  said  in  §  ll4. 
 
SILENCE  KESPECTING  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  IMMORTALITY.     4(;l 
 
 "  there  is  an  intimation  in  the  myth  of  Enoch's  transhation." 
 Von  Colln,  as  usual,  agrees  with  De  Wette  {Bihl.  Theol.  i. 
 204.)  Vatke  also  acknowledges  (p.  097),  that  the  Mosaic 
 religion  was  too  good  for  the  Egyptian  doctrine  of  immortahty. 
 But,  from  the  principles  of  the  Old  Testament,  to  which  it  was 
 not  adapted,  a  higher  doctrine  of  immortahty  could  he  developed 
 subsequently,  "  which  was  based  on  subjective  infinity  or  spirit." 
 Several  advocates  of  the  divinity  of  the  Mosaic  rehgion  have 
 sought  very  anxiously  to  rebut  the  attacks  which  have  been 
 founded  on  the  absence  of  the  doctrine  of  immortahty,  and  have 
 done  more  injury  to  the  cause  they  wished  to  serve,  by  their  de- 
 fence, than  the  attacks.  Thus  Warburton  pre-eminently,  who 
 has  discussed  this  position  in  his  '^  Divine  Legislation  of  Moses," 
 of  which  the  fundamental  character,  with  all  his  zeal  against 
 Deism,  is  deistical.  He  concedes  to  his  opponents,  that  in  the 
 law,  no  use  is  made  of  the  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  pun- 
 ishments, but  thinks  that  he  can  not  merely  frame  an  apology 
 for  the  omission,  but  even  convert  it  into  a  positive  argument  for 
 the  Divine  origin  of  the  Mosaic  religion.  The  substance  of  his 
 very  long  dissertation  has  been  thus  expressed — ''As  various 
 Deists  have  asserted,  the  religion  of  Moses  contains  no  promises 
 of  a  future  life,  consequently  it  is  not  the  true  religion.  War- 
 burton  reverses  the  position,  and  concludes  that  a  religion  which 
 w^as  not  founded  on  the  doctrine  of  immortality,  and  the  promise 
 of  eternal  life,  must  have  been  supported  by  the  extraordinary 
 providence  of  God.  And  Warburton  himself  says — ''  We  have 
 shown  at  large,  in  the  first  three  books,  that  under  a  common  or 
 unequal  providence,  civil  government  could  not  be  supported 
 without  a  religion  teaching  a  future  state  of  reward  and  punish- 
 ment. And  it  is  the  great  purpose  of  this  work  to  prove,  that  the 
 Mosaic  religion  wanting  that  doctrine,  the  Jews  must  realhj 
 have  enjoyed  that  equal  providence,  under  which  Holy  Scripture 
 represents  them  to  have  lived ;  and  then,  no  transgressor  escap- 
 ing punishment,  nor  any  observer  of  the  law  missing  his  reward, 
 human  affairs  might  be  kept  in  good  order,  without  the  doctrine 
 of  a  future  state."*  Three  remarks  will  suffice  to  expose  the 
 unsoundness  of  this  reasoning — (i.)  Warburton  considers  tem- 
 
 *   The.  Divine  Lctjishtfidn  nf  Mosex  (U'?>u»isfrnfe</,  book  v.,  sec.  •"),  vol.  ii.,  p.  ^Q.C),  eil. 
 Lond.  1837. 
 
4(\-2  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 poral  and  eternal  rewards  as  simply  incompatible  with  one 
 another ;  and  maintains,  that  it  might  be  assumed,  a  priori,  that 
 "  future  rewards  and  punishments  could  not  be  the  sanction  of 
 the  Mosaic  dispensation."  Thus  there  is  a  disruption  and  oppo- 
 sition between  two  things,  one  of  which  cannot  exist  without  the 
 other.  How  little  one  excludes  the  other,  is  evident  from  the 
 simple  fact,  that  in  later  Judaism,  and  in  Christianity,  both  are 
 intimately  connected,  (ii.)  Warburton  always  expresses  him- 
 self, as  if  flow,  everything  was  reserved  for  a  future  life,  and 
 generally  takes  no  account  of  the  whole  foundation  of  the  theo- 
 cracy. The  mere  formal  difference  between  the  Old  and  New 
 Testament,  in  reference  to  retribution  in  the  present  life,  which 
 consists  in  this,  that,  under  the  latter  it  is  more  refined,  and  less 
 palpable,  he  converts  into  a  material  and  total  difference.  His 
 view  of  the  universe  borders  closely  on  impiety.  He  denies,  in 
 truth,  all  Providence.  The  present  life,  according  to  him,  is  des- 
 titute, under  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  of  the  traces  of  a 
 retributive  God.  But  what  is  Providence  if  retribution  be 
 denied  ?  He  regards  such  passages  as  Jer.  xxxii.  18,  and  Hos. 
 iv.  6 — ("  Seeing  tliou  hast  forgotten  tlie  law  of  thy  God,  I  will 
 also  forget  thy  children  ") — as  belonging  only  to  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment economy.  He  explains  1  Tim.  iv.  8,  r]  evai^eta  7rpo<;  irdv- 
 ra  a}^e\LfjLO<;  eaTLV,  eTrayyeXtav  €')(ovaa  ^coi]^  Trj<;  vvv  Kal  to}?  /jueX- 
 \ov(T7](;,  as  meaning  that  moral  duties,  under  both  religions,  find 
 their  proper  reward ;  namely,  under  Judaism,  the  rewards  of  the 
 present  life,  and,  under  Christianity,  those  of  the  life  to  come. 
 If  this  were  the  true  state  of  the  case,  that  Christianity  announces 
 only  a  retribution  beyond  the  grave,  Judaism  would  stand  higher 
 than  Christianity.  A  house  only  one  story  high,  is  better  than  a 
 castle-in-the-air.  Mere  future  retribution  is  like  a  tree  sawn  off 
 above  the  root.  It  retains  its  verdure  ouly  as  long  as  the  sap 
 remains  in  it,  which  it  has  received  from  the  root.  On  the  other 
 hand,  faith  in  present  retribution  must  necessarily,  from  the  motive 
 force  that  dwells  in  it,  in  time  produce  faith  in  future  retribution, 
 (iii.)  What  Warburton  takes  aw^ay  from  the  New  Testament,  in 
 reference  to  present  retribution,  he  gives  too  liberally  to  the  Old 
 Testament.  It  seems,  according  to  him,  as  if  retribution,  under 
 the  Old  Testament  always  palpably  followed ;  as  if  it  was  not  at 
 all  a  matter  of  faith. 
 
SILENCE  RESPECTINCi  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  IMMORTALITY.    46?^ 
 
 J.  D.  MiCHAELis  Stands  on  the  same  ground  with  Warburton. 
 In  his  Diss,  argumenta  immortal,  ex  Mose,  synt.  i.  p.  80,  he 
 speaks  as  if  there  were  no  traces  of  retribution  in  this  hfe  under 
 the  New  Testament,  hut  that  every  thing  was  transferred  to  the 
 future.  The  chief  ground  on  wliich  he  justifies  the  omission  of 
 the  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  punishments  is,  that  the  whole 
 Mosaic  law  was  merely  a  civil  institution,  to  which,  of  course,  no 
 rewards  or  punishments  after  death  belong  ;  thus  in  his  Mos. 
 Recht.  §  14,  he  says,  "  I  am  not  surprised  at  the  omission,  but 
 merely  at  the  short-sightedness  and  forgetfulness  of  those  persons 
 who  could  look  for  such  sanctions  in  civil  legislation."  . 
 "  Hence,  even  now,  no  lawgiver  is  so  simple  as  to  threaten  the 
 punishment  of  hell  to  a  murderer,  an  adulterer,  or  a  thief ;  we 
 rather,  before  the  execution  of  a  capital  punishment,  grant  the 
 criminal  time  and  preparatory  means  for  making  his  peace  with 
 God."  Here  the  champion  of  the  Old  Testament  holds  out  his 
 hand  to  his  opponents.  If  the  law  of  Moses  is  merely  a  civil 
 institution,  then  it  is  all  over  w^ith  his  Divine  legation.  Only 
 concede  this  point,  and  our  opponents  have  gained  all  they  want. 
 
 The  unsoundness  of  such  vindications  has  been  more  or  less 
 apparent  to  later  apologists.  Flatt,  for  example  (p.  117),  lays 
 great  stress  on  the  argument,  that  the  people  were  not  yet  ripe  for 
 this  doctrine  ;  that  it  could  make  no  impression  on  men  devoted 
 to  objects  of  sense,  and  could  be  of  no  advantage  for  religious  and 
 moral  culture,  since  the  future  life  was  only  considered  as  a  con- 
 tinuation of  the  present.  Steudel  {Glauhens,  p.  44.8)  remarks, 
 '•  The  Old  Testament  had  first  to  plant  firmly  in  men's  minds, 
 in  the  way  of  experience,  the  ideas  of  the  holiness  and  justice  of 
 God,  until  faith  in  immortality  could  take  root  for  any  salutary 
 pm'pose." 
 
 In  our  times,  he  who  undertakes  the  vindication  of  the  Penta- 
 teuch on  this  subject  finds  himself  in  a  pecuharly  favom^able 
 position.  The  period  in  which  immortality  was  the  general  watch- 
 w^ord,  the  one  religious  or  pseudo -religious  sentiment  which  was 
 held  with  a  strong  interest,  is  past.  Even  the  abuse  to  which 
 this  doctrine  was  subjected,  has  led  men  into  the  opposite  extreme. 
 Some  have  gone  so  far  as  to  assert,  that  the  absence  of  the  doc- 
 trine of  future  rewards  and  punishments  is  a  striking  instance  of 
 the  high  superiority  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  later  change 
 
40  4  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 in  opinion  has  been  described  as  a  change  for  the  worse.  Compare 
 BiCHTER  (  Die  letzten  Dinr/e,  Bres.  1833,  i.  p.  170.)  But  how- 
 ever great  and  serious  is  the  error  in  which  tlie  philosophy  of  the 
 present  times  is  involved,  yet  there  lies  undeniably  a  great  trutli 
 at  the  bottom  of  it,  and  this  truth,  ignorance  of  Avhich  rendered 
 the  attack  on  the  Old  Testament,  in  reference  to  this  point,  so 
 evident,  is  now  more  and  more  generally  acknowledged,  and  has 
 gained  a  more  favourable  hearing  for  the  vindication.  Even 
 those  who  do  not  do  homage  to  the  philosophy  of  the  present  life, 
 acknowledge  that  the  doctrine  of  immortality  has  that  of  regene- 
 ration for  its  necessary  presupposition,  and  that  our  endeavours 
 should  primarily  aim  to  affect  the  latter.  Weisse,  by  the  title  of 
 his  work,  "  Die  philosophische  Geheimslehre  von  der  Unster- 
 hlichkeit,"  intimates  that  Being  must  be  prior  to  believing  and 
 thinking. 
 
 Belief  in  immortality  has  in  itself  no  rehgious  character  and  no 
 ethical  importance.  It  obtains  both  from  the  sum  total  of  the 
 system  to  which  it  belongs,  and  the  person  in  whom  it  exists. 
 There  are  nations  which  believe  in  no  God,  and  yet  beheve  in  im- 
 mortality, (see  Pareau,  de  immortal,  notit.  in  lihro  Johi,  p.  14)  ; 
 and  others,  to  wdiom  the  notion  of  a  future  retribution  is  wholly 
 alien,  and  whose  future  existence  is  nothing  else  than  the  pre- 
 sent with  a  removal  of  sufferings  and  more  exalted  pleasures  ;  (see 
 Pareau,  and  Knapp,  siqje^-  origine  opinionis  de  immortalitate 
 anini.  ap.  harh.  gentes.  ojnisc.  i.  86.)  Among  others,  where  there 
 is  a  notion  of  retribution,  it  has  no  true  moral  character.  The 
 conceptions  of  it  are  as  imperfect  as  those  of  virtue  and  vice. 
 Qui  inferocia  et  fortitudiney  Knapp  remarks,  sinnmae  virtutis 
 laiidem ponunt  et praeter  ignaviam  ac  timiditatem  nihil habetit, 
 quod  turpe  judicent  atque  in  vitiis  numerent,  ii  fort i bus  tan- 
 tum  viris  praemia,  ignavis  vero  supplicia  apud  inferos  decer- 
 nunt.  Those  who  are  farther  advanced  only  consider  gross  crime 
 as  an  object  of  future  punishment,  not  sin  in  general,  with  the 
 nature  of  which  they  are  totally  unacquainted. 
 
 Among  the  Egyptians,  the  belief  in  immortality  excited  a  great 
 influence  on  life,  but  even  among  them,  this  faith  had  throughout 
 no  truly  religious  and  moral  character,  and  therefore  no  salutary 
 influence.     The  principal  passage  on  this  subject  is  in  Hero- 
 
SILENXE  RESPECTING  THE  DOCTKINE   UF  lMMO}n'.;LT'JV.        -1  05 
 
 DOTUS,  ii.  123,  ''  The  Egyptians  are  the  first  ^Yllo  have  asserted 
 this  doctrine,  that  the  soul  of  man  is  immortal,  but  that  when  the 
 body  perishes,  it  enters  into  another  animal;  and,  wdicn  it  has 
 completed  the  circuit  of  all  land  and  marine  animals,^  and  birds,  it 
 again  enters  a  human  body  ;  and  that  this  circuit  occupies  three 
 thousand  years."*     On  this  passage,  Zoega  (de  ehcUseis,  p.  294) 
 has  given  the  best  commentary.     As  long  as  the  body  was  not 
 decayed,  the  soul  existed  in  and  with  it,  and  since  this  miserable 
 mode  of  continued  existence  was  the  noblest  they  knew  of,  so 
 they  used  every  means  to  make  the  body  as  indestructible  as  pos- 
 sible bv  embalminc^.     But  if  this  was  not  embalmed,  or  bv  anv 
 accident  was  destroyed,  then  began  the  transmigration  of  the  soul. 
 In  this  manner,  Zoega  reconciles  the  two  assertions  of  Herodotus, 
 that,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Egyptians,  the  souls  of  the 
 deceased  came  into  Amenthes,  and  that  souls  migrated  through 
 all  kinds  of  animals  in   a   definite  cycle.     It  tends  to  confute 
 Heeren's  opinion,  that,   according  to  the  popular  belief,  the 
 continuance  of  the  soul  was  connected  Mith  that  of  the  body,  but 
 that  the  doctrine  of  transmigration  belonged  to  the  priests — that 
 Herodotus  and  Diodorus  knew  of  only  one  Egyptian  immor- 
 tality, and  that  the  priests  also  were  embalmed.  Creuzer  {Comm. 
 Herod,  p.  307),  whom  Bahr,  on  Herod,  i.  764,, follows,  labours,, 
 indeed,  to  prove  that  the  priests  held  a  more  refined  esoteric  doc- 
 trine, but  without  foundation  or  success.     Where  such  degrading 
 conceptions  of  the  soul  were  entertained  as  those  of  the  Egyptians, 
 to  whom  the  body  was  more  than  the  soul,  and  a  human  soul  was 
 not  distinguished  characteristically  from  that  of  a  brute,  a  moral 
 significance  cannot  be  attributed  to  their  doctrine  of  immortality. 
 In  more  ancient  times,  the  doctrine  of  retribution  after  death  was 
 wholly  unknown  to  the  Egyptians.     Compare  Zoega  (p.  311), 
 Pareau  (p.  50),  Heeren  (II.  ii.  p.  201.)     At  a  later  period,  a 
 rude  notion  of  rewards  and  punishments  prevailed.     On  the  ivju- 
 rious  influence  of  the  doctrine  of  immortahty  among  the  Egyp- 
 tians,  and  its  abuse  in  favour  of  the  priests,  see  Schlosser,. 
 (Uhersicht,  &c.  I.  i.  p.  80). 
 
 *  TrpuiTOL  ok  KfLL  TouOE  Tuv  \6yov  AlyvTTTLoi.  eIctl  ol  sl-rrovTii,  COS  av^poiirov  ^v^n 
 iSravaTOi  zcttl,  tov  cru}jxaTO<i  ok  KwracfiJii/ovTo^,  £s  uWo  X^wov  ailyivuiitvov  taovfTui.' 
 kirtav  ok  TrepiiX^ri  iravTa  tu  y^tpcraia  Kal  ra  ^aXdcr<TLa  kuI  rd  TrfTaiva,  cutis  it. 
 uv^puiTTov  arwfia  yivofXEVou  kaSvuEiu.  T»;i/  irspivXiKTiv  dk  avTt)  yivtcr^ai  kv  Tfinry^L- 
 XioioTL  tTsai. 
 
 VOL.  II.  6  g, 
 
40(5  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 In  the  religion  of  the  Persians,  the  doctrine  of  immortality  had 
 certainly  nobler  elements  ;  but  every  thing  leads  us  to  conclude 
 that  these  were  not  native  productions,  but  had  been  obtained 
 from  the  people  who  possessed  Divine  Kevelation.  In  modern 
 times,  it  has  been  attempted  to  reverse  the  relations,  and  to  show 
 that  the  Persians  did  not  borrow  from  the  Jews,  but  the  Jews 
 from  the  Persians.  The  refutation  of  this  view^  we  have  given 
 elsewhere  {die  Authentie  des  Daniel,  155)  ;  and  it  has  since  been 
 undertaken  by  Havernick  (Comment ar  iiher  das  huch  Daniel. 
 Hamb.  1832.  p.  509.)  Vatke  indeed  asserts  that  it  has  been 
 proved  against  Havernick  by  J.  G.  Muller,  that  the  Jews  were 
 the  party  who  borrowed.  {1st  die  Lehre  von  der  Aufersteliung 
 des  Leihes  wirklich  nicht  eine  altpersische  Lehre,  in  the  Stud, 
 und  Krit.  1835.)  But  Muller  has  at  most  only  proved  against 
 Havernick  that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  among  the  Per- 
 sians is  not  to  be  accounted  for  by  Christian  influence.  He  allows 
 (p.  478)  that  he  himself  cannot  determine  the  relation  of  Isaiah, 
 Ezekiel,  and  Daniel  to  the  Persian  doctrine.  Whence,  indeed, 
 could  proof  be  brought  of  their  not  borrowing  from  the  Jews  ? 
 Among  the  Jews  we  have  in  Ezekiel  a  certain  fixed  point  not 
 touched  by  criticism.  From  him  w^e  can  prove  that  the  doctrine 
 of  the  resurrection  existed  among  the  Jews  before  they  came  into 
 close  contact  with  the  Persians.  On  the  other  hand,  the  oldest 
 witness  for  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  among  the  Persians  is 
 Theopompus,  a  contemporary  of  Alexander,  and  who,  therefore, 
 lived  long  after  the  close  connection  had  been  formed  between  the 
 two  nations.  The  Persian  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is  first 
 completely  developed  in  the  Bundehesh.  If  it  be  undeniable  that 
 this  book  has  drawn  on  this  and  other  subjects  from  the  sources 
 of  revelation,  including  the  Christian,  we  shall  not  be  disposed  to 
 invert  the  relation  in  reference  to  the  less  developed  doctrine.  After 
 it  had  been  in  olden  times  the  prevalent  aim  to  prove  that  heathen- 
 ism w^as  a  corrupted  Judaism,  a  notion  that  was  canied  beyond 
 all  bounds,  modern  critics  have  fallen  into  the  other  extreme. 
 They  have  endeavoured  to  exclude  the  influence  of  Judaism  at 
 all  points  from  heathenism,  although  previously  to  any  examina- 
 tion we  cannot  but  suppose  that  the  firm  and  solid  would  impress 
 the  weak  in  many  ways  ;  that  what  is  clear  and  definite  would 
 influence  the  obscure  and  undetermined  ;  the  comj)Osite  character 
 
SILENCE  RESPECTING  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  IMMOnTALITV.     107 
 
 of  heathenism  in  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  rcvehxtion  is  of  weight. 
 Where  undeniahly  one  side  had  horrowed  from  the  other,  there 
 has  always  heen  a  readiness  to  charge  it  on  the  Jews.  Men  have 
 been  so  inconsiderate  to  transfer  tlie  outward  relation  of  greatness 
 and  strength  without  hesitation  to  tlie  spiritual  world,  and  to  that 
 part  of  it  for  which  Israel  was  most  distinguished,  that  of  religion. 
 But  in  reference  to  the  relation  of  the  Persian  religion  to  the 
 Israelitish,  there  appears  now  an  inchnation  to  move  in  the  right 
 direction.  According  to  Stupir  {die  Fwlif/ioussi/stcme  cles 
 Orioitcs,  p.  389),  the  hooks  of  tiie  Zeiidavestd,  of  which  the  first 
 mention  occui'S  in  Mahommedan  writers  of  the  lOtli  and  11th 
 centuries,  were  of  very  hite  formatioii.  No  critical  value,  he 
 asserts,  can  be  attributed  to  the  Btuidehesh.  The  whole  is  a 
 perplexed  tissue  of  obscure  representations.  In  the  preceding 
 age,  a  complicated  and  perplexing  syncretism  had  prevailed.  He 
 places  the  first  rise  of  the  rehgion  of  Zerdusht  in  the  time  of 
 Darius,  and,  therefore,  in  a  period  wlien  it  is  notorious  that  the 
 Israelites  were  in  possession  of  their  doctrine  of  the  resuiTCction. 
 As  in  the  Persian  religion,  views  originally  foreign  to  it  were 
 received  from  India,  so  the  ethical  elements  which  we  find  in  it 
 were  borrow^ed  from  Judaism,  and  transferred  to  the  forms  of  a 
 religious  sentiment  that  displayed  itself  in  the  worship  of  spirits 
 and  nature  (p.  373.)  Its  formation  from  heterogeneous  elements 
 is  betrayed  by  the  obscurity  and  perplexity  of  the  religious  repre- 
 sentations of  the  Persians,  and  even  these  are  easily  made  the 
 depositories  of  new  elements.  In  this  state  of  the  case  we  are 
 perfectly  justified  in  rejecting  the  evidence  which  some  persons 
 w^ould  adduce  from  the  religion  of  the  Persians  for  the  existence 
 of  a  more  exalted  belief  in  immortality  beyond  the  bounds  of 
 revelation.  Where,  in  other  quarters,  more  elevated  views  are 
 met  with,  they  are  evidently  borrowed.  In  reference  to  Mahom- 
 medanism  this  is  universally  admitted.  That  the  Jewish  doctrine 
 of  immortality  exerted  an  important  influence  on  the  Arabians 
 before  the  time  of  Mahomet,  is  shown  by  a  poem  in  Schultens 
 (Mo)Uinient.  vetiist.  p.  08.)  Wherever,  in  lieathen  nations  of 
 America  or  Asia,  better  elements  are  found,  their  derivation  from 
 Christians  or  Mahommedans  is  equally  evident.  Compare  Knapp, 
 p.  103. 
 
 Thus  much  is  proved  bv  the  foregoing  remarks  ;  if  the  Penta- 
 
 Gg2 
 
408  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 teucli  does  not  teach  tlie  doctrine  of  immortality,  it  does  not  on 
 that  account  sink  below  the  standard  of  heathenism  ;  for  what 
 heathenism  possessed  in  this  respect  was  not  worth  the  name. 
 
 But  we  must  now  proceed  further.  If  the  Pentateuch  did  not 
 introduce  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  directly  into  the  national 
 life,  yet  it  prepared  the  ground  and  sowed  the  seed  from  which 
 this  doctrine  might,  or  rather  mu^t,  spring.  That  such  was  the 
 case  there  is  the  strongest  presumption.  If  we  see  what  import- 
 ance the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  had  acquired  among  the 
 Israelites — how  all  the  true  faith  in  immortality  that  exists  in 
 the  world  has  its  origin  from  them — that  the  fountain-head  of  the 
 doctrine  of  a  future  life  is  to  be  sought  peculiarly  among  this 
 people,  it  cannot  be  otherwise  than  that  in  their  first  beginning, 
 in  the  original  records  of  their  religion,  the  foundations  of  it 
 should  be  laid. 
 
 On  a  closer  examination  of  the  subject,  the  following  were  pro- 
 bably the  principal  ways  in  which  the  doctrines  of  the  Pentateuch 
 led  to  a  belief  in  immortality  and  retribution. 
 
 First,  "  An  elevated  position  is  assigned  to  Man  in  the  Pen- 
 tateuch." He  was  created  last,  and  stands  at  the  head  of  the 
 creation  ;  all  other  creatures  exist  for  his  sake.  According  to 
 Gen.  i.  20,  27,  he  was  created  in  the  image  of  God  ;  therefore 
 the  whole  Divine  glory  shines  forth  from  him  in  miniature.  For 
 it  is  very  evident  that  this  likeness  to  God  is  not  confined  to  one 
 particular,  since  the  text  speaks  of  the  image  of  God  in  general, 
 and  in  its  widest  extent ;  and  against  tliose  who,  with  Schott 
 {Opiise.  ii.  93),  take  this  particular  to  be  the  bodily  form  of  man, 
 Calvin  justly  exclaims  sepultum  maneat  illud  delirium!  Such 
 an  absurd  opinion  merits  no  serious  refutation.  Since  man  bears 
 the  image  of  God,  he  is  endowed  with  the  mastery  over  nature. 
 If  the  likeness  consisted  in  the  form,  the  second  position  would 
 not  follow  from  the  first.  And  how  could  the  prohibition  of 
 image  worship  consist  with  the  doctrine  of  the  corporeity  of  God, 
 which  is  here  manifestly  implied  ?  According  to  Gen.  ii.  7,  two 
 elements  are  combined  in  man — one  earthly,  the  other  divine — 
 which  no  other  creature  besides  himself  possesses.  Here  even 
 Schott  feels  himself  compelled  to  remark,  "  That  which  is  pecu- 
 liarly living  in  man  is  therefore  the  breath  of  God  in  an  earthly 
 organization ;  there  lives  in  man  something  divine."     We  have 
 
SILENCE  RESPECTING  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  IMMORTALITY.    400 
 
 here  the  anthropological  foundation  for  the  doctrine  of  immorta- 
 lity. As  in  the  earthly  element  of  man  lies  the  possibility  of  death, 
 or  rather,  as  far  as  it  is  not  spiritualized  and  glorified,  the  neces- 
 sity for  it ;  so  in  the  fact  that  man  is  partaker  of  the  Divine 
 image,  of  life  from  God,  lies  the  possibility,  the  necessity,  in  truth, 
 not  merely  of  immortality  in  general,  but  of  a  blessed  or  miser- 
 able immortality  of  eternal  life  or  of  damnation.  The  soul  which 
 bears  the  Divine  image  is  not  merely  rescued  by  it  from  the  con- 
 trol of  the  transitory^  but  also  from  the  state  of  mere  vegetative 
 existence. 
 
 Secondly,  The  doctrine  of  the  Pentateuch  respecting  God,  on 
 whatever  side  we  view  it,  points  to  the  doctrine  of  immortality. 
 The  almightiness  of  God  forms  its  first  condition  on  this  subject- 
 That  the  Sadducees  did  not  recognise  this,  our  Lord  marks  as 
 the  root  of  their  unbehef  in  the  resurrection.  In  the  theology  of 
 the  Pentateuch,  this  hindrance  is  fully  overcome.  He  who  created 
 the  world  out  of  nothing — for  whom  nothing  is  too  wonderful — 
 death  cannot  obstruct  Hun  if  he  wills  to  preserve  the  soul.  But 
 in  the  theology  of  the  Pentateuch  his  will  is  pledged  equally  with 
 his  power.  The  God  of  the  Pentateuch  is  love  ;  he  who  reveals 
 himself  so  full  of  grace  to  his  people,  and  enters  into  the  most 
 intimate  communion  with  them,  in  doing  so  declares  that  he  will 
 preserve  them  to  eternal  life.  To  this  foundation  of  the  doctrine 
 of  the  resurrection  in  the  Pentateuch,  our  Lord  himself  refers  in 
 Matt.  xxii.  31,  32 — irepX  he  Tr\<^  avaaTdae(o<^  rwv  veicpwv  ovk 
 dviyvoyre  rb  prjOev  vfilv  viro  rod  Oeov,  Xeyovro^;'  eyco  eljuL  6  deb'i 
 ^AjSpaajjb  Kol  6  deo<;  ^IcraaK  koL  6  Oeo^i  'Ia/cco/3'  ovk  ecrnv  6  Oeb^ 
 Oeb^  v€Kpcbv,  aXXd  ^covrcov.  To  the  same  purport  Glockler 
 remarks — "  What  sort  of  God  would  he  be,  who  took  dehghtonly 
 in  fragile  playthings,  and  expended  the  whole  riches  of  his  love 
 on  transitory  and  perishable  objects."  The  whole  of  Genesis  is 
 as  certainly  a  continued  reference,  not  to  a  naked  immortaUty, 
 but  to  an  everlasting  life  of  blessedness,  as  the  grace  of  God 
 towards  his  chosen  forms  its  central  point.  Whenever  God  calls 
 himself  the  God  of  any  one,  or  appears  as  the  God  of  any  one, 
 he  also  declares  that  he  will  make  such  an  one  a  partaker  of 
 eternal  life.  How  intimately  these  two  things  lU'e  connected,  is 
 apparent  from  the  fact,  that  in  the  whole  succession  of  deniers  of 
 immortality  in  the  last  century,  we  see  not  one  who  believed  in 
 
470  THEOLOGY  OF  TliK  rENTATELICH. 
 
 a  heart-felt  relation  between  a  personal  God  and  his  people  in 
 the  present  life. 
 
 Thirdhj,  The  doctrine  of  temporal  retribution  in  the  Penta- 
 teuch, forms  the  most  direct  preparation  for  the  doctrine  of  im- 
 mortality. When  KiCHTER  says,  "  But  how  in  all  the  world  was 
 it  possible  that,  iiotwith^ttaudinf/  this  (although  the  Hebrews 
 attributed  to  Jehovah  so  much  justice,  that  he  would  reward  the 
 good  upon  earth  and  punish  the  bad),  not  only  the  dogma  of 
 immortality,  but  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  last  day,  and  its  con- 
 comitants, found  acceptance  and  cultivation  in  Judaism  ;  nay 
 more,  that  next  to  the  Arabians,  the  Jews  are  exactly  the  people 
 who  have  formed  images  of  immortality,  the  resurrection,  the 
 judgment,  heaven,  and  hell,  which  in  fulness  and  exactness,  in 
 plan  and  representation,  leaved  nothing  to  be  wished  for  ;*' — so 
 we  maintain  that  such  a  consequence  was  not  merely  possible  but 
 necessary  exactly  on  this  account ;  because  the  doctrine  of  tem- 
 poral retribution  v;as  insisted  upon  so  constantly  and  industriously 
 in  the  Pentateuch,  and  had  struck  root  so  deeply  among  the  Jews. 
 Where  this  foundation  is  not  laid,  the  structure  of  faith  in  immor- 
 tality is  built  upon  the  sand,  and  will  give  way  at  the  first  blast. 
 He  who  does  not  acknowledge  temporal  retribution,  must  neces- 
 sarily fiaid  in  his  heart  a  response  to  Yanini's  scofi'  (in  Warbur- 
 Tox,  Book  Y.  appendix.  Note  Y.  vol.  ii.  p.  3G9),  on  revelation 
 (by  him  totally  misunderstood) — quae  honariim  et  malarum 
 actionum  repromisHiouc^  jwUiceatin'  in  futiira  tanien  vita,  ne 
 f rails  detegi  j^essit,  although  he  may  not  allow  it  to  be  so.  A 
 rich  collection  of  passages  from  heathen  authors,  which  express  a 
 despair  of  future  retribution,  on  the  ground  of  unbelief  in  present 
 retribution,  may  be  found  in  Barthou  Claudian  (1078.)  And 
 have  Y/e  not  in  the  development  of  our  own  times,  a  clear  proof 
 how  closely  these  two  are  connected  ?  Doubt  was  at  first  directed 
 against  retribution  in  the  present  hfe,  and  it  appeared  as  if  faith 
 in  immortality,  from  a  misapprehension  of  the  former,  attained 
 to  higher  significance  and  greater  firmness.  Even  supernaturalist 
 theologians  found  a  leading  argument  for  future  retribution  in 
 the  defects  of  the  present ;  compare,  for  instance,  Knapp  (p.  100) 
 —nee  erit  amj)liiis,  cur  offendamur  ac  iierturhemur  foriuna  et 
 Horte  honiinuni  in  hac  vita ;  cujus  si  morte  intereunt  animi 
 tanta  est  iniquitas,  sire  secundas  res  spectemus,  sive  adversas, 
 
SILENCE  RESrECTING  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  IMMORTALITY.    471 
 
 ut  qui  cum  justitia  et  acquitate  divina  componere  tentet^  ope- 
 ram  perdere  videatur.  Steudel  {Glatihensl,  145)  and  others. 
 But  soon  the  real  consequence  came  to  light.  Ketribution,  driven 
 from  the  lower  region,  coukl  not  maintain  itself  in  the  higher. 
 It  shows  that  the  hope  of  immortality  w^as  nourished  with  its 
 heart-hlood.  The  dialogue  in  Lucian's  Z€v<^  e\e7%oyLtez/o9  {Opera 
 ii.  p.  G39,  ed.  Eeiz.),  was  acted  over  again,  where  Jupiter  being 
 driven  hard  by  the  questions  with  which  he  was  assailed,  relative 
 to  retribution  in  the  present  life,  replies,  **Do  you  not  know, 
 Cyniscus,  what  great  punishments  the  wicked  endure  after  this 
 life,  or  in  what  happiness  the  good  pass  their  time?"  But  the 
 scoffer  replies,  "  You  talk  to  me  of  Hades,  and  the  Tityuses,  and 
 the  Tantaluses.  But  as  for  me,  if  there  be  any  such  thing,  I 
 shall  know  the  truth  when  I  am  dead ;  but  as  things  are  now, 
 having  passed  happily  the  time  present,  whether  longer  or  shorter, 
 I  should  be  willing  when  I  die,  for  my  liver  to  be  devom^ed  by 
 sixteen  vultures,  but  not  to  thii'st  here  like  Tantalus,  that  in  the 
 isles  of  the  blessed  I  may  drink  with  heroes,  and  repose  in  the 
 fields  of  Elysium."  The  same  thought  which  appears  here 
 cloathed  in  the  garb  of  wit,  meets  us  in  Schiller's  poem  "  Re- 
 signation," in  the  garb  of  earnestness  and  sorrow.  "  If  such  a 
 retribution  does  not  rejoice  you  on  earth" — saysKicHTER,  p.  232, 
 rightly,  according  to  the  prejudices  of  the  age — "  then  God  is  by 
 no  means  truly  just,  and  you  will  find  yourself  to  be  acting  contrary 
 to  your  own  doctrine.  Where  the  adage,  "  the  world's  history  is  a 
 world's  judgment,"  is  received  by  the  heart  in  a  true,  biblical 
 sense,  the  advance  to  faith  in  tJie  world's  judgment  is  necessary 
 and  certain. 
 
