PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 '% 
 
 S/ielf. 
 
 ..,.4...\i.^.5- 
 
 • &.o.t^.>|...:^ 
 
 Sec/2 on . 
 
 Number. 
 

 n^,, 
 
 
 
K/J- 
 
THE MOSAIC ORIGIN 
 
 PENTATEUCHAL CODES. 
 
 BY 
 
 GEERHARDUS ''VOS, 
 
 FELLOW OF PRINXETOX THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 WITH AX IXTRODUCTIOX BY 
 
 PROFESSOR WILLIAM HENRY GREEN. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 A. C. ARMSTRONG & SON, 
 
 714 BROADWAY. 
 1886. 
 
Copyright, i8S6, 
 By a. C, ARMSTRONG & SON. 
 
 ELECTROTYPED AND PRINTED 
 
 BY RAND, AVERY, AND COMPANY, 
 
 BOSTON. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE author of the following treatise is descended from 
 the French Huguenots. The original name of the 
 family was Vosse, and his ancestors were among the refugees 
 who emigrated to Holland after the revocation of the Edict 
 of Nantes. He received his literary training in the gymna- 
 sium at Amsterdam ; and after completing his theological 
 course at the Seminary of the Reformed Church of Holland, 
 at Grand Rapids, Mich., of which his father is a professor, 
 he spent two additional years at Princeton Seminary. This 
 treatise was prepared as a thesis in competition for the 
 Hebrew fellowship in the latter insdtution, which was 
 awarded to him ; and he is now pursuing his studies at the 
 University of Berlin. 
 
 The subject discussed is the Mosaic origin of the laws of 
 the Pentateuch. This is the point about which the critical 
 batde is raging at present. The literary partition of the 
 Pentateuch, which at one time stood in the fore-front of the 
 fray, is now on all hands regarded as a side issue, of whose 
 results the critics of the most recent school of Graf, Kuenen, 
 and Wellhausen still seek to avail themselves, but upon 
 which they do not mainly rest their cause. This part of 
 the question is taken up and disposed of at the outset. 
 The position maintained is perfecdy tenable, though it has 
 not heretofore been pressed as it deserves. The divisibility 
 of Genesis, or, as the critics phrase it, the literary analysis 
 of that book, does not in the slightest degree affect the 
 
IV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 question of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, or of 
 the laws which the Pentateuch contains. And unless it be 
 pressed to the extent of finding mutually inconsistent nar- 
 ratives in Genesis, and thus impugning the truth of the 
 record and the trustworthiness of the history, the hypothesis 
 is one of purely literary interest, and of no theological conse- 
 quence. It is only the endeavor to carry the divisive hy- 
 pothesis through the subsequent books of the Pentateuch, 
 that imperils the ascription of the legislation to Moses, as 
 well as of the volume in which the legislation is found. If 
 Chronicles and Kings could be compiled from antecedent 
 authentic records w^idiout prejudice to their canonicity, the 
 same is obviously true of Genesis, the latest limit of whose 
 history is almost three centuries prior to the birth of Moses. 
 
 But, if the same analysis is applicable to the books from 
 Exodus onward, the aspect of the case is materially changed. 
 It is indeed conceivable that Moses might have employed 
 different amanuenses to record different classes of laws, 
 and that the literary form of the laws might thus vary to 
 some extent in consequence. But if the later books of the 
 Pentateuch, containing the life and the legislation of Moses, 
 have been compiled from distinct documents in the sense 
 maintained by the advocates of this hypothesis, it is difficult 
 to imagine that Moses could have had any thing to do with 
 the compilation. Accordingly, waiving all discussion as to 
 the api:»licability of the hypothesis to Genesis, its right is 
 challenged to proceed beyond Exod. vi. 3, where God re- 
 vealed himself to Moses as Jehovah, and this henceforth 
 becomes the predominant name of the Most High ; and the 
 barrenness of the unsupported linguistic argument for any 
 division beyond that point is shown. 
 
 It would have been better, perhaps, to put the line of 
 demarcation at the opening of the Book of Exodus. For 
 the alternc^tion of di\ine names is not only of no help 
 
IN TR on UC TIOiV. V 
 
 to the critics in Exod. i. i-vi. 3, but is a source of con- 
 stant perplexity, wliich they escape only by conspicuously 
 disregarding it. It did not belong to the subject treated 
 in this volume, to deal with the partition of the historical 
 sections of Exodus. But I think that no one can carefully 
 examine the division of Exod. i.-xi., as wrought out by 
 Wellhausen, or by others who attempt a similar nice dis- 
 crimination, without feeling at every step that the attempt 
 to carry the partition through is a signal failure. The per- 
 plexity of the scherne rendered necessary by the rigorous 
 application of critical rules is. almost beyond belief. The 
 critical sundering not only rends apart the most intimately 
 connected paragraphs, but throws out isolated clauses and 
 words ad libitum, upon the mere dictum of the operator, 
 and to save the consistency of the hypothesis. It* is simply 
 and evidendy a determined forcing through of a foregone 
 conclusion in spite of every consideration that stands in the 
 way. 
 
 Pushing the linguistic and literary argument aside, as des- 
 titute of any real force in application to this portion of the 
 Pentateuch, the discussion proceeds to grapple with the 
 problems arising out of the constitution and character of 
 the laws themselves, and of the several Codes in which they 
 are found. This is the chosen field of the latest phase of 
 criticism, and it is from this quarter that the materials are 
 drawn for its most formidable assaults upon the authenticity 
 of the Pentateuch and the Mosaic origin of its laws. The 
 issue involved is not merely that of the authorship of a given 
 production, nor whether particular institutions took their 
 rise in one century or in another. It is a question of the 
 veracity of the sacred volume from first to last. The ques- 
 tion is fundamentally that between rationalism and super- 
 natural religion. Did the institutions of the Old Testament, 
 and by legitimate and necessary sequence those of the New 
 
V I INTR ODUC TION. 
 
 Testament also, proceed from the revelation of God ? or are 
 they the natural outgrowth of the national life of Israel ? 
 