 But  why,  it  will  be  asked,  has  the  Pentateuch  contented  itself 
 with  the  mere  foundation  for  the  doctrine  of  immortality  ?  Why 
 has  it  not  delivered  this  doctrine  itself  ? 
 
 Here,  it  is  first  of  all  to  be  remarked,  that  the  question  ought 
 to  be  put  rather  differently.  Instead  of  saying,  Why  has  it  not 
 delivered  this  doctrine  ?  we  should  say.  Why  has  it  not  delivered 
 it  clearly,  explicitly,  repeatedly  ?  For  intimations  of  it  are  not 
 wanting  in  the  Pentateuch.  A  large  number  of  passages  point  to 
 simple  immortality,  which  we  may  take  for  granted  as  known. 
 But  one  passage  goes  further.  It  contains  a  very  distinct  allu- 
 sion to  everlasting  life.     It  is  the  account  of  Enoch's  translation, 
 
472  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PKNTATEL'CH. 
 
 iu  wliieli  the  point  of  importunce  is,  that  his  ivalkiiKj  with  God 
 is  placed  so  designedly  and  emphatically  in  causal  connection  with 
 his  translatiun  to  God.  That  for  the  pious  there  is  an  everlast- 
 ing life  of  happiness,  is  thus  determined.  The  only  question  is, 
 whether  it  is  designed  for  all,  and  weighty  reasons  present 
 themselves  for  answering  this  in  the  affirmative.  In  a  religion, 
 whose  God  is  Jehovah,  there  can  he  nothing  arbitrary ;  what  God 
 has  done  for  one,  is,  at  the  same  time,  a  prediction  of  what  he 
 will  do  for  all  who  stand  in  the  same  position  towards  him,  and 
 if  any  difference  be  made,  it  can  only  be  formal,  not  essential. 
 
 The  question,  in  its  corrected  form,  has  been  stirred  afresh  by 
 this  account.  Undeniably,  the  veil  of  mystery  is  spread  over  it. 
 This  was  long  ago  remarked.  Le  Clerc,  for  example,  says  on 
 Gen.  v.  24,  Minim  est,  Mosein  rem  tuntam  si  modo  Henoelium 
 immortalem  factum  credidit,  tarn  ohiter  tamqiie  obscure  quasi 
 eam  latere  vellet  perstrinxisse.  Why  has  not  Moses  described 
 the  event  more  fully  and  plainly  ?  Why  has  he  not  expressed 
 the  doctrine  to  be  drawn  from  it  ?  Why,  moreover,  has  he  en- 
 tirely neglected  to  make  use  of  this  doctrine  in  his  legislation  ? 
 
 We  answer,  even  the  New  Testament  does  not  communicate 
 formal  information  respecting  the  life  after  death  ;  and,  in  a  cer- 
 tain sense,  we  might  say,  that  the  doctiine  of  immortality  is  not 
 taught  in  any  part  of  Scripture,  as  Steudel  has  remarked  (p. 
 446).  It  is  always  presupposed.  This  cannot  have  been  acci- 
 dental. It  is  rather  the  necessary  result  of  the  thing  itself.  Life 
 and  death  belong  not  first  to  the  other  v/orld,  but  begin  already 
 here.  There  nothing  is  begun,  but  only  continued  and  completed. 
 The  believer  "  /*•  "  already  ''  passed  from  death  unto  life  ;"  y^era- 
 ^eprjKev  eK  rod  davdrov  et?  rrjv  ^corjv.  John  v.  24  ;  the  water 
 which  our  Lord  gives  springs  up  to  everlasting  life  ;  John  iv.  14, 
 "  tlie  powers  of  the  ivorld  to  come''  are  already  '*  tasted'  here. 
 Heb.  vi.  5.  Accordingly,  the  great  matter  is,  that  every  man 
 should  be  a  partaker  of  life  from  God.  No  sooner  does  this  take 
 place  than  he  has  eternal  life,  and  with  it,  a  certainty  of  it  in  his 
 own  feehngs.  It  needed  only  a  shght  support  in  revelation  in 
 order  to  be  impressed  in  the  form  of  intelligible  conviction.  For 
 the  behever,  the  formal  doctrine  is  not  necessary;  for  the  unbe- 
 liever, the  most  immediate  concern  is  the  preaching  of  repentance. 
 The  Ten  Commandments  are  more  important  for  him  than  a  long 
 
DOCTRINE  Ul-    KKTKIBUTION.  473 
 
 discourijc  on  immortality.  Instead  of  asking  whether  the  Penta- 
 teuch teaches  immortaUty,  it  should  be  rather  asked,  whether  its 
 doctrine  leads  thither  to  taste  the  powers  of  the  world  to  come. 
 
 Now,  it  must  certainly  be  admitted,  that  the  support  which  is 
 given  in  the  Pentateuch  to  the  hope  of  the  behever  in  eternal  hfe 
 is  rather  weak — that  the  reference  (altogether  wanting  in  it)  to 
 the  eternal  consequences  of  sin,  as  the  experience  of  the  Christian 
 fera  shows,  is  suited  powerfully  to  support  the  preaching  of  repent- 
 ance— and  that  the  intimation  of  eternal  happiness  is  no  unim- 
 portant means  of  conversion.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  denied, 
 that  the  revelation  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  in  reference  to 
 the  doctrine  of  immortality,  is  still  imperfect.  But  what  appears, 
 if  the  absolute  measure  be  applied,  as  imperfection — if  the  law  be 
 viewed  in  reference  to  the  historical  relations,  under  which  it  was 
 first  divulged,  can  represent  itself  as  perfection.  Here  much  may 
 be  said  for  its  justification.  It  may  be  shown,  how  a  consideration  of 
 the  Egyptian  superstition,  in  which  a  false  doctrine  of  immortality 
 occupies  so  conspicuous  a  place,  was  first  of  all  a  motive  to  leave 
 this  field  uncultivated,  on  which  the  best  doctrine  was  exposed  to  be 
 grossly  misunderstood,  and  to  be  satisfied  with  laying  a  founda- 
 tion for  the  true  faith  in  immortality.  It  may  be  shown,  that,  for 
 the  present,  the  whole  and  undivided  attention  of  the  people  was 
 to  be  directed  to  temporal  retribution,  in  order  that,  when  this  had 
 taken  root,  the  faith  in  future  retribution  might  spontaneously 
 spring  up.  But  we  need  not  here  enter  on  tliis  point,  since  it  has 
 been  put  beyond  all  doubt,  that  the  deficiencies  of  the  Pentateuch 
 in  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  immortality,  are  not  of  a  kind  to 
 endanger  its  character  as  a  record  of  Divine  Eevelation. 
 
 DOCTRINE  OF  RETRIBUTION. 
 
 One  of  the  principal  charges  brought  against  the  Pentateuch 
 is  founded  on  its  doctrine  of  retribution.  Bolingbroke  (in  his 
 Essays  and  Fraffmetits,  iii.  291,  292)  quoted  by  Leland,  View, 
 &c.,  ii.  letter  1  3,  p.  497,  remarks  on  this  subject :  "  Moses,  on  the 
 renewal  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  the  people,  employs  no 
 iU'gument  to  induce  the  latter  to  a  strict  observation  of  it  than 
 promises  of  immediate  good,  and  threatenings  of  immediate  evil. 
 
471  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 They  are  exhorted  to  keep  the  law,  not  for  the  sake  of  the  law, 
 nor  for  the  sake  of  God,  hut  for  considerations  of  another  kind, 
 and  where  not  only  their  w^ants  -were  to  he  supplied,  hut  all  their 
 appetites  and  passions  to  he  gratified — their  avarice  and  all  their 
 other  appetites  and  passions — God  purchased,  as  it  were,  their 
 ohedieuce  with  this  mercenary  hargain." 
 
 In  later  times,  De  Wette  has  so  given  currency  to  the  false 
 coin,  that  one  is  surprised  to  see  it  taken  and  passed  hy  persons 
 of  whom  we  might  have  hoped  better  things.  He  has  treated 
 this  subject  ej^  professo  in  his  essay,  Beitrag  zur  Charakter- 
 istikdes  Hehraistnus,  in  Daub  and  Cheuzer's  Studien,  1807, 
 No.  ii.  p.  241.  He  here  treats  the  belief,  that  "  the  outward 
 must  correspond  to  the  inward,  prosperity  to  virtue,  misfortune  to 
 vice,"  as  entirely  a  mere  delusion  ;  and  no  people  of  antiquity  were 
 more  given  than  the  Israelitish  to  this  delusion,  for  their  whole 
 view^  of  the  world  was  grounded  upon  it.  He  considers  self-in- 
 terest and  worldliiiess  as  the  sources  of  the  whole  doctrine  of 
 temporal  retribution.  "  Genuine  religious  instinct,"  he  remarks, 
 "impels  those  who  are  dissatisfied  with  the  world  to  God,  to  con- 
 fidence in  his  guidance ;  but  yet  an  earthly  disposition  and  love  of 
 the  world  drawn  dowaiwards  too  much.  Faith,  wdiich  is  the  hope 
 of  what  a  man  sees  not,  was  not  the  portion  of  the  Hebrews  ;  it 
 was  needful  for  the  justice  of  God  to  show  itself,  and  that  visibly, 
 as  now,  and  only  the  promise  of  that  certain  retribution  could 
 console  them.  Unfortunate  consolation  !  wavering  faith  which 
 every  gust  of  accident  could  cast  down  !  Vain  undertaking  to 
 adjust  the  outward  by  the  inward,  to  wish  to  measure  the  one  by 
 the  other !  For  where  is  the  measure  for  this  comparison  ? 
 Where  the  point  of  contact  in  things  so  heterogeneous  ?*'  He 
 praises  (p.  806)  the  Sadducees  for  their  rejection  of  all  retribution, 
 to  whom,  he  thinks,  "  the  noble  and  free  relations  of  hfe  gave 
 more  liberality  and  freedom  of  spirit,  in  order  to  maintain  such  a 
 doctrine  of  resignation."  He  regards  it  as  the  chief  distinction 
 of  Christianity,  that  it  has  eradicated  this  error.  Christ,  he  asserts 
 (p.  312),  had  consolation  for  misfortune,  but  only  of  a  spiritual 
 kind  for  what  \vas  spiritual.  The  expression  in  Matt.  v.  C  he 
 paraphrases  thus  :  "  Happy  are  those  that  are  hungry  and  thirsty 
 in  spirit ;  for  your  spiritual  hunger  shall  find  satisfaction  in  me ; 
 to  appease  any  other  kind  I  am  not   come."     On  the  clause, 
 
IJOCTKINE  OF  liETliUJUXrON.  475 
 
 ''  they  .sJidll  inherit  the  earih,'^  he  remarks,  "  Of  course,  Jesus 
 understands  it  spiritually."  To  these  views,  De  Wette  has  re- 
 mained faithful  iu  his  later  writings.  Compare,  for  instance,  Die 
 Bihl.  Theol.  §  \\^i,  and  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  in  nu- 
 merous passages.  He  feels  so  sm'e  of  them,  that  he  never  thinks 
 of  defending  them  against  such  as  are  diametrically  opposite.  Out 
 of  a  great  numher  of  those  who  profess  to  coincide  with  him, 
 we  name  only  Yon  Colln,  Bibl.  Theol.  i.  288  ;  compare  ii.  113, 
 where  he  phices  the  Old  Testament,  with  its  doctrine  of  earthly 
 retribution,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  New  Testament,  with  its 
 reference  to  the  future  state.  Ewald,  on  Job,  p.  10,  does  his 
 utmost  to  save  his  client  from  all  taint  of  faith  in  retribution, 
 and  to  transform  him  into  a  herald  of  his  own  views,  according 
 to  which,  *'  Evil  ought  to  be  regarded  as  something  outward, 
 visible,  and  bodily,  in  no  intimate  and  true  relation  to  the  internal 
 worth  of  man."     Hegel,  Religionsjthil.  i.  74. 
 
 We  wish  first  of  all  to  examine  with  what  right  an  opposition 
 is  asserted  to  exist  on  this  point  between  the  New  Testament  and 
 the  Old.  Tlie  result  will  be,  that  the  New  Testament,  not  less 
 than  the  Old,  teaches  a  temporal  retribution  ;  that  therefore  the 
 attack  must  be  extended  to  the  former — must  be  directed  against 
 the  whole  of  Divine  Revelation. 
 
 A  closer  examination  of  the  beatitudes  in  the  sermon  on  the 
 Mount,  shows  us,  that  not  one  of  them  exclusively  relates  to  future 
 retribution,  or  to  spiritual  blessings.  This  is  particularly  evident 
 in  ver.  4,  /xaKciptoc  ol  7rev6ovvr€<;  ort  avrol  irapaKkrjOi^aovTaL,  in 
 which,  arbitrarily  and  in  contradiction  to  the  passage  on  which  it 
 is  founded  in  Is.  Ixi.  1-  3,  the  sorrow  has  been  restricted  to  the 
 anguish  for  sin,  and  the  comfort  to  spiritual  consolations;  ver.  5, 
 fia/cdptoi  ol  irpael<^  ort  avrol  KkrjpovoijLrjaovaL  rrjv  yrjv,  and  ver.  6, 
 fiaKaptot  ol  7r€Lvo)VT€<;  fcal  BL'\jro)VT€<;  rrjv  BiKaiocrvvTjv,  otl  avrol 
 ')(opra(T9r]aovraL,  where  hiKaioavvr]  is  not  to  be  taken  sensu 
 morali,  but  denotes  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  in 
 their  full  extent,  as  the  parallel  passages  in  the  Old  Testament 
 sIjow,  particularly  Is.  Iv.  1,  and  also  Luke  vi.  21,  pLaKupioi  ol 
 7r6tvcbvr€<;  vvv,  on  '^^opraaOrjcreade. 
 
 In  our  Lords  declaration.  Matt.  xix.  29,  Kal  ira^  6<;ri<;  diprjKev 
 OLKLaf;  i)  dSe\<pov<;,  y  aSeXt^a?,  t]  rrarepa,  rj  /jbrjrepa  rj  yvvacKa  rj 
 reKva,  i)  dypov<^  €V€K€v  rov  6v6fjLar6<;  fxov  eKarovrairXaclova  Xyjyjfe- 
 
476  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 rat  Koi  ^corjv  alcovtov  KXrjpovofJurjaei,  althougli  tlie  individualising 
 character  of  the  expression  cannot  he  mistaken,  yet  the  promise 
 of  a  temporal  retribution  can  so  much  the  less  he  denied,  since  the 
 promise  of  one  in  the  world  to  come  is  placed  by  the  side  of  it ; 
 as,  according  to  the  apostle's  language  in  1  Tim.  iv.  8,  "  Godli- 
 ness  has  tlie promise"  not  merely  of  "  the  life  to  come,"  but  of 
 "  that  icJtich  now  is." 
 
 That  bodily  disease  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  punishment  of  sin, 
 our  Lord  teaches  very  distinctly  in  John  v.  14,  fMrj/cert  afjidprave, 
 Xva  fJLT)  %6tpoz^  Tt  (701  <yivr]TaL :  and  in  Luke  v.  ^0,  Kal  IBoov  rrjv 
 TTLO-Tcv  avTMV  elTTev  avOpwire,  a^ewvral  <tol  al  ayuapTiai  crov. 
 In  the  first  passage  bodily  disease  is  denounced,  in  the  second  it 
 is  taken  away ;  and  in  both  cases  as  the  punishment  of  sin. 
 
 Nor  will  it  do  to  refer  both  expressions  merely  to  individual 
 cases.  For  (i.)  If  such  a  reference  were  intended,  it  must  have 
 been  distinctly  pointed  out.  Since  the  opinion  that  every  disease 
 was  a  punishment  of  sin  was  generally  current,  no  one  would 
 understand  these  expressions  otherwise  than  as  general,  and  since 
 our  Lord  did  not  set  aside  this  construction,  it  cani?ot  rest  on  a 
 misunderstanding,  (ii.)  If  the  expressions  had  simply  an  individual 
 reference,  Jesus  must  have  given  a  proof  of  his  omniscience, 
 which  yet  is  not  signified.  For  no  one  will  maintain  that  palsy 
 is  always  a  consequence  of  definite  sins,  (iii.)  The  restriction 
 to  individual  cases  is  inadmissible  on  account  of  the  symbohcal 
 character  of  the  heahng  of  diseases  in  general.  Compare  Matt, 
 viii.  17,  "  That  it  mir/ht  he  fulfilled  ivliich  was  spoken  by  Esaias 
 the 'prophet,  saying.  Himself  took  our  infirmities,  and  hare  our 
 sicknesses"  Had  we  also  no  express  declaration  of  Christ  re- 
 specting the  connection  of  disease  and  sin,  yet  the  mere  fact  of 
 his  healing  the  sick,  would  suffice  to  establish  this  connection. 
 A  sick  man  whom  Christ  (not  a  mere  magnified  Hippocrates, 
 but  a  Saviour)  heals,  is  by  the  very  fact  declared  to  be  a  sin- 
 ner. Let  the  connection  between  disease  and  sin  be  broken, 
 then  the  connection  between  the  possessed  and  the  diseased  is 
 destroyed,  and  what  is  common  to  both  is  taken  away.  Then  also 
 the  connection  is  dissolved  between  healing  the  sick  and  raising 
 the  dead,  of  which  the  foundation  is,  that  death  is  the  wages  of 
 sin. 
 
 The  vindication  of  the  individual  references  in  the  two  passages 
 
DOCTKINE  OF  RETRIBUTION.  477 
 
 we  have  just  quotetl,  is  founded  on  John  ix.  2,  3,  /cal  rjpcorrjcrav 
 avTov  01  fia67)TaX  avrov  Xe'yovrer  pafi^l  t/?  rffiaprev,  ovro^  i)  ol 
 yoveL<;  avrov,  7va  ruc^Xo?  y€vv7]6fj ;  ^AireKplOri  'Irjaov^;'  ovre  ovTO<i 
 rjfjLaprev  ovre  ol  yovel^;  avrov,  aXX  Xva  cpavepwOfj  ra  epja  rov, 
 Oeov  iv  aiirw — in  which  the  Jewish  view  of  the  universal  connec- 
 tion of  disease  and  sin  is  decidedly  rejected  by  our  Lord,  who 
 could  not  contradict  himself.  Evidently  the  assumption  of 
 Strauss  that  Jesus  spoke  only  of  the  precise  case  then  before 
 him,  is  inadmissible.  In  making  this  assumption,  he  loses  all 
 right  to  accuse  those  of  being  arbitrary  who  explain  John  v.  14, 
 of  the  individual  case,  which  yet  he  does  with  the  utmost  confi- 
 dence. That  Jesus  did  not  partake  in  the  vulgar  Jewish  belief 
 is  incontrovertibly  evident  from  this  passage.  But  this  does  not 
 justify  us,  in  considering  him  as  opposed  absolutely  and  entirely 
 to  the  idea  of  a  necessary  connection  between  disease  and  sin. 
 That  not  all  severe  diseases  and  infirmities  are  the  consequences 
 of  transgression,  is  the  general  position,  which  forms  the  basis  of 
 the  special  expression,  a  position  which  in  the  Old  Testament  is 
 often  and  emphatically,  in  the  book  of  Job  especially,  opposed  to 
 the  vulgar  misunderstanding  of  the  doctrine  of  retribution.  The 
 reproach  cast  on  the  man  who  was  restored  to  sight,  in  ver.  34, 
 ev  afiaprlai^  av  eyevvr]6r}<^  6\o<i,  was  perfectly  correct  if  under- 
 stood (which  it  was  not)  according  to  Ps.  li.  7,  to  which  there  is 
 an  allusion.  That  Christ  healed  the  blind  man,  w^as  a  practical 
 declaration  that  his  disease  stood  in  a  relation  to  sin. 
 
 Besides  John  ix.,  Luke  xiii.  1,  and  following  verses,  is  com- 
 monly adduced  to  prove  that  our  Lord,  rejecting  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment doctrine  of  retribution  rraprjcrav  he  rive<;  iv  avraj  rco  Kaipo) 
 aTrayyeXXovref;  avrcp  rrepl  rwv  TaXCkalwv,  cjv  ro  alpua  TIi\uro<; 
 ejxi^e  fiera  rcov  Ovaicjv  avroiv  Kac  airoKpiOeh  6  It^ctov^  eiTrev 
 avrol^'  SoKetre  on  ol  TaXCKaloi  ovrot  dfiaproyXol  irapa  irdv- 
 ra<;  rov<i  Ta\i\aiov<;  iyevovro,  on  roiavra  ireirovOaaiv ; 
 ovyjj,  Xeyoi  v/xlv  aXX  eav  fir]  fieravorjre,  7rdvre<;  coaavrco^  diro- 
 XelaOe.  But  here  strange  blunders  have  been  made,  and  it  is 
 really  astonishing  that  so  palpable  a  mistake  could  have  gained 
 such  credit.  Christ  here  combats,  not  the  Old  Testament  doc- 
 trine of  retribution,  but  only  the  vulgar  misconception  of  it.  He 
 does  not  deny  that  the  persons  who  lost  tlieir  lives  were  sinners ; 
 their  death  was  the  punishment  of  their  sins  ;  but  he  only  denies 
 
47'S  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 the  inference  drawn  Ly  the  self-justifying  informants,  that  they 
 were  greater  sinners  than  other  Galileans.  He  forewarns  all 
 these  of  the  same  destruction  unless  they  repented,  and  explains, 
 at  the  same  time,  that  the  catastrophe  which  had  been  already 
 permitted  was  always  to  he  considered  as  the  punishment  of  sin ; 
 and  therefore  confirms,  in  the  most  decided  manner,  the  Old 
 Testament  doctrine  of  retribution.  This  doctrine  also  lies  at  the 
 basis  of  all  the  threatenings  respecting  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
 lem, which,  if  God  had  acted  according  to  the  rule  that  in  these 
 days  had  been  laid  dow^n  for  his  conduct,  ^YOuld  still  have  been 
 standing. 
 
 We  have  proved,  then,  that  in  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  tem- 
 poral retribution,  no  contradiction  exists  between  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment and  the  New.  The  argumentum  e  consensu  gentium,  also, 
 in  a  remarkable  manner,  speaks  in  favour  of  this  doctrine,  and 
 is  equally  important,  w^hether  this  consensus  be  deduced  from 
 experience  or  from  the  idea  of  God.  The  proverb,  ''  male parta 
 male  dilahuntifr,"  Maistre  remarks,  in  his  Ahendstunden  (I  193, 
 of  the  German  translation),  which  abounds  in  admirable  observa- 
 tions on  this  subject,  is  found  in  all  languages.  Wherever  in 
 antiquity  a  doubt  existed  on  this  subject,  the  whole  fabric  of 
 religion  was  shaken  at  the  same  time.  Where  this  doubt  is 
 refuted  by  fact,  the  whole  fabric  also  is  rendered  firm  again. 
 Thus  Claudtan,  in  his  poem  against  Eufinus,  depicts  the  torment- 
 ing doubt  into  which  he  was  thrown  by  the  good  fortune  of  this 
 impious  consul.     Then  in  ver.  20-23  he  continues — 
 
 Abstulit  hunc  tandem  Rufini  poeua  tnmnltum 
 Absolvitque  deos.     Jam  non  ad  culmina  rerum 
 Injustos  crevisse  queror.     Tolluntur  in  altum 
 Ut  lapsu  graviore  ruant. 
 
 And  how  can  it  be  otherwise  ?  He  wdio  from  the  heart  believes 
 in  a  living,  loving,  and  righteous  God,  must  necessarily  admit 
 that  he  manifests  himself  in  this  life  by  blessing  and  punishing. 
 The  opposite  view,  whatever  plausibility  it  may  assume,  is  nothing 
 else  than  practical  atheism.  "  I  have,"  says  Maistre  (p.  318), 
 "  given  this  singular  disease  a  name — Thcophohy.  Persons 
 affected  with  it  do  not  plainly  say  '  There  is  no  God,'  but  '  God 
 is  not  here.  He  thinks  not  about  you  ;  he  has  done  nothing 
 specially  for  you  ;  he  takes  no  vengeance  on  you.'  " 
 
DOCTRINE  OF  RETRIBUTION.  479 
 
 The  consequences  of  the  denial  of  present  retribution  are  as 
 lamentable  as  their  origin,  (i.)  We  have  already  shown  that  if 
 present  retribution  be  given  up,  the  future  falls  with  it.  Tlie 
 nobler  minds  among  the  heathen  acknowledged  this.  Plutarch 
 says/*  "  there  is  one  and  the  same  reason  on  wdiich  the  provi- 
 dence of  God  as  well  as  the  immortality  of  the  soul  rests,  and  it 
 is  impossible  that  he  wdio  denies  the  one  can  hold  the  otlier  to  be 
 true."  It  is  certain  that  what  God  does  not  do  here,  he  w^ill  not 
 do  there.  If  God  be  really  the  Loving  and  the  Eighteous  One,  he 
 cannot  give  mere  promissory  notes  of  happiness,  nor  merely 
 alarm  with  threatenings  of  future  evil.  The  assertion  almost 
 universally  adopted,  and  even  expressed,  by  Steudel,  that  the 
 problem  of  which  the  book  of  Job  treats  falls  to  the  ground  as 
 soon  as  the  idea  of  an  immortality,  attended  by  retribution,  is 
 divulged,  rests  on  a  gross  misunderstanding,  wliich  has  been 
 detected  by  Pareau  alone  of  all  the  moderns,  who  remarks,  "  Sec 
 scimus  profecto  an  consueta  ista  in  hoc  argumento  provocatio 
 ad  vitam  fiituram  non  hahenda  sit  iiotius pro  ultimo  quodaju 
 mortaliuni  7'efugio,  quam  pro  justo  atque  oninino  prohahili 
 ratiocinio,  in  quo  pkuie  acquiescere  deceat."  It  must  be  pos- 
 sible to  solve  the  difficulties  which  oppose  behef  in  retribution, 
 from  experience  in  the  present  w^orld,  without  the  aid  of  the  doc- 
 trine of  immortality,  as  has  been  done  in  the  Book  of  Job, 
 in  a  way  that  is  suited  to  all  ages.  Also  temporal  injustice 
 remains  injustice,  and  takes  away  the  idea  of  a  holy  and  right- 
 eous God.  A  God  who  has  to  make  corrections  in  his  w^orks 
 is  no  God.  The  New  Testament  is  very  far  from  countenancing 
 the  modern  error,  according  to  which  eternal  retribution  is  not  so 
 much  founded  on  design  as  on  the  deficiency  of  temporal  retribu- 
 tion. Steudel  (p.  445)  appeals  to  Luke  xvi.  10,  &c.  (the 
 parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus.)  But  that  parable  lias  a 
 totally  difl'erent  object  in  view.  It  did  not  belong  to  the  scope  of 
 the  parable  to  exhibit  the  fact,  that  according  to  deeper  views, 
 the  rich  man  was  even  in  this  life  unhappy,  and  the  poor  man 
 liappy,  since  his  sufferings  were  only  blessings  in  disguise.      If 
 
 *  eIs  ovv  kcTTLV,  't(p)iv,  Xo'yos  6  Tou  Steov  Tiju  irpovoiav  ci/xa  Kul  T>;i/  dia/xoviji/  rf/s 
 av^poDTTiui}'!  \f/vxv^  (BtfiaiwV  kul  ^uTtpou  ovk  icttiv  dTroXiirtTv  avaipovvra  ^uTipov, 
 Plut.  De  sera  miminisvindicfa,  xviii.  (p.  40,  Professor  Hackett's  ed.  Andover,  U.S., 
 1844. 
 
180  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 persons  Avill  not  attend  to  the  real  design  of  the  parahle,  they  may 
 infer  from  it  that  the  rich,  as  such,  will  be  damned  ;  and  the  poor, 
 as  such,  be  saved.  One  other  passage  wliicli  apparently  yields 
 support  to  the  opinion  we  are  opposing,  is  1  Cor.  xv.  19,  el  iv 
 rfj  fct)^  ravrrj  rfKiriKore^;  ia/jbiv  iv  ')(pL(TTS)  fiovov,  iWeecvorepoL 
 irdvTOiv  dvOpcoTTwv  ia/iiev.  But  only  let  that  be  supplied  which 
 evidently  must  be  supplied — "For  what  has  made  believers  happy 
 in  this  life,  what  has  made  them  consider  all  outward  suffering  as 
 nothing,  would  then  be  a  mere  illusion,"  and  this  apparent  sup- 
 port at  once  gives  way. 
 
 (ii.)  The  denial  of  present  retribution  cripples  the  power  to 
 withstand  sin,  and  weakens  moral  energy.  Man  would  not  be 
 man,  if  the  maxim,  to  do  good  for  its  own  sake,  were  sufficient 
 for  him.  This  maxim  requires  the  support  which  is  given  by  a 
 reference  to  the  consequences  of  "walking  after  the Jlesh,"  or 
 *'  after  the  spirit^  Man  is  so  weak  that,  according  to  the  testi- 
 mony of  experience,  he  seldom  attains  to  sincere  repentance  for 
 sins  committed,  if  he  has  not  been  previously  led  to  repentance 
 by  the  consequences  of  these  sins,  in  which  he  recognizes  the 
 retributive  hand  of  God.  His  love  to  righteousness  and  his 
 hatred  of  sin  must  be  strengthened  by  the  contemplation  of  the 
 practical  proof  of  God's  love  to  righteousness,  and  his  hatred 
 against  sin.  That  the  doctrine  of  mere  future  retribution  is  not 
 suited  to  supersede  the  doctrine  of  temporal  retribution  for  this 
 pui-pose,  has  been  acknowledged  by  Plutarch.*  "  All  the  rewards 
 and  punishments,"  says  he,  "  which  the  soul  will  receive  there,  on 
 account  of  the  life  it  has  led  here,  do  not  affect  us  while  we  are 
 aUve,  partly  because  they  are  not  believed,  partly  because  they 
 are  unknown ;  those,  on  the  contrary,  which  are  awarded  in 
 this  world  to  their  children  and  families,  strike  the  eyes  of 
 men,  and  withhold  and  deter  many  from  evil."  And  Maistre 
 remarks  (p.  16),  ''  Unbelievers,  to  whom  the  world  is  all,  do  not 
 desire  it  better ;  and  the  multitude  must  be  placed  in  the  same 
 rank  ;  man  is  so  dissipated,  so  dependent  on  circumstances,  which 
 operate  upon  him,  so  governed  by  his  passions,  that  we  every  day 
 
 *  'AWa  as  /Jikv  t/ctl  Ka2r'  iavTijv  ovcra  KOfAX^f-Tai  tmv  'Kpo^ifSicofxtvoJU  ^aptras  f; 
 TLva9  Ko\d(TEL<s,  ov^iu  bIctl  tt/oos  vfxu^  Toi/s  "^wuTOE,  oXX'  aTrKrTovvTai  Kal  Xav^d 
 vova-iV  ai  ok  oia  tmu  iraiBwu  louarai  Kal  dia  yivov^,  ifMcpavil?  toli  oavpo  •yevofxzvai, 
 TToXXov^  aTroTpiirova-L  Kal  a-v<TTfXXov(TL  Tuiv  irov^poov.  De  sera  Num.  virul.  xviiL 
 p.  40. 
 
DOCTRINE  OF  ];KTKIiirTI()X.  481 
 
 see  the  humblest  believers  willing  to  brave  the  toriuenls  of  the 
 future  hfe  for  the  most  pitiful  pleasure.  But  how  will  it  be  with 
 him  who  does  not  believe,  or  only  feebly  ?"  Let  not  men  deceive 
 themselves  !  a  flood  of  immorality  is  the  necessary  consequence, 
 where  the  denial  of  temporal  retribution  has  penetrated  the  heart 
 of  a  nation's  life.  Let  it  not  be  imagined  that  a  morality  which 
 rests  upon  this  support,  is  not  true  and  in  itself  of  no  worth.  It 
 is  not  a  mere  mercenary  reward  which  is  in  question.  The  con- 
 sequences of  righteousness  and  of  sin  come  into  consideration,  not 
 merely  as  to  their  matter,  but  also  as  alyns.  Only  a  God  who 
 makes  himself  lvno\Yn  as  such,  is  man  bound  to  obey  and  to  love. 
 The  righteousness  which  is  not  followed  by  well-being  (salvation) 
 is  not  righteousness  ;  and  the  sin  which  is  not  followed  by  ill- 
 being  (misery)  is  not  sin. 
 
 (iii.)  The  denial  of  retribution  witliers  religion,  and  deadens 
 religious  sensibility,  which  ought  to  manifest  itself  at  every  gift 
 of  Providence,  and  at  every  loss.  But  by  this  scheme  the  whole 
 great  department  of  earthly  things  is  placed  out  of  the  Divine 
 jurisdiction,  is  emptied,  so  to  speak,  of  God.  ''  The  Lord  is  mu 
 Rlieplierd"  is  no  longer  uttered.  There  is  no  gratitude,  and  no 
 humbling  oneself  under  the  mighty  hand  of  God. 
 
 (iv.)  The  denial  of  retribution  is  the  parent  of  despair.  In 
 suffering  it  has  no  other  consolation  to  give,  than  that  the  mind 
 must  raise  itself  above  the  profitless  alternation  of  joy  and  sorrow 
 — a  consolation  good  enough  for  a  painted  sorrow,  but  assuredly 
 not  for  a  real  one.  How  different  where  the  soul  in  every  suf- 
 fering recognises  a  Divine  appointment — deserved  punishment, 
 and  at  the  same  time  concealed  grace  !  When  reason  and  design 
 are  visible  in  affliction,  it  becomes  a  ladder  whose  top  reaches  to 
 heaven,  or  is  transformed  into  a  cross  which  v/e  bear  with  wil- 
 lingness. 
 
 (v.)  The  denial  of  retribution  leads  to  earthly  anxieties  and 
 strivings.  It  places  eai'thly  things  out  of  connection  with  God — it 
 forbids  to  pray  to  him  for  daily  bread,  maintaining  that  it  comes 
 to  his  people  just  as  it  does  to  his  enemies  (compare  Ewald  on 
 Job,  p.  10)  ;  it  explains  our  Lord's  expression  in  Matt.  vi.  83, 
 that  "  to  those  who  seekjlrst  the  kingdom  of  God,  eariJiij/  things 
 shall  he  added,'^  as  proceeding  from  a  measure  of  Jewish  preju- 
 dice.    Let  men  talk  as  much  as  they  please  of  the  nothingness  of 
 
 VOL.  II.  n  h 
 
482  THEOLOCiY  OF  THE  rENTATEUOH. 
 
 earthly  things,  till  we  faDcy  we  are  listening  to  Diogenes  in  his 
 tub,  still  they  are  not  in  themselves  matters  of  inclilference,  (the 
 God  of  Christians  knows  that  we  "  have  need  of  all  these  things,' 
 Matt.  vi.  32),  and  are  far  more  important  than  is  imagined  hy 
 the  depraved  human  heart.  As  long  as  earthly  things  are  sought 
 in  connection  with  God,  a  limit  is  set  to  our  striving  after  them, 
 to  an  excessive  valuation,  and  to  extravagant  pretensions.  On 
 the  other  hand,  if  God  he  excluded,  this  limit  is  transgressed  ; 
 anxiety,  toil,  and  coveting  begin.  Of  the  goods  of  this  world 
 thus  looked  upon  as  having  no  proprietor,  every  man  seeks  to 
 make  w^hat  he  can  his  own.  In  no  age  have  material  interests 
 been  more  powerful  than  in  ours,  ii>  which  it  has  been  deemed 
 unworthy  of  God  to  make  himself  known  by  rewarding  and  pun- 
 ishing in  external  things. 
 
 (vi.)  A  consequence  of  the  denial  of  Divine  retribution  is 
 confusion  in  the  administration  of  justice.  If  God  does  not  retri- 
 bute, then  the  magistracy  cannot  punish  by  way  of  retribution, 
 but  only  in  order  to  make  the  transgressor  harmless  to  human 
 society,  a  view,  of  which  the  necessary  as  well  as  destructive 
 consequence  is,  the  relaxation  of  the  administration  of  justice, 
 connected  in  the  closest  manner  with  the  increase  of  crime. 
 
 The  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  retribution  is  supported,  not  only 
 by  the  idea  of  God,  but  by  the  weighty  testimony  of  experience. 
 It  speaks  so  loudly  that  it  forces  itself  even  on  those  who  w^ould 
 gladly  shut  their  ears  against  it — who  would  rejoice  if  it  were 
 otherwise.  That  ''sin  is  the  destruction  of  the  people"  is  the 
 theme  (forced  upon  the  author  as  it  were)  of  Goethe's  "  Wahlcer- 
 wandtschaften ,''  (Elective  affinities).  There  is  no  denier  of  Di- 
 vine retribution,  who  is  not  on  many  particular  occasions  false  to 
 his  own  system,  to  whom  the  hand  from  the  clouds  is  not  often- 
 times made  visible.  Where  faith  in  retribution  appears  to  have 
 lost  all  footing  in  the  popular  life,  still  times  will  also  recur,  in 
 which,  called  forth  by  great  events,  it  again  becomes  national. 
 Only  think  of  the  War  of  Freedom  among  ourselves.  How  were 
 all  lying  lips  struck  dumb,  which  now  again  speak  so  impudently  ! 
 The  principal  merit  of  the  work  by  Maistre  above-quoted,  con- 
 sists in  this,  that  the  author,  as  an  experienced  obseiTcr  of  the 
 world  and  of  man,  points  out  the  operation  of  Divine  retribution 
 in  all  the  departments  of  life.     We  cannot  but  refer  to  this  work 
 
DOCTRINE  OF  TvETRTBUTION.  483 
 
 on  tliis  topic.  Though  it  requires  to  be  read  with  caution,  yet  a 
 person  can  hardly  lay  it  down  without  having  received  valuable 
 instruction  and  improvement. 
 
 The  difficulties  which  appear  to  beset  the  doctrine  of  temporal 
 retribution  will  be  removed  by  the  following  considerations. 
 
 First,  The  principal  enemy  of  the  doctrine  of  retribution  is 
 Pelagianism.  Whoever  adheres  to  it,  must,  if  he  be  consequen- 
 tial, deny  retribution,  Providence,  and  the  Divine  excellence. 
 The  Bioriraphy  of  Charles  Von  Houenhausen  (Braunsch, 
 1837),  is  particularly  important,  on  account  of  its  exhibiting  this 
 consequence  so  distinctly.  He  who  knows  no  other  righteousness 
 than  that  of  human  society,  will  be  unable,  in  numberless  cases, 
 to  discover  reason  in  the  sufterings  which  strike  him  and  others  ; 
 to  him  all  over  the  world  there  will  be  presented  the  spectacle  of 
 suffering  innocence.  On  this  rock  the  heathen,  who  were  desti- 
 tute of  a  deeper  knowledge  of  sin,  suffered  shipwreck.  Here  we 
 have  one  of  the  chief  reasons  why,  in  our  day,  faith  in  the  Divine 
 retribution  is  almost  extinct.  If  the  depth  of  human  depravity 
 were  known,  this  difficulty  would  vanish,  which  staggered  Job, 
 and  from  which  Elihu  rescued  him.  No  suffering  that  affects  us 
 and  others  is  then  so  great  that  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  punish- 
 ment. On  this  point,  Maistre  has  expressed  himself  admirably, 
 in  p.  212 — "  I  admit  it  without  hesitation  ;  I  can  never  reflect  on 
 this  fearful  subject,  without  being  tempted  to  throw  myself  on 
 the  earth,  as  a  transgressor  who  prays  for  mercy ;  or  previously 
 to  receive  all  the  evils  which  could  come  upon  my  head,  as  a 
 light  retribution  for  unmeasurable  guilt,  which  I  have  incm-red 
 against  the  Eternal  Eighteousness ;  notwithstanding,  you  cannot 
 believe  how  many  men  have  said  to  me  in  my  lifetime,  that  I  was 
 a  very  upright  man." 
 
 Secondly,  In  order  not  to  make  mistakes  respecting  the  Divine 
 retribution,  men  must  understand  what  is  good  fortune  and  mis- 
 fortune (Gluck  und  Unyluck.)  If  men,  on  this  subject,  involve 
 themselves  in  a  carnal  estimate  of  things,  it  will  be  impossible  for 
 them  to  walk  in  God's  ways.  The  punishment  of  transgressors 
 may  even  consist  in  what  the  world  calls  good  fortune,  or,  at 
 least,  begin  with  it.     *'  They  will  not,"  says  Plutarch,*  '*  be 
 
 *  ovck  yy]pacravTi^  tKoXucrJrtjarav  dW  tyi'ipi^crav  KoXa^o/itvoi,  k.t.X.       De  Sera 
 Num.  Vind.,  ix.  p.  2">,  x.  p.  20. 
 
 H     h  2 
 
4<^4  THKOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 punished  first  in  old  age,  but  will  become  old  under  punishment. 
 To  maintain  that  punishment  will  not  come  till  late  in  life,  would 
 be  just  as  if  one  should  say,  that  a  fish  that  had  swallowed  the 
 hook,  could  not  be  said  to  be  taken  till  we  saw  it  cooked  or  cut 
 up.  For  every  evil-doer  is  seized  by  punishment  as  soon  as  he 
 has  tasted  the  sweetness  of  his  transgression,  like  a  bait."  Equally 
 may  a  blessing  be  concealed  under  the  veil  of  apparent  misfor- 
 tune. "  Thou  hast  put  gladness  in  my  heart,"  says  the  Psalmist, 
 "  more  than  {their  joy)  in  the  time  that  their  corn  and  wine 
 increased." 
 
 Thirdly,  In  regard  to  the  sufferings  with  which  God  threatens 
 his  people,  we  should  not  fix  our  eye  only  on  the  punitive  Divine 
 justice,  which  always,  and  without  exception,  is  therein  revealed, 
 but,  at  the  same  time,  should  keep  in  view  the  disciplining  Divine 
 love,  and  recognise  the  fact,  that  the  manifest  justice  is,  at  the 
 same  time,  concealed  grace.  Then  we  shall  not  feel  tempted  to 
 draw  conclusions  with  Job's  friends,  in  spite  of  all  experience, 
 respecting  the  relative  greatness  of  guilt,  from  the  relative  great- 
 ness of  sufferings.  Exactly  those  who  are,  relatively,  the  best 
 persons,  may  be  visited  by  the  greatest  sufferings,  in  order  to 
 make  them  worthier  of  the  Divine  love,  and  thus  more  fitted  to 
 receive  manifest  grace.  The  knowledge  of  the  blessing,  and  the 
 necessity  of  the  cross,  is  clearly  and  distinctly  shewn  in  the  Pen- 
 tateuch ;  compare,  for  instance,  Deut.  viii.  2,  and  following  verses, 
 particularly  ver.  5 — "  Thou  shall  also  consider  in  thy  heart,  that 
 as  a  man  chasteneth  his  son,  so  the  Lord  thy  God  chasteneth 
 thee."  The  same  thought  which  is  expressed  in  Heb.  xii.  5,  0. 
 But  Pelagianism  must  here  be  stumbled.  In  heavy  trials  it  can- 
 not discern  God's  concealed  grace,  since  its  superficial  apprehen- 
 sion of  sin  prevents  its  perceiving  the  ground  why  manifest  grace 
 is  not  imparted  ;  or,  at  least,  it  can  only  explain  the  application  of 
 lighter  means  of  coiTection. 
 
 After  all  that  has  been  remarked,  it  is  a  gratifying  testimony 
 which  De  Wette  gives  to  the  Old  Testament  (Bihl.  Theol.  § 
 184) — "  Among  the  Hebrews  this  view  attained  tlie  highest 
 degree  of  systematic  cultivation."  The  Israelitish  consequent- 
 ness,  in  this  respect,  rested  chiefly  on  a  twofold  ground.  First, 
 on  its  decided  Monotheism.  Where  only  God  and  man  stand 
 in  contrast,  and  no  third  party  can  interpose  between  the  two — 
 
DOLTKINE  OF  KLTKIBUTION.  485 
 
 where  the  lot  of  man  is  fixed  simply  and  alone  by  God — there  the 
 doctrine  must  have  a  decided  character.  Men  cannot  diminish  it 
 in  the  smallest  degree,  without  at  the  same  time  trenching  on  their 
 Monotheism  ;  and,  secondly,  to  the  people  under  the  Old  Cove- 
 nant, means  were  given  to  overcome  the  difficulties  which  stood 
 in  the  way  of  this  doctrine.  Here,  the  depth  of  the  knowledge 
 of  sin  which  the  law  every  where  inculcates,  is  of  special  impor- 
 tance. Among  the  heathen,  since  they  w^anted  this  key  to  the 
 mystery  of  the  Cross — Matter — Chance — Fate — Typhon — Aliri- 
 man,  acted  each  a  conspicuous  part ;  doctrines  which,  like  that 
 of  the  envy  of  the  Gods,  flourished  on  this  soil,  and  of  which 
 analogies  even  now  reappear,  as  soon  as  the  key  presented  by 
 God  is  broken.  Severe  conflicts  and  manifold  doubts  have 
 necessarily  arisen  from  this  quarter  also,  among  the  possessors  of 
 Divine  Eevelatiou.  For  Pelagianism  is  so  natural  to  man,  that, 
 even  with  the  clearest  knowledge,  if  sufierings  come  upon  him 
 wdth  fearful  violence,  he  easily  imagines  that  he  is  suflering  un- 
 justly, as  is  very  plainly  shown  in  the  instance  of  Job.  For 
 obviating  that  difficulty  which  arises  from  an  erroneous  estimate 
 of  what  is  good,  the  way  was  paved  in  the  law.  The  possession 
 of  the  favour  of  God,  which  indeed  must  show  itself  by  his  Pro- 
 vidence in  outward  things,  appears  everywdiere  as  the  highest 
 good.  The  danger  of  worldly  riches  is  recognised ;  see,  for  in- 
 stance, Deut.  viii.  12;  xxxii.  15 — 
 
 But  Jeshurun  waxed  fat,  antl  kicked : 
 
 Tlioxi  art  waxen  fat,  thou  ait  grown  thick, 
 
 Thou  art  covered  with  fatness  : 
 
 Then  he  forsook  God  which  made  him, 
 
 And  liglitly  esteemed  the  Eock  of  his  salvation. 
 
 Jacob,  according  to  Gen.  xxviii.  26,  declared  that  he  would  be 
 satisfied  if  God  gave  him  bread  to  eat,  and  raiment  to  put  on, 
 (see  vol.  i.  p.  358) ;  so  that  he  serves  as  a  pattern  for  those  who 
 are  disposed  to  lay  to  heart  the  Apostle's  exhortation — "  Haviny 
 food  and  raiment,  let  us  he  therewith  content,"    1  Tim.  vi.  8. 
 
 Vatke  (p.  GIB,  compare  pp.  572,  639)  does  not  direct  his 
 attack  entirely  against  the  Old  Testament  doctrine  of  retribution. 
 He  acknowledges  that  it  must  be  a  fundamental  principle  in  the 
 moral  world,  that  the  morally  good  will  should  have  also  an 
 external  existence  ;  the  contrarv,  he  savs,  would  be  a  mere  ab- 
 
486  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 straction.  But  the  fault  lies  here,  that  the  Hebrew  representa- 
 tion made  the  external  evidence  of  happiness  the  chief  aim  of 
 individual  man,  and  reduced  the  conformity  of  the  will  to  the 
 Divine  law  to  a  mere  means,  instead  of,  inversely,  making  for  man 
 existence  the  means  to  an  absolute  object,  as  Jehovah  would  form 
 the  covenant  not  for  a  finite  object,  but  combine  with  it  the  abso- 
 lute reality. 
 
 We  may  excuse  ourselves  from  the  full  discussion  of  this  asser- 
 tion by  referring  to  the  essay  of  J.  F.  Flatt,  Remarks  on  the 
 motives  relating  to  our  tvell-heing,  whicli  are  contained  in  the 
 discourses  of  Jesus  ;  of  which  the  mere  title  shows,  that  the  ob- 
 jection, if  it  be  well  founded,  concerns  the  New  Testament  not 
 less  than  the  Old.  According  to  Yatke,  our  Lord  made  use  of 
 an  immoral  motive,  when,  in  John  v.  14,  he  said  to  the  man 
 who  was  cured,  fxriKen  dfidprave  Iva  yw-r/  x^lpov  tL  aoi  ^ikvr\rai ; 
 also  when,  in  Matt.  vii.  1,  he  enjoined,  fiy  Kplvere,  iva  fxr)  KpiOrjTe. 
 We  will  here  only  bring  forward  three  points. 
 
 (i.)  It  is  totally  false,  when  it  is  asserted,  that  the  motives  for 
 the  observation  of  the  law  were  merely  taken  from  the  conse- 
 quences. "  Thou  shalt  love,"  it  is  said  in  Deut.  vi.  8  (5),  "  the 
 Lord  thy  God  ivith  all  thine  heart,  and  icith  all  thy  soul,  and 
 tvith  all  thy  might."  Thou  shalt  love  God  because  He  is  God  ; 
 because  He  is  thy  God.  Nothing  higher  and  purer  can  be  desired. 
 In  Deut.  iv.  6-8,  the  intrinsic  excellence  of  the  law  is  given  as  a 
 motive  for  its  observance.  In  ver.  20,  it  is  said,  '^  But  the  Lord 
 hath  taken'  you,  and  brought  you  forth  out  of  the  iron  furnace, 
 even  out  of  Egypt,  to  he  unto  him  a  people  of  inheritance  :"  ver. 
 32,  and  in  the  whole  of  ch.  viii.,  the  r.ppeal  is  made  to  gratitude. 
 
 (ii.)  As  one  motive  to  the  fulfilment  of  duty,  we  not  merely 
 dare,  but  must  make  use  of  a  reference  to  the  consequences  of  our 
 actions.  The  desire  after  happiness  implanted  in  us  by  God 
 himself  must  be  attracted  by  tho  satisfactiun  (declared  by  Him  to 
 be  lagidmate)  in  the  interest  and  service  of  morahty,  otherwise  it 
 would  be  indulged  in  a  sphere  where  its  satisfaction  is  sinful. 
 Hunian  wedimess  requires  such  a  support,  and  exactly  so  much 
 the  more,  the  less  it  Leheves  it  to  be  requisite. 
 
 (iii.)  The  salvation  which  is  hoped  for,  as  the  gracious  reward 
 of  piety — the  misery  which  is  dreaded  as  tlie  punishment  of  sin — 
 has  altogether  a  different  character  from  that  good  fortune  and 
 
ALLEGED  OUTWARDNESS  OF  THE  MOSAIC  LEGISLATION.       4H7 
 
 misfortune  which  man  seeks  and  shuns  without  regard  to  God. 
 The  attractiveness  of  salvation,  and  the  terrific  quahty  of  misery, 
 consist  principally  in  this,  that  they  are  the  signs — the  one  of  the 
 love,  the  other  of  the  wrath  of  God.  The  opposition  between  the 
 pursuit  of  happiness  and  purely  moral  aims  lies  without  the 
 department  of  Scripture,  and  first  arises  wdiere  happiness  is  sought 
 elsewdiere  than  in  God. 
 
 Only  one  charge  can,  in  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  retribution^ 
 be  brought  against  the  law  with  a  certain  equity — this  namely, 
 that  in  it,  the  outward  consequences  of  righteousness  and  sin  are 
 more  prominent  than  the  inward,  the  joys  of  a  good  and  the  agonies 
 of  an  evil  conscience.  But  here  the  national  reference  of  such 
 passages  as  Levit.  xxvi.  and  Deut.  xxviii.  must  be  taken  into 
 account,  and,  at  the  same  time,  it  must  be  noticed,  that  the  out- 
 wai'd  retribution  was  necessarily  introduced  first  into  the  national 
 life,  as  the  foundation  of  the  inward.  With  faith  in  the  outward 
 retribution,  faith  in  the  inward  also  vanishes  ;  while,  wdiere  the 
 outward  is  believed,  faith  also  in  the  inward  is  necessarily  awak- 
 ened, which,  where  the  outward  does  not  correspond  to  it,  is  easily 
 argued  away  as  an  illusion. 
 
 ON  THE  ALLEGED  OUTWARDNESS  OF  THE  MOSAIC  LEGISLATION. 
 
 One  of  the  gravest  and  at  the  same  time  widely- spread  charges 
 against  the  Pentateuch,  is  the  outwardness,  the  purely  external 
 character  of  its  legislation.  This  is  expressed  in  the  most  unqua- 
 lified terms  by  Kant  in  his  Religion  innerhalh,  &c.,  p.  177. 
 ''  All  the  commands  are  of  such  a  kind,  as  to  have  also  apolitical 
 construction,  and  can  be  enforced  by  compulsory  methods,  since 
 they  relate  to  outward  acts  ;  and  though  the  Ten  Commandments, 
 besides  being  given  outwardly,  have  an  ethical  importance  in  the 
 eye  of  reason,  yet  as  parts  of  that  legislation,  a  moral  disposition 
 in  obeying  them  is  not  required  (to  which  Christianity  afterwards 
 attached  the  chief  importance),  but  simply  an  outw^ard  compliance. 
 
 That  view  of  the  law,  on  which  so  grave  a  charge  is  founded, 
 and  with  which,  if  true,  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  is 
 absolutely  incompatible,  was,  strange  to  say,  earnestly  contended 
 for  by  those  who  professed  to  be  warm  fiiends  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 
488  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 ment,  and  iu  part  beliaved  as  such,  so  that  we  need  not  wonder 
 at  the  confidence  with  which  Kant  proposed  it. 
 
 J.  D.  MiCHAELis  openly  and  decidedly  avow^ed  his  adherence 
 to  it,  without  suspecting  what  consequences  w^ould  result  from  it ; 
 and  here  it  will  he  seen  very  plainly  how  much  reason  we  had  for 
 asserting  (vol.  i.  p.  12),  that  this  zealous  defender  of  the  genuine- 
 ness of  the  Pentateuch  inflicted  deeper  wounds  upon  it  than  its 
 most  zealous  opponents.  In  his  essay,  "  Argumenta  immort. 
 anhnarum  ex  Mose  coll."  §  3,  in  the  Syntagma,  p.  83,  he  says, 
 "  Neque  illae  leges  formamiiraecipientis i^liilosophiae  aiit  theo- 
 logiae  hahetit,  sed  corpus  aliquod  juris  sunt,  quo  forum  et  ju- 
 dicia  Israelitarum  in  judicandls  litihus puniendisque  scelerihus 
 omnis  genei'is  uti  debebant.  Totam  legem  Mosaicam  qua- 
 tenus  lex  est  et  ex  praeceptis  absolvitur,  civilem  esse  eaque 
 de  causa  praemiis  poenisque  hujus  vitae,  sanciri  ac  conjir- 
 mari  debuisse,  egregie  et  copiose  demonstrat  Pradius.  He 
 here  makes  an  apolog(3tic  use  of  this  view  ;  by  its  aid  he  triumphs 
 over  those  who  w^ould  argue  against  the  Divine  origin  of  the 
 Mosaic  law  from  its  wants  of  the  sanctions  of  a  future  life,  and 
 does  not  perceive  that  he  loses  a  dollar  to  win  a  farthing.  Tn 
 his  essay  on  the  Mosaic  law  of  marriage,  §  104,  105,  he  protests, 
 on  this  ground,  against  every  ideal  or  theological  exposition  of 
 the  law,  to  w^hich,  as  its  basis,  individual  expressions  might  be 
 traced  back,  so  that  under  these  every  thing  might  be  ranged 
 which  was  comprehended  in  the  same  idea.  "  I  do  not  believe," 
 he  says,  ''  that  we  are  authorized  to  extend  the  acts  forbidden  in 
 the  law  to  other  acts  which  only  have  a  certain  resemblance  to 
 them,  and  might  be  brought  under  the  same  genus."  He  argues 
 that  no  jurist  would  treat  civil  law  in  this  way,  which  stands 
 entirely  on  a  par  with  the  Mosaic  law.  In  the  Mos.  Becht.  ii.  § 
 72,  he  tries  to  explain  away  the  passages  which  are  too  palpably 
 in  opposition  to  his  view.  The  commandment,  "  TJiou  shalt  not 
 covet,"  he  maintains,  w^as  amoral  principle  of  the  Lawgiver,  mark- 
 ing what  is  just  and  unjust ;  whoever  transgressed  it,  and  could  be 
 convicted  of  doing  so  by  outward  acts,  merited  also  censure  at  a  civil 
 tribunal.  The  principle  was  laid  down,  not  for  the  disp)osition, 
 but  only  in  reference  to  these  outward  acts.  The  words  in  Levi- 
 ticus xix.  18,  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself"  are 
 rertainly  difficult  if  taken  as  the  language  of  a  civil   lawgiver. 
 
ALLKGED  OUTWARDNESS  OF  THE  MOSAIC  LEGISLATION.       4H(^ 
 
 "  If  I  do  not  in  my  heart  love  my  neighbour,  it  is  no  crime  to  be 
 proved  or  punished  before  the  magistrate."  He  tlierefore  deter- 
 mines the  meaning  to  be,  "  The  law  does  not  permit  thee  to  hate 
 any  one,  and  does  not  excuse  offences  committed  against  him,  on 
 the  ground  that  thou  art  his  enemy,  and  that  he  has  aforetime 
 offended  thee,"  without  noticing  that  nothing  is  said  in  the  con- 
 text about  offences. 
 
 MiCHAELis  appeals  to  the  Abbe  de  Prades  as  his  worthy  and 
 able  precursor.  In  this  writer's  Apologie,  the  sources  of  many 
 fundamental  principles  of  Michaelis  are  laid  open.  Also  in 
 partii.  p.  161,  he  expresses  himself  as  if  he  considered  this  view 
 to  be  of  real  service  in  Apologetics.  He  piques  himself  very 
 much  upon  the  notion  that  from  this  point- of- view,  the  absence  of 
 the  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  punishments  could  no  longer 
 be  a  stumbling-block.  But  he  does  not  appear  to  go  wrong  in 
 such  a  hondjide  manner  as  Michaelis.  He  shows  signs  of  dis- 
 honesty, and  the  Deist  is  seen  through  the  slight  veil  that  he 
 wears.  That  he  was  disposed  to  push  matters  to  the  extreme  like 
 Kant,  is  proved  by  the  following  expressions.  ''  The  law  was 
 not  the  same  thing  as  the  religion  of  the  Jews,  but  only  a  civil 
 constitution,  superadded  to  their  reUgion.  It  did  not  point  out 
 to  men  their  sovereign  good,  nor  indicate  any  means  for  its  attain- 
 ment ;  it  furnished  no  remedy,  I  do  not  say  for  enormous  sins, 
 but  even  for  the  most  trivial.  Everything  terminated  in  an  out- 
 ward purity  and  a  legal  righteousness."* 
 
 We  have  so  much  more  reason  for  subjecting  this  view  of  the 
 law  to  a  severe  scrutiny,  since,  notwithstanding  all  that  has  been 
 said  against  it,  especially  by  Flatt  and  Steudel,  it  has  been 
 continually  revived  down  to  the  latest  times.  Hegel,  for  instance, 
 in  his  lectures  on  the  philosophy  of  rehgion,  expresses  the  objec- 
 tion almost  as  broadly  as  Kant  ;  and  Vatke  (p.  241)  says,  that 
 Kant's  assertions,  on  the  supposition  that  the  Pentateuch  formed 
 the  original  basis  of  the  Old  Testament  rehgion,  are  not  altogether 
 untrue ;  that  in  the  Pentateuch,  the  internal  side  is  presented  to 
 
 *  "  La  loi  n'etoit  point  la  meme  chose,  que  la  religion  des  Juifs,  mais  s  e  u  1  o  ni  e  u  t 
 une  constitution  civile,  sur-ajoutce  a  k ur  religion.  Elle  ne  faisoit  point  envisager  aux 
 hommes  leur  souverain  bien,  ne  leur  indiquoit  aucuns  moyens  pour  Tobtenir,  ne  leur 
 fournissoit  aucuu  remedc,  je  ne  dis  pas  oontre  les  pechcs  considerables,  mais  meme 
 contre  les  plus  legers.  Tout  se  terminoit  a  une  purete  exterieure,  ct  a  une  justice 
 legale." 
 
400  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 view  only  in  some  special  points,  where  a  more  ancient  cyclus  of 
 the  law  is  revised,  as  in  Deat.  (p.  637)  ;  that  admitting  the 
 Pentateuch  to  have  been  the  original  foundation  of  the  Hebrew 
 religion  and  morality,  "  there  were  certainly  more  weighty  and 
 indispensable  objects  which  the  people  must  have  laid  to  heart, 
 than  the  greatest  part  of  its  contents.  How  deeply  rooted  this 
 view  is,  is  shown  by  the  approximation  to  it  of  those  persons  with 
 whose  method  (independently  formed)  of  contemplating  the  Old 
 Testament,  it  was  at  direct  variance  ;  compare,  for  instance,  ZuL- 
 lig's  essay  on  the  Calvinistic  division  of  the  decalogue  (Stud, 
 iind  Krit.  1837,  i.),  especially  p.  90  with  pp.  92,  93.* 
 
 The  first  and  most  important  question  is,  what  relation  does 
 the  Decalogue  bear  to  the  view  of  the  whole  law  ?  If  it  is  not 
 refuted  by  tJiat,  then  a  refutation  must  be  altogether  despaired  of, 
 for  it  contains  the  perfect  quintessence  of  the  whole  law.  This  is 
 implied  by  the  decimal  number  of  the  commandments,  on  which 
 stress  is  laid  even  in  the  law  itself;  Exod.  xxxiv.  28 ;  Deut.  iv. 
 43;  X.  4.  That  in  this  way  the  Decalogue  is  distinguished  as 
 the  perfect  and  comprehensive  sum  of  the  Divine  commands  has 
 been  long  ago  acknowledged.  Bede,  for  instance,  on  Exod.  xx. 
 remarks — '*  nullus  mtmerus  cresci  amj)Utis  usqtie  ad  decern,  ac 
 per  hoc  in  plenitudine  numeri plenitudinem  mandatorum  const i- 
 tuity  On  the  significance  of  the  number  Ten,  see  Bahr  Synth, 
 des  Mos.  Cidtus,  i.  175.  The  designation  of  the  Decalogue  as 
 the  words  of  the  Covenant,  Exod.  xxxiv.  28,  leads  to  the  same 
 conclusion ;  also  the  fact  that  07tly  the  Decalogue  was  laid  up  in 
 the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  while  the  Book  of  the  Law  was  placed 
 only  as  an  appendix  by  its  side ;  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  too, 
 when  they  speak  of  the  Law,  always  intend  primarily  the  Deca- 
 logue. Hence,  if  the  Decalogue  has  no  internal  character,  then 
 the  reference  to  the  internal  in  the  Law  can  be  only  accidental, 
 though  single  expressions  may  be  found  in  which  it  cannot  be 
 denied.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  it  appeal's  that  the  Decalogue 
 has  a  pervading  internal  tendency,  it  cannot  countervail  if,  in  the 
 remaining  portions  of  the  Book  of  the  Law,  the  reference  to  what 
 is  outward  should  predominate.  For,  since  all  the  rest  is  only  a 
 commentary  and  an  amplification  of  particular  points  in  the  Deca- 
 
 *  KiTTo's  Biblical  Cyclopjedia,  vol.  i.  540,  Art,  Decalogue. — Tr. 
 
ALLEGED  OUTWARDNESS  OF  THE  MOSAIC  LEGISLATION.     491 
 
 logue,  SO  nothing  farther  can  be  conckided  than  tliat  what  was 
 internal  presented  few  materials  for  commentary  and  amplifica- 
 tion. What  is  wanting  in  extent  to  the  moral  part  is  made  up  in 
 authoritij .  The  Decalogue,  uttered  by  God — promulgated  before 
 all  the  other  enactments,  and  engraven  on  tables  of  stone — stands 
 distinguished  above  the  rest  beyond  all  comparison,  so  that  the 
 notion  of  a  mechanical  measurement  by  the  yard  must  be  scouted 
 as  utterly  absurd. 
 
 That  the  Decalogue  has  an  tihical  character — that  it  appeals 
 to  the  moral  constitution  of  man — is  apparent  on  the  following 
 grounds. 
 
 (i.)  The  common  designation  of  the  Decalogue,  '^*^'^??0  Testimony, 
 leads  to  this  conclusion.  We  shall  afterwards  prove,  in  the  sec- 
 tion on  the  Ceremonial  Law,  that  this  appellation  stands  in  close 
 connection  with  that  of  the  covering  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant 
 ^*!^'?.  The  Decalogue  bore  the  name  of  Testimony,  because  it 
 revealed  to  man  God's  judgment  against  sin,  which  was  indeed 
 written  in  his  heart,  but  has  been  obliterated  by  sin.  "  Data^'  says 
 AuGUSTiN,  "  est  scripta  lex,  71011  quia  in  cordihus  scripta  non 
 erat,  sed  quia  tu  fugitivus  eras  cordis  tui."  The  Law  accuses 
 before  God,  and  God  assures  forgiveness  to  the  penitent,  recon- 
 ciles them  to  himself.  Now,  if  the  essential  nature  of  the  Law  is 
 expressed  by  this  term,  it  cannot  in  its  immediate  application  be 
 merely  civil,  but  most  essentially  and  primarily  religious.  Li 
 close  connection  with  the  nature  of  the  Law,  as  denoted  by  the 
 term  in"-y,  stands  the  preponderating  negative  structure  of  the 
 Commandments,  which  has  been  frequently  adduced  to  prove  the 
 inferiority  of  the  Law's  moral  point- of- view.  It  has  for  its  basis 
 the  sinfulness  of  man,  to  which  the  Law  relates.  In  every  prohi- 
 bition the  words,  '^  to  wdiich  thy  corrupt  heart  is  inclined,"  ai'e  to 
 be  understood  ;  as  in  a  positive  commandment  the  " remember' 
 relates  to  the  inclination  to  forget.  That  the  negative  form  of 
 most  of  the  Commandments  is  not  to  be  explained  in  th^  way  to 
 which  our  opponents  are  so  partial,  appears  from  the  positive 
 form  of  S'''me,  as  "  honour  thy  father  and  mother."  The  posi- 
 tive form  of  this  Commandment  shows  that  in  the  rest  the  nega- 
 tive is  founded  on  the  positive. 
 