 The writer of this treatise has decided convictions upon 
 this fundamental matter, and these underlie and shape his 
 whole treatment of the subject. They determine his point 
 of view, but they do not supersede a thorough and candid 
 investigation. On the contrary, they impel to a frank and 
 honest examination of the whole ground of debate : they 
 lead to the patient consideration of every objection that is 
 raised, and every difficulty that is started, in the confident 
 assurance that all the phenomena of the case must find their 
 solution in harmony with what is true and right. 
 
 Since the argument is throughout conducted in opposi- 
 tion to the latest critical school, with the purpose of wrest- 
 ing their weapons from their hands, it is necessarily limited 
 to the region within which these critics themselves move, 
 and to considerations whose validity must be conceded even 
 from the stand-point which they occupy. Nothing is gained 
 in controversy with them by adducmg testimonies whose 
 genuineness is in question, whose historical character is im- 
 pugned, or which lie outside of the field which they recog- 
 nize as the legitimate territory of debate. Hence, no 
 argument is here drawn from the authority of the New 
 Testament, in defence of the Mosaic origin or authorship of 
 the laws of the Pentateuch. And, in the Old Testament, 
 every thing is left out of the account, which, on the critical 
 hypothesis, is judged irrelevant, or which is susceptible of 
 an interpretation consistent with its claims. These may 
 confirm the faith of those who accept the current view of 
 Scripture and of the Mosaic writings, but are not suited to 
 convince or to confute opposers. 
 
 It will be found that the discussion contained in this little 
 volume is neither narrow nor superficial. It is the fruit 
 of extensive reading and careful reflection. It is not a 
 
INTRODUCTION. Vll 
 
 summary of results hastily gathered from compendiums at 
 second-hand, but it is drawn from the direct study of origi- 
 nal sources. The views of the leading critics are concisely 
 stated on the various points raised in the controversy, 
 substantially as they present them themselves. These are 
 uniformly treated with eminent candor and fairness, while at 
 the same time their weakness and fallacy are skilfully ex- 
 posed. The book makes no pretensions to be an exhaustive 
 exhibition of the subject. It will not, of course, prove a 
 substitute for more elaborate and extended works ; though, 
 to those who are entering upon the study, it will be an 
 admirable introduction to them. And for such as wish to 
 gain a general knowledge of the present state of critical 
 questions concerning the Pentateuch, the range of the dis- 
 cussion, and the arguments employed on each side, I do 
 not know where a more satisfactory exhibition can be found, 
 of what intelligent readers would wish to learn, in so small a 
 
 compass. 
 
 W. HENRY GREEN. 
 
 Princeton, N.J., Jan. 8, iS86. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 STATEMENT AND DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 Pentateuch-Criticism largely a question of facts, it ; subject stated page 
 negatively and positively, 12 ; important aspects and bearings ; 
 general scheme, and method of treatment, 13 .... 11-14 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT OF THE CRITICS. 
 
 Double purpose of the linguistic argument, its dependence on the 
 alternation of divine names, 15 ; bearing of Exod. vi. 2, 3, p. 
 16; theory of Hengstenberg and others not satisfactory, 17; 
 other proofs of diversity of authorship chiefly subjective, 19; 
 yet added to that from the names of God make a plausible 
 case for Genesis, 20 ; but the Mosaic authorship not impugned 
 unless this can be established likewise for the rest of the Penta- 
 teuch ; the linguistic argument at first regarded with distrust, 
 even by rationalistic critics, 21 ; brought into prominence by 
 Eichhorn and Gramberg, 22 ; overlooked by conservative crit- 
 ics, pushed still farther by Stahelin, scrutinized by Kurtz, 23 ; 
 who yielded to Delitzsch ; Hupfeld's altered style of argument, 
 revival of the historical method by the latest critics, 24 ; and 
 literary analysis made less prominent. Remarks preliminary 
 to an examination of the argument : i. Some presumptive evi- 
 dence required to justify the literary analysis of the Pentateu- 
 chal Codes, 25 ; 2. Argument valueless unless the differences 
 are marked, 26; 3. Diversity of matter affects diction and 
 style; 4. Differences must be such as are inconsistent with 
 unity of authorship, 27; 5. Arbitrary and inadmissible meth- 
 ods of the critics, 28 ^S~3° 
 
 I 
 
2 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT EXAMINED. 
 
 Does Genesis justify the literary analysis of the Pentateuchal Codes ? page 
 31 ; Elohistic words and phrases of Genesis, which re-appear 
 after Exod. vi. 2, 3, p. 32 ; some only in Gen. xvii,, a legal chap- 
 ter ; or rare in Genesis, or rare in the Codes, 36 ; or found also 
 in Jehovist passages, or necessary to express the thought which 
 is in many cases peculiar to the ritualistic legislation, 37 ; the 
 number thus reduced to an insignificant group, 40 ; alleged 
 Elohistic diction of the Codes of no account, 41 ; Jehovist dic- 
 tion in Exod. xii., xiii., p. 42 ; in the Decalogue, criteria are 
 intermingled, 45 ; so also in Exod. xx. i8-xxiii. and xxxiv. 10- 
 25, p. 46; Lev. xvii.-xxvi , p. 47; Num. viii. 23-26, p. 48; in- 
 conclusiveness of the linguistic argument notwithstanding the 
 general agreement of the critics, 49 31-50 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 INCOMPLETENESS OF THE CODES. 
 
 Completeness of legislation in the modern sense not to be expected; 
 the law embraces those ceremonial and civil forms which were 
 shaped by the theocratic idea, all else left to existing usage or 
 future provision ; opposite objections urged, incompleteness, or 
 too great perfection for a nomad tribe, 5 1 ; isolation of the peo- 
 ple and the equal division of lands favor simplicity of legisla- 
 tion, which was subordinate to Israel's high spiritual calling, 52, 51, 52 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 SYSTEM, OR DISORDER? 
 