 (ii.)  Calvin,  in  his  excellent  remarks  on  the  exposition  of  the 
 Decalogue,  in  his  Institution,  ii.  ch.  f^,  refers  those  who  maintain 
 
492  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 the  externality  of  the  Law,  aud  especially  of  the  Decalogue,  to 
 the  character  of  the  Lawgiver — Id  fit,  quia  in  legislatorem  7ion 
 respiciiint  a  cujus  ingenio  nafura  quoque  leg  is  aestimanda  est. 
 li  merely  jiistitia  civilis  were  all  that  it  required,  then  also  the 
 holiness  of  God  must  be  confined  to  the  overt  act. 
 
 (iii.)  If  the  law  were  not  spiritual,  atonement  would  not  be  so 
 absolutely  necessary  ;  the  n^^:?  would  not  be  so  inseparately  con- 
 nected with  the  n^25.  That  any  one  could  keep  the  law,  and 
 thereby  merit  the  favour  of  God,  never  entered  the  thoughts  of 
 the  Lawgiver.  Its  immediate  purpose  was  only  to  excite  a  sense 
 of  the  need  of  redemption.  In  his  view,  the  law  was  in  effect 
 only  TratSaycoyb^  eZ?  XpLarov.  For  the  n^ss  bore  the  same  re- 
 lation to  Christ  as  the  shadow  to  the  body. 
 
 (iv.)  The  rewards  and  punishments  of  the  Decalogue  are  only 
 divine.     Not  a  syllable  is  said  respecting  the  civil  power. 
 
 (v.)  That  the  outward  act  is  always  to  be  considered  not 
 as  what  is  alone  sinful,  but  as  the  highest  point,  the  consumma- 
 tion of  sin,*  is  taught  by  the  commandment,  "  thou  shalt  not 
 covet."  The  futihty  of  the  attempt  to  withdraw  the  command- 
 ment from  the  sphere  of  the  internal,  will  be  very  apparent  if  we 
 notice  the  trilogy  of  thought,  word,  and  deed,  which  so  evidently 
 lies  at  the  basis  of  the  commandment  in  reference  to  our  neigh- 
 bour. Thou  shak  not  injure  thy  neighbour,  (i.)  by  deed ;  either 
 in  (a)  his  life  ;  ifi)  his  dearest  possession,  his  wife  ;  {c)  or  in 
 his  property  generally,  (ii.)  By  word,  ("  Thou  shalt  not  hear 
 false  witness  against  thy  neighbour,'^)  (iii.)  by  thought.  The 
 same  trilogy  not  unfrequently  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament,  Ps. 
 XV ;  XXV.  4.  This  division,  which,  as  the  author  of  the  present 
 work  has  lately  discovered,  is  to  be  found  essentially  in  Thomas 
 Aquinas,  t  fully  justifies  itself.     That  adultery  is  not  (as  it  is 
 
 *  Quia  peccatorum  foeditatem,  nisi  ubi  palpabilis  est,  diluere  et  speciosis  praetexti 
 bus  inducere  semper  caro  molitur,  quod  erat  in  unoquoque  trausgressionis  genere 
 deterrimum  et  scelestisaimum  exemplaris  loco  proposuit,  cujus  ad  auditum  sensus 
 quoque  exhorresceret,  quo  inajorempcccaticujuslibet  detestationem  animis  uostris  im- 
 primeret.  Calvin  I.e.  No.  10.  Appellatione  crassioris  delicti  minora  probibentur,  ut 
 maguitudinem  et  gravitatem  eorum  coram  dei  judicio  vere  agnoscamus. 
 
 Gerhabd,  Loci.  V.  p.  251. 
 
 +  Generaliter  homo  uulli  proximo  nocere  debet  nee  ojjere,  nee  ore,  nee  corde. 
 Contingit  autem  opere  tripliciter  uocere  proximo,  scilicet  vel  in  persona  propria  ipsum 
 occidendo,  vel  in  persona  conjuncta,  praesertim  quantum  ad  prolis  procreationem,  vel 
 
ALLEGED  OUTWARDNESS  OF  THE  MOSAIC  LEGISLATION.     493 
 
 frequently  taken  in  reference  to  practical  interests)  here  considered^ 
 as  a  species  of  unchastity,  is  plain  from  Exod.  xx.  J  7,  where  the 
 wife  is  enumerated  among  the  possessions  of  one's  neiglihour. 
 The  writer  who,  in  modern  times,  has  most  carefully  investigated 
 the  arrangement  of  the  Decalogue,  Zullig,  assumes  that  in  the 
 commandments  that  refer  to  one's  neighbour,  as  generally  in  the 
 whole  Decalogue,  there  is  a  progression  from  what  is  ohjectively 
 more  weighty  to  what  is  lighter.  There  is  in  this  an  indistinct 
 perception  of  the  right  arrangement,  but  taken  altogether  the  view 
 is  untenable  and  must  give  way  to  ours.  According  to  Zullig, 
 the  arrangement  would  be  : — Thou  shalt  not  injure  thy  neighbour. 
 (i.)  In  his  life;  (ii.)  in  his  wife;  (iii.)  in  his  property  ;  (iv.)  in 
 his  good  name.  That  this  division  is  inadmissible  will  appear  if 
 we  consider  that,  according  to  it,  the  general  crime  impHed  in, 
 "  Thou  slicdt  not  hear  false  uitness  ayainst  thy  neiyhhour," 
 must  be  supposed  to  be  the  injury  of  one's  neighbour  in  his  honour. 
 As  if  all  testimonies  were  given  in  actions  for  defamation  !  But 
 if  this  arbitrary  limitation  be  admitted,  it  can  no  longer  be  main- 
 tained that  the  legislation  proceeds  from  the  gi'aver  to  the  lighter 
 offence.  For  bearing  a  false  witness  may  be,  under  certain  cir- 
 cumstances, a  far  graver  offence  against  one's  neighbour  than 
 theft.  Moreover,  according  to  Zullig's  view  in  the  command, 
 "  Thou  shalt  not  covet,"  the  objective  ground  of  the  division 
 would  at  once  give  place  to  the  subjective,  while,  according  to  our 
 view,  the  same  principle  regulates  all  tlie  commands  of  the  second 
 table.  Our  assumptions  that  a  trilogy  regulates  the  second  table, 
 is  confirmed  by  the  re- appearance  of  the  same  number,  where 
 one  of  the  three  members  is  in  several  parts,  and  not  merely  simple 
 like  the  second.  While  the  whole  is  regulated  by  the  subjective 
 principle  in  a  triple  division,  and  so  that  an  advance  is  made  a 
 major i  ad  minus  (deed — thought),  the  individual  members  in 
 which  generally  a  division  occm's  are  again  divided  into  three 
 parts,  in  like  manner  proceeding  a  tnajori  ad  minus,  yet  accord- 
 in  bonis  fortuuae,  iu  rebus  exterioribus.  Ore  iufertiir  iiocumentum  per  detractionem. 
 Nocumentum  cordis  fit  per  illicitam  coucupisctntiam  cariiis  et  oculorum.  Summa  i. 
 2.  9.  100.  art.  0. 
 
 *  Tbese  practical  interests  are  also  provided  for,  by  our  metliod  of  interpretation. 
 For  accordinf^to  it,  impurity  generally  is  included  in  the  Cdmniaiidment,  "  Tlxm  s/uilf 
 Hot  commit  ddtiUery"  since  all  unchastity  is  a  preparatory  step  to  adultery;  he  who  has 
 once  trodden  this  path,  can  no  longer  arbitrarily  set  any  limits  to  it  himself. 
 
494  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 ing  to  the  objects;  in  the  prohibition  against  injuring  by  deeds, 
 (i.)  life,  (ii.)  wife,  (iii.)  property;  in  the  prohibition  against 
 injuring  by  coveting,  (i.)  wife,  (ii.)  man-servant,  and  maid-ser- 
 vant, (iii.)  ox  and  ass;  at  the  beginning  and  end,  tlie  individual 
 is  enclosed  by  the  universal,  thy  neighbour's  house — "  all  that  is 
 thy  neif/hhours"  showing  that  it  is  only  given  by  way  of  example. 
 
 If  after  this  induction  of  proofs,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the 
 prohibition  of  coveting  has  an  internal  character,  still  it  might  be 
 maintained  with  some  plausibility  that  it  follows,  that  the  pre- 
 ceding commandments  are  to  be  understood  outwardly;  that,  in 
 reference  to  them,  we  are  not  to  go  beyond  word  and  deed ;  that, 
 for  example,  the  prohibition  of  murder  stands  in  no  relation  to 
 anger ;  that  the  prohibition  of  adultery  only  relates  to  the  outward 
 act,  and  not  to  the  adultery  of  the  heart ;  so  that  a  man  without 
 a  sanctified  disposition  might  comply  with  the  first  four  commands 
 of  the  second  table,  and  would  need  it  only  to  enable  him  to  keep 
 the  last.  This  statement  involves,  we  allow,  some  truth.  That  a 
 special  prohibition  of  evil  desire  (or  coveting)  is  afterwards  given, 
 shows  that  what  is  said*  in  reference  to  word  and  deed  relates 
 primarily  only  to  these.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  it  must  not  be 
 overlooked,  that  by  the  very  consecutiveness  of  deed,  word,  and 
 desire,  the  two  former  are  divested  of  their  merely  external  charac- 
 ter, and,  traced  to  their  root  in  the  disposition ;  they  are  regarded 
 merely  as  the  termination  of  a  process,  the  beginning  of  which  is 
 to  be  sought  for  in  the  heart.  If  this  be  considered,  it  will  appear, 
 that  wdiat  immediately  applies  only  to  word  and  deed,  indirectly 
 relates  at  the  same  time  to  the  disposition.  The  only  means,  for 
 example,  to  fulfil  the  command,  "  Thou  shall  not  kill,"  is  for  a 
 man  to  eradicate  from  his  heart  the  disposition  from  which  murder 
 proceeds.  Where  this  is  not  done,  the  command  is  not  fulfilled, 
 even  if  outwardly  no  murder  is  committed.  For  it  must  then 
 depend  on  causes  which  he  beyond  human  jurisdiction. 
 
 (vi.)  In  the  commandments  of  the  first  table,  the  same  trilogy 
 of  heart,  word,  and  deed,  may  also  be  traced,  with  much  proba- 
 bihty,  though  not  with  the  same  certainty,  as  in  those  of  the 
 second.  The  command,  '' Thou  shall  7iot  take  the  name  of  the 
 Lord  thy  God  in  vain"  relates  to  icords — forbids  the  direct 
 injury  of  God  by  words,  as  the  command,  "  Thou  shall  not  hear 
 false  witness  ayainst  thy  neighbour"  forbids  the  indirect  injury 
 
ALLEGED  OUTWARDNESS  OF  THE  MOSAIC  LEGISLATION.         495 
 
 of  God  in  the  person  of  our  neighbour ;  tliat  the  commandment, 
 "  Rememhcr  the  Sahhath-dai/  to  hcep  it  holy!'  refers  to  the  deed, 
 is  evident.  Since  in  this  manner  we  have  two  elements  of  the 
 ascertained  trilogy  of  the  second  table,  we  shall  be  inclined  to 
 recognize  in  the  commands,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  gods  beside 
 me,"  and  "  thou  shalt  make  no  image  or  likeness  of  anything" 
 the  reference  to  the  heart.  Image-worship  always  proceeds  from 
 emptiness  of  heart ;  it  is  a  product  of  a  want  of  spirituality,  of  an 
 incapacity  for  satisfying  the  requirement,  '*  God  is  a  Spirit,  and 
 they  that  worship  him,  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth;' 
 so  that  these  commands,  freed  from  their  ncgativeness,  and  ex- 
 pressed positively,  are  equivalent  to,  "  Thou  shalt  have  me  for 
 thy  God,  and  that  too  in  thy  heart."  It  is  only  owing  to  the 
 negative  form,  that  the  reference  to  the  heart  does  not  imme- 
 diately strike  us.  There  will  be  less  hesitation  in  recognizing  it, 
 if  it  be  considered  that  the  positive,  corresponding  to  the  negation, 
 occurs  in  the  Pentateuch  itself,  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thif 
 God  tcith  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  icith  all  tliij 
 strength."  If  these  remarks  are  correct,  it  is  evident  that  the 
 arrangement  of  the  whole  is  antistrophic.  In  the  first  table,  the 
 progression  is  from  the  heart  to  the  deed  ;  in  the  second,  from 
 the  deed  to  the  heart.  Thus  the  end  corresponds  with  the  begin- 
 ning. The  heart  is  distinguished  as  the  Alpha  and  Omega,  as 
 that  from  which  everything  proceeds,  and  to  which  everything 
 tends.  In  the  commandment,  "  Honour  thy  father  and  mother" 
 which  forms  the  transition  from  the  first  table  to  the  second,  a 
 general  expression  is  chosen  which  comprehends  all  three,  and 
 obtains  its  full  meaning  from  what  precedes  and  what  foDows, 
 Honour  them  with  thy  heart,  mouth,   and  hand. 
 
 (vii.)  The  spiritual  and  internal  character  of  the  Decalogue 
 appears  also  from  this,  that  the  fear  and  love  of  God  are  consi- 
 dered in  it  as  the  foundation  of  the  whole  fulfilh'ng  of  the  law,  so 
 that  Luther  justly  repeated  at  each  of  the  commandments,  AVe 
 must  fear  and  love  God.  It  is  scarcely  conceivable  how  Vatke 
 can  maintain  (p.  039),  that  love  towards  Jehovah  appears  in  the 
 Old  Testament,  not  as  a  fundamental  principle,  nor  placed  in 
 connection  with  love  to  our  neighbour.  The  inscription  on  the 
 portals  of  the  Old  Testament — (the  Decalogue) — refutes  this  as- 
 sertion.    On  the  relation  to  the  Lord  is  grounded,  in  the  introduc- 
 
490  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 tion,  (ver.  2),  the  obligation  of  all  tlie  commandments.  In  ver. 
 6,  love  to  God  (if  the  law  were  external  this  could  have  no  place 
 here),  is  expressly  mai'ked  as  the  fulfiUing  of  the  law  ("  them  that 
 love  me  and  hecp  my  commandments)  ;*  as  in  ver.  G  the  ground 
 of  the  transgression  of  God's  commands  is  placed  in  hatred  to 
 him.  That  the  commandments  of  the  second  table  do  not  stand 
 unconnected  by  the  side  of  those  of  the  first,  is  evident  from  the 
 ratio  ler/i  adjecta,  as  it  is  contained  in  the  "?p.  This  appellation 
 indicates  their  common  relation  to  the  Lord.  "  Ye  are  ehildren 
 of  the  Lord  your  God,"  therefore  brethren  and  friends.  All 
 enmity  is  unnatural.  Only  by  admitting  the  principle  we  have 
 noticed,  can  we  explain  the  position  of  the  command  to  honour 
 parents ;  by  means  of  it  we  obtain  a  very  easy  and  suitable  arrange- 
 ment. "  Thou  shalt  honour  and  love  God  (i.)  in  himself,  ver. 
 8-11  ;  (ii.)  in  those  who  represent  him  on  earth,  ver.  12.t  (iii.) 
 In  all  who  bear  his  image,  ver,  13,  14. 
 
 *  To  tbis  passage  our  Lord  refers  in  John  xiv.  15,  kdv  dyavdrk  fit,  rets  LvroXas 
 Tas£/xas  T^pi'iaraTB',  and  ver.  2.3,  kdv  Tts  dyaird  fxs,  tov  Xoyov  fxov  Ti^pTjarei.  Com- 
 pare also  1  John  v.  .3.  aunj  yap  Icttlv  h  aycxTrtj  tov  GsoD,  'Iva  Ta?  ivTo\a<s  uvtov 
 Ti-jpwpLtv.  Tlie  law  of  the  Old  Testament  says  what  this  reference  indicates,  that  love 
 to  God  is  not  a  pathological,  but  a  holy  and  sanctifying  love. 
 
 +  According  to  the  cuiTent  opinion,  the  commandment,  Honour  thy  father  and  mother, 
 belongs  to  the  second  table.  We,  on  tlie  contrary,  maintain,  that  it  belongs  to  the  first, 
 and  forlhe  following  reasons,  (i.)  If  the  Teii  Commandments  filled  two  tables,  it  is  an- 
 tecedently iirobable  that  each  table  would  contain  five.  As  ten  is  the  number  of  perfection, 
 so  is  five  the  number  of  imperfection,  and  points  to  a  necessary  complement  (compare 
 Bahr,  p.  183.)  "  If  a  man  love  not  his  brother  whom  he  hath  seen,  how  can  he  love  God 
 whom  he  hath  not  seen  V  If  the  number  of  the  whole  be  important,  so  also  the  num. 
 ber  of  the  parts  cannot  be  unimportant.  That  each  table  contained  five  command- 
 ments was  admitted  by  the  ancient  Jews;  compare  the  passages  from  .Iosephus  and 
 PHiLoin  Gerhard,  p.  239,  who,  from  a  bias  to  tlie  Lutheran  division  of  the  Deca- 
 logue, cannot  be  favourable  to  this  vieM".  By  this  division  there  is  no  way  of  assigning 
 five  commandments  to  the  first  table.  But  this  argues  against  its  correctness,  (ii.) 
 Jt  is  beyond  all  doubt  that  the  second  table  contains  the  commandments  in  reference 
 to  our  neighbour.  This  is  shewn  by  ^y"i.  Our  Lord's  language  also  in  Matt.  xxii. 
 37,  39,  leads  to  the  same  conclusion,  provided  the  first  commandment  (which  we  can 
 scarcely  doubt)  is  here  =  the  quintessence  of  commandments  of  the  first  table,  and 
 the  second  =  the  quintessence  of  those  of  the  second  table.  As  the  second  command- 
 is,  that  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself"  which  is  here  described  as  the 
 second  commandment,  had  been  already  given  verbally  as  the  sum  of  the  second  table 
 in  Leviticus  xix.  18.  But  we  do  not  see  how  the  command,  "  Honour  thy  father  and 
 mother"  can  be  deduced  from  this,  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself  and 
 hence  might  belong  to  the  second  table,  since  parents  do  not  belong  to  the  class  of 
 neighbours.     The  t' rm  neighbour  conveys  a  notion  of  equality.     On  the  other  hand, 
 
ALLEUED  OUTWA-RDNESS  OF  THE  MOSAIC  LEGISLATION.     4aT 
 
 (viii.)  The  internal  quality  and  spirituality  of  the  Mosaic  law 
 rests  generally  and  pre-eminently  on  the  testimony  of  our  Lord 
 and  his  apostles.  How  could  our  Lord,  if  the  law  had  not  been 
 spiritual,  attribute  to  it,  in  Matt.  v.  17,  an  eternal  validity  ;  and 
 say  (ver.  ]S)  that  not  an  Icora  or  Kepdua  should  fail — that  the 
 violation  of  the  least  command  was  detrimental  to  salvation,  and 
 explained  it  as  Divine  from  head  to  foot  ?  Baumgarten  (in  his 
 doctriua  Christi  de  ler/e  Mosaica  in  orat.  mont.  Berl.  1888. 
 p.  35),  adduces  evidence  in  a  striking  manner,  that  in  ver.  21  and 
 following  verses,  the  law  is  not  perfected,  but  only  its  true  sense 
 evolved  in  opposition  to  the  glosses  of  the  Pharisees.  The  simple 
 remark  of  Augustin  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  those  who  maintain 
 the  opposite — "  Si praecepta  ilia  egeant  additamentis  et  perfec- 
 iio)iihiis,  non  cum,  qui  illis  simj)licifer  ohtemperet  eaque  doceat 
 maoutun  did  j^osse  in  regno  coelorumy  In  Matt.  xv.  3-G, 
 Jesus  maintains  the  Mosaic  law  against  the  Pharisees ;  he  intro- 
 duces Moses  as  their  accuser,  John  v.  45  ;  in  Matt.  xix.  in  reply 
 to  the  young  man  who  asked  him,  tL  d^aOov  iroujao)  iva  e^w 
 ^(orjv  al(Dvtov,  he  says,  el  OeXea  elcrekOelv  et?  ttjv  ^corjv,  Wjpijaov 
 Ta9  eWoXa?  ;  he  declares,  therefore,  that  if  any  one  could  fulfil  the 
 commands  of  the  Decalogue,  he  would  require  nothing  more  for 
 eternal  happiness ;  whereas  the  law,  if  it  were  not  spiritual,  could 
 have  nothing  to  do  with  salvation.  Paul,  in  Rom.  vii.  14,  attri- 
 butes to  the  law,  in  very  direct  terms,  exactly  the  opposite  of  that 
 quaUty  which  modern  opponents  impose  upon  it,  oiha^ev  yap 
 ore  6  v6/jLo<i  7rvev/jLaTtK6<;  icm,;  compare  ver.  12,  were  6  fjiev 
 v6fjL0<;  ci'yto<;  Kal  rj  ivroXij  dyla  koI  hiKala  kol  dyadi].  According 
 to  him  it  is  not  through  any  defect  in  the  law  that  it  cannot  bring 
 
 that  tlie  command  to  honour  parents  finds  its  most  suitable  position  in  the  second 
 table  is  shown  in  Exod.  xxii.  27  ("28),  a  passage  by  which  the  apparent  abruptness  of 
 the  transition  from  ver.  11  to  12  is  obviated.  "  Thou  shalt  not  revile  God,  nor  curse 
 the  ruler  of  thy  people.'  In  this  passage  (see  vol.  i.  p.  173)  the  ruler,  here  spoken  of 
 individually  just  as  parents  in  the  Decalogue,  appears  as  the  representative  of  all  vTrtpi- 
 XovTss — as  a  visible  deputy  of  God — as  the  person  in  whom  God  is  liououvcd  or  dis- 
 honoured. A  second  passage  is  Lev.  xix.  32,  where  reverence  for  the  aged  is  regarded 
 as  the  immediate  eftect  of  reverence  for  God.  "  IIkuc  enjo  modum  (says  Calvin) 
 optimum  fore  cens.eo,si  ad  praecepli  ratio)iem  dirvjatitr  ;  ticmpe  id  in  unvquoque  prae. 
 cepto  expeuduiur,  cur  datum  nobis  fuerit.  Ut  praeccpti  quinti  finis  est,  honorem  essK 
 ii.s  reddendum,  quibus  eum  attribuit  dcus.  Haec  iyitur  praccepti  summa,  rectum  eaxe 
 Deoque  j)lacere,  ut  eos  lutnoremus,  qnibui  illiquid  excellentlae  l<irgituf;est." 
 VOL.   II.  I  i 
 
49<S  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 men  to  perfection  and  salvation,  but  because  man  in  his  natural 
 state  is  incapable  of  realizing  its  exalted  requirements. 
 
 But  let  us  turn  now  from  the  Decalogue*  to  the  other  parts  of 
 the  Mosaic  legislation.  It  is  cori'ect,  that  after  care  has  been 
 taken  of  morality,  civil  customs  aud  regulations  are  considered  ; 
 after  the  rule  for  the  internal  has  been  given,  the  external  is  also 
 regulated.  But  who  can  find  fault  with  this  ?  It  must  have 
 been  so,  if  the  Mosaic  law  was  to  take  firm  root  among  the  people. 
 If  civil  customs  and  regulations  had  been  left  in  their  natural 
 form,  the  moral  legislation,  soaring  above  the  popular  life,  would 
 soon  have  become  a  dead  letter ;  bad  customs  and  regulations 
 would  have  destroyed  the  power  of  good  morals.  But  that  the 
 remaining  legislation  still  presented  sufficient  means  to  repel  the 
 objection  of  gross  outwardness,  the  following  observations  may 
 shew;  in  which  we  shall  leave  untouched  the  ceremonial  law, 
 which  we  intend  to  make  the  subject  of  special  consideration. 
 
 First,  It  is  a  gross  error,  though  often  repeated,  that  the  Penta- 
 teuch embraces  the  whole  civil  law  of  the  Israelites.  In  that  por- 
 tion of  the  Scriptures  there  is  shown  the  greatest  aversion  from 
 all  untimely  interference  with  the  course  of  historical  development. 
 Only  those  points  are  determined  which  must  be  so,  and  in  no 
 other  w^ay,  according  to  the  fundamental  maxims  of  the  theocracy  ; 
 the  civil  relations  are  only  so  far  settled  for  all  ages,  as  they 
 stand  in  immediate  connection  with  morals  and  religion,  or  when 
 the  present  furnished  pressing  occasions  for  their  settlement ;  so 
 that  assertions  like  those  of  Vater  (p.  219),  that  many  casuistical 
 and  outwardly  positive  determinations  of  the  law  are  unworthy  of 
 such  a  wise  lawgiver  as  Moses  must  have  been,  that  such  an  one 
 could  not  and  durst  not  predetermine  such  laws,  since  they  were 
 dependant  on  accidental  circumstances,  and  would  be  the  product 
 of  longer  practice  and  continued  regulation,  and  spontaneously, 
 so  that  a  prophetic  revelation  of  them  was  superfluous,  as  check- 
 ing their  occurrence  in  the  natural  course  of  development — are 
 merely  beating  the  air,  since  the  state  of  things  they  suppose  did 
 
 *  That  the  relation  iu  which  the  Decalogue  stood  to  the  rest  of  the  legislation  was 
 correctly  perceived  in  all  periods  of  the  Old  Covenant,  is  shown  particularly  in  the 
 writings  of  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms.  Let  any  one  compare  the  descriptions 
 given  in  the  huter  (  Ps.  1.  for  example,  \articiilarly  ver.  lS-20) 
 the  yr-i. 
 
ALLEGED  OTTTWARDNESS  OF  THE   MOSAIC   LEGISLATION.     400 
 
 not  exist.  Let  us  consider  only  the  regulations  respecting  tlio 
 right  of  inheritance.  On  the  most  important  questions  we  here 
 find  no  answer,  for  example,  whether  the  sons  of  a  maid-servant 
 are  to  inherit  with  the  other  children  ;  how  a  daughter  is  to  be 
 maintained  if  she  remains  unmarried,  and  her  father  dies.  In 
 refereuce  to  this  important  and  perplexed  part  of  civil  rights,  there 
 occur  only  three  isolated  regulations.  The  regulation  in  Deut. 
 xxi.  15,  &c.,  is  worthy  of  special  notice,  for  settling  the  whole 
 character  of  the  Mosaic  civil  legislation.  In  reference  to  it  Mi- 
 CHAELis  remarks,  {3Iof}.  Becht.  §  79),  ''  Before  the  times  of 
 Moses,  others  who  practised  polygamy  exercised  the  right  of 
 regarding  the  first  son  of  the  favourite  wife  as  the  first-born, 
 although  he  might  not  be  so  in  point  of  years.  Tliis  right,  which 
 must  actually  have  given  rise  in  fiimihes  to  much  secret  vexation, 
 anxiety,  and  ill-will — this  right,  so  full  of  annoyance,  Moses  took 
 away  fi'om  fathers  by  an  express  law,  and  commanded  that  without 
 any  reference  to  partiaUty  for  the  mother,  that  son  who  came  first 
 into  the  world  should  be  acknowledged  as  the  first-born,  and 
 receive  a  double  share  of  the  inheritance."  The  law  here  simply 
 confined  itself  to  expunging  what  w^as  unjust  in  the  regulation. 
 It  is  only  by  accident  we  learn  on  this  occasion,  as  a  matter  not 
 coming  within  the  department  of  the  legislation,  that  the  first-born 
 received  a  double  portion  of  the  inheritance.  A  second  regula- 
 tion occurs  in  Num.  xxvii.  It  w^as  settled  on  a  special  occasion, 
 and  on  the  score  of  fairness,  that  daughters  might  inherit,  if  there 
 were  no  sons.  That  otherwise  only  sons  inherited,  we  learn 
 purely  by  accident.  The  third  regulation  was  also  made  on  a 
 special  occasion,  that  heiresses  should  only  marry  in  their  own 
 tribe. 
 
 In  relation  to  another  important  branch  of  civil  rights — buying 
 and  selling — we  find  nothing  at  all  in  the  Mosaic  laws  (Michae- 
 Lis,  §  81.)  The  criminal  code  is  given  with  the  greatest  fulness, 
 since  its  regulations  have  at  least  the  character  of  statutes — here 
 also  there  was  most  need  for  refonnation  in  natural  development, 
 aDd  what  was  erroneous  would  be  most  injurious  to  morals  and 
 religion.  Compai-e,  for  instance,  the  regulations  respecting  mur- 
 der and  manslaughter  (Michaelis  vi.  §  273-280),  with  those  on 
 the  rights  of  inheritance.  In  strict  propriety  it  is  only  in  refer- 
 ence to  offences  that  we  can  speak  of  a  IVfosaic  law. 
 
 I  i  2 
 
.^00  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Secondly,  There  are  a  great  number  of  injunctions  which  have 
 a  moral  and  rehgious,  but  no  judicial,  value.  Whoever  committed 
 sin  in  Israel,  it  was  certainly  not  owing  to  the  want  of  moral  pre- 
 cepts. We  would  adduce  a  few  as  specimens.  The  injunction 
 in  favour  of  strangers,  widows,  and  orphans,  had,  without  doubt, 
 only  a  moral  and  rehgious  vahdity.  Exod.  xxii.  21-23,  "  Thou 
 sJialt  neither  vex  a  stranger,  nor  oppress  him  ;  for  ye  were 
 strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt.  Ye  shall  not  afflict  any  widow, 
 or  fatherless  child.  If  thou  afflict  them  in  any  wise,  and  they 
 cry  at  all  unto  me,  I  will  surely  hear  their  cry.  And  my 
 wrath  shall  wax  hot,  and  I  will  kill  you  with  the  sword ;  and 
 your  wives  shall  he  icidows,  and  your  children  fatherless!'  A 
 civil  law  would  not  speak  in  general  terms  of  oppression,  but  enu- 
 merate specific  acts — it  would  not  aim  to  excite  sympathy  by  an 
 allusion  to  Egypt,  nor  threaten  with  punishment  from  God,  but 
 define  the  punishment  that  was  to  be  awarded  by  the  magistrate. 
 Compare  Exod.  xxiii.  9,  "  Also  thou  shall  not  oppress  a  stran- 
 ger, for  ye  know  the  heart  of  a  stranger,  seeing  ye  were  strangers 
 in  the  land  of  Egypt!'  Also  Lev.  xix.  34  ;  xxi.  33,  34,  according 
 to  which  an  Israehte  was  to  "'  love  a  stranger  as  himself!'  a  matter 
 perfectly  beyond  the  control  of  the  magistrate.  Deut.  x.  18,  19, 
 MiCHAELis  ii.  §  138.  In  Exod.  xxiii.  4,  5,  it  is  said,  ''  If  thou 
 meet  thy  enemy  s  ox  or  his  ass  going  astray,  thou  shalt  surely  bring 
 it  hack  to  him  again.  If  thou  see  the  ass  of  him  that  hateth  thee 
 lying  under  his  burden,  take  care  to  give  it  up  to  him  ;  thou  shall 
 leave  thy  hatred!'  Certainly  no  one  w^ould,  on  the  ground  of 
 this  injunction,  make  a  complaint  before  a  magistrate.  In  a  civil 
 code  such  a  thing  would  be  ridiculous.  The  whole  nineteenth 
 chapter  of  Leviticus,  in  which  the  command,  "  Be  ye  holy,  for  I 
 am  holy!'  is  developed  in  special  instances,  is  in  a  preponderat- 
 ing degree  of  a  purely  moral  character.  Compare,  for  example, 
 ver.  17,  18,  "  Thou  shalt  not  hate  thy  brother  in  thy  heart, 
 .  .  .  thou  shalt  not  avenge,  nor  bear  any  grudge  against  the 
 children  of  thy  people,  but  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thy- 
 self!' Ver.  32,  "  Thou  shalt  rise  up  before  the  hoary  head,  and 
 honour  the  face  of  the  old  man,  and  fear  thy  God!'  Kegu- 
 lations  of  this  class  are  found  in  Deut.  xxii.  1-4,  that  a  man 
 should  bring  back  whatever  was  lost  belonging  to  his  brother, 
 which  could  not  be  an  object  of  judicial  cognizance — and  respect- 
 
ALLEGED  OUTWARDNESS  OF  THE  MOSAIC  LEGISLATION.     501 
 
 ing  birds'-nesting  ;  ver.  G,  7,  that  in  buildiog  a  new  house,  a  bat- 
 tlement was  to  be  placed  round  the  roof,  "  that  thou  hriiKj  not 
 blood  upon  thine  house,  if  any  man  fall  from  tlience"  ver  8  ;  the 
 inculcation  of  kindness  and  equity  towards  the  poor,  xxiv.  15; 
 XV.  7,  &c. 
 
 Some  have  asserted,  that,  although  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
 law  contains  pure  moral  elements,  yet,  at  all  events,  the  indiscri- 
 minate blending  of  merely  judicial  with  moral  regulations  is  to  be 
 censured.  But  we  deny  that  there  is  in  the  law  anything  merely 
 judicial ;  every  thing  judicial  is  much  more  moral;  and  the  moral 
 which  is  also  judicial  is  connected  with  that  which  is  not  heard 
 at  the  tribunal  of  a  human  judge,  so  that  the  judicial  retains  no 
 mere  statute-like  character. 
 
 Thirdlij,  That  the  law,  witli  all  the  apparent  outwardness  which 
 it  wears  in  many  parts,  has  yet  a  religious,  moral,  internal,  spiritual 
 chai'acter  throughout,  is  plain  from  the  fact,  that  the  two  internal 
 commands  of  the  love  of  God  and  the  love  of  our  neighbour  ap- 
 pear in  it,  as  comprehensive  of  all  the  rest,  from  wliich  the  fulfil- 
 ment of  each  individual  command  is  deduced,  and  without  which 
 obedience  is  impossible.  The  command,  ''  Thou  shall  love  thy 
 neighhour  as  thyself^'  is  expressed  in  Lev.  xix.  18,  and  the  com- 
 mand to  love  God  is  reiterated  in  Deuteronomy  in  conformity 
 with  its  designs,  to  form  a  bridge  between  the  law  and  the  heart ; 
 and  is  expressly  distinguished  as  the  %v  koI  irav,  as  "  the  one 
 thing  needful,"  as  the  fulfilling  of  the  whole  law.  Compare 
 Deut.  vi.  4,  Thou  shall  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine 
 heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  might ;"  x.  12, 
 ''  And  now,  Israel,  what  doth  the  Lord  thy  God  require  of 
 thee,  hut  to  fear  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  walk  in  all  his  ways, 
 and  to  love  him,  and  to  serve  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
 heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul ;"  xi.  13,  "  And  it  shall  come  to 
 pass,  if  ye  shall  hearken  diligently  to  my  commandments,  which 
 I  command  you  this  day,  to  love  the  Lord  your  God,  and  to 
 serve  him  with  all  your  heart,  and  with  all  your  soul ;"  xi.  1, 
 xiii.  3,  XXX.  10,  20.  If  every  thing  in  the  law  is  referred  back  to 
 love,  it  is  self-evident,  that  a  dead  outward  service  cannot  comport 
 with  its  spirit.  The  violation  of  the  commandments  is  described 
 in  Lev.  xxvi.  41  as  the  necessary  product  of*  an  uncircumcised 
 heart;"   and  in  Deut.   x.  16,  we  read   the  remarkable  words. 
 
OO'-i  THEOLOGY  OF  TlIK   PENTATEL'CH. 
 
 "  Circumcise  therefore  the  foreakin  of  your  hearts,  and  he  no 
 more  stiff- necked  J'  which  condemn  all  rimrisaism  that  expects 
 good  fruits  fr'om  a  bad  tree,  that  would  gather  grapes  fr'om  thorns, 
 and  figs  from  tliistles.  It  may  be  easily  proved  fr'om  innumerable 
 passages,  that  this  internal  and  spiritual  tendency  of  the  law  was, 
 from  the  first,  recognised  by  those  homines  bonae  voluntatis,  wdio 
 lived  under  it.  At  the  head  of  these  passages  stand  the  language 
 of  Joshua  in  Josh.  xxii.  o,  "  Take  diligent  heed  to  do  the  com- 
 mandment, and  the  law,  ivhich  Moses,  the  servant  of  the  Lord, 
 charged  you,  to  love  the  Lord  your  God,  and  to  walk  in  all  his 
 ivays,  and  to  keep  his  commandments,  and  to  cleave  unto  him, 
 and  to  serve  him  with  all  your  heart,  and  with  all  your  soul." 
 xxiii.  11,  "  Take  good  heed  therefore  unto  your  souls,  that  ye 
 love  the  Lord  your  God." 
 
 We  add  here  the  explanation  of  another  contradiction,  which 
 has  been  supposed  to  exist  betw^een  the  character  of  the  law  and 
 its  Mosaic  authorship. 
 
 The  reflective  systematic  quality  of  the  law,  Vatke  maintains 
 (p.  226),  is  frreconcileable  with  the  opinion,  that  Moses  was  its 
 author.  But  this  assertion,  resting  on  arbitrary  presuppositions, 
 stands  in  glaring  contradiction  with  the  express  acknowledgment 
 (p.  299)  of  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Ten  Commandments.  We 
 have  already  pointed  out,  that  if  in  any  part  of  the  law,  it  is  ex- 
 actly in  this,  that  this  reflective  systematic  quality  is  apparent. 
 Eveiything  is  calculated,  numbered,  weighed.  The  fact  is  of  so 
 much  greater  importance,  since  here  the  question  is  not  about  a 
 single  part,  but  the  ground-plan  and  prototype  of  the  whole  law, 
 so  that  here,  if  anywhere,  the  saying  holds  good,  ex  ungue  leonem. 
 This  contradiction  w^ould  not  have  been  inexphcable  even  to 
 Vatke  himself,  if,  in  the  examination  of  the  Decalogue,  he  had 
 not  been  extremely  superficial.  This  is  shown  all  along.  How 
 otherwise  could  he  think  (p.  239)  of  dividing  single  parts  fr'om  a 
 whole  so  organised  and  strictly  linked  together  ?  How  could  he 
 maintain  that  the  command,  "  Thou  shall  not  hear  false  witiiess 
 against  thy  neighhour,"  is  superfluous,  since  it  is  already  con- 
 tained in  "  Thou  shall  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God 
 in  vain!"  or  the  command,  "  Thou  shall  not  covet"  because  it 
 IS  contained  in  "  Tliou  shall  not  steal  !  .'" 
 
THE   CKRKMONIAL  LAW.  :){)n 
 
 THE  CEREMONIAL  LAW. 
 
 Deistical  writers  have  taken  great  ofteiice  at  the  Ceremonial 
 Law,  and  on  this  ground  have  disputed  the  Divine  mission  of 
 Moses;  (compare,  for  instance,  Moi^gan  in  Lilienthal,  vi.  724) 
 In  modern  times,  these  attacks  have  been  renewed  with  gi'eat 
 ardour  by  De  Wette  {Beitr.  ii.  p.  274.)  He  can  find  out  no 
 rational  basis  for  it ;  its  spiritual  meaning  is  hidden  altogether 
 from  his  eyes.  He  can  form  no  other  notion  of  these  "  pedantic 
 regulations"  (^//<?6'^  "  Pedcmtereteu"),  this  "gnat-straining"  {dicse 
 "  Miickenseigerei') ,  than  as  the  product  of  a  later  priestcraft.  A 
 few  only  may  have  a  sanitory  reason,  such  as  the  law  respecting 
 leprosy  and  the  prohibition  of  swine's  flesh  ;  and  these  he  allows 
 (though  from  his  point-of-view  with  an  excess  of  candour)  may 
 be  sufficiently  justified.  Soon  after  De  Wette's  Beitrclge  ap- 
 peared the  first  edition  of  Creuzer's  SymhoUk ;  and  the  eluci- 
 dations which  this  work  gave  in  general  of  the  symbolic  spirit  of 
 antiquity  could  not  but  shed  a  healthful  influence  on  the  inter- 
 pretation of  the  symbolic  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  aid  in  dis- 
 pelling the  thick  darkness  which,  since  the  days  of  Spencer, 
 especially  by  means  of  the  writings  of  J.  D.  Michaelis,  had 
 settled  on  this  department.  The  beneficial  influence  of  this  w^ork 
 we  see  at  once  in  De  Wette's  Bihlischer  Dogmatik.  Here  we 
 read,  §  54,  "  The  existence  of  symbols  and  myths,  as  such,  no 
 person  familiar  with  antiquity  can  deny.  They  are  necessary  for 
 the  clothing  of  supersensual  truth  in  sensible  objects,  to  people 
 who  ai'e  incapable  of  freedom  of  thought."  He  even  explains 
 the  symbolic  of  the  Mosaic  ritual,  as  an  intelligible  one  accord- 
 ing to  the  idea  of  the  founder,  who  had  freely  chosen  and  made 
 the  signs,  only  the  vulgar  had  taken  the  sign  for  the  reality. 
 (Compare  §  126-128.)  Like  De  Wette,  Yon  Colln  also 
 acknowledges  the  symbolic  character  of  the  Ceremonial  Law, 
 and  considers  the  Pentateuch  in  this  respect  as  unobjectionable- 
 "Without  symbolic,"  he  says  (Bibl.  Tlieol.  i.  04),  "a  public 
 religion,  which  must  always  have  regard  to  a  wide  circle  of  un- 
 educated persons,  cannot  be  rendered  permanent." 
 
 We  should  think  it  less  probable  that  De  Wette's  cast-off 
 clothes  would  find  persons  eager  to  wear  tlicm.  since  the  knowledge 
 
504  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 of  the  symbolic  of  tlie  ancient  world  is  making  great  progress 
 every  year.  And  yet  persons  have  come  before  the  public  who 
 fancy  that  they  can  appear  to  advantage  in  these  habiliments. 
 Von  Bohlen  iEinl.  p.  175)  has  repeated  almost  word  for  word 
 what  De  Wette  has  said  in  his  Beitrilge,  wdthout  recollecting 
 that,  since  that  publication,  the  times,  and,  along  with  them,  the 
 views  of  his  leader,  have  changed.  Vatke  also  (p.  218)  appro- 
 priates De  Wette's  juvenile  speculations  with  great  confidence, 
 and  takes  no  notice  of  his  riper  ideas. 
 
 The  best  apology  of  the  Ceremonial  Law  lies  in  pointing  out 
 its  objects,  and  these,  therefore,  we  present,  to  refute  the  charges 
 brought  against  it. 
 
 First,  The  Ceremonial  Law  served  to  cherish  the  rehgious  sen 
 timent.    The  Israehte  was  reminded  by  it  in  all  his  relations,  even 
 the  most  insignificant  and  external,  of  God ;  the  thought  of  God 
 was  introduced  into  the  very  midst  of  the  popular  life. 
 
 Secondbj,  The  Ceremonial  Law  required  the  recognition  of  sin, 
 and  thus  called  forth  the  first  thing  essential  for  the  reception  of 
 redemption,  a  sense  of  the  need  of  redemption,  The  people  must 
 be  burdened  and  heavy  laden,  in  order  that  the  Lord  might  say 
 to  them,  "  Come  tinto  me  all  ye  that  are  weary  and  heavy  laden, 
 and  I  will  give  you  rest."  The  law  was,  and  was  intended  to 
 be,  a  heavy  yoke,  and,  therefore,  would  awaken  a  longing  after 
 the  Eedeemer.  Everywhere  it  proclaimed,  "  Touch  not,  taste 
 not,  handle  not  !"  and  thus  was  a  perpetual  remembrancer  of  sin. 
 
 Thirdly,  The  Ceremonial  Law  served  to  separate  Israel  from 
 the  Heathen ;  it  erected  between  the  two  a  wall  of  separation,  by 
 which  communication  was  prevented.  Compare  Eph.  ii.  14. 
 Not  yet  strong  enough  to  conquer  Heathenism,  the  people  were,  so 
 to  speak,  shut  up,  to  be  withdrawn  from  the  influence  of  Heathen- 
 ism, to  preserve  them  for  the  time  in  which,  armed  with  power 
 from  on  high,  they  might  commence  an  offensive  war  against 
 Heathenism.  The  preliminary  hmitation  effected  by  the  Cere- 
 monial Law  served  as  the  means  of  the  future  illimitedness. 
 
 Fourthly,  Many  things  in  the  Ceremonial  Law  served,  by  im- 
 pressions on  the  senses,  to  awaken  reverence  for  holy  things 
 among  a  sensual  people.  This  object  (certainly  a  subordinate 
 pne)  has  been  totally  but  unjustly  denied  by  Bahr,  Syniholik 
 des  Afos.  Cultus,  i.  8,  Sic.    It  cannot  be  more  distinctly  expressed 
 
THE  CEREMONIAL  LAW.  505 
 
 than  in  Exod.  xxviii.  2 — "  And  tliou  shalt  make,  holy  garments 
 for  Aaron,  thy  brother,  for  glory  and  for  heaiity!'  The  hud 
 consequence  of  denying  it,  as  is  shown  very  plainly  in  Bahr,  is 
 that  it  will  then  he  necessary  to  impose  a  symhoiic  meaning  on 
 institutions,  in  which  evidently  nothing  of  the  kind  is  to  he  found. 
 
 Fifthly,  One  principal  ohject  of  the  Ceremonial  Law  lay  in  its 
 symhoiic  meaning.  The  people,  enthralled  in  visihle  ohjects, 
 were  not  yet  capahle  of  vitally  appropriating  superscnsual  truth, 
 in  words,  the  form  most  suited  to  their  nature.  It  was  needful 
 for  the  truth  to  condescend,  to  come  down  to  their  power  of 
 apprehension,  to  prepare  itself  a  hody  from  visihle  things,  in 
 order  to  free  the  people  from  the  hondage  of  the  visihle.  This 
 form  was  common  to  the  Israelitish  religion  with  that  of  the 
 Heathens,  and  therein  lies  its  hest  apology.  Would  we  rather  not 
 speak  at  all  to  the  dumh  than  make  use  of  signs  ?  The  Cere- 
 monial Law  was  not  the  opposite  to  the  worship  of  God  in  spirit 
 and  in  truth,  but  only  an  imperfect  form  of  the  same,  a  necessary 
 preparation  for  it.  The  accommodation  was  only  formal,  one 
 which  did  not  alter  the  essence,  hut  only  presented  it  in  large 
 capital  letters  to  children  who  could  not  yet  read  a  small  running 
 hand. 
 
 But  there  is  still  one  important  point  to  he  settled — Creuzer 
 perceived  in  the  Heathen  symhoiic,  a  clothing  designedly  assumed 
 for  the  advantage  of  the  ignorant  by  the  philosophers,  of  a  doc- 
 trine unsymhohcally  conceived  before  the  clothing.  This  view  has 
 lately  been  seriously  controverted.  According  to  0.  Muller, 
 Prolog,  p.  110,  &c.,  119,  257,  202,  332,  symbolic  was  the  junc- 
 tion of  the  thought  to  the  sigTi,  not  arbitrarily,  but  necessarily,  and 
 could  not  exist  as  soon  as  the  thought  had  quitted  its  hold  of  the 
 sign,  and  existed  independently  of  it.  Stuhr  {die  Religions 
 fiysteme  des  Orientes,  p.  41,  &c.),  has  indeed  made  it  a  part  of 
 the  distinctive  idea  of  symbol,  that  contents  and  form  should 
 indissolubly  interpenetrate,  as  if  perfectly  grown  together,  in  dis- 
 tinction from  allegory,  in  which  only  a  thought,  already  existing 
 in  the  mind  in  a  totally  diJQferent  form,  is  concealed  by  sensible 
 signs.  It  has  lately  been  attempted  to  apply  this  view  to  the 
 Mosaic  symbolic,  which  has  been  declared,  wdth  great  confidence, 
 to  be  a  merely  unconscious  one.  See  particularly  Licentiate 
 Bauer,  (die  Eel.  d.  A.  Test.,  pp.  246,  255,  257,  314,  315.) 
 
.")06  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PEiNTATEUCH. 
 
 But,  even  with  respect  to  the  Heathen  symbolic,  this  view, 
 though  much  that  is  true  hes  at  its  basis,  is  certainly  very  one- 
 sided. The  contrast  of  conscious  and  unconscious^  is  strained 
 fi'om  a  relative  to  an  absolute  one,  and  represented  with  much 
 greater  sharpness  than  it  ever  appears.  How  O.  Muller  can 
 maintain  that  the  symbol,  like  the  mythics,  cannot  appear  as 
 clothing,  but  falls  aw^ay  of  itself,  where  any  one  is  capable  of 
 apprehending  the  pure  thought,  we  can  hardly  understand.  Who- 
 ever has  apprehended  the  pure  thought,  can  yet  clothe  it  for  the 
 ignorant,  in  that  form  in  which  it  is  alone  accessible  to  them ; 
 and  (which  is  the  principal  thing)  it  is  not  enough  for  a  person  to 
 have  the  pure  thought  generally,  but  it  is  of  importance  that  he 
 should  make  it  vitally  his  own,  gain  a  clear  intuition  of  it,  so 
 that,  even  for  those  who  profess  the  truth  in  its  naked  form, 
 the  clotliing  may  be  essentially  needful.  Yet  our  Lord  designed 
 his  parables  precisely  and  only  for  those  who  were  capable  of 
 also  apprehending  the  thought  in  its  naked  form  !  This  is 
 often  more  intelhgible  than  the  clothing,  but  not  so  efficacious. 
 In  this  respect,  Stuhr  has  advanced  somewhat  in  the  right 
 direction.  He  attributes  (p.  liv.)  the  perfectly  unconscious 
 symbolic  to  the  primeval  times,  corresponding  to  the  first  forma- 
 tive steps  in  the  development  of  the  human  mind,  and  remarks — 
 "  In  later  times,  of  a  far  higher  cultivation  of  consciousness,  such 
 appearances  may,  and  must  indeed,  come  forth,  according  to 
 which,  one  and  the  same  internally  consistent  consciousness  evinces 
 itself  to  be  capable  of  shaping  and  holding  what  it  possesses  in 
 the  two-fold  form  of  scientific  conception  and  poetical  intuition. 
 
 But  that  the  view  has  no  application  to  the  Mosaic  symbolic, 
 which  is  a  real  allegory,  and  is  here  not  merely  onesided  but  false, 
 is  evident  for  the  following  reasons  :  (i.)  The  unconscious  sym- 
 boHc  is  ascribed  by  its  advocates  exclusively  to  the  childhood  of 
 humanity,  in  which  intuition  was  supreme  and  unchecked,  and 
 the  understanding  was  subordinate,  the  ages  anterior  to  history, 
 in  which  no  hterature  existed.  But  how  can  any  one  even  fancy 
 that  the  Pentateuch  belongs  to  this  stage  of  development !  "  The 
 principle,"  saysBAUR  (Gnosis,  p.  732),  "on  which  the  action  of 
 the  religious  sentiment  depends,  is  in  Heathenism  intuition,  and 
 in  Judaism  reflection,  as  the  activity  of  the  understanding;"  and 
 thus  also  Bust,  (Philos.  und  Christenthums,  p.   161),   as- 
 
THE  CEREMONIAL  LAW.  ."iOT 
 
 cribes  to  Judaism  the  element  of  the  understanding.  Tliis  is  so 
 far  true,  that  in  Judaism  from  the  very  beginning  the  uncondi- 
 tional supremacy  of  intuition  appears  to  have  been  broken.  How 
 sharply  even  in  the  Pentateuch  ai'e  "  the  various  orders  of  being 
 divided  and  distinguished,"  to  do  which  is  the  peculiar  office  of 
 the  understanding ;  God,  Nature,  Man,  everything  has  its  strictly 
 defined  sphere.  And  how  indeed  could  the  pecuharities  of  the 
 Pentateuch,  considered  as  a  literary  production,  consist  with  an 
 unconscious  symbolic  I  Sober  historical  description,  and  uncon- 
 scious symbolic,  do  not  flourish  on  the  same  soil,  are  products  of 
 totally  dift'erent  stages  of  development.  The  artistic  composition 
 of  the  Pentateuch,  as  it  unveils  itself  the  more  closely  we  examine 
 it ;  the  care  with  which  every  expression  is  chosen  and  weighed  ; 
 the  intentionahty  for  instance,  that  is  shown  in  the  use  of  the 
 Divine  names  ;  the  systematic  spirit  which  is  manifest  in  the  De- 
 calogue, of  which  the  arrangement,  rightly  understood,  is  alone 
 sufficient  to  refute  the  whole  view  under  consideration  ;  all  this 
 shows,  that  the  symbolic  can  only  be  a  conscious  one. 
 
 (ii.)  Unconscious  symbolic,  according  to  the  unanimous  opinion 
 of  its  advocates,  is  only  to  be  found  where  there  is  no  naked 
 doctrine.  But  in  the  Pentateuch,  the  nalied  doctrine  is  placed 
 side  by  side  with  the  symbolically  clothed,  or  rather  I  should  say, 
 precedes  it,  since  the  Decalogue,  which  is  entirely  unsymbolic, 
 stands  at  the  head  of  the  whole,  and  the  naked  doctrine  relates  to 
 the  same  objects  as  the  symbolically  clothed ;  not  a  single  doctrine 
 appears  merely  in  a  symbolic  dress. 
 
 (iii.)  In  the  unconscious  symbolic,  the  thought  is  so  intimately 
 combined  with  its  sensible  covering,  that  the  interpretation  of  the 
 symbol  cannot  appear.  But  in  the  Pentateuch,  such  intei-preta- 
 tions  are  found  in  the  case  of  individual  symbols,  and  these  prove 
 that  where  they  do  not  occur,  we  are  not  to  suppose  the  reason  to 
 be  that  it  was  not  in  the  power  of  the  legislator  to  give  them. 
 How  clearly  and  distinctly  is  the  leading  symbol,  Circumcision, 
 intei'preted  in  Deut.  x.  16,  ^'  Circumcise,  therefore,  the  foreskin 
 of  your  hecirt,  and  he  no  more  stiff  necked!'  And  in  Deut.  xxx. 
 6,  "  The  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thy  heart,  and  the 
 heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart, 
 and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou  mayest  lice!'  The  circumci- 
 sion of  the  flesh  here  typified  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  first 
 
508  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 as  a  promise,  then  as  a  requirement.  And  if  any  persons  are  dis- 
 posed to  separate  Deuteronomy  from  the  remaining  books,  and 
 confine  the  concession  merely  to  the  former  (the  promise)  yet 
 Lev.  xxvi.  4G,  immediately  comes  in  the  way,  where  the  phrase 
 ^^^"[^^  ''^^^^  "  i/ofo'  laicircf/ffici-sed  .//ea?-f,"  gives  the  meaning  more 
 briefly,  but  with  equal  distinctness,  and  shows  by  the  mere  allusion 
 that  the  meaning  was  generally  known.  On  closer  examination 
 it  is  evident  that  much  more  of  explanation,  or  at  least  of  allusion, 
 is  contained  in  the  law  than  may  appear  at  first  sight.  The  name 
 ^"^?,  for  example,  makes  any  detailed  information  respecting  the 
 meaning  of  the  covering  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  superfluous. 
 When  in  Lev.  xxvi.  31,  it  is  said,  in  reference  to  the  wicked,  "and 
 I  will  not  smell  the  savour  of  your  sweet  odours"  when  even  in 
 Gen.  iv.  2,  3,  with  an  outward  equality  in  the  sacrifices  of  Cain 
 and  Abel,  the  consequence  with  God  was  difterent,  and  this  difle- 
 rence  is  traced  to  the  distinction  in  their  characters,  it  is  equiva- 
 lent to  an  express  declaration,  that  the  sacrifice  was  important 
 only  as  a  type  of  the  inward  state  ;  and  assertions  which  attack 
 the  very  vitals  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation  (like  that  of  Bauer  (p. 
 814),  "  When  an  individual  brings  an  oflering,  this  presentation 
 is  the  form  of  the  inner  contents,  and  he  obtains  the  consequence 
 of  the  offering  without  being  obhged  to  establish  this  result  by 
 his  will ")  fall  to  the  ground  at  once. 
 
 (iv.)  If  the  symbolic  of  the  Mosaic  law  was  unconscious,  we 
 should,  as  in  the  Heathen  symbolic,  find  in  the  times  of  increased 
 reflections  a  multitude  of  explanations  would  be  given  simulta- 
 neously. It  is  in  the  nature  of  unconscious  symbolic,  that  it  does 
 not  form  one  thought  clearly  and  sharply,  but  embraces  a  multi- 
 tude of  heterogeneous  references.  Later  interpreters,  unable  to 
 unravel  what,  from  the  very  first,  was  a  mass  of  perplexities,  fix 
 their  attention  one  on  this  side,  the  other  on  that.  Every  expla- 
 nation of  what  was  not  plain  to  the  first  originator,  must  always, 
 more  or  less,  partake  of  the  arbitrary.  On  the  contrary,  as  regards 
 the  Mosaic  symbolic,  the  eccj)lanatio)i  which  everywhere  appears 
 only  as  allusion  (which  presupposes  the  sense  to  be  certain  and 
 known),  remains  self- consistent  tln^ough  all  the  books  of  Scrip- 
 ture down  to  the  Apocalypse,  as  we  shall  prove  further  on,  by  spe- 
 cific instances.  He  who  does  not  recognise  this  meaning,  who  does 
 not  understand,  for  iubtancc,  the  symboHc  of  sacrifice,  is  punished ; 
 
THE  CEREMONIAL  LAW.  500 
 
 his  ignorance  is  considered  as  culpable.  If  the  symbolic  were 
 unconscious,  we  could  not  fix  the  meaning  of  the  symbols  with 
 certainty,  and  must  satisfy  ourselves  with  a  mere  attempt  at  ap- 
 proximation. But  here  it  is  not  so.  The  meaning  of  the  leading 
 symbol  is  clear  and  settled,  and  where  we  are  still  unceitain,  the 
 fault  lies  not  in  the  obscurity  of  the  symbol,  but  in  our  un acquaint- 
 ance with  the  ancient  symbohc  language,  our  incapacity  to  realize 
 the  manner  in  which  the  ancients  looked  upon  things. 
 
 (v.)  Lastly,  a  mere  unconscious  symbolic  is  opposed  by  the 
 analogy  of  the  visions  and  symbohc  acts  of  the  prophets,  to  which 
 the  express  meaning  is  generally  added.  This  analogy  is  of  so 
 much  more  importance,  since  then  visions  and  symbohc  acts  are 
 based  not  unfrequently  on  the  Mosaic  symbolic ;  as,  for  instance, 
 the  vision  of  Zechariah  (ch.  iii.)  is  founded  on  the  rite  of  the  feast 
 of  atonement,  and  (ch.  iv.)  the  symbol  of  the  Mosaic  candlestick. 
 The  analogy  of  the  Anthropomorphisms  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
 also  not  to  be  lost  sight  of,  in  which,  as  we  have  shown,  the 
 thought,  even  in  the  Pentateuch,  emancipated  itself  from  its 
 covering,  which  it  recognised  as  subordinate,  and  no  more  than  a 
 covering. 
 
 If  we  survey  the  reasons /br  an  unconscious  symbolic,  they  will 
 appear  very  inconsiderable  compared  with  those  that  are  against  it. 
 
 (i.)  It  is  said,  "  Why  did  the  law  prescribe  sin-offerings  for  a 
 mere  image  of  impurity,  if,  in  the  image,  it  saw  not  the  appearance 
 of  the  thing  itself  ?"  But,  in  the  image  of  impurity,  a  sense  would 
 be  aroused  not  respecting  one  specific  thing,  but  impurity  gene- 
 rally, and,  at  the  same  time,  the  need  of  atonement ;  it  served  for 
 avdiJLV7)(TL^  dfjuapTiMV.  The  bodily  impurity  belonged  not  to  a  being 
 who  was  spiritually  pure,  but  to  a  sinner ;  the  image  was  never 
 without  its  counterpart.  But  in  the  very  cases  of  defilement, 
 apart  from  general  grounds,  it  is  specially  shown  that  they  were 
 only  images  of  sin,  not  in  themselves  criminal  acts.  In  a  multi- 
 tude of  cases,  it  was  a  duty  to  become  ceremonially  unclean. 
 The  physician  who  should  cure  a  man  affected  with  an  "  issue" 
 would  become  unclean  by  touching  him.  Lev.  xv.  7  ;  he  who 
 buried  a  dead  person  would  be  unclean  seven  days,  and  yet  it  was 
 his  dutv  to  do  this — a  duty  which  even  the  priests  themselves  dare 
 not  dechne,  in  the  case  of  their  nearest  relatives.  Also  whoever, 
 according  to  Moses  own  command,  slew  and  burnt  tlie  red  heifer 
 
510  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  rENTATEUCH. 
 
 appointed  for  purification,  tlie  priest  himself,  who  was  present  at 
 this  act,  whoever  collected  the  ashes,  whoever  sprinkled  "  the 
 water  of  separation^'  was  unclean.  Compare  Michaelis,  Mos. 
 Recht.  iv.  §  207.  How  can  these  facts  he  explained  if  the  un- 
 cleanness  was  itself  sin  ?  The  ideas  of  duty  and  sin  mutually 
 exclude  each  other.  The  maxim,  facienda  sunt  mala,  ut  eveni- 
 afit  bona,  never  makes  its  appearance  on  Scriptural  ground,  hut 
 is  repudiated  with  the  utmost  aversion.  That  not  merely  the  law- 
 giver, hut  likewise  the  people  themselves,  were,  at  the  utmost  re- 
 move from  confounding  the  typical  representation  of  sin  with 
 sin  itself,  we  see  from  Num.  ix.  7,  where  those  who  had  defiled 
 themselves  with  the  dead,  and  had  thereby  incurred  the  grossest 
 kind  of  Levitical  uncleanness,  thought  it  strange  and  unreason- 
 able that  they  should  be  debarred,  by  such  a  cause,  from  partici- 
 pating in  the  blessings  of  the  Paschal  Feast. 
 
 (ii.)  It  is  asserted  that,  in  the  Pentateuch,  religious  ideas  were 
 not  yet  separated  from  their  symbolic  form,  is  evident,  because 
 prayer  had  not  been  introduced  as  "  a  practical  contribution  of 
 the  congi'egation  to  the  worship."  But,  however  the  fact  is  to 
 be  explained,  that  in  the  Pentateuch  no  verbal  prayers  are  pre- 
 sented for  the  congregation  (yet  compare  Deut.  xxvi.  13,  &c.), 
 yet  this  explanation  is  certainly  incorrect.  The  Pentateuch 
 speaks  of  the  calling  on  God  as  beginning  with  Enos,  Gen.  iv. 
 26 ;  the  Patriarchs,  on  every  solemn  occasion,  called  upon  God; 
 there  are  recorded  prayers  of  considerable  length  which  they 
 offered  up,  such  as  the  admirable  prayer  of  Jacob  in  Gen.  xxxii. 
 10,  the  collective  prayers  of  the  Pentateuch  (as,  for  instance, 
 they  are  given  by  Staudlin,  in  his  Geschichte  des  Gehetes), 
 form  a  noble  series.  How,  then,  can  it  be  possibly  maintained 
 that  prayer  was  foreign  to  this  state  of  development !  Let  a  man 
 only  be  able  to  pray,  as  Moses  did,  and  his  mind  will  soon  be 
 made  up  on  this  point. 
 
 After  we  have  stated  the  positive  justification  of  the  Ceremonial 
 Law,  we  would  briefly  review  the  accusations  that  have  been 
 brought  against  it. 
 
 I.  "  Moses  durst  not  load  with  laws  his  rude  people,  as  yet 
 accustomed  to  no  laws ;  he  must  have  satisfied  himself  with  the 
 most  necessary  and  important,  and  only  urged  compliance  with 
 these.      At  first,  the  laws  on  the  two  tables  sufficed  ;  bv  these 
 
THE  CKRKMONIAL  LAW.  511 
 
 the  points  of  greatest  moment  in  civil  life,  and  the  national 
 religion  were  secured.  What  more  could  Moses  desire  ?  How 
 much  it  must  have  cost  him  to  bring  into  regular  practice  the 
 legislation  of  the  two  tables  !  How  often  did  the  lawless  spirit 
 of  the  people  sin,  and  strive  against  himself ! "  We  have,  in  a 
 former  part  of  this  work,  proved  that  the  Israelites  were  not  the 
 "  rude,  unbridled,  nomadic  multitude,  which  tliey  are  here  set 
 forth  as  being;  see  vol.  i.  p.  400.  They  had  been  under  the 
 influence  of  Eg}^ptian  culture,  and  thus  had  been  brought  in 
 contact  with  many  points  of  the  Egyptian  Ceremonial  Law,  and, 
 in  many  respects,  under  its  influence.  For  the  symbolic  of  the 
 Egyptian  rehgion  (of  which  it  is  remarkably  characteristic  that 
 the  Egyptian  temples  are  directed,  not  towards  heaven,  but  only 
 specially  towards  the  Nile,  to  which  they  generally  present  their 
 front),  (RiTTER  Africa,^.  711)  was  elaborated  in  the  highest 
 degree.  Compare  Jablonsky  Fantheon  prol.  §  47.  Beck, 
 Weltgeschichte,  i.  767.  Ritter,  pp.  085,  708,  716,  717,  745. 
 The  whole  life  of  the  Egyptians  was  under  the  control  of  a  s}Tn- 
 bolic  Ceremonial  Law;  it  had  penetrated  deeply  into  all  civil 
 relations,  and  by  means  of  it  religion  and  legislation  were  indis- 
 solubly  connected,  (compare  Heeren,  Ideeu  Aeg.  p.  156.)  In 
 this  state  of  things,  if  Moses  had  been  favoured  with  the  good 
 advice  which  is  now  proferred  to  him,  he  could  not  have  made 
 use  of  it  although  he  had  had  around  him  those  sapient  persons 
 from  whom  it  proceeds.  He  was  placed  in  the  alternative,  either 
 of  adopting  no  legislation,  or  one  which  penetrated  into  all  the 
 folds  and  corners  of  real  life,  as  did  the  pseudo-religious  legis- 
 lation of  Egypt,  which  he  wished  to  supplant.  A  law  like  that 
 which  has  been  desired  from  him  would  have  floated  in  the  air, 
 and  never  come  into  real  use ;  it  would  have  been  unable  to  with- 
 stand the  reaction  which  would  have  proceeded  from  real  Ufe. 
 Moses  had  not  to  do  with  children,  but  with  degenerate  men ; 
 he  had  not  a  rasa  tabula  to  write  upon,  but  a  codex  rescrij)tu8  to 
 deliver.  The  superfine  scheme  of  our  modern  critics  proceeds 
 from  an  incapacity  to  transport  themselves  into  the  historical 
 relations  in  which  Moses  was  placed. 
 