 Alleged want of arrangement, 53; a genetic order to be expected, 
 Bertheau's seven groups, 54 ; unity of the feast-laws in Exod. 
 xii., xiii., shown positively, 55; chronological objection from 
 xii. 3, p. 56 ; memorial a7ite factum, alleged discrepancies in 
 the account, 57; or interpolation, contradiction, 59; and trans- 
 position ; duplicate and mutually inconsistent laws, unleavened 
 bread not mentioned in Moses' instruction to the elders, 60 ; 
 the Book of the Covenant, 61 ; directions for building the 
 sanctuary, Exod. xxv.-xxx., p. 62 ; Sabbath-law, Exod. xxxi. 
 12-17, p. 63; restatement of the Covenant-law, xxxiv. 10-27, 
 p. 64; Sabbath-law, xxxv. 1-3; Levitical Code, the sacrificial 
 laws, Lev. i.-vii., p. 65 ; induction of Aaron and his sons, 
 
CONTENTS. 3 
 
 chap, viii.-x., laws concerning iincleanness, purification, and PAGE 
 holiness, chap, xi.-xxv., p. 66 ; uhity of chap, xxiii., p. 68 ; 
 formal close in chap, xxvi., p. 70 ; chap, xxvii., vows ; histor- 
 ical principle of arrangement predominates in Numbers, 71 ; 
 Bertheau's groups ; objections answered, 72 . . . . 53-74 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 CONTRADICTIONS AND REPETITIONS. 
 
 Contradictory laws not exclusive of Mosaic authorship if due to 
 altered circumstances or one substituted for the other, or if the 
 discrepancies are few and isolated, 75 ; seeming differences 
 may arise from the peculiar aims of distinct laws, 76 ; Kuenen's 
 distinction dissented from ; methods of harmonizing, systemat- 
 ically and historically, "]•] ; Delitzsch's illustration from the 
 Justinian Code, 78; how contradictions may be invalidated; 
 repetitions explained, 79 75-80 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 DEVELOPMENT OF LAW. 
 
 Evolutionary and naturalistic critics necessarily obliged to reverse 
 the order of Israel's history, 81 ; the scheme of Wellhausen, 82 ; 
 confessed retrogression, %i ; alleged order of the Codes, 84 . 81-84 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 UNITY OR PLURALITY OF SANCTUARY? 
 
 The Covenant-law in Exod. xx. 24-26; its directions provisional, 
 85; objections answered, 86; the words, "where I record my 
 name," 87 ; unity presupposed in the feast-law, xxiii. 17, 19, no 
 contradiction in this respect between the Covenant-law and 
 subsequent Codes, 88 ; absence of provision for priests does not 
 prove the right of all to offer sacrifice ; Deuteronomy wrongly 
 cited as a witness to the period immediately preceding Josi- 
 ah's reform, 8g ; it emphasizes permanence as well as unity, 
 91 ; its polemic character explained, 92 85-95 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THF SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM. 
 
 Wellhausen's scheme of the development of sacrifice and its ritualj 
 96; the same sacrifices in Deuteronomy and the Jehovist ; con- 
 
4 CONTENTS. 
 
 trast between the Covenant-law and the Priest Code too sharply page 
 drawn ; original simplicity of sacrifice no objection to the Mo- 
 saic origin of the Priest Code, 99 ; burnt-offerings and peace- 
 offerings ; the existence of the altai- of incense, 100 , . . 96-103 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 PRIESTS AND LEVITES. 
 
 The gradual restriction of the priestly ofifice as affirmed by the crit- 
 ics, 104 ; the alleged stages of the development, 106 ; it is de- 
 nied that Jehovistic law knows nothing of a priestly order, 
 107; or that Deuteronomy puts priests and Levites on a par, 
 loS : post-exilic books use the same generic designation ; allega- 
 tion controverted that Deuteronomy assigns priestly functions 
 to Levites, 109 ; use made of Ezekiel's Thora by the critics, 
 though it is ideal, 1 1 1 ; and prospective ; Ezekiel's three state- 
 ments, 112; their explanation, 113; at first return from exile 
 distinction between priests and Levites already established, 
 118 ; more priests returned than Levites; arbitrary to assume 
 that this part only of Ezekiel's Thora was binding, 119; no 
 gradual restriction of the priesthood on this hypothesis, 120; it 
 does not explain how Levi became the priestly tribe, 121 ; 
 Wellhausen's evasion, 122; distinction traceable in the tribe of 
 Levi, existence of an Aaronic priesthood shown, 124; Kuenen's 
 inference from Deut. xxxiii. S-u ; priests and Levites distin- 
 guished in Samuel and Kings, 125 ; Wellhausen's opinion that 
 the high-priest was unknown before the exile, his arguments 
 examined, 126 104-129 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 LEVITICAL AND PRIESTLY REVENUES. 
 
 Wellhausen's view of the change in the priest's share of the sacri- 
 fices, 130; remarks in reply, 131 ; alleged change in tithes, re- 
 plied to, 132 ; change in firstlings, reply, \2i}, ; objections relating 
 to the Levitical cities, 134 ; reply, 136 130-138 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 FEASTS. 
 
 Points in which the feast-laws of Deuteronomy advance beyond the 
 Jehovistic Code, 139 ; further advance in the Priest Code, 141 ; 
 alleged agricultural origin of the three main feasts, but the ear- 
 liest laws assign a historical basis for Passover, 14^ ; critics' 
 severance of Passover and unleavened bread, 144 j etymology 
 
CONTENTS. 5 
 
 of " Passover," critical evasion, 146 ; Wellhausen's hypothesis PAGE 
 of its origin, 147 ; his arguments reviewed, 148 ; historical asso- 
 ciation of feast of tabernacles not of late origin, 150; pre- 
 tended advance of Deuteronomy upon the Covenant-law 
 considered, 151 ; alleged peculiarities of the Priest Code con- 
 sidered, 153; Passover not merely a commemoration, but a 
 saving ordinance, the holy convocation on the seventh day of 
 unleavened bread, 155 ; a day said to have been added by the 
 Priest Code to both unleavened bread and tabernacles ; also 
 feast of trumpets and Day of Atonement said to be additional, 
 157 ; arguments for this allegation considered, 138 . . . 139-164 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 UNITY OF DEUTERONOMY AND THE LAWS OF THE 
 INTERMEDIATE BOOKS. 
 
 Critical views of Deuteronomy ; the sense in which its unity with 
 preceding laws is maintained, 165 ; the peculiar character of 
 Deuteronomy variously defined, i65; best presented by Haver- 
 nick, 167; this the most comprehensive and applicable to all 
 the phenomena, 168; the diversity of character does not pre- 
 clude unity of authorship, since Moses was both legislator and 
 prophet, 170; exhaustive treatment of differences by Hengsten- 
 berg and others ; Deuteronomy posterior to the legislation of 
 the other books of the Pentateuch, 1 72 ; Kuenen's prior state- 
 ments on this subject, 173; Graf's declaration that Deuteron- 
 omy presupposed the Elohistic narrative, 174; the relation of 
 Deuteronomy to the Jehovistic Code does not disprove the ex- 
 istence of the Elohistic Code ; allusions in Deuteronomy to the 
 Elohistic history, 176 ; and to the Elohistic legislation, 177 . 165-179 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE MOSAIC ORIGIN OF THE 
 DEUTERONOMIC CODE. 
 
 The new and the old hypothesis contrasted, 180 ; the explicit testi- 
 mony in Deut. xxxi. 9, 24 ; this refers not to the whole Pen- 
 tateuch, but to the legal portion of Deuteronomy, 181 ; though 
 yielding indirect testimony in regard to the other Codes ; " lit- 
 erary fiction," 183; to be distinguished from legal forgery, 184; 
 indirect testimony of Deuteronomy to its Mosaic origin, the 
 time and situation, acquaintance shown with the region, not due 
 to an attempt on the part of the author to personate Moses, 
 1 86; tlie conquest of Canaan still futm-e, references to the so- 
 journ in Egypt, 187 ......... iSo-iSS 
 
6 CONTENTS. 
 
 \ CHAPTER XV. 
 
 T OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 Deuteronomy alleged to be a Reform Code, and assigned to differ- page 
 ent dates ; Riehm's propositions, 189 ; its supernatural charac- 
 ter denied ; are the utterances of Deuteronomy vaticinia ex 
 eventu? chap. xvii. 14-20 as related to Solomon's reign, 190; 
 to the narrative in 1 Sam. viii., p. 191 ; all consistent with Mosaic 
 origin, but not with later date, 192 ; xvii. 8-13, the institution 
 of Judges, 193; not prove its origin in or after the reign of Je- 
 hoshaphat ; chap, xviii., the prophet like Moses, and false proph- 
 ets, 194 ; iv. ig, xvii. 3, the prohibition of star-worship ; " beyond 
 Jordan," 195 ; positive arguments, the military law of chap, xx., 
 the curse upon Amalek, 197 ; attitude toward Edom and Egypt, 
 198; Lev. xvii, modified in Deut. xii. 15, other laws, no re-ac- 
 tion against ceremonial formalism, 199; passing of Jordan, and 
 conquest of Caanan, 200 189-200 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE I\IOSAIC ORIGIN OF THE 
 LAWS IN EXODUS-NUMBERS. 
 
 Twofold direct testimony, Mosaic origin claimed, 201 ; Moses wrote 
 certain laws, Exod. xvii. i-i, p. 202; xxiv. 4, Num. xxxiii. 2, 
 critical inferences, 203 ; indirect internal evidence, 204 ; Bleek's 
 propositions, two opposite theories, 205 ; principles on which 
 the solution must rest, 206 ; no allusions alleged in the Priest 
 Code to its assumed late date, 207 ; the law concerning leprosy 
 demonstrably Mosaic, 209 ; further deductions from this fact, 
 210; the Decalogue, 211 201-213 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE HISTORICAL BOOKS,— JUDGES, FIRST 
 AND SECOND SAMUEL, FIRST AND SECOND KINGS. 
 
 The critics' conception of the sources, 214; makes positive argu- 
 ment from this quarter useless with them, 215; testimony set 
 aside by the assumption of interpolations ; observance of the 
 ritual does not certainly prove existence of Codes, though it 
 conflicts with the latest phase of criticism, 216; attitude apolo- 
 getic, simply prove that admitted facts do not exclude the ex- 
 istence of the Pentateuchal Codes, Bochim, Gideon, Manoah, 
 217; Jephthah, 218; Bethel, Micah, sacrifice by others than 
 priests, first chapters of Samuel, 219; captivity of the ark, re- 
 
CONTENTS. 7 
 
 form under Samuel, 220; Saul, David, 221; Solomon, period page 
 
 after the schism, 222 ; attitude of the prophets of the ten 
 
 tribes, worship in high places, 223 214-226 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY PROPHETS. 
 
 Argue only from books whose antiquity is acknowledged by the 
 critics ; value of this testimony ; references to " the law of Je- 
 hovah," 227 ; the phrase has both a general and more limited 
 sense, 228 ; in certain passages it must mean the Mosaic law, 
 229; Hos. viii. 12 discussed, 231; Smend's admissions, 233; 
 references to the ritual do not establish the existence of the 
 Codes, but on the other hand their existence cannot be dis- 
 proved ; alleged antagonism to the priesthood and ceremonial, 
 235 ; but the ceremonies opposed are treated not with indiffer- 
 ence but with repugnance, 236 ; the recognized relation of cere- 
 monies and true piety shown even by evil-doers ; the prophets 
 did not aim to abolish the ritual, 237 ; Isa. xxix. 13, the favora- 
 ble estmiate put upon the ritual, Amos v. 25, 26, discussed, 238, 227-241 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE POETICAL BOOKS. 
 
 Critical opinions respecting the poetical books, Reuss, 242 ; Davidic 
 Psalms according to Hitzig and Ewald, their spiritual concep- 
 tions, 243 ; deductions from them, the law referred to, 244 ; Zion 
 the only legal sanctuary, references to the Pentateuch, 245 . 242-246 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 SECOND KINGS XXII. AND NEHEMIAH VIII.-X. 
 