 II.  ''  A  wise  legislator  cannot  and  does  not  predetermine  such 
 laws,  since  they  are  dependant  on  accidental  circumstances,  and 
 must  be  the  product  of  longer  practice,  and  continued  reflection, 
 
512  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 and,  indeed,  altogether  spontaneous,  so  that  a  prophetic  revela- 
 tion of  them  would  he  superfluous,  and  only  clog  the  course  of 
 natural  development."  Here,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  erroneously 
 taken  for  granted  that,  in  the  Mosaic  age,  no  foundation  existed 
 for  the  Ceremonial  Law,  that  Moses,  if  the  Ceremonial  Law  was  to 
 proceed  from  him,  must  have  entirely  "  invented  "  it.  The  very 
 contrary  has  been  self-evident,  and  is  proved  especially  by  these 
 symbols  of  the  Mosaic  ritual,  which  have  their  outward  analogy 
 in  the  Egyptian  religion,  as  is,  for  instance,  undeniably  the  case 
 in  the  rites  on  the  Day  of  Atonement.  It  proceeds  from  con- 
 founding the  Old  Testament  Eevelation  with  that  of  the  New,  if 
 it  is  demanded  of  the  former  that  it  should  not  exert  a  retarding 
 influence  on  the  national  course  of  development.  This  is  the 
 very  thing  which  it  had  to  effect,  since  under  the  Old  Testament 
 no  internal  operative  principle  existed,  sufficiently  powerful  to 
 sanctify  the  natural  course  of  development.  But  it  was  other- 
 w^ise  in  the  Church  of  the  New  Testament.  In  dependance  on 
 the  spirit  of  Christ,  which  animated  and  governed,  it  was  left 
 much  more  to  itself 
 
 The  way  and  manner  in  which,  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  natu- 
 ral development  is  anticipated,  is  a  sign  of  the  weakness  of  this 
 economy,  and  its  pro  visionary  character  is  a  practical  pointing  to 
 a  more  perfect  one,  but  it  w^as  justified  even  by  this  weakness. 
 Lastly,  the  opponents  of  the  Ceremonial  Law  speak  of  "  the 
 many  casuistical  and  extremely  positive  enactments,"  just  as  if 
 they  had  to  do  with  the  later  Judaism.  But  only  compare,  in 
 reference  to  a  single  point,  for  example,  the  rites  on  the  day  of 
 Atonement,  the  Mosaic  regulations,  and  those  of  the  Eabbies, 
 and  the  extravagance  of  such  an  assertion  will  be  immediately 
 seen.  The  special  cases  of  which  the  law  takes  account  are 
 always  those  which  must  at  once  present  themselves.  All  matters 
 more  remote  are  left  unnoticed.  Even  in  the  Mosaic  age  cases 
 which  were  not  provided  against  occurred,  for  which  it  was  need- 
 ful to  give  supplementary  directions,  as,  for  example,  respecting 
 the  eating  of  the  Passover  by  the  ceremonially  unclean.  But  the 
 extreme  of  casuistry  which  we  find  in  later  Judaism,  cannot  be 
 historically  derived  from  the  modern  view  of  the  agency  of  Moses. 
 A  thing  of  this  sort  never  springs  up  suddenly  ;  in  its  first 
 beginnings  we  may  trace  the  primary  basis  of  its  origin. 
 
THE  CEllEMONIAL  LAW.  513 
 
 The  hedge  round  the  Mosaic  law  requires,  for  its  historical 
 explanation,  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  law  in  its  present  form. 
 
 III.  "  For  what  end  were  ordinances  of  sin  and  trespass  offer- 
 ings, if  the  lively  consciousness  of  human  sinfulness  had  not  been 
 awakened  ?  For  what  end  were  a  multitude  of  symbolical  usages, 
 if  their  higher  meaning  was  not  at  the  same  time  revealed  ? " 
 To  the  first  interrogatory  we  answer,  they  were  ordained  in  order 
 to  awaken  the  consciousness  of  sinfulness.  The  second  question 
 arises  from  such  an  incapacity  to  transfer  the  mind  into  the  spirit  of 
 antiquity,  as  really  in  our  time  ought  no  more  to  be  expected.  To 
 the  earliest  antiquity  the  language  of  symbols  was  as  intelligible 
 as  to  us  that  of  words.  "  In  the  early  ages  of  the  human  race," 
 says  O.  Miiller,  "  men  lived  more  in  impressions  on  the  senses, 
 and  must  have  had  a  far  more  exquisite  perception  of  them ;  we 
 might  say,  that  to  them  all  nature  presented  a  physiognomy,  a 
 countenance  of  which  every  feature  and  lineament  was  full  of 
 meaning."  For  understanding  the  Mosaic  symbolic  it  was  essen- 
 tially necessary  that  those  primary  religious  intuitions  should  exist 
 which  belonged  to  that  stage  of  humanity.  Where  this  was  the 
 case,  they  were  recognised  at  once  in  the  symbols  which  were 
 then  the  natural  expressions  for  them.  Where  these  did  not 
 exist,  an  explanation  would  have  been  of  little  service. 
 
 IV.  Against  the  Divine  origin  of  the  Mosaic  Ceremonial  Law, 
 is  urged  its  agreement  with  heathen  symbols.  Just  as  when 
 it  is  objected  against  the  Divine  origin  of  the  doctrine  of  the  New 
 Testament,  that  it  is  delivered  to  us  in  the  same  language  and 
 writing  as  a  multitude  of  profane  writers  ;  or  that,  for  a  multi- 
 tude of  single  expressions  in  the  New  Testament,  very  similar 
 parallel  passages  may  be  brought  from  heathen  authors.  Only 
 a  want  of  spirituality  which,  unable  to  comprehend  the  spiritual, 
 cannot  penetrate  below  the  surface,  could  raise  this  objection. 
 
 Y.  The  prophets,  in  several  passages,  deny  to  the  Ceremonial 
 Law  a  Divine  origin,  and  all  value.  This  absurd  assertion  has 
 already  been  abundantly  refuted  by  Drechsler  {die  Umwisseii- 
 schaftlicUkeit  im  Geh.  der  alttest.  Crit.  p.  170)  and  byKuPEii 
 (Jeremias  lihrorum  sacr.  interpres  atque  vindex,  Berl.  1837, 
 p.  49.) 
 
 All  the  grounds  of  justification  which  we  have  adduced  for  the 
 Ceremonial  Law,  plead  only  for  its  reiatire  \fi\ue,  and,  therefore, 
 
 VOL.  II.  K  k 
 
514  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 contain  an  intimation  that,  under  certain  circumstances,  it  might 
 be,  nay,  must  be  aboUshed,  but  only  of  course  as  to  its  peculiar 
 form,  not  its  essence,  which  is,  Hke  its  Author,  eternal.  As  a 
 means  of  keeping  God  in  remembrance,  the  Ceremonial  Law  was 
 only  a  poor  substitute  for  the  personality  of  Christ,  and  the  inter- 
 nal operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  A  far  deeper  consciousness  of 
 sin  was  produced  by  the  exhibition  of  Christ  crucified,  and  by  the 
 spirit  which  inwardly  testified  of  him  ;  the  separation  from  the 
 Heathen  world  contradicted  the  idea  of  the  Church  of  God,  and 
 hence  could  only  be  a  good  for  a  certain  time,  and  must  necessarily 
 in  time  become  an  evil ;  external  pomp  was  a  concession  to  the 
 weakness  of  the  people  and  the  feebleness  of  their  spirituality  ; 
 lastly,  as  a  doctrine  clothed  in  symbols,  the  Ceremonial  Law 
 occupied  only  a  lower  ground.  The  most  suitable  expression  and 
 impression  of  the  Spirit  is  the  Word,  and  this  could  and  must 
 predominate  as  soon  as  the  Spirit  was  come  with  power  of  full 
 development,  an  event  which  did  not,  and  could  not,  happen  till 
 after  the  atoning  death  of  Christ.  The  want  of  an  intuitive  per- 
 ception of  religious  ideas  received  in  the  person  of  Christ  a  satis- 
 faction far  more  true  and  complete,  and  not  so  exposed  to  the 
 danger  of  abuse.  On  all  sides,  therefore,  the  designation  of  the 
 Ceremonial  Law  by  the  Apostle  as  dadevr)  koI  vrrw^j^a  (TToi')(ela 
 is  justified  without  its  ceasing  to  have  even  for  us  a  truly  edify- 
 ing character.  We  admire  in  it  the  condescension  of  God,  who 
 placed  within  reach  of  his  Church  that  essential  truth  which  they 
 could  not  yet  receive  in  a  pure  state,  in  a  vehicle  adapted  to  their 
 power  of  apprehension. 
 
 We  would  now  attempt,  by  the  explanation  of  an  entire  group 
 of  symbols,  to  bring  our  readers  to  a  clearer  understanding  of  the 
 Ceremonial  Law.  The  Tabernacle  ofiers  itself  to  us  as  the  most 
 suitable  subject  for  a  specimen  of  the  mode  of  conducting  such 
 
 For  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  the  Tabernacle  in  general,  we 
 must  first  take  notice  of  its  names.  Of  these,  two  only  are  used 
 to  express  it  generally,  ^^"^?!  ^,  Tabernacle  of  Witness,  and 
 "T''^  ^ns  Tabernacle  of  the  Conrjref/ation ;  and  of  these,  the  first 
 is  not  peculiar  to  the  Tent  itself,  but  distinguishes  it  only  by  one 
 part  of  its  contents,  of  which  the  great  importance  is  certainly 
 
THE  CEREMONIAL  T,\\V.  516 
 
 shown  by  its  being  employed  for  this  purj^oso  ;  so  Unit  oiu'  chid" 
 attention  is  turned  to  the  second.  That  this  name  does  not  refer 
 to  the  fact  that  the  Israehtes  assembled  there,  but  that  it  dis- 
 tinguishes the  Holy  Tent  as  the  place  where  God  met  with  his 
 people,  and  maintained  communion  with  them,  requires  no  proof, 
 as  it  rests  on  the  plaiu  statements  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  are 
 almost  universally  admitted. 
 
 The  declarations  of  Jehovah  at  the  first  consecration  of  the 
 Tabernacle  respecting  its  erection  and  design,  will  serve  as  a  com- 
 mentary on  its  title.  In  Exod.  xxv.  8,  it  is  said,  "  A//d  let  them 
 make  me  a  sanctuart/,  that  1  may  dwell  amonr/  them."  In 
 Exod.  xxix.  45,  46,  "  And  I  will  dwell  among  the  children  of 
 Israel  and  he  their  God.  And  tliey  shall  know  that  I  am  the 
 Lord  their  God,  that  hrought  them  forth  out  of  tlie  land  of 
 Egypt,  that  I  may  dicell  among  them;  I  am  the  Lord  their  God.' 
 
 What  was  essential  in  the  relation  of  God  to  Israel  was  the 
 covenant,  the  strict  fellowship,  into  which  God  entered  with  his 
 people,  the  connection  which  he  formed  with  it,  which  had  in,  re- 
 ference to  both  parties,  the  character  of  exclusiveness.  This 
 relation  was  in  its  nature  purely  spiritual ;  it  was  formed  before 
 the  erection  of  the  Tabernacle,  and,  considered  in  and  for  itself, 
 might  have  existed  for  ever  without  the  erection  of  a  sanctuary. 
 God's  people  could  by  faith  raise  their  hearts  to  heaven,  and  God 
 in  love  could  come  down  to  their  hearts.  But  the  conceivable 
 was  not  practicable,  owing  to  the  weakness  of  the  people.  Since 
 they  were  borne  down  by  the  visible,  God  became  to  them  a  mere 
 abstraction,  as  long  as  the  spiritual  relation  to  them  was  not  out- 
 wardly manifested  and  embodied,  and  the  danger  was  so  much 
 greater,  since  the  heathen  idols  promised  this  and  much  more  to 
 the  sensual  disposition  of  their  worshippers.  Therefore  God  con- 
 descended, and  came  in  aid  of  the  weakness  of  his  chosen.  He 
 gave  the  people,  by  means  of  the  Tabernacle,  a  pledge  of  his 
 spiritual  communion  with  them.  Here  he  dwelt,  here  the  faithiul 
 dwelt  with  him.  What  the  bodily  eye  saw  tended  to  develope  the 
 spiritual  intuition. 
 
 That  the  erection  of  the  Tabernacle  proceeded  from  the  Divine 
 condescension,  was  acknowledged  even  by  Spencer,  but  how  crude 
 were  his  conceptions  of  this  condescension  !  He  asserts,  that  the 
 gross  notions  of  the  age,  and  the  deeplv  rooted  superstition  of  the 
 
 Kk  2 
 
olG  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Heathen,  formed  llie  origin  of  the  Tabernacle,  Qiium  enim  Aer/yp' 
 tiis  aUisqiie  ffentihns  in  more  fuerit  etc,  quumque  morem  ilium 
 tollere  non  ita  promt um  essef,  hinc  deo  visum  f nit  ad  sectili 
 morem  et  moduliim  se  demittcre,  in  tahernaciilo  hahitare,  ta- 
 hernacnlum  etiam  miiiistris  siris  circumferendum  tradere.  He 
 altogether  overlooks  the  fact  that  the  Tabernacle  had  a  spiritual 
 interior,  that  it  was  the  outward  manifestation  of  a  spiritual  rela- 
 tion. In  his  view,  the  service  of  God  in  the  Tabernacle  was  not 
 a  preparatory,  imperfect  form  of  worshipping  God  in  spirit  and  in 
 truth,  but  its  direct  opposite.  God's  condescension  had  not,  for 
 him,  the  positive  object  of  developing  the  religious  principle  in  the 
 most  efficacious  manner  under  the  given  circumstances,  but  only 
 the  negative  one  of  preventing  the  people  from  seeking  to  gratify 
 their  passion  for  temples  in  the  heathen  retigions.  The  weak- 
 ness of  the  people  which  called  forth  this  condescension  on  the 
 part  of  God,  appeared  to  him  not  as  something  founded  in  human 
 nature  generally,  which,  on  account  of  the  indwelling  sin  that 
 evaporates  God  to  a  mere  abstraction,  cannot  promptly  answer  to 
 the  call  Snrsum  Corda  I — but  as  a  mere  seculi  ruditas.  He 
 considers  progressive  illumination  of  the  understanding  as  the 
 counteractive  of  this  weakness,  instead  of  perceiving,  that  it  con- 
 tinued to  exist,  and  that  the  incipient  means  of  satisfying  a  want 
 that  was  founded  in  the  nature  of  fallen  man,  can  only  be  accom- 
 plished by  that  infinitely  more  real  one  which  was  imparted  by 
 God, — tlie  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God.  He  has  no  suspicion 
 that  the  point-of-view,  for  which  the  Tabernacle  was  adopted,  w^as 
 above  his  own.  The  pious  Israelite  raised  himself  by  means  of 
 the  visible  to  the  invisible,  and  entered  into  a  real  connection 
 with  it ;  dry  Deists,  like  Spencer,  cannot,  at  the  best,  go  beyond 
 a  dry  devotion. 
 
 The  holy  Tabernacle,  or  the  Temple,  according  to  the  preceding 
 observations,  was  the  symbol  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  Israel. 
 This  meaning,  which  many  of  the  older  theologians  have  ac- 
 knowledged,* presents  itself  throughout  the  Old  Testament; 
 compare  for  example  Amos  ix.   1,  and  the  remarks  on  it  in  the 
 
 *  GeneralisRimum  omnium,  quod  significare  tahernacidum  potidt,  est  gratiosa  in- 
 hahitntinet  jnaesentia  dci  in  Tsrnele.  WiTSius,  De  Tahern.  Lcvit.  mysterria.  Misc. 
 i.  414. 
 
THE  CEREMONIAL  LAW.  h{7 
 
 Cliristolo'jie  iii.  207;  Dan.  ix.  ;2-i.,  Chrislol.  ii,  447  ;  Zoch.  vi. 
 J  2,  Christol.  ii.  76  ;  Ps.  xv.  1  ;  xxii.  6;  xxvii.  4,  in  which  tho 
 Tabernacle  and  the  Temple  appear  as  the  place  where  believers 
 dwell  with  the  Lord.  From  Lev.  xvi.  10,  it  follows  that  the 
 Israelites,  "  in  all  their  si/is,"  dwelt  with  God  in  the  Tabernacle, 
 and  on  this  was  founded  the  necessity  of  a  purification.  In  the 
 New  Testament  the  temple  is  spoken  of  as  the  spiritual  residence 
 of  the  whole  nation,  tSov  a^/erat  vfilv  6  oIko^  v/jlwv  ep?7//,09  Matt. 
 xxiii  38,  and  the  meaning  of  Christ's  purification  of  the  Temple 
 by  the  expulsion  of  the  buyers  and  sellers,  cannot  be  understood 
 unless  we  regard  the  Temple  as  the  material  representation  of  the 
 kingdom  of  God  in  Israel.  From  this  mode  of  considering  it,  we 
 see  at  once  why  the  sanctuary  at  first  had  the  form  of  a  tent. 
 If  the  question  related  merely  to  the  jwr la bili///  of  the  sanctuary, 
 it  would  be  inadmissible,  to  seek  for  an  internal  ground  of  explana- 
 tion ;  for  this  would  be  given  by  the  outward  circumstances  of 
 the  Israelites  at  the  time  of  erecting  the  sanctuary.  But  that  the 
 form  of  a  tent  was  prescribed  so  definitely  for  the  portable  sanctu- 
 ary (compare  Exod.  xxvi.  7,  "And  thou  s1ia.lt  make  curtains 
 of  goats  hair  to  he  a  covering  upon  the  Tahernacle')^  can  be 
 explained  on  no  outward  grounds,  since  the  curtains  of  goats' 
 hair  serve  neither  for  ornament,  which  was  efiected  by  the  cur- 
 tains of  Byssus,  nor  for  protection,  which  was  secured  much  more 
 efiectually  by  the  curtains  of  leather.  God  wished  to  resemble  in 
 all  things  the  people  among  whom  he  dwelt.  The  form  of  the 
 Tabernacle  was  retained  for  a  considerable  time  after  the  Israelites 
 had  obtained  a  permanent  dwelling-place,  but  only  because  it  was 
 still  provisional.  Had  the  sanctuary  not  been  erected  till  their 
 residence  in  Canaan,  it  would  not  have  had  the  form  of  a  tent. 
 Its  having  this  form,  shows  incontrovertibly  that  it  was  first 
 erected  during  the  march  through  the  wilderness. 
 
 On  that  which  the  Israelitish  sanctuary  signified,  is  founded 
 what  it  pre-signified.  The  establishment  of  the  symbohc  mean- 
 ing must  furnish  us  with  the  key  for  understanding  the  allusions 
 of  the  New  Testament  in  reference  to  the  typical  meaning ;  and 
 again,  what  we  learn  from  the  New  Testament  in  reference  to  the 
 typical  meaning  must  serve  to  confirm  the  determination  of  the 
 symbolic  meaning. 
 
 If  the  union  of  God  witli  his  people  formed  the  essential  signi- 
 
518  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 ticance  of  the  sanctuary,  then  must  tlie  appearance  of  Christ 
 he  related  to  it  as  the  hody  to  tlie  sliadow.  By  the  Incarnation, 
 God  truly  and  really  dwelt  among  his  people ;  taking  flesh 
 and  blood  among  them,  and  of  them.  The  typical  relation 
 which  the  Tahernacle  bears  to  the  appearance  of  Christ  is  in- 
 dicated by  John  in  ch.  i.  14,  6  \6jo<^  aap^  iyevero  koL  icrKrj 
 vcocrev  ev  rj/julv.  An  allusion  to  the  Iti  and  a  reference  to  the 
 Tabernacle  are  both  contained  in  the  word  aKi]vovu.  "  In 
 the  Hellenistic  language,"  Lampe  remarks,  <7K7]vovv  is  "  tcflis 
 liahitatio-qiialem  olim  dens  licihait  in  tahernacido  et  sanctuario 
 V.  T.  Quatcr  tantum  in  N.  T.  et  nonnisi  a  nostro  Evangelista 
 hoc  verhurn  usurpaiur.  Apoc.  vii.  15;  xii.  12;  xiii.  6;  xxi.  8; 
 sed  semper  hue  resj/iciHir.  Eodem  sensti  pro  -^ii  de  fresentia  Je- 
 hovae  in  tuber naculo  aKrjvovv  nsiirpavit  Aq.  Symm.  Theodot. 
 Exod.  xxiv.  16  ;  xxv.  8.  A  similar  allusion  occurs  in  Col.  ii.  9, 
 OTL  iv  avTco  KaT0CK6L  irav  to  ifKrjpwjJba  t7]<;  OeoTrjTO'^  a(o/jiaTiKoo<;, 
 where  Christ  is  pointed  out  as  the  true  -v.io  ^nx.  So  also  Col.  i. 
 19,  OTL  iv  avTCi)  evhoKTjcre  Trav  to  TrXripco/jLa  KaTOLKrja-at,  on  which 
 Steiger  remarks,  "  Not  without  reason  we  may  compare  with  this, 
 the  "liu;  which  once  was  used  by  Him  who  condescended  to  inhabit 
 the  Sheckinah  in  the  Temple  on  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant."  As 
 all  the  types  are  practical  prophecies,  so  also  the  lower  form  of 
 God's  communion  with  his  people,  as  it  existed  under  the  Old  Cove- 
 nant, points  to  a  higher  and  more  perfect  one  to  be  expected  in  the 
 future,  as  it  was  reahsed  in  and  with  the  appearance  of  Christ. 
 
 If  the  sanctuary  was  the  symbol  of  the  kingdom  of  God  under 
 the  Old  Covenant,  it  must  be  prefigurative  of  the  indwelling  of 
 God  through  Christ  in  the  congregation  of  the  New  Covenant, 
 the  Christian  Church,  in  which  henceforward  the  union  of  divi- 
 nity and  humanity  is  completed.  The  passages  of  the  New  Tes- 
 tament are  numerous,  in  which  the  Church  is  contemplated  as  the 
 antitype  of  the  Tabernacle  and  the  Temple,  so  that  it  may  truly  be 
 said  that  it  is  one  of  the  leading  representations  of  the  New  Tes- 
 tament. When  Christ  in  Matt,  xxviii.  20,  says  kol  ISov  iycb 
 fxeO'  vfjLcov  el/jbL  Tracra?  ra?  Ta9  rj/xepa^  ew?  Trj<;  avvT€\eia<;  tov 
 aloivo^,  he  in  fact  declares  his  Church  is  a  spiritual  "  Tabernacle 
 of  the  Gongregationy  But  the  Church  is  expressly  stated  to  be 
 the  antitype  of  the  Old  Testament  sanctuary,  in  1  Tim.  iii.  15  ;  ha 
 et8^9  7rftJ9  Set  eV  oUtii  Oeov  ai'aaTpe<f>eo-6ac,  tjti^  eaTtv  eKKkiicna 
 
THE  CEREiMONIAL  LAW.  519 
 
 Oeov  ^MVTO^  ;  and  in  2  Cor.  vi.  IG,  rt?  he  av<yKaTd6e<7L<i  vaa> 
 Oeov  fiera  elScoXwv  ;  vfM€t^  yap  vao'^  Oeov  eare  ^wi^to?*  Kadco<; 
 elirev  6  deo^'  on  evoiKi^crw  iv  avrol'^  kol  e/jLTrepiTraTriao)  koX  ecro- 
 fiai  avTcov  ^eo?  Kal  avrol  eaovrai  jjuoi  \ao<;.  (Levit.  xxvi.  11,  12), 
 compare  Epli.  ii.  21,  22.  Individual  believers  also  are  considered 
 as  antitypes  of  the  Old  Testament  sanctuary,  since  God  dwells 
 in  them  by  his  Spirit;  compai-e  1  Cor.  vi.  10  ;  rj  ovk  olSare  ore 
 TO  acb/jLa  vfJLWv  vao^  rod  iv  vjjuv  dytov  7rvev/jbaT0<;  iariv  ;  iii.  9  ; 
 Ephes.  iii.  17.  Since  in  the  Church  militant  the  presence  of  God 
 is  not  yet  perfectly  realized,  so  in  some  passages  the  Church  tri- 
 umphant is  contemplated  as  the  only  full  antitype  of  the  Old 
 Testament  type.  Thus  Eevel.  xxi.  3,  Kal  ijKovcra  (pcovi]^  fieyd- 
 \7]<i  i/c  Tov  ovpavov  Xeyovarj^'  ISov  rj  a-Krjvr)  rod  Oeov  fjuera  roov  av- 
 OpwTTwv,  Kal  aKTivcDaet  jjuer  avrcov,  Kal  avrol  \ao<i  avrov  eaovrac, 
 Kal  avro'^  6  6eo<;  earai  fier  avrcov,  6eo<i  avrcov.    Compare  ver.  22. 
 
 From  the  preceding  remarks  we  obtain  the  solution  of  the 
 sacred  enigma  w^hich  the  Saviour  propounded  to  the  Jews  in  John 
 ii.  19  ;  \vaare  rov  vaov  rovrov  Kal  iv  rptalv  rjfiepa/j,  iyepo) 
 avrov,  on  which  labour  is  bestowed  in  vain,  as  long  as  the  essen- 
 tial identity  of  the  Temple— the  appearance  of  Christ  in  the  flesh 
 — and  the  Church  of  the  New  Testament,  is  not  acknowledged. 
 "  If  ye  hereafter  (what  you  imsk  to  do,  that  you  are  to  do)  de- 
 stroy the  temple  of  my  body,  and  in  and  with  it  this  outward 
 temple,  the  symbol  and  pledge  of  the  kingdom  of  God  among 
 you,  I  will  within  three  days  raise  up  again  the  temple  of  my 
 body,  and  in  and  with  it  what  is  essential  of  the  outward  temple 
 (that  which  the  outward  temple  symbohsed),  the  kingdom  of  God. 
 To  do  what  I  am  now  doing,  may  be  to  you  a  sign  of  my  being 
 authorized.  He  with  whom  the  kingdom  of  God  is  most  inti- 
 mately blended,  with  whom  it  falls  and  rises,  is  thereby  legiti- 
 mated as  a  Reformer." 
 
 That  John  admitted  a  close  connection  between  the  appeai-ance 
 of  Christ  and  the  Temple,  is  evident  from  John  i.  14.  That  even 
 to  the  crude  Jewish  understanding,  the  identity  of  the  material 
 temple  and  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  was  not  altogether  strange, 
 is  shown  in  Mark  xiv.  58,  where  the  witnesses  repeat  the  words 
 of  Christ,  on  iyco  KaraXvaco  rov  vaov  rovrov  rov  ^eipoiroir^rov 
 Kal  hid  rpccov  rj/iepcov  dXkov  d')(eipo7roirirov  oUohofMijaco.  This 
 mode  of  apprehending  the  facts  (apart  from  the  malicious  misre- 
 presentation of  substituting  ejco  Kara\vaco  for  Xvcrare)  is  correct, 
 
520  THEOLOGY  OF  THK  PENTATEUCH, 
 
 only  not  complete.  Of  the  three  references,  only  two  are  noticed  ; 
 the  third,  that  of  the  body  of  Christ,  is  overlooked.  This  is 
 brought  forward  by  John  in  his  allusive  manner,  as  the  most 
 obscure,  and  only  a  misapprehension  of  his  common  method  in 
 such  cases  could  lead  to  the  mistake  that  he  wished  to  deriy  the 
 two  others.  The  reference  brought  forward  by  John,  can  never 
 be  set  aside,  on  account  of  the  phrase,  "  three  clai/s,''  which,  in 
 spite  of  every  attempt,  must  remain  as  a  proof  of  the  reference  to 
 the  resurrection. 
 
 As  the  sacred  tent  was  the  place  where  God  and  his  people 
 met,  it  was  necessarily  divided  into  two  principal  parts,  according 
 to  its  occupants  ;  since  an  undivided  occupancy  w^ould  not  have 
 corresponded  to  the  stage,  at  that  period,  of  the  dispensation  of 
 salvation.  The  Most  Holy  Place  belonged  to  God ;  the  Holy 
 Place  to  the  people.  But  since  the  coming  into  immediate  con- 
 tact with  God's  seat,  might  have  w^eakened  the  reverence  of  the 
 people  in  his  presence,  and  the  res  sacrae  that  were  performed  in 
 the  holy  place  might  have  lost  their  importance  by  constant  inter- 
 course, and  have  been  desecrated,  since  it  was  not  yet  the  time  for 
 the  people  to  converse  immediately  wdth  God,  but  it  v/as  needful 
 to  restrain  them  outwardly  by  a  mediatorial  arrangement,  within 
 bounds  which  they  knaw  not  yet  how  to  keep  internally  ; — the 
 people  entered  the  part  which  was  peculiarly  theirs,  through 
 the  medium  of  their  representatives  and  mediators,  the  priests, 
 and  it  was  necessary  to  provide  a  real  place  of  meeting  for  the 
 people  besides  the  ideal.     This  was  the  court  of  the  Tabernacle. 
 
 The  various  articles  of  furniture  belonging  to  the  Tabernacle 
 were  so  distributed,  that  those  in  the  most  holy  place  typified 
 the  relation  of  God  to  the  people — those  in  the  place  set  apart  for 
 the  people,  the  relation  of  the  people  to  God,  and  therefore  the 
 utensils,  in  reference  to  w^liich  the  priests  acted  for  the  people, 
 stood  in  the  holy  place  ;  and  the  apparatus,  in  wdiich  the  imme- 
 diate agency  of  the  people  was  employed  (the  altar  of  burnt- 
 offerings)  in  the  court  of  the  Tabernacle. 
 
 Before  we  proceed  to  the  explanation  of  individual  articles,  we 
 must  set  aside  an  erroneous  explanation  of  the  whole  of  the  Tabei'- 
 nacle,  which  would  supplant  the  correct  one  that  we  have  just 
 given  ;  and  then  make  some  remarks  on  the  materials  of  which 
 the  Tabernacle  was  composed. 
 
 As  to  what  concerns  the  former,  Bakr  (Sf/wh.  des  Mas.  CuUus) 
 
THE  CEREMONIAL  LAW.  521 
 
 has  tried  his  utmost  to  estahhsh  the  opinion,  that  the  Mosaic 
 place  of  worship  was  a  representation  of  God's  creation,  and  that 
 his  pecuHar  dwelhng,  the  most  holy,  and  the  holy  place,  repre- 
 sented heaven,  and  the  court  the  earth.  It  is,  in  the  first  place, 
 unfavourable  to  this  theory,  that  it  is  not  supported  by  a  single 
 passage  of  Scripture.  The  older  theologians  distinguished  be- 
 tween the  iijpi  innati,  those  of  which  the  explanation  is  given 
 in  Scriptnre,  and  ti/pi  illati,  the  meaning  of  which  philosophy, 
 bereft  of  the  aid  of  Scripture,  endeavours  to  establish  by  its 
 own  eflorts,  with  always  more  or  less  of  uncertainty.  If  we 
 transfer  this  distinction  to  the  symbols,  we  have  here  to  do, 
 in  the  strictest  sense,  with  a  si/mhohfin  illatum.  Tliis  reason 
 is  of  so  much  greater  force,  in  proportion  to  the  importance  of 
 the  Mosaic  sanctuary.  It  cannot  be  supposed,  that  a  mean- 
 ing which  really  belongs  to  it  should  not  be  brought  forward 
 in  Scripture  strongly  and  repeatedly.  ]\Ioreover,  as  we  have 
 already  pointed  out,  this  is  actually  the  case  in  reference  to  ano- 
 ther meaning.  This  is  of  more  importance,  since,  in  symbols,  as 
 well  as  in  the  written  word,  the  signification  can  only  be  one, 
 although  the  analogies,  things  vdiich,  in  some  one  respect,  pre- 
 sent a  tertium  co)ni)aratio)iis,  may  be  very  manifold,  so  that  all 
 the  passages  which  are  in  favour  of  the  signification  maintained 
 by  us  bear  testimony,  at  the  same  time,  against  that  proposed  by 
 Bahr.  Bahr  thinks,  indeed,  that  he  can  adduce  one  passage  of 
 Scripture  in  support  of  his  views.  "  That  the  part  in  which  God 
 dwelt,"  he  says,  "  was  a  type  of  heaven,  the  Holy  Scripture  asserts 
 in  express  terms,  Heb.  ix.  2  ;  xi.  21."  But  this  testimony,  at  all 
 events,  lends  no  countenance  to  the  pecuhar  characteristic  of  his 
 views — the  assertion  that  the  holy  place  in  relation  to  the  court, 
 =  heaven  in  relation  to  earth.  Likewise  the  indirect  evidence, 
 which  Batir  tries  to  adduce  for  his  theory,  on  closer  examination, 
 appears  invalid.  He  remarks,  p.  78,  "  According  to  a  represen- 
 tation common  to  all  raations,  but  of  peculiar  frccpency  among 
 the  Hebrews,  the  creation  of  heaven  and  earth  is  the  building- 
 erected  by  God,  the  house  wherein  he  dwells  ;"  and  p.  79,  "  We 
 have,  indeed,  no  passage  of  Scripture  which,  in  so  many  words, 
 speaks  of  the  Mosaic  place  of  worship  as  a  typical  representation 
 of  God's  creation  ;  but  of  this  there  is  no  need,  since  the  passages 
 quoted  respecting  the  creation  as  the  building  and  habitation  of 
 
522  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 God  are  sufficient  for  tlic  pai-pose."  We  main  tain,  on  the  con- 
 trary, and  a  glance  at  the  passages  quoted  will  justify  our  asser- 
 tion, that,  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  creative  agency  of  God  is, 
 indeed,  often  presented  under  the  image  of  huilding  ;  heaven  and 
 earth  appear  as  a  huilding  framed  by  God  ;  hut  in  all  Scripture 
 not  a  single  passage  can  be  found  in  which  the  universe  is  desig- 
 nated as  the  building,  the  habitation  of  God.  Bahr's  view  is 
 therefore  entirely  without  foundation.  Bahr  tries,  indeed,  to  find 
 a  support  for  his  view  in  the  "  very  ancient  Jewish  tradition,  that 
 the  sacred  structure  represented  the  creation  of  the  heavens  and 
 the  earth."  But  the  earliest  vouchers  for  this  "  very  ancient 
 tradition  "  are  Philo  and  Josephus,  and  whatever  is  found  first 
 in  these  is,  in  general,  not  "  very  ancient^'  but  nevdy  coined. 
 If  we  look  at  the  further  exposition  of  this  meaning  in  their  writ- 
 ings, we  can  be  in  no  doubt  as  to  its  origin.  It  was  not  the 
 growth  of  the  pure  Israelitish  soil,  but  a  product  of  Hellenistic 
 Syncretism — an  attempt  of  those  who  partially  stood  on  heathen 
 ground,  to  conceal,  with  some  fragments  stolen  from  natural  reli- 
 lion,  the  pure  ethical  character  of  the  Israelitish  religion,  which 
 was  so  distasteful  to  the  heathen.  These  remarks  may  suffice. 
 We  have  only  further  to  notice,  that  Bahr  gives  no  satisfactory 
 reason  for  the  separation  of  the  Most  Holy  and  the  Holy  Place, 
 and  particularly,  that,  to  favour  his  hypothesis,  he  must  force  an 
 erroneous  meaning  on  all  the  sacred  utensils.  On  this  account, 
 it  is  so  important  to  be  convinced  of  the  groundlessness  of  this 
 hypothesis,  since,  till  it  is  relinquished,  no  correct  explanation 
 can  be  given  of  the  individual  utensils. 
 