 A pious fraud assumed in 2 Kings xxii ; but the easy submission of 
 opposers unaccountable, 247 ; Deut. xxviii. 36, why an entire 
 Code ? such a forgery without a parallel in the Old-Testament 
 literature, 248 ; Kuenen's inconsistent attitude to Neh, viii.-x ; 
 the law read by Ezra not the Priest Code merely, but the entire 
 Mosaic Thora, 249 ; Ezra's relation to this law ; the critics' 
 hypothesis located in a period of which nothing is known, 
 Ezekiel's programme, 251 ; the so-called Deutero-Isaiah, the 
 exiles who first returned, 252 ; successive steps assumed by 
 the critics in the formation of the Priest Code ; entire lack of 
 positive evidence, 253 ; insupposable under the circumstances, 
 254 ; the scheme impracticable, 256 ; the old view safest and 
 best, 258 247-258 
 
8 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 DID MOSES WRITE THE LAWS? 
 
 What Moses is expressly stated to have written, 259 ; the art of page 
 writing possessed by the Israelites in the Mosaic age, source 
 of the Semitic alphabet, 260 ; Israel's state of civilization at the 
 exodus, 261 ; oral transmission of laws, 262 ; probable inference 
 from the writing of the Covenant-law, the Decalogue and Deu- 
 teronomy, that the Priest Code was written likewise, 263 . 259-263 
 
THE MOSAIC ORIGIN OF THE 
 PENTATEUCHAL CODES. 
 
THE MOSAIC ORIGIN OF THE 
 PENTAFEUCHAL CODES. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 STATEMENT AND DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 THE subject defined by this title is one of very 
 complicated and comprehensive character. Es- 
 pecially since Pentateach-Criticism has become pre- 
 eminently historical in its most advanced leaders, — 
 the school of Reuss, Kuenen, Wellhausen, and others, 
 — the field of investigation has been so enlarged, and 
 the various arguments have assumed such complex 
 relations to each other, that more space would be 
 required for a full discussion than we can allow our- 
 selves. Pentateuch-Criticism has, to a very large 
 extent, been reduced to a question of facts. A 
 detailed examination of facts must furnish the basis 
 upon which all debate must at present be conducted 
 between the conservative and destructive critics. On 
 account of this comprehensiveness, it will be neces- 
 sary to define our subject, that every thing which 
 does not properly belong to it, or is not vitally con- 
 nected with it, may be excluded at the outset. 
 
12 THE rENTATEUCIIAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 1. We do not intend to discuss the authenticity of 
 the Pentateuch, but only the IMosaic origin of the 
 Codes which it contains. The latter is independent 
 of the former, though the reverse may not be true. 
 Both questions are connected in so far that the 
 establishment, of the Mosaic origin of the Codes 
 would furnish one of the strongest arguments for 
 the authenticity of the whole, since the narrative is 
 in most cases subsidiary to the legislation, and serves 
 as its framework. 
 
 2. By the predication of Mosaic origin is not meant 
 that every statute and regulation in particular can 
 be proven to have emanated from the mouth of Moses. 
 From the nature of the case, such proof can never 
 be given. Neither will it be possible to show that 
 the ipsissima verba of the law in its present form 
 descend from Moses. All that we intend to make a 
 point of inquiry is, ivJietJicr tJie bulk and essence of 
 the Pentatenchal Codes, in so far as they exhibit the 
 evidences of being one great system of legislation, bear 
 the impress of the Mosaic age. The origin of each 
 individual part must be estimated by its relation to 
 this systematic whole. 
 
 3. The questions whether Moses promulgated the 
 laws that pass under his name, and whether he cod- 
 ified them in written form, should be kept distinct. 
 Abstractly they admit of being separated. How far 
 such separation is supposable in this concrete case 
 will appear hereafter. 
 
 4. The problem may be stated in a somewhat dif- 
 ferent form ; viz., whether the law be the immediate 
 product of divine revelation, comjolete from the first. 
 
DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 1 3 
 
 and not admitting of development, or the final out- 
 come of a long process of growth, oftentimes changed 
 before it petrified into its present form. Is the law- 
 soil and seed, or is it the fruit of the religious devel- 
 opment of Israel ? All these contrasts are nearly- 
 synonymous with the great alternative, — Mosaic, or 
 non-Mosaic ? The former naturally represents reve- 
 lation, the latter development. Hence it appears 
 that the unity of the Codes must occupy an impor- 
 tant place in the discussion. 
 
 5. Our subject is one of wide and important bear- 
 ings, not only in the department of Criticism, but also 
 of Apologetics. It touches the heart of the Christian 
 conception of revelation. Criticism on the part of 
 our opponents has long since left its independent 
 position, and become subservient to naturalistic ten- 
 dencies. It manifests a spirit of enmity against the 
 very material upon which it works. The innocent 
 literary aspect of the question has been lost : it is no 
 longer a matter of dilettanteism, but of pressing and 
 practical importance, which cannot be confined to 
 the lecture-rooms and studies of the learned, but 
 claims the interest of the Church at large. 
 
 We shall endeavor to arrange the numerous ques- 
 tions involved under certain general heads, and 
 choose the following scheme : — 
 
 I. Unity of the Pentateuchal Codes. 
 
 A. Unity of the laws in Exodus-Numbers. 
 
 1. The linguistic and literary argument. 
 
 2. Incompleteness of the Codes. 
 
 3. System, or disorder? 
 
 4. Contradictions. 
 
e 
 
 t 
 
 14 TJ/£ PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 5. Repetitions. 
 
 6. Development of law, 
 
 B. Unity of Deuteronomy and the laws of the inter- 
 /p /^ OTniediate books. 
 
 1. Does a unity of relation exist between Deuter- 
 
 onomy and the Codes of the middle books ? 
 
 2. If so, to which of the two must we assign the 
 
 priority ? 
 II. Internal evidence of the Mosaic origin of the Penta- 
 / ^ teuchal Codes. 
 
 A. Internal evidence of the Mosaic origin of the Deu- 
 
 teronomic Code. 
 
 1. Direct testimony of the Code to its own origin. 
 
 2. Indirect internal testimony. 
 
 3. The fraud-theory. 
 
 B. Internal evidence of the Mosaic origin of the laws 
 ^ Q 1 in Exodus-Numbers. 
 
 (j I. Direct testimony of the laws to their own origin. 
 
 a. Simply Mosaic origin claimed. 
 
 b. Codification of laws in written form. 
 2. Indirect internal evidence. 
 
 III. External evidence of the Mosaic origin of the Penta- 
 . a teuchal Codes. 
 
 A. The testimony of the historical books, Judges, 
 
 I and 2 Samuel, i and 2 Kings. 
 
 B. Testimony of the early prophets, Hosea, Amos, 
 
 Isaiah, Micah. 
 
 C. Testimony of the poetical books. 
 
 D. 2 Kinfrs xxii. and Nehemiah viii.-x. 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT 1 5 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT OF THE CRITICS. 
 
 THE critical examination of the linguistic charac- 
 ter of the Pentateuch has been carried on with a 
 double purpose : a.^ £L obtain the criteria for an ana- 
 lytical distribution of its contents among the various 
 documents which critics profess to find ; b. To fix 
 the relative date of these documents. Whilst in / 
 the fatter respect, however, the linguistic argument 
 is no longer counted as a decisive factor, it has been 
 elaborated for the former purpose to such a degree 
 of minuteness, and with such consummate skill, that 
 at present it constitutes one of the most perplexing 
 phenomena for those who defend the essential unity 
 of the Pentateuch, 
 
 For a just estimate of the character and force of 
 the argument, it will be necessary to exhibit not 
 only its historical connection with the discovery of 
 Astruc, but also its logical dependence on the latter. 
 The critics have gradually detached the one from the 
 other, apparently unconscious that in doing so they 
 have destroyed the very basis on which they rest. 
 We must start with a recognition of the very re- 
 markable use of the divine names in Genesis and 
 the first chapters of Exodus. The question, what is 
 
1 6 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 the cause of this, cannot be ultimately decided by an 
 interpretation of the much discussed passage, Exod. 
 vi. 2, 3. If we understand it in the sense that the 
 name Jahveh was previously to this absolutely un- 
 known to the patriarchs and Israelites, it follows im- 
 mediately that the writer of this passage cannot be 
 the author of the Jehovistic passages which precede, 
 unless we take recourse with Clericus and others to 
 the assumption of a prolepsis, which, however, as 
 Hengstenberg has shown, will not account for the 
 facts. But when we take the passage in its other 
 more probable sense, that God had not previously 
 revealed to Israel those special attributes which con- 
 stitute him Jahveh, it does not follow immediately, 
 that, by this different interpretation, the interchange 
 of both names is satisfactorily explained. To show 
 that the writer of Exod. vi. 2, 3, did not absolutely 
 deny the previous knowledge of the name Jahveh, is 
 quite a different thing from explaining how he, ac- 
 quainted with the facts, could have used both names 
 in the course of the same work in such a peculiar 
 manner. 
 
 In favor of the former interpretation, attention has 
 been called to the fact, that, in the Hebrew mind, 
 there was a very intimate connection between the 
 name and the nature of a thing ; that the name is 
 never accidental or arbitrary, but the expression of the 
 nature ; that consequently not to know God as to his 
 name Jahveh, is equivalent to a not-knowing of his 
 nature as such and the reverse. Nature and name 
 are so indissolubly connected, that, where knowledge 
 of the former is wanting, acquaintance with the lat- 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT. 1/ 
 
 ter cannot be imagined. We must admit that there 
 is an amount of truth in this statement : still, it is not 
 sufficient to disprove the possibility of an external 
 proclamation of the divine name previous and pre- 
 paratory to the actual exhibition of its meaning. 
 Exod. iii. 13-15 furnishes a parallel, and shows that 
 nothing else is intended than an announcement of 
 God's purpose to manifest himself in those attributes 
 of his nature emphasized in the name Jahveh, which 
 had already existed, and been used before. As has 
 been remarked, however, this by no means decides 
 the bearing of the passage on the unity of Genesis or 
 the Pentateuch. The point at issue is, whether the 
 various theories which have been proposed by critics 
 in connection with this interpretation can be fairly 
 said to account for the fact, that, in certain portions, 
 Jahveh is used exclusively, in others Elohim, whilst 
 still others are of a mixed character. We must ex- 
 amine the various explanations presented, before we 
 can have any argument, either for unity or diversity 
 of authorship. 
 
 The most plausible theory is that of Hengstenberg, 
 Keil, Havernick, and Kurtz (who afterwards, how- 
 ever, adopted the supplementary hypothesis). They 
 ascribe the alternation of Jahveh and Elohim to in- 
 tentional adjustment on the part of the writer to the 
 historical circumstances and contents. It is certainly 
 true that both names are not synonymous ; but the 
 question remains, whether the difference in their sig- 
 nification accounts for their appearance in all the 
 passages under consideration. It creates a strong 
 presumption against the theory that all these writers, 
 
1 8 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 notwithstanding their agreement in principle, still, 
 when they come to apply it in individual cases, differ 
 widely. This shows that their ingenious explana- 
 tions have not been suggested by the circumstances 
 themselves, but by their own subjective fancy im- 
 posed upon them. The very grounds which should 
 have induced the writer to choose one of the names 
 in a certain passage can be shown to have existed 
 for another passage, where the other name is used. 
 Even the principle of Keil, which is that of Heng- 
 stenberg in a refined form, does not agree with the 
 facts. The weakness of the whole theory is admitted 
 by a man like Delitzsch. He confesses, that all the 
 ingenuity which Keil has expended on the matter to 
 explain the use of Jahveh or Elohim in each single 
 instance, from their original meaning, might have 
 been applied with the same success had the names 
 been employed in exactly the reverse order. Both 
 Drechsler and Kurtz have retracted their former 
 opinion, which was substantially the same with that 
 of Hengstenberg. 
 
 /Others have considered the preference of either 
 one of the divine names as due to the peculiarity of 
 the speakers who are introduced by the writer. But 
 this explanation, besides being unsatisfactory in other 
 respects, is only a partial one ; as it does not account 
 for the same phenomenon where no persons .appear 
 speaking in the narrative. 
 