 As  to  what  concerns  the  materials  of  the  Tabernacle,  we  deny, 
 in  opposition  to  Bahr,  that  any  symbolical  tendency  regulated 
 their  choice.  Such  wood  was  taken  as  was  at  command  ;  the  most 
 splendid  and  choice  colours,  and  the  most  precious  metals  in  which 
 there  is  a  slight  beginning  of  a  symbolical  tendency,  in  their  na- 
 tural rank,  so  that  the  noblest  parts  were  made  of  the  noblest 
 metals.  It  would  not  be  difficult  for  us  to  dispose  of  everything 
 by  which  Bahr  has  endeavoured  to  establish  the  symbolic  mean- 
 ing of  the  materials.  But  we  would  here  confine  ourselves  to  a 
 single  point.  The  wood  used  in  the  Tabernacle  w^as  throughout 
 Shittim  or  Acacia  wood.  "  It  is  very  remarkable,"  says  Bahr, 
 "  that  the  Scriptural  records  not  only  mention  this  wood  as  em- 
 
THE  CEREMONIAL  LAW..  ^2S 
 
 ployed  for  tlio  building  itself,  but  for  all  the  utensils."  Accord- 
 ing to  Lini,  the  Shittim  wood,  as  being  undecaying,  was  considered 
 as  a  tree  of  life,  and  thus  gave  to  the  structure  the  character  of  a 
 place  of  life.  We  would  not  insist  any  further  upon  this  mean- 
 ing as  being  so  farfetched,  but  confine  ourselves  to  two  remarks, 
 which  may  here  suffice,  (i.)  We  should  only  be  justified  in 
 attempting  to  fix  a  symbolic  meaning  on  the  Hhittim  wood,  if 
 there  had  existed  a  choice  betw^een  different  kinds  of  wood.  But 
 since  the  Acacia  wood  is  the  only  w^ood  to  be  found  in  the  Ara- 
 bian desert,  from  which  planks  or  rafters  would  be  cut,  how  can 
 it  be  remarkable  that  this  wood,  and  only  this,  was  taken  ?  We 
 may  observe,  by  the  way,  that  the  choice  of  the  Acacia  wood,  not 
 only  for  the  Tabernacle,  but  for  the  utensils,  can  only  be  accounted 
 for  on  the  supposition  of  the  Tabernacle's  being  constructed  dur- 
 ing the  march  through  the  wilderness.  The  vain  attempts  of  many 
 expositors  to  change  the  Acacia  wood  into  cedar,  show  what  must 
 be  expected  if  we  keep  out  of  sight  the  place  where  the  Tabernacle 
 w^as  originated,  (ii.)  Had  the  Shittim  wood  been  significant,  it 
 would  have  been  found  again  in  the  Temple.  That  there  its  place 
 was  taken  by  the  cedar,  shows  that  the  choice  of  it  was  not  deter- 
 mined by  internal  reasons,  but  by  outward  circumstances.  In 
 general,  it  may  be  laid  down  as  a  rule,  that  everything  in  the 
 Temple  which  differed  fi'om  the  Tabernacle  must  have  been  acci- 
 dental and  external.  Had  Bahr  kept  this  in  view,  he  would 
 more  frequently  have  made  comparisons  with  the  Temple.  The 
 colours,  according  to  Bahr,  must  denote  the  names  of  God.  But 
 bow  could  this  be,  since  the  colours  do  not  occm'  in  a  direct  rela- 
 tion to  God,  and  since  the  qualities  alleged  to  be  indicated  by 
 these  colours  would  be  naturally  attributed  to  the  person  who  wore 
 them.  It  is  a  totally  different  thing  when  heathen  idols  are 
 adorned  with  colours.  Further,  the  meaning  of  the  names  is  de- 
 termined in  part  erroneously  ;  for  example,  that  of  Elohim,  which 
 is  to  designate  God  as  King  of  Israel,  and  to  which  the  purple 
 must  correspond,  of  which  one  name,  The  Living  One,  never  ap- 
 pears in  the  Pentateuch  as  such ;  the  connection  between  names 
 and  colours  is,  in  general,  arbitrarily  taken,  kc. 
 
 We  now  pass  on  to  the  explanation  of  particular  utensils  ;  first 
 of  all,  those  in  the  Most  Holy  Place,  which,  as  we  have  already 
 remarked,  typified  the  relation  of  God  to  his  people.     Here  only 
 
524  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 one  article  of  furniture  is  found,  the  Ark  of  the  CovencDit,  but 
 composed  of  several  parts  and  including  various  other  articles. 
 First  of  all,  we  have  to  notice  the  ark  in  the  stricter  sense,  but 
 which  owes  all  its  importance  to  its  contents  ;  it  is  merely  to  be 
 considered  as  the  repository  of  the  tables  of  the  law.  What  sig- 
 nification is  attached  to  these  is  clear  from  the  name  which  they 
 invariably  beai',  when  spoken  of  as  a  component  part  of  the  Ark 
 of  the  Covenant.  They  are  called  ^^~'i,  testimonies.  But  this 
 name  of  all  others  needs  to  be  guarded  against  those  erroneous 
 explanations  which  have  acquired  an  absolute  predominance. 
 
 According  to  the  current  opinion  ^^"^l  denotes  the  law  as  a  tes- 
 timony of  the  Divine  will.  Bahr  goes  a  step  further  ;  according 
 to  him  ^^'Z  means  revelation  generally,  and  the  law  is  not  as  such 
 called  ^^"?!,  but  only  as  Divine  revelation.  We  maintain,  on  the 
 contrary,  that  the  law  generally,  and  its  quintessence  the  Deca- 
 logue, is  so  called  only  with  a  special  reference,  only  so  far  a  tes- 
 timony as  it  is  a  testimony  against  sin  and  sinners  ;  eke'^xeu  top 
 Koa/jbov  irepl  ajjuapria^.  Our  reasons  are  the  following — (i.)  In 
 Deut.  xxxi.  26,27,  the  purpose  of  testifjdng  against  Israel  is  attri- 
 buted to  the  whole  law,  "  Take  this  book  of  the  law,  and  put  it 
 in  the  side  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  of  the  Lord  your  God,  that 
 it  may  he  therefor  a  loit  ness  '^t^.  ag  ainst  the  e;  for  I  know 
 thy  reheUion."  What  is  here  said  in  reference  to  the  use  of  the 
 commentary  or  paraphrase,  must  apply  also  to  the  text,  the  ori- 
 ginal outHne.  Externally  and  internally  the  book  of  the  law  was 
 supplementary  to  the  tables  of  the  law.  Deut.  xxxi.  19,  is  also 
 to  be  regarded  as  an  explanation  of  nmy,  "  Notv  therefore  icrite 
 ye  this  song  for  you,  ....  that  this  song  may  he  a 
 witness  for  me  against  t/te  cliildr en  of  Israel." 
 (ii.)  T\\Qform  of  the  law  leads  us  to  consider  it  as  a  witness 
 against  sinners,  as  avafivijai^  d/jbapncov.  Only  in  this  way  can 
 its  thoroughly  preponderating  negative  character  be  accounted 
 for.  It  assumes  that  in  those  persons  to  whom  the  law  was  given, 
 there  was  an  inclination  adverse  to  the  law.  With  every  "  Thou 
 shall  not,"  an  invisible  clause  is  to  be  suppHed — "  as  thy  cor- 
 rupt heart  is  inclined."  (iii.)  But  (which  alone  is  an  adequate 
 reason),  ^^'^.  stands  everywhere  in  a  precise  relation  to  '^"-?,  and 
 this  relation,  as  it  serves  to  confirm  the  view  which  is  otherwise 
 supported   by  irrefragable    arguments,    that    KArroKETH  means 
 
THE  CEREMONIAL  LAW.  o2-) 
 
 corerf/ff/  in  a  spiritual  sense,  e.vj^idtioii  (compare  Bahr,  p.  381, 
 a  very  successful  demonstration)  so  also  it  requires  for  ^-"V.  the 
 meaning  of  witness  in  the  sense  we  have  stated.  As  outwardly 
 the  Kam)oreth  covered  the  Eduth,  so  also  inwardly  and  spiritually. 
 By  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the  accusation  and  condemnation  of 
 the  law  are  for  the  penitent  reduced  to  silence.  Only  compare 
 Exod.  XXV.  17,  "  A)id  thou  shaJt  make  a  Kapporeth  (mercy- 
 seat,  Eng.  A.  Y.)  of  pure  gold;  21,  And  thou  shalt  put  the 
 Kappo  reth  above,  tipon  the  ark  ;  and  in  the  ark  thou  shalt 
 p)Ut  the  Eduth  that  I  shall  give  thee ;  22,  And  there  I  will 
 meet  with  thee,  and  I  will  commune  with  thee  from  above 
 the  Kapporeth,  from  between  the  tico  cherubims,  which 
 are  on  the  ark  of  the  E  duth."  Lev.  xvi.  13,  ''And  he  shall 
 put  the  incense  upon  the  fire  before  the  Lord,  that  the  cloud 
 of  the  incense  may  cover  the  Kapporeth,  which  is  above 
 the  Eduth  ,  that  he  die  not." 
 
 After  this  investigation,  the  meaning  of  the  ark  with  the  testi- 
 mony  (or  ivitness)  can  be  no  longer  doubtful.  That  aspect  of 
 the  Divine  character  which  first  of  all  presents  itself,  when  the 
 holy  God  enters  into  connection  with  sinful  men,  is  his  holiness 
 and  justice.  Accusation,  punishment,  condemnation,  are  the  first 
 sounds  that  are  uttered.  Were  God  merely  just,  no  further  pro- 
 gress could  be  made  ;  for  in  that  case  no  union  of  God  with  man 
 could  be  formed.  In  God's  declaration  that  he  was  willing  to 
 enter  into  such  an  union  with  Israel,  it  was  implied  that  if  the 
 Eduth  fulfilled  its  design  in  his  people,  if  it  lead  them  to  a  true 
 knowledge  of  their  sins  and  to  repentance,  he  would  secure  them 
 from  all  alarm  on  account  of  it. 
 
 The  indispensable  condition  of  every  connection  of  God  with 
 men,  the  foundation  of  his  dwelling  among  them,  is  his  recon- 
 ciling Divine  compassion.  This,  as  we  have  already  intimated, 
 was  typified  by  the  Kapporeth.  As,  outwardly,  the  Kapporeth 
 covered  the  Ark  with  the  Eduth,  so,  spiritually,  the  Divine  com- 
 passion covered  the  multitude  of  sins.  The  n^ss  was  to  serve  as 
 an  encouragement  to  Israel  to  approach  heartily  to  God.  Its 
 language  was — Trpoaep'^wybeQa  [xera  7rappi]aLa<;  tw  Opovw  rrj^ 
 ')(apLTO<;,  Xva  \dp(DiJb€v  eXeov  Kal  %apt^'  evpco/jL€v  et?  evKacpov  Porj- 
 Oiav.  It  was  outwardly,  and  inwardly,  more  distinguished  than 
 the  Ark  strictly  so  called  ;    outwardly,  for  it  was  altogether  of 
 
52 G  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 pure  gold — the  Ark  was  only  overlaid  with  gold  ;  inwardly,  for 
 in  Exod.  xxv.  22,  it  is  marked  as  that  which  made  the  Taber- 
 nacle -T.'o  Vns  ;  ''  And  tJiere  I  unll  meet  thee,  and  I  will  com- 
 mune with  thee  from  above  the  mercy  seat,  from  hetiveen  the 
 two  cheruhims  icliich  are  uj)on  the  ark  of  the  testimony,  of  all 
 things  which  I  will  give  thee  in  commandment  unto  the  child- 
 ren of  Israel:'  By  means  of  it  atonement  is  pointed  out  as 
 fundamental  in  the  relation  of  God  to  his  people.  The  words  in 
 which  God  describes  his  character  in  relation  to  Israel  (Exod. 
 xxxiv.  6)  form  a  commentary  on  its  name.  ''  Jehovah,  Jehovah, 
 God,  merciful  and  gracious,  long  suffering,  and  abundant  in 
 goodness  and  truth,  keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving 
 iniquity,  and  transgresMon,  and  sin,  and  lie  will  not  destroy 
 '^9T.  ^'  ^i!-";.  To  the  Kapjioreth  all  the  sin-offerings  and  trespass- 
 offerings  stood  in  the  closest  relation.  It  formed  their  objective 
 foundation,  and  served  to  invite  and  justify  their  presentation. 
 What  externally  was  performed  only  once  every  year,  on  the 
 occasion  of  the  great  sin  offerings,  on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  the 
 sprinkling  of  blood  before  the  Kapj)oreth,  spiritually  took  place 
 with  all  sin-offerings.  No  exegetical  arts  can  do  away  the  idea 
 that  the  Law,  as  accusatory  and  condemnatory,  was  covered  and 
 abolished  by  the  Kaj)poreth.  The  temptation  to  apply  such  tor- 
 tuous methods  can  only  be  felt  when  persons  (like  Bahr)  affixing 
 an  erroneous  meaning  to  n^-y,  refer  to  the  Law  in  general,  what 
 is  true  of  it  only  in  a  particular  quality — (here  the  Apostle's  lan- 
 guage applies,  vofjiov  ovv  fcarapyov/jiev  Boa  tt)?  TrtcrTect)?  ;  yu,^;  <yi- 
 voLTO'  dWa  vojjiov  [aTcofjbev.  llom.  iii.  31) — and  when,  through 
 fear  that  grace  should  lead  to  licentiousness,  one  loses  sight  of 
 the  real  nature  of  grace.  Forgiveness,  which  belongs  only  to 
 those  to  whom  the  law  has  done  its  office  as  witness,  is  the  only 
 means  by  which  hatred  of  sin,  the  fear  and  love  of  God,  can  be 
 called  forth  deeply  and  abidingly.  Man  loves  unforgiven  sin,  he 
 hates  forgiven  sin.  ''  There  is  forgivetiess  ivith  thee,  that  thou 
 may  est  be  feared!'     Ps.  cxxx.  4. 
 
 On  the  Kapporeth  God  was  enthroned  as  Israel's  God  between 
 the  two  cherubs.  Bahr  has  very  well  developed  the  significance 
 of  the  cherubim  ;  indeed  this  is  perhaps  the  most  successful  effort 
 in  his  whole  work.  The  cherub  is  the  creature  in  idea,  the  creation 
 personified,  and,  therefore,  a  witness  of  the  glory  of  God  which 
 
THE  CEREMONIAL  LAW.  527 
 
 beams  forth  in  tlie  creation.  The  enthroning  of  God  between 
 the  cherubim  hence  expresses  in  an  image  the  same  thing  as  in 
 words,  the  name  of  God,  The  Lord  of  Hosts  ;  Israel's  God  is 
 the  God  of  the  Universe,  the  Almighty.  "  Toward  the  Kap- 
 poreth  shall  the  faces  of  the  cherubim  be."  Exod.  xxv,  20. 
 The  explanation  of  this  arrangement  is  ascertained  for  us  in  1 
 Peter  i.  12,  where  it  is  said  of  the  mystery  of  redemption,  eU  a 
 67rt6vfjLovatv  dyyeXoi  7rapaKV^\rai.  That  the  personified  creation 
 fixed  a  constant  gaze  on  the  mercy-seat,  indicated  that  Grace  is 
 the  most  adorable  mystery,  the  most  glorious  unfolding  of  the 
 Divine  perfections. 
 
 Thus,  therefore,  the  furniture  of  the  Most  Holy  Place  repre- 
 sented those  perfections  of  God  which  are  imfolded  most  fully  in 
 his  revelation  —  his  omnipotence,  holiness,  and  grace.  The 
 Almighty  God  is  exliibited  as  the  enemy  of  sin — the  second  part 
 of  the  description  of  his  character  in  Exod.  xxxiv.  G,  7,  "  visit- 
 iiig  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  on  the  children,  and  upon 
 the  children  s  children,  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation," 
 forms  a  commentary  on  the  inny,  which  remains  in  full  force 
 against  those  wdio  have  slighted  the  testimony  of  the  law — and 
 as  the  pardoner  of  sin,  wdiich  is  closely  connected  with  the 
 former,  for  from  the  hatred  of  God  against  sin  proceeds  the 
 expiation  of  sin. 
 
 We  now  turn  from  the  Most  Holy  to  the  Holy  Place.  We 
 have  already  remarked,  that  as  the  furniture  of  the  Most  Holy 
 Place  denotes  God's  character  in  his  relation  to  Israel,  so  the 
 furniture  of  the  Holy  Place  denotes  Israel's  character  in  relation 
 to  God.  We  have  here  to  speak  of  the  altar  of  incense,  the 
 sacred  candlestick,  and  the  table  with  the  shew-bread. 
 
 Not  a  doubt  cau  exist  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  Altar  of 
 Incense.  It  distinguishes  the  people  of  the  Covenant  as  a  people 
 of  prayer ;  it  cries  aloud  to  Israel,  "  Prat/  ivithout  ceasing  !" 
 The  burning  of  the  sweet- smelhng  Incense  is,  in  Scripture,  the 
 standing  symbol  of  the  prayers  of  believers,  which  is  pleasing 
 before  God.  This  meaning  appears  in  the  law^  itself,  in  Lev.  xvi. 
 13,  where  it  is  said  of  the  entrance  of  the  High  Priest  into  the 
 Holy  of  HoHes  on  the  great  day  of  Atonement — "  And  he  shall 
 put  the  incense  on  Ihejire  before  the  Lord,  that  the  cloud  of  the 
 incense  may  cover  the  mercy- seat  that  is  upon  the  testimony, 
 
528  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATliUCH. 
 
 tliat  lie  (lie  tioC — words  which,  according  to  a  simple  exphiiia- 
 tion,  mean — Prayer,  founded  on  the  atoning  and  sin-covering  grace 
 of  God,  is  the  only  means  of  escaping  the  destruction  which  the 
 law,  testifying  against  transgression,  hrings  upon  the  sinner.  In 
 Psalm  cxli.  2,  the  ^'^?'7'  p'raycr,  is  called  ^"'■^I'.,  incense.  In  Is. 
 vi.  4,  the  clause,  "  the  house  wasjilled  with  smoke*'  corresponds 
 to  the  preceding  words,  "  And  the  i30sts  of  the  door  moved  at 
 the  voice  of  him  that  cried  T  which  can  only  be  explained  by 
 admitting  that  to  the  prophet  prayer  and  praise  =  incense.  In 
 Luke  i.  10,  it  is  said,  "  naX  ttclv  to  ttXtjOo^  rjv  rod  \aov  Trpoa- 
 ev-^o/jLevov  e^co  rfj  wpa  rev  6vfjiLd/jLaT0<;,  on  which  Outram  (de 
 Hacrif.  p.  89)  correctly  remarks,  ''  cum  suffimenta  sacra  it  a 
 popuU  iweces  adumbrarent,  nt  sacerdos  altera  deo  adolens, 
 alteras  etiam  ritu  sijmholico  illi  commendare  censeretur  par 
 erat,  tit  eodem  tempore  utraque  ilia  sacra  Jierent.  In  Revel. 
 V.  8,  it  is  said,  {e'^ovTe<^  eKaaToi)  (pid\a<;  ')(^pvad<;  fy€/jLovcra<i 
 OvfiLa/jbdrcov,  al  elaiv  al  Trpocrev^al  tmv  djlcov,  and  an  equally 
 distinct  explanation  is  found  in  ch.  viii.  8,  4. 
 
 In  reference  to  the  candlestick,  we  have  a  certain  clue  to  the 
 meaning  in  the  oil.  Pew  symbols  of  Scripture  are  so  often 
 explained  in  it  as  this.  Oil  is  constantly,  both  in  the  Old  and 
 New  Testament,  a.  symbol  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  We  need  not 
 quote  the  passages  here  ;  they  are  given  at  length  in  the  Chris- 
 tolor/ie,  ii.  44.'  If  the  meaning  of  the  oil  be  determined,  so 
 must  be  that  of  the  lamps.  As  recipients  of  the  Spirit  of  God, 
 they  can  only  denote  the  Church  of  God,  the  people  of  the  Cove- 
 nant. So  also  the  Light — it  can  only  signify  the  operations  of 
 the  Spirit  of  God ;  the  spiritual  light  which  the  Church,  filled 
 with  the  Spirit,  sheds  abroad  on  the  surrounding  darkness.  The 
 symbol  expresses,  first  of  all,  what  the  Church  of  God  is,  in  case 
 it  corresponds  to  its  idea ;  but  also,  at  the  same  time,  what  it 
 ought  to  be.  The  description  contains  in  itself  an  admonition. 
 This  appears  most  distinctly  in  the  explanation  of  this  symbol 
 which  is  given  by  our  Lord  himself  The  description  in  Matt, 
 v.  14,  vjxeh  i(TT6  TO  <jf)<w9  rev  koctjjlov  is  followed  in  ver.  10  by 
 the  admonition  ovtcd  Xafju-xlrdrco  to  ^co?  v/jlwv  efJi^iTpoaOev  TOiv 
 dvOpoiTTwv,  oir(jo<;  thcoatv  vfjUMV  tcl  /caXd  epya  Kal  ho^dawat  tov 
 iraTepa  vjjlmv  tov  iv  toU  ovpavol<^.  The  phrase  efiirpoaOev  tcov 
 dvOpcoTTcov  contains  specially  the  interpretation  of  the  words  in 
 
THE  CEREMONIAL  LAW.  529 
 
 the  description  of  the  lamps,  Exod.  xxv.  37,  "  that  they  may 
 give  hght  over  against  it,"  ^}''?.3  "?r''?  ^^^T}].  The  Saviour,  more- 
 over, avails  himself  of  the  symbol  of  the  Lamp  in  Luke  xii.  35, 
 earcocrav  v/jlcov  at  oar^ve^;  irepte^coa/jbevai,  /cat  ol  Xv'xyoc  Kacofjuevoc, 
 where  the  first  clause  explains  the  rite  at  the  Pascal  feast ;  so, 
 likewise,  in  the  parable  of  the  Ten  Virgins.  Paul,  in  Phil.  ii.  15, 
 exhorts  believers  to  be  reKva  Oeov  afjLcofxrjra  ev  fiicrco  yeved^; 
 a-KoXtd^  KoX  BiearpafifjiivT]^  ev  oh  ^alveade  co?  (pcoarripef;  ev 
 KQG-fjLcp,  and  John,  in  the  Apocalypse,  distinctly  explains  the 
 symbol  of  the  Candlestick  to  mean  the  Church ;  at  eirra  Xv^y/at 
 eirra  eKKXtjalac  elal ;  on  which  Vitringa  remarks,  Septem  illae 
 lampades  tarn  candelahri  Mosaici  ti/jnci,  quam  my^tici  illins 
 candelahri,  quod  Zachariae  in  visione  exhihitum  est,  hand 
 dubie  respiciunt  ecclesiam  Catholicam,  a  verho  et  sjnritu  dei 
 Uluminandam. 
 
 As  to  the  subordinate  particulars,  the  seven-i<d\^  number  of  the 
 Lamps  alludes  to  the  Covenant  relation,  and  the  twelve  loaves  of 
 Shew-bread  to  the  tribes  of  the  people  of  the  Covenant.  Seven 
 is  in  Scripture  (and  is  also  impressed  on  the  language  as  such) 
 the  number  of  an  oath,  and,  therefore,  of  the  Covenant.  The 
 Lamps  were  entirely  of  pure  gold,  to  denote  the  gloiy  of  the 
 Church  of  God.  The  blossoms  and  the  fruits  which  were  added 
 as  ornaments,  refer  to  the  prosperous  and  thriving  state  of  the 
 Church.  The  Rod  of  Aaron,  that  blossomed,  and  such  passages 
 as  Psalm  i.  3, 
 
 "  And  he  shall  be  like  a  tree  planted  by  the  rivers  of  water. 
 That  brill  geth  forth  his  fruit  in  his  season  : 
 His  leaf  also  shall  not  wither." 
 
 serve,  in  this  respect,  as  illustrations. 
 
 The  Lamps,  besides  their  hortatory,  have  likewise  a  promissory 
 meaning,  and  this  is  strikingly  exliibited  in  Zcchariah's  vision  of 
 the  Candlestick  (ch.  iv.,  on  which  see  the  Christolofjie,  ii.  55), 
 founded  on  the  symbol  of  the  Candlestick.  It  pledges  to  the 
 Church  the  impartation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  his  gifts  and 
 operations.  But  in  this  connection  the  promissory  meaning  could 
 not  be  the  original,  but  only  a  secondary  one.  The  two  other 
 articles  belonging  to  the  Holy  Place,  the  Altar  of  Incense,  and 
 the  Shew-bread,  have  not  a  promissory,  but  only  a  hortatory 
 VOL.  II.  '  L  1 
 
530  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 meaning.  If  the  promissory  meaning  were  taken  as  the  primary 
 reference,  the  Oil  would  be  particularly  noticed  as  is  really  the 
 case  in  Zechariah.  But  so  far  from  this  being  done,  the  Oil 
 itself  is  not  even  mentioned  in  the  description  of  the  Candlestick. 
 The  meaning  of  the  articles  in  the  sanctuary  has  been  already 
 correctly  determined  by  the  older  theologians,  and  almost  a  per- 
 fect unanimity  exists  on  the  subject.  But  it  is  not  so  in  reference 
 to  the  Table  with  the  Shew-hread.  The  following  points  in  refer- 
 ence to  it  must  be  regarded  as  previously  fixed,  to  serve  as  criteria 
 for  the  correctness  of  the  exposition,  (i.)  This  symbol  cannot 
 have  a  promissory,  but  only  a  hortatory  meaning ;  it  does  not 
 typify  what  God  will  grant  to  the  Church,  but  only  what  the 
 Chm'ch  ought  to  present  to  God.  The  name  of  the  loaves,  the 
 bj-ead  of  the  presence,  *^^?|^  ^^7^  supports  this  idea,  which  it  will 
 be  more  difficult  to  present  or  explain  away  (as  Bahe  has  done) 
 since  the  text  itself  on  which  it  first  occurs,  gives  an  authentic 
 exposition  of  it.  This  bread,  according  to  Exod.  xxv.  30,  is  called 
 the  bread  of  the  presence,  because  it  was  continually  laid  by  the 
 people  in  the  presence  of  God  '^T'']  -i^-  Moreover  the  bread  is 
 expressly  described  in  Lev.  xxiv.  8,  as  the  gift  of  the  children  of 
 Israel  to  God  (not  of  God  to  Israel),  "  Every  Sabbath  he  shall 
 set  it  in  order  before  the  Lord  continually ,  being  taken  from 
 the  children  of  Israel  by  an  everlasting  covetiant."  Lastly, 
 the  bread  was  solemnly  dedicated  and  presented  to  God  by 
 prayer,  under  its  Old  Testament  symbol,  incense  ;  compare  Lev. 
 xxiv.  7,  "  And  thou  shall  put imre  frankincense  upon  each  row, 
 that  it  may  be  on  the  bread  for  a  memorial,  as  an  offering 
 made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord ;"  even  the  bread  itself  was  consi- 
 dered as  an  offering.  That  the  bread  was,  as  it  were  in  a  spiri- 
 tual sense,  burnt  with  the  incense,  is  implied  in  ver.  9,  where  the 
 bread  is  spoken  of  as  one  of  the  ofierings  made  by  fire,  (ii.) 
 Besides  the  bread,  wine  also  was  placed  on  the  table.  This, 
 indeed,  is  not  expressly  said,  but  may  be  gathered  from  indirect 
 hints.  Among  the  utensils  belonging  to  the  table  of  shew-bread 
 in  Exod.  xxv.  29,  are  enumerated  the  '^T-^^  {bowls,  Eng.  Auth. 
 Vers.)  to  which  the  clause  is  added,  "  to  pour  out  withal"  (Eng. 
 Marg.  Bead.)  V^  n?;  '^^.^^ ;  thus  also  the  i"'^'"P^  which  in  Num.  iv. 
 7  have  the  additional  phrase  '^^^.^.  It  follows  that  only  that  exposi- 
 tion can  be  the  correct  one,  which  attributes  to  the  bread  such  a 
 
THE   CEREMONIAL  LAW.  681 
 
 meaning  that  the  wine  will  appear  to  be  its  natural  and  inseparable 
 companion,  which  will  serve  to  explain  the  want  of  a  direct  mention 
 of  the  wine,  the  mere  implication  of  its  being  there,  (iii.)  Every 
 explanation  is  manifestly  false,  which  regards  the  table  on  which 
 were  placed  the  bread  and  wine,  apart  from  any  reference  to  that 
 provision  which  subjects  make  for  their  sovereigns,  which  in  the 
 assertion  of  Dr  Paulus,  that  the  bread  was  "  the  natural  supply 
 for  the  national  king,"  recognises  no  correct  element,  no  point  of 
 contact  between  the  bread  and  wine  which  Israel  set  forth  for 
 their  invisible  king,  and  the  passages  referring  to  her  visible 
 representative. 
 
 *'  Out  of  Asher  Lis  bread  shall  be  fat ; 
 And  lie  shall  yield  royal  dainties."  Gen.  xlix.  20. 
 
 And  1  Kings  iv.  7,  "  And  Solo??ioft  had  twelve  officers  over  all 
 Israel,  which  provided  victuals  for  the  king  and  his  household, 
 each  man,  his  month  in  a  year,  made  ]irovision!' 
 
 (iv.)  Every  explanation  is  to  be  rejected,  which  supposes  that 
 the  bread  and  wine,  as  their  mere  external  aspect,  could  be  pre- 
 sented as  acceptable  gifts  to  God — that  they  could  be  valued  on 
 their  own  account,  and  not  for  what  they  signified.  To  refute 
 this  absurdity  the  name  of  Jehovah  is  sufficient.  Whoever  could 
 entertain  such  a  thought,  could  have  no  perception  of  the  nature 
 of  the  Old  Testament  religion.  But  apart  from  this,  and  equally 
 so  from  the  circumstance,  on  which  Bahr  lays  a  stress,  that  onhj 
 bread  and  wine  were  presented.  ''What  kind,"  he  remarks, 
 *'  of  royal  banquet  was  that,  on  which  nothing  was  placed  but 
 dry  bread,  as  on  the  tables  of  the  poorest  of  the  people."  How 
 could  any  one,  where  every  thing  else  is  symbolic,  and  under  a 
 material  envelope  conceals  a  deep  spiritual  sense — here  all  at  once 
 sink  into  the  most  servile  adherence  to  the  letter  ?  How  could 
 any  one  dissever  the  table  with  the  bread  from  all  connection  with 
 the  Altar  of  Incense  and  the  Candlesticks  ? 
 
 The  following  view  appears  to  us  as  the  correct  one.  The 
 cakes  (the  number  of  which,  twelve,  refers  to  the  twelve  tribes, 
 corresponding  to  the  twelve  precious  stones  on  the  breast-plate 
 of  the  High  Priest)  and  the  wine  were  really  the  provision  which 
 Israel  presented  to  their  king ;  but  this  king  was  spiritual  and 
 heavenly  ;  therefore  the  provision  presented  to  Him  under  a  ma- 
 
 l1  2 
 
532  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 terial  forra,  must  also  be  spiritual.  Good  works  we  consider  as 
 the  soul  of  the  bread  and  wine.  The  prayer  to  God,  "  Give  tis 
 this  day  our  daily  bread,"  and  the  promise  on  which  it  rests 
 and  supports  itself  (as  God  never  desires  without  giving,  and  also 
 never  gives  without  desiring),  goes  side  by  side  with  God's  de- 
 mand, "  Give  me,  to-day,  my  daily  bread,"  and  this  demand  is 
 satisfied  when  the  Church,  abounding  in  good  works,  presents 
 God  with  that  for  wliich  he  has  given  power,  blessing,  and 
 success. 
 