 /Some have appealed to mere accident, or to a striv- 
 ing after variety on the part of the author. Delitzsch 
 admits the possibility that the author of Genesis 
 could have used both names altcrnatelv, and adduces 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT. 1 9 
 
 the Jahveh- and Elohim-Psalms as a parallel. He 
 quotes also Gen. vii. 16, xxvii. 27, 28 ; Exod. iii. 4, and 
 other passages. Indeed, if all the passages under 
 consideration were of a similar character, this would 
 be the most easy and simple explanation. But what 
 may be possible abstractly, and even in a few actual 
 cases, becomes highly improbable, nay impossible, 
 when taken as a theory to account for all the phe- 
 nomena from Gen. i. i to Exod. vi. 2. 
 
 Now, if we could satisfy ourselves with one of these 
 theories, the other evidence which the critics claim 
 to possess of a diversity of authorship would have 
 but little weight. It is of a strictly linguistic char- 
 acter; and how largely the subjective element enters 
 into all such argumentation, needs no special proof. 
 When taken by itself, deprived of the accompanying 
 use of the special divine name, it becomes weak and 
 inconclusive. More than one, to whom the internal 
 literary evidence of analytical criticism has been pre- 
 sented in this light, has been astonished at the cre- 
 dulity of the critics and the extremely fine webs on 
 which their structures are suspended. But here, as 
 in other cases, the evidence is cumulative and mutu- 
 ally sustaining. The strength of their position with 
 regard to the use of the divine names enables the 
 critics seemingly to justify and commend their ana- 
 lytical researches to an extent and with a success 
 which would otherwise have been impossible. Long 
 since, traces of a peculiar itsus loquendi have been 
 sought, in Elohist sections specially. 
 
 We are told, that nrn??, irpS, r^^r^ orn Dvr.^ etc, are 
 favorite words and phrases of the Elohist ; and they 
 
20 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 appear wherever the name Elohim appears, as its in- 
 separable sateUites. Proceeding on this principle, the 
 critics divide Genesis ; and they all agree as to the 
 main results. The bearing of this startling fact upon 
 our question is self-evident. If it can be proved that 
 Genesis consists of at least two documents, and that 
 the writer of each had a plan in mind to continue his 
 narrative until the possession of the Holy Land by 
 the Israelites, the suggestion becomes a natural one 
 to attempt to apply the same tnsts, so successfully 
 employed in analyzing Genesis, to the subsequent 
 books of the Pentateuch also. And, in actual fact, 
 the critics claim that they are able to assign each 
 law, or Code, to its original document ; and, as far as 
 analysis is concerned, in the main their results agree. 
 We do not see how the objections to the unity of 
 Genesis on the ground just stated can be answered; 
 neither do we knew of any satisfactory answer that 
 has been given as yet. But whilst we cannot enter 
 upon a discussion of this matter, which would open 
 up a field of critical research scarcely less extensive 
 than that of our own subject, we simply wish to indi- 
 cate how closely the two problems are interwoven. 
 The treatment and solution of the one will neces- 
 sarily affect that of the other. It is only within the 
 limits to which we are confined that the destructive 
 tendencies of the documentary hypothesis burst upon 
 us in their full light. One might accept it for Genesis, 
 without yielding to the critics in the least with re- 
 gard to its Mosaic origin. But how can we vindi- 
 cate this claim if driven to the confession, that the 
 history of the Mosaic age itself has reached us in 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT. 21 
 
 two distinct documents, bearing the same distinctive 
 marks as in Genesis, and thereby proving themselves 
 to be their continuation ? And not to speak of Mosaic 
 origin, how, and to what extent, can we claim unity 
 for a Code that appears to be made up of at least 
 two such documents ? It is easy to see how much 
 depends on the answer that we shall give to these 
 and similar questions. If it should become evident 
 that the extreme conservative position with regard 
 to the unity of Genesis has to be abandoned, we can 
 comfort ourselves with the thought that Moses might 
 be, after all, the redactor, and in a modified sense the 
 author, of Genesis. The critical attack does not reach 
 the heart of our camp. It is different here. The 
 vital point around which criticism has moved for 
 several decades in concentric circles, is now made 
 the point of a double attack along the historical and 
 literary lines. Will it prove tenable } 
 
 Before we try to answer this question, it may be 
 well to remark,' that the history of the linguistic]/ 
 argument is not adapted to inspire confidence in its/ 
 validity. It was considered from the outset, even by 
 advanced and rationalistic critics, with distrust and 
 reserve. Apart from a few general observations in 
 this line by Spinoza, Simon, and Clericus ; apart from 
 Astruc's theory, and the scanty remarks of Eichhorn 
 under the pretentious title, '* Proof from the Lan- 
 guage," — Ilgen, who first introduced the terms Elo- 
 hist and Jehovist, was also the first to point out certain 
 
 ^ The material for this historical sketch has been largely drawn from Ko- 
 nig : " De criticae sacrae argumento e linguae legibus repetito." (Leipzig, 
 1879.) 
 
22 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 jDcculiarities in style and expressions, and meaning of 
 words ; e.g., that the Elohist avoided the use of pro- 
 nouns, had a tendency towards redundancy, etc. In 
 the main, the argument was either met by direct ref- 
 utation, or at least by the claim that the materials 
 were not distinct and conspicuous enough to justify 
 the inference of diversity of authorship and of sources. 
 The latter was the prevalent opinion among such 
 men as Hasse, Herbst, Jahn, Sack, and even Ewald. 
 In 1807 De Wette declared that he would not under- 
 take to eliminate the original source from Genesis 
 and the first chapters of Exodus by a purely literary 
 process. The argument found no more favor with 
 Hartmann, who pronounced it perilous and mislead- 
 ing. So largely did this sentiment of aversion and 
 distrust prevail among the critics, that Gesenius, in 
 his "History of the Hebrew Language" (1815), dis- 
 regarded the claims of Eichhcrn and Ilgen entirely. 
 The fragmentary hypothesis was in no wise favorable 
 to the literary criticism. Vater, having established, 
 as he thought, by other than linguistic arguments, the 
 existence of various fragments, expended no labor on 
 that which he esteemed himself fully able to dispense 
 with. 
 