 This  explanation  receives  confirmation  from  a  comparison  with 
 the  unbloody  offering,  the  ^C??,  which  was  undeniably  related  to 
 the  shew-bread.  This  has  been  understood  by  the  older  exposi- 
 tors, by  OuTRAM,  for  example,  who  remarks,  ''  Sicut  ara  mensa 
 dei,  ita  mensa  del  ara  quodam  erat  araeqiie  plane  vicem  praes- 
 tahaf  (p.  23.)  The  shew-bread  was  the  standing  ^C?'?  of  the 
 whole  congregation  ;  only  in  its  being  constantly  before  the 
 Lord,  it  differed  from  the  other  ^'"^'^^  which  were  presented  only 
 on  special  occasions,  and  mostly  in  reference  to  the  circumstances 
 of  individuals ;  but  in  its  general  nature  and  meaning  it  was  the 
 same.  That  it  typified  the  food  to  be  presented  to  God,  is  evi- 
 dent from  its  being  connected  with  wine.  But  bread  and  wine, 
 in  the  writings  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  are  the  standing 
 representatives  and  symbols  of  food.  That  good  works  are  the 
 spiritual  food  represented  by  them,  appears  from  this,  that  on  this 
 ground  and  this  only,  the  whole  rite  is  explicable  in  all  its  indivi- 
 dual distinctions,  The  ^*''*^='?  were  always  to  be  presented  in  con- 
 nection with  a  sacrifice — semper  conjuganda  cum  aliquo  victi 
 marum  genere,  nunquam  citra  victimam  danda,  Outram,  p. 
 80.  The  consecration  of  the  whole  person  which  was  signified  by 
 the  sacrifice,  necessarily  preceded  the  consecration  of  individual 
 acts.  The  n^iia^  could  not  be  connected  with  all  sacrifices,  but 
 only  with  the  ^"?Vf  and  nnVny  ;  they  could  never  be  connected  with 
 the  sin-offerings  and  trespass-offerings.  Expiation  and  reconci- 
 liation preceded  the  capability  of  performing  good  works ;  the 
 unreconciled  heart  possesses  not  this  capabihty  ;  good  works  do 
 not  accompany  reconcihation  but  proceed  from  it.  He  who  was 
 reconciled  by  sin-offerings,  first  of  all  consecrated  himself,  his 
 whole  personality,  to  the  Lord,  under  the  symbols  of  the  burnt- 
 offerings  and  peace-offerings,  and  then  his  works  under  the  symbol 
 
THE  CEREMONIAL  LAW.  638 
 
 of  the  meat-offering.  The  meat-offering  was  to  be  without  either 
 leaven  or  honey.  Compare  Lev.  ii.  11,  "  No  meat-offer iny 
 '^Off-  tchich  ye  shall  hring  nnto  the  Lord,  shall  he  made  ivith 
 leaven,  for  ye  shall  hum  no  leaven,  nor  any  honey,  in  any  offer- 
 ing, of  the  Lord  made  hyjire.  Leaven  in  the  Scriptures  is  an 
 emblem  of  corruption  ;  the  name  of  unleavened  bread  ^^^?  denotes 
 jpure  bread;  as  spiritual  correspondences  Paul  mentions  eikiKpiveia 
 and  aXrjdeia.  Therefore  the  injunction  against  mixing  leaven 
 with  the  nna^  intimates  that  good  works  are  not  to  be  disfigured 
 by  any  mixture  of  unholy  corruption,  which  would  render  the 
 spiritual  food  unfit  for  use  by  a  holy  God;  omneni  malitiam 
 exiiendam,  Outram.  The  prohibition  of  honey  which  stands  on 
 the  same  footing  as  the  grape-cakes,  ^^?,^?.  ^'f^'f?.  {flagons  of  ivine, 
 E.  A.  Yer.)  in  Hos.  iii.  1,  (compare  Christologie  on  the  pas- 
 sage) indicates,  that  he  who  would  perform  good  works,  must  not 
 yield  to  sensuality,  nor  seek  the  delicias  carnis,  but  exercise 
 severity  on  himself.  The  prohibition  of  the  mixing  leaven  and 
 honey  is  accompanied  by  the  command  to  mix  salt  (Lev.  ii.  13) 
 and  oil.  Salt  denotes  incorruptibihty,  freedom  from  moral 
 defilement.  Compare  Theophylact  on  Luke  xiv.  34  (in  Tho- 
 LUCK,  Bergpredigt,  p.  120),  to  aKa<^  a<Tr\iTTOv  fievov  Kal  a/SXa- 
 /Se?  Kal  erepa  Bta<pv\dTT€t  ao-rjivTa,  oh  civ  /meraSco  r^?  ttolo- 
 T7jTo<;.  Oil  is  here,  as  everywhere,  a  symbol  of  the  spirit  of  God. 
 It  indicates  that  good  works,  as  they  rest  on  reconciliation,  so 
 they  can  only  be  accomplished  by  the  grace  of  the  Spirit. 
 
 Therefore  the  vessels  and  furniture  of  the  holy  place  declare 
 that  the  Lord's  people  are  a  people  of  prayer,  of  light,  and  of  good 
 works. 
 
 In  the  court  stood  the  Altar  of  Burnt- offerings,  and  the  Brazen 
 Lavar.  Of  the  former  we  do  not  mean  to  say  anything,  since  it 
 would  lead  to  the  discussion  of  the  whole  sacrificial  system.  In 
 reference  to  the  Lavar,  it  is  said,  in  Exod.  xxx.  9,  20,  "  Aaron  and 
 his  sons  shall  wash  their  hands  and  their  feet  thereat ;  when 
 they  go  into  the  Tahernacle  of  the  Congregation  they  shall 
 icash  with  water  that  they  die  not :  or  when  they  come  near  to 
 the  altar  to  minister,  to  hum  offering  made  hyjire  to  the  Lord  !" 
 From  these  words,  we  learn  the  reason  why  their  hands  and  feet 
 were  to  be  washed  ;  their  feet,  because  tliey  entered  into  the  holy 
 place ;  their  hands,  because  with  them  they  performed  the  sacred 
 
.');34  THEOLOGY  Of  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 rites.  The  meaning  of  tlie  rite  is  that  it  commanded  and  pro- 
 mised spiritual  purity  to  the  ministers  of  the  church  ;  (and  only 
 these  as  such  are  here  spoken  of.)  The  counterpart,  standing  in 
 undeniable  reference  to  it,  is  \hQ  feet- washing,  wliich  Christ  per- 
 formed for  his  apostles,  who  stood  in  the  same  relation  to  the 
 church  of  the  New  Covenant,  as  Aaron  and  his  sons  to  that  of 
 the  Old.  The  essential  agi'eement  of  the  two  acts  is  strikingly 
 shewn  in  John  xiii.  8,  Xkr^ei  avT(h  Uerpor  ov  fxr]  vl-yjrr)^  Tov<i 
 TToSa?  fjLOv  et9  Tov  aiMva.  ' AireKplOT)  avr^  6  'Ir^aovr  eav  fir) 
 vlyjra)  ae,  ov^  ^%^t9  fiepo^  fier  e/mov.  The  "  2iot  having  a  ])  art" 
 =  "  dying!'  The  punishment  refers  in  both  cases  to  what  was 
 signified  by  the  symbolic  act.  Lampe's  remark  on  the  counter- 
 part purification,  applies  also  to  the  prefigurative  ceremony  ;  qui 
 tale  sigillum  externum  licet  renuehat,  ijisam  animae  lotionem 
 eo  ohsignandam  renuehat. 
 
 THE  alleged  LEVITICAL  BIAS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 The  English  Deists,  in  their  attacks  on  the  Pentateuch,  laid 
 particular  stress  on  the  hierarchical  spirit,  which  it  was  said  to 
 exhibit:  (compare  the  quotations  in Lilienthal  vi.  690.)  The 
 direction  which  historical  enquiries  have  taken  in  our  day,  has 
 been  less  favourable  to  this  objection.  In  Germany  at  least,  so 
 far  from  condemning  the  priestly  order  in  the  gross,  there  is 
 rather  a  disposition  to  go  too  far  the  other  way.  Heeren  (in  his 
 Ideen  Aeg.  p.  134)  speaks  of  the  Egyptian  priests,  once  so  much 
 decried,  as  "  an  honourable  class  of  men,  and  active  in  the  mental 
 cultivation  of  their  people."  Gregory  VII.  has  found  in  Voigt 
 a  warm  panegyrist ;  Runs  {Gesch.  des  Mittelalters,^.  368)  says, 
 "  the  insipid  cavilling  of  a  fashionable  sophistry,  and  an  unwar- 
 rantable application  of  ideas  which  are  not  applicable  to  his  times, 
 have  only  too  often  unjustly  degraded  and  falsely  estimated  him," 
 and  Rehm  (Gesch.  des  Mittelalter,  iii.  6),  expresses  the  same 
 opinion. 
 
 And  in  reference  to  the  Israelitish  priesthood,  this  altered  tone 
 has  ah'eady  had  an  influence.  No  liistorian  of  note  raises  an  ob- 
 jection on  this  score  against  the  Old  Testament.     That  individual 
 
ALLEGED  LEVITICAL  BIAS  0¥  THE  PENTATEUCH.  535 
 
 among  them  who  is  the  most  unfavourably  disposed  towards  the 
 priesthood — Schlosser,  in  this  respect  expresses  nothing  hut 
 what  is  huidatory.  "  Moses'  object"  he  says  (Uhers,  I.  i.  204), 
 was  a  rehgion  without  dogmas,  and  without  priests  teaching  and 
 boasting  of  mysteries  ;  this  religion,  as  involving  a  ritual,  was 
 to  be  connected,  in  accordance  with  the  cravings  of  oriental 
 natures,  with  a  hereditary  priesthood  and  a  theocracy.  "  It  was 
 great  and  noble,"  he  remarks,  "  that  Moses  would  not  destroy 
 the  popular  freedom  which  might  so  easily  have  been  done,  neither 
 for  his  own  nor  his  brother's  advantage,  though  he  granted  to  the 
 highest  spiritual  honour  as  hereditary,"  p.  222.  And  again,  p. 
 224,  "  Since  the  Levites  belonged  half  to  the  rank  of  country 
 people,  and  half  to  the  priestly  order,  they  formed  a  hnk  between 
 the  two,  and  the  strictly  defined  contrast  between  the  spiritual  and 
 secular  classes,  which  we  find  in  Egypt  and  India,  never  existed 
 among  the  Jews."  He  considers  the  number  of  ministers  employed 
 in  the  ritual  as  not  at  all  excessive. 
 
 It  might  now  seem,  that,  such  being  the  state  of  the  case,  we 
 might  venture  to  pass  over  the  whole  subject  in  silence.  But  it 
 is  not  in  our  power.  The  decision  of  theologians  is  not  so 
 favourable  as  that  of  historians ;  and,  what  is  the  principal  point 
 in  the  current  mode  of  viewing  facts,  there  are  grounds  for 
 just  complaints  against  the  Pentateuch  in  this  respect,  which 
 must  necessarily  be  removed,  if  the  favour  of  historians  becomes 
 permanent,  and  the  disfavour  of  theologians  either  vanishes  or 
 becomes  innoxious. 
 
 The  grounds  on  which  the  charge  of  a  Levitical  bias  {Levitis- 
 mus)  rests  are  the  following  : 
 
 I.  The  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  being  assumed,  it  is  sus- 
 picious that  Moses  should  choose  exactly  his  own  tribe.  Thus 
 Vatke,  p.  223.  But  that  Moses  did  not  choose  his  own  tribe  as 
 such,  but  on  account  of  the  theocratic  principle  with  wliich  it  was 
 animated  in  a  superior  degree  to  the  rest,  we  perceive  from  Ex. 
 xxxii.  26,  and  Deut.  xxxiii.  9.  (See  Le  Clerc  or  Rosenmuller 
 on  the  passages.)  That  the  reason  was  not  a  mere  pretext,  we 
 have  a  striking  proof  in  the  fact,  that  Moses,  with  magnanimous 
 self-denial,  raised  the  family  of  Aaron  to  the  priesthood,  while 
 he  allowed  his  own  family  to  sink  into  obscurity,  undistinguished 
 from  the  common  mass  of  the  Levites.     IVfoses'  grandson,  whom 
 
53G  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 we  meet  with  in  the  lowest  circumstances  at  the  beginning  of  the 
 time  of  the  Judges,  here  appears  as  a  witness  to  exculpate  him. 
 Compare  Studer  on  Judges  xviii.  30. 
 
 II.  According  to  the  Mosaic  arrangement,  it  is  asserted,  all  the 
 power  in  the  state  must  have  come  into  the  exclusive  possession 
 of  the  priesthood.  Thus  Von  Colln,  Bihl.  Theoi.  i.  06.  This 
 objection,  as  well  as  the  following,  had  been  prepared  by  J.  D. 
 MiCHAELis.  The  assertion,  that  the  revenues  of  the  Levites  were 
 disproportionately  great,  in  case  their  caUing  was  confined  to  the 
 sphere  of  rehgion,  necessai'ily  made  a  deep  impression  on  a  mind 
 so  unspiritual.  "  If  we  saw  in  them,"  he  says,  {Mos.  Recht.  § 
 52),  "  nothing  but  the  mere  ministers  of  religion,  their  revenues 
 must  appear  as  very  excessive."  "  Men  might  have  cheaper 
 guides  to  salvation,  and  might  dispense  with  such  a  multitude." 
 To  avoid  Scylla  he  rushes  into  Charybdis.  To  justify  the  revenues 
 of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  he  enlarges  their  power.  He  assigns  to  it 
 almost  the  whole  power  of  the  state.  The  refutation  of  this  totally 
 erroneous  view  has  been  given  on  another  occasion.  We  have 
 elsewhere  shown,  that  the  position  of  the  priesthood  in  the  Mosaic 
 constitution  is  merely  a  religious  one — that  the  civil  constitution 
 which  existed  before  Moses  was  confirmed  by  him  in  its  full  ex- 
 tent— and  particularly,  that  the  judicial  dignity  was  by  no  means 
 assigned  to  the  Levites.  Here  is  only  one  point  that  needs  to  be 
 cleared  up.  Yon  Colln  insists  particularly  on  Num.  xxviii.  21, 
 "  And  he  {Joshua)  shall  stand  before  Eleazar  the  priest,  who 
 shall  ask  counsel  for  him  after  the  judgment  of  Urim  before  the 
 Lord:  at  his  word  shall  theij  yo  out,  and  at  his  word  shall 
 they  come  in,  he  and  all  the  children  of  Israel  with  him,  even 
 all  the  congregationy  On  the  ground  of  this  passage,  he  asserts, 
 p.  279,  "  Moses  himself  transfers  the  deliberative  and  legislative 
 powers  to  the  high  priest,  who,  by  Urim  and  Thummim,  enquired 
 of  Jehovah  respecting  his  will,  therefore  must  be  the  constant 
 theocratic  mediator  instead  of  Moses."  But  that  this  cannot  be 
 the  design  of  the  passage  to  lower  Joshua,  and,  in  his  person,  the 
 civil  government  generally,  to  represent  his  head  as  superfluous, 
 and  only  his  hands  as  necessary — is  evident  from  the  verse  imme- 
 diately preceding,  according  to  which,  '"  some  of  the  honour"  of 
 Moses  was  put  not  on  the  high  priest,  but  upon  Joshua,  and  was, 
 at  the  same,  recognised  as  Moses'  peculiar  successor.     It  appears 
 
ALLEGED  LEVITICAL  BL\S  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  537 
 
 also  fiom  Deut.  xxxlv.  9,  "  And  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun  was 
 full  of  the  spirit  of  wisdom,  for  Moses  had  laid  his  hands  upon 
 him."  It  appears  also  from  Joshua's  whole  conduct  after  the 
 death  of  Moses,  which  presents  him  in  nowise  as  a  priest's  ser- 
 vant, but  as  a  servant  who  himself  knew  his  Lord's  will,  and  acted 
 according  to  his  own  knowledge.  Yet  Von  Colln  himself  knows 
 not  how  to  bring  into  harmony  with  this  injunction  as  he  con- 
 strues it,  the  conduct  of  Joshua,  who  meditated  in  the  law  of  the 
 Lord  given  by  Moses  day  and  night,  that  he  might  do  all  that  was 
 written  therein.  The  enquiring  of  God  by  Urim  and  Thummim 
 in  this  passage  is  not  commanded,  or  rather  permitted  at  all,  in 
 relation  to  all  affairs  of  state,  but  only  for  one  particular  class  of 
 them,  if  the  circumstances  were  of  a  land  that  Joshua,  on  whom 
 it  devolved  to  form  a  judgment  respecting  them,  knew  not  how  to 
 decide.  All  instances  of  the  use  of  Urim  and  Thummim  show 
 that  its  office  was  hmited — that  it  was  designed  only  for  extraor- 
 dinary cases,  for  pressing  circumstances — for  emergencies  in  which 
 good  counsel  was  invaluable,  and  human  skill  was  not  sufficient. 
 Carpzov  {Aj)j)ar.  p.  81)  correctly  describes  it  as  remedium  he- 
 roicum  eruendi  occulta,  vel  resciscendi  futura,  quo  ahuti  iion 
 erat  integrum.  We  nowhere  find  a  trace  of  an  influence  exer- 
 cised by  Urim  and  Thummim  on  legislation,  or  of  judicial  deci  • 
 sions  proceeding  from  them.  If  we  observe  the  department 
 within  which  their  use  was  confined,  it  will  appear,  that  an  abuse 
 of  them  in  favour  of  the  hierarchy  could  scai'cely  exist.  The 
 high  priest  must  give  an  answer  in  reference  to  consequences 
 which,  humanly  speaking,  were  uncertain,  and  risk  everything  if 
 this  answer  was  found  incorrect.  The  consequence  was,  that  he 
 only  attempted  to  give  an  answer  when  he  really  was,  Avhat  he 
 ought  to  be,  the  organ  of  God.  This  is  perfectly  confirmed  to 
 us  by  the  history  of  Urim  and  Thummim.  When  the  spirit  of 
 God  retired  from  the  high  priesthood,  and  passed  over  to  the 
 prophets,  the  Urim  and  Thummim  were  altogether  silent ;  com- 
 pare Carpzov.  In  the  whole  history,  not  a  single  case  occurs  in 
 which  it  was  attempted  to  abuse  the  Urim  and  Thummim  in  the 
 service  of  selfish  interest  and  priestly  pretensions.  Whoever 
 would  have  done  tliis  would  have  played  a  dangerous  game. 
 
 III.  According  to  the  Mosaic  arrangement,  it  is  asserted,  all  the 
 higher  mental  training  must  have  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the 
 
f^S&  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 priests  exclusively.  Compare,  for  example,  Yon  Colln,  i.  66. 
 But  this  again  is  entirely  a  gratuitous  assertion.  Moses  never 
 aimed  at  such  a  thing.  He  delivered  the  book,  of  the  law  not 
 merely  to  the  priests,  but  also  to  the  elders,  Deut.  xxxi.  9.  He 
 enjoined  that  the  king  should  take  a  copy  of  it — read  in  it  him- 
 self— and  act  according  to  his  own  understanding  of  it ;  Deut. 
 xvii.  18,  19,  he  commanded  that  the  law  should  be  read  to  the 
 people  ;  Deut.  xxxi.  10,  he  placed  the  prophets  by  the  side  of  the 
 priests  as  teachers  of  the  people.  According  to  the  testimony  of 
 the  history,  the  priests  were  never  the  sole  depositories  of  the  for- 
 mation of  the  national  mind.  Only  look  at  the  collection  of  the 
 writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  what  a  small  portion  of  them  pro- 
 ceeded from  priests  !  The  Israelitish  national  culture  reached  its 
 highest  point  in  two  of  their  kings,  David  and  Solomon,  and  iu: 
 their  prophets.  The  arts,  the  practical  branches  of  knowledge 
 which  the  priestly  caste  in  Egypt  and  India  have  exclusively  ap- 
 propriated, among  the  Israehtes  never  stood  under  the  influence 
 of  the  priesthood. 
 
 IV.  The  revenues  of  the  Levites  were  far  too  large.  Thus  De 
 Wette  {Crit.  384.)  This  assertion  would  have  been  expressed 
 somewhat  less  confidently  if  he  had  read  what  KuHS  observes  (p. 
 386)  on  the  revenues  of  the  priesthood  in  the  Middle  Ages.  He 
 says,  "  The  narrow-minded,  financial  reference  to  perpetual  acqui- 
 sition and  profit,  by  which  the  state  was  converted  into  one  great 
 counting-house,  deteriorated  men's  dispositions  and  morals  ;  and 
 at  last  the  agency  of  the  laziest  monk  might  hold  the  scales  in 
 many  occupations  which  are  necessary  in  the  modern  relations  of 
 state,  and,  in  truth,  border  on  idleness."  We  would  not  here 
 rej)eat  every  thing  which  can,  and  has  been,  said  in  favour  of  the 
 regulations  in  the  Pentateuch  respecting  the  revenues  of  the 
 Levites  ;  lately  by  Winer  {Realworter.  II.  26.)  We  would  only 
 bring  forward  one  point,  which  appears  to  be  very  weighty,  and 
 yet  has  hitherto  been  almost  entirely  overlooked.  In  Eg}^t  the 
 largest  and  most  beautiful  portion  of  the  land  was  the  property 
 of  the  priests.  (Compare  Heeren,  p.  127,  130,  &c.,  Schlos- 
 SER,  p.  183.)  Moses  must  have  efi'ected  a  similar  arrangement 
 if  it  had  been  his  object  that  the  Levites,  under  all  circumstances, 
 should  be  rich  and  powerful.  But  he  did  exactly  the  opposite. 
 He  took  away  from  the  Levites  the  portion  in  the  promised  land 
 
ALLEGED  LEVITICAL  BIAS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  581) 
 
 which  they  would  have  been  justified  in  claiming  as  one  of  the 
 tribes  of  Israel,  and  gave  them,  as  a  compensation  for  it,  and  at 
 the  same  time  as  a  reward  for  their  service,  an  income,  of  which  he 
 made  the  payment  by  no  means  certain,  but  left  it  dependent  on 
 the  consciences  of  the  people.  The  necessary  consequence  was, 
 that  the  Levites,  in  times  of  religious  lukewarmness  and  apostacy, 
 were  exposed  to  famine.  It  may  be  asserted  that  this  conse- 
 quence escaped  Moses.  But  the  contrary  may  be  clearly  proved. 
 He  shows  throughout  the  clearest  knowledge  of  the  future  apos- 
 tacy of  the  people  from  the  Lord,  which  would  be  accompanied 
 by  a  falhng  away  of  the  income  due  to  his  ministers.  And  what 
 is  still  more,  he  proceeds  in  Deuteronomy  on  the  supposition  that 
 the  lot  of  the  Levites,  in  spite  of  all  the  advantages  which  he  had 
 promised  them,  would  be  a  straitened  one  ;  he  places  them  with 
 strangers,  wddows,  and  orphans,  and  exhorts  the  people  to  acts  of 
 benevolence  towards  them.  But  Gen.  xlix.  7  is  deserving  of 
 special  notice.  In  that  expression  of  dying  Jacob,  which  could 
 be  reversed  by  no  language  of  any  succeeding  prophet,  the  scat- 
 tering of  Levi  in  Israel  is  contemplated  as  a  mournful  lot.  Let 
 us  admire  the  wisdom  of  the  arrangement.  If  the  tribe  of  Levi 
 remained  faithful  to  God  and  their  vocation,  and,  by  their  instru- 
 mentahty,  piety  flourished  among  the  people,  their  temporal  wants 
 would  be  abundantly  supphed  ;  for  it  was  equitable  that  those  who 
 had  been  partakers  of  their  spiritual  things,  should  render  them 
 service  in  temporal  things.  Compare  Kom.  xv.  27,  1  Cor.  ix.  II. 
 If,  on  the  contrary,  they  became  like  their  ungodly  progenitor, 
 then  the  curse  denounced  on  him  would  be  fulfilled  in  them. 
 What  would  be  the  phght  of  our  rationalist  clergy  if  it  depended 
 on  the  piety  of  each  of  their  parishioners  whether  he  paid  them 
 tithes  or  not !  If  we  take  a  glance  at  history,  it  is  at  once  seen 
 how  unfounded  is  the  objection.  At  no  time  do  we  find  the 
 Levites  excessively  rich  ;  more  frequently  we  find  them  in  the 
 most  depressed  poverty.  At  the  separation  of  the  two  kingdoms, 
 their  revenues  from  all  Israel  were  lost ;  compare  the  vindication 
 (vol.  i.  1G8)  of  the  settlement  of  all  the  Levites  in  Juda,  which 
 has  been  called  in  question  last  of  all  by  Winer  (p.  327.)  Under 
 the  numerous  ungodly  kings  of  Juduh  they  were  also  meanly 
 thought  of  by  the  citizens  of  that  kingdom.  According  to  Chron. 
 xxxi.  4,  it  was  a  part  of  the  reformation  effected  by  Hezekiah, 
 
540  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 that  he  commanded  the  people  to  give  their  due  portion  to  the 
 Priests  and  Levites  ;  and  in  the  times  after  the  captivity,  in  which 
 open  apostacy  from  the  Lord  was  less  prevalent,  the  same  dispo- 
 sition operated,  from  which  the  present  theoretic  niggardhness 
 towardst  he  Levites  proceeds,  to  cheat  them  of  their  own  when- 
 ever it  was  possible.  A  lifeless  orthodoxy,  of  which  the  Levites 
 themselves  were  the  chief  promoters,  had  not  the  ability  to  over- 
 come the  living  selfishness.  Compare  Mai.  iii.  8-12,  and  Neh. 
 xiii.  10,  &c.,  according  to  which  the  Levites  dues  were  so  badly 
 paid  that  they  were  obliged  to  relinquish  their  ministrations. 
 
 V.  A  number  of  the  laws,  it  is  asserted,  had  more  the  interests 
 of  the  priests  than  of  the  people  in  view,  and  thus  betray  their 
 origin  in  Levitical  party  spirit.  Thus  De  Wette  {Grit.  379) ; 
 Gramberg  (i.  195);  Vatke  p.  219.  This  assertion,  which 
 rests  upon  a  total  misconception  (more  suited  to  the  deistical  age 
 than  our  own),  of  the  meaning  and  tendency  of  the  Ceremonial 
 Law,  has  already  been  refuted  in  the  section  on  the  Ceremonial 
 Law. 
 
 Having  thus  disposed  of  the  arguments  in  favour  of  the  Leviti- 
 cal bias  of  the  Pentateuch,  we  now  proceed  to  add  a  few  things 
 to  those  positive  considerations  against  it,  which  prove  that  the 
 position  which  Moses  assigns  in  the  Pentateuch  to  the  tribe  of 
 Levi,  is  worthy  of  a  Divine  messenger. 
 
 (i.)  The  language  of  dying  Jacob,  in  Gen.  xlix.,  which  reflects 
 disgrace  on  the  progenitor  of  the  Levites,  appears  as  a  witness 
 against  the  Levitical  bias  of  the  Pentateuch,  (see  the  develop- 
 ment of  that  passage  in  reference  to  this  point  in  Calvin,  on 
 ver.  5) ;  so  also  does  the  account  of  the  part  taken  by  Aaron  in 
 the  worship  of  the  Calf,  and  the  Divine  judgment  passed  upon 
 his  sons  in  Lev.  x.  1,  &c.,  in  which  (ver.  3),  occurs  that  truly 
 Divine  aphorism  of  Jehovah — "  /  icill  he  sanctified  in  them 
 that  come  nigh  me;"  compare  1  Peter  iv.  17;  and,  lastly,  the 
 account  of  the  impiety  of  Korah,  and  its  punishment,  in  Numb, 
 xvi.,  on  which  compare  Havernick,  p.  600. 
 
 (ii.)  God  says  to  Israel,  in  Ex.  xix.  6 — '*  Ye  shall  he  unto 
 me  a  kingdom  of  iniests"  '^''T}?  ^5^'?^,  a  people  consisting  purely 
 of  kings,  who  are  at  the  same  time  priests.  This  is  not  a  mere 
 transient,  accidental  expression,  but  a  solemn  declaration,  uttered 
 on  a  most  solemn  occasion.     What  a  deep  impression  it  made 
 
ALLEGED  LEVITICAL  BIAS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  511 
 
 upon  the  people  we  see  from  Numb.  xvi.  3,  according  to  which 
 the  faction  of  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram  made  use  of  it  to 
 vindicate  their  insurrection.  "  The  meaning  of  this  expression 
 has  been  akeady  developed  in  the  CUristologie,  iii.  315.  This 
 language  intimated,  that  the  later  instituted  Levitical  Priesthood 
 could  not  have  the  same  significance  as  the  priesthood  in  other 
 nations  of  antiquity,  among  whom  priest  and  peoj)le  stood  in 
 absolute  contrast,  where  the  priests  alone  were  the  persons  who 
 stood  in  immediate  relation  to  God.  It  also  intimated  that  the 
 priests  possessed  only  transferred  rights,  that  they  were  the 
 representatives  of  the  people,  that,  therefore,  the  time  might  come 
 when  their  mediation  would  entirely  vanish."  Could  such  lan- 
 guage proceed  from  a  hierarchal  spirit  ?  The  priesthood  of  all 
 believers,  even  where  it  is  as  an  ideal  possession,  really  to  be 
 entered  upon  only  at  a  future  period,  gives  the  death-blow  of 
 hierarchy. 
 
 (iii.)  The  Pentateuch  secures,  by  a  special  law,  the  authority 
 of  the  prophetic  order,  and  utters  a  severe  threatening  against 
 those  who  will  not  obey  the  Prophets,  Deut.  xviii.  19.  For  those 
 persons  who  impute  a  hierarchial  tendency  to  the  Pentateuch, 
 this  law  must  remain  an  inexplicable  enigma.  Von  Bohlen 
 tries  to  free  himself  from  his  embarrassment  by  asserting  that  the 
 prophetic  order,  who  at  a  later  period  came  into  collision  with  the 
 priesthood,  were  originally  blended  with  it.  But  the  proofs  that 
 he  adduces  are  truly  pitiable.  He  appeals  to  1  Sam.  ii.  35, 
 compared  with  iii.  30.  But  the  former  passage  does  not  apply 
 to  Samuel.  He  says  that  Nathan  is  called  a  priest  in  1  Kings 
 iv.  5.  But  Nathan  is  not  there  spoken  of,  but  Nathan's  son, 
 and  he  was  not  Jehovah's  priest,  but  the  king's  priest,  that  is,  a 
 mediator  between  him  and  the  people.  "  And  Zahiid  the  son  of 
 Nathan  was  jr/'iest  (principal  officer,  Engi.  A.  Ver.),  that  is,  the 
 kings  friend— il^^ri  -?■?.  T?  Tl'V^.  '^^''^.  What  are  we  to  say  of 
 such  reasoning  ? 
 
 (iv.)  The  functions  which  the  Pentateuch  assigns  to  the  priests, 
 are  altogether  different  from  those  which  selfish  aims  have  given 
 to  the  priesthood  among  other  nations.  They  were  not  hke,  for 
 example,  the  Egyptian  priests,  who  were  in  possession  of  all  the 
 offices  of  state,  the  best  lands,  and  the  most  lucrative  employ- 
 ments (compare  Heeren,  132),  to  rule  over  and  impoverish  the 
 
542  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 
 
 people,  but  to  train  the  people  to  piety,  partly  by  the  performance 
 of  sacred  rites,  partly  by  direct  instruction.  Observe  the  juxta- 
 position of  the  two  duties  in  Lev.  x.  10,  11,  on  which  Calvin 
 remarks — ColUgimus  ex  h.  I.  quod  dicit  Malachias,  sacerdotes 
 fuisse  legis  interpretes  et  nuntios  dei  exercitimm,  non  autem 
 mutas  larvas.  Tametsi  enim  scripta  lex  erat,  voliiit  tamen 
 dens  semper  vivam  vocem  sonar e  in  sua  ecclesia,  quemadmod- 
 mus  hodie  scripturae  conjuncta  est  praedicatio  quasi  individuo 
 nexu.  Their  office  as  teachers  is  supported  by  Deut.  xxxiii.  10. 
 The  means  by  which  the  priesthood  of  other  nations  raised  them- 
 selves to  excessive  influence,  was  from  the  first  cut  off  from  them. 
 The  Babylonish  priestly  caste,  for  instance,  found  the  support  of 
 their  reputation,  and  influence  in  the  state,  in  astrology  (Heeren 
 i.  194).  In  reference  to  the  Indian,  Schlosser  remarks  (p.  123), 
 ^'  The  priestly  caste  among  the  Indians  was  so  much  more  firmly 
 rooted,  since  they  managed  to  connect  art,  literature,  supersti- 
 tion, the  whole  routine  of  outward  life,  and  even  hcentious 
 indulgences,  with  themselves  and  their  order."  The  rehgion  of 
 Jehovah  annihilated  astrology  and  superstition  generally,  which 
 in  many  cases  was  punished  with  death,  it  marked  the  impurity 
 of  sacred  persons  as  an  abomination  before  God,  and  deprived 
 the  priests  of  every  means  of  gaining  reputation,  excepting  the 
 lawful  one  of  piety.  The  best  apology  for  the  Levitical  Priest- 
 hood, is  the  testimony  which  Malachi  the  prophet  bears  to  their 
 beneficial  operation  in  past  times.  The  importance  of  this  testi- 
 mony is  heightened  by  the  lamentation  connected  with  it,  of  the 
 corruption  of  his  o^vn  times,  and  this  lamentation  must  again, 
 like  similar  language  in  the  other  prophets,  redound  to  the 
 honour  of  the  Mosaic  institute,  under  another  point  of  view.  It 
 could  not  have  been  uttered,  if  the  functions  of  the  Israelitish 
 priesthood  had  not  been  of  a  noble  and  exalted  kind.  Malachi 
 says  (ch.  ii.  5) — 
 
 5.  My  covenant  was  with  him  (Levi)  of  life  and  peace; 
 And  I  gave  them  to  him, 
 
 For  the  fear  wherewith  he  feared  me, 
 And  w  as  afraid  hefore  my  name. 
 
 6.  The  law  of  truth  was  in  his  mouth, 
 And  iniquity  was  not  found  in  his  lips ; 
 He  walked  with  me  in  peace  and  equity, 
 And  did  turn  many  away  from  iniquity. 
 
ALLEGED  LEVTTICAL  BIAS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  543 
 
 7,  For  the  priesf  s  lips  should  keep  knowledge, 
 And  they  should  seek  the  law  at  his  mouth, 
 For  he  is  the  messenger  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts. 
 
 8,  But  ye  are  depai-ted  out  of  the  way, 
 
 Ye  have  caused  many  to  stumble  at  the  law; 
 Ye  have  corrupted  the  covenant  of  Levi,  &c. 
 
 END  OF  VOL.  IT. 
 
.  Date  Due 
 
 ^"^"  ';.  -^i 
 
 PAQUI  TV 
 
 FAri'i  TV 
 
 ^ 
 
 . 
 
BS1225.8.H513V.2 
 
 Dissertations  on  the  genuineness  of  the 
 
 imriiiVr .11^^°'°^'"'  Semmary-Speer  Library 
 
 1    1012  00041   3247