 In 1823 the fourth edition of Eichhorn's introduc- 
 tion appeared, and wrought a remarkable change in 
 the indifference with which the argument from lan- 
 guage had hitherto been dismissed or ignored. Gram- 
 berg worked in the line indicated by Eichhorn, and 
 analyzed Genesis. His methods drew the assent of 
 De Wette, and made even Hartmann less persistent 
 in his opposition ; though the latter continued to 
 
THE LIXGUISTIC ARGUMENT. 23 
 
 characterize the linguistic criteria as '' indicia falla- 
 cia'' In the mean while Vater's and Hartmann's 
 criticism had this effect, that it distracted the atten- 
 tion of conservative critics from Genesis, and kept 
 them occupied with the attempt to prove that the 
 laws of Deuteronomy did not essentially differ from 
 those of the preceding books, and that the whole 
 Pentateuch was to be assigned to the Mosaic age. 
 Hengstenberg, Ranke, and Havernick, however emi- 
 nent their achievements on other lines may be, did 
 little thorough and complete work in this direction. 
 Drechsler, though he found much to criticise in the 
 critics from a formal point of view, did not assail their 
 main position. In the main, critics on the conserva- 
 tive side were little concerned about the literary 
 weapons which their opponents were handling with 
 such destructive skill and agility. Herbst thought, 
 in 1 841, that he could dismiss the m.atter without 
 discussion ; and Welte, though not wholly omitting 
 it, considered it to be '* of very slight importance." 
 On the other side, it was chiefly Stahelin who accom- 
 plished the work begun by Eichhorn and others. In 
 183 1, and afterwards in 1844, he gave the linguistic 
 characteristics of Genesis a thorough examination, 
 and turned his attention also to the peculiarities of 
 the Jehovist. To Stahelin's statements, very little 
 that is essential has been added since. 
 
 The year 1844 indicated a marked change in the 
 attitude of both parties. Kurtz applied himself to a 
 subtile examination of all that had been claimed in 
 support of the divisive theory, and instituted an ac- 
 curate and scrutinizing inquiry into the nature and 
 
24 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 validity of the whole argumentation. His example 
 had this good effect, that henceforth believing critics 
 no longer refrained from meeting their opponents on 
 this field also ; though it must be added, that the 
 battle thus auspiciously begun did not issue in their 
 favor. The interest thus awakened, disposed believ- 
 ing scholars to give the matter an unprejudiced and 
 fair consideration ; and even Kurtz, who had entered 
 the lists as a defender of the unity of the Pentateuch, 
 was induced by Delitzsch to join the ranks of the 
 Supplementarists. (Second edition of the " History 
 of the Old Covenant," 1858.) But it appeared that 
 Criticism had run, as yet, only half of its course, and 
 could not abide long on the same level with men 
 like Delitzsch and Kurtz. Having gradually won 
 their consent, it now went on to gain new laurels in 
 the construction of ingenious hypotheses. The lit- 
 erary argument had become stale, and could be left 
 with the conservative critics. Hupfeld appeared 
 (1853) with his denial that the Jehovist had supple- 
 mented the Elohist ; and now not the diversity of 
 both, but their independence of one another, immedi- 
 ately absorbed universal attention. It lay in the 
 nature of the case, that Hupfeld tried to establish his 
 position, not so much by literary criticism as by 
 tracing the nexus of the history. Since the fall of 
 the supplementary hypothesis, and the general ac- 
 ceptance of the documentary hypothesis, the linguis- 
 tic argument came, if not into disrepute, at least into 
 neglect, among the critics. Then the school of 
 Kuenen, Graf, and Wellhausen, with its revival of the 
 historical methods of George, Vatke, and Reuss, took 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT. 2$ 
 
 the lead ; and, the question having been thus put on 
 a historical basis, the corresponding literary side lost 
 much of the attention it had attracted so largely in 
 former days. Since then, though the critics go on 
 to apply their criteria, and put every line of the Pen- 
 tateuch to this test, little that is new has been added. 
 Kayser, who has attempted to supply the Graf-Well- 
 hausen theory with a literary basis, uses the argu- 
 ment outside of Genesis only. Kleinert speaks 
 ambiguously of its value. Dillmann has carefully 
 sifted the rich collections of Knobel. Wellhausen 
 finally contents himself with the remark, that it is 
 settled among scholars, that the sections in Genesis 
 which he ascribes to the Jehovist and the second 
 Elohist (JE), are as distinct from the Elohistic por- 
 tions as they are cognate to each other. Neither, 
 however, is proved, or rests on any more than the 
 gratuitous assumption, that the literary argument 
 has met with unqualified approval in every quarter. 
 With how little right this can be claimed, our short 
 historical sketch has sufficiently shown. 
 
 Before turning to the evidence itself, we must 
 make some preliminary remarks, which shall guide 
 us in its examination. They are chiefly the follow- 
 ing:— 
 
 I. There must be, in the first instance, some rea- 
 sonable ground why the critical analysis should be 
 applied to the Pentateuchal Code, to justify any use 
 being made of it whatever. If there be no presump- 
 tive evidence that it consists of various documents, it 
 will be justly condemned as a most arbitrary and un- 
 scientific procedure to divide it into several pieces, 
 
20 THE PEN TATE UCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 more or less strongly marked by linguistic or stylistic 
 peculiarities. The question is not whether the pro- 
 cess admits of being made plausible by apparently 
 striking results, but whether it be necessary, or at 
 least natural, on a priori considerations. We might 
 take a chapter or poem of any one author, sunder 
 out a page, note the striking expressions, then exam- 
 ine the other parts of the work, combine all the 
 passages where the same terms appear, give them 
 the name of a document, and finally declare that all 
 the rest constitutes a second document, and that the 
 two were interwoven by the hand of a redactor so as 
 to form now an apparent unity. Our first demand, 
 therefore, is that the critical analysis shall rest on a 
 solid foundation, and show its credentials beforehand. 
 So long as this rule is not strictly observed, the ana- 
 lytical methods will be open to the criticism of having 
 created their own criteria ; so that it is no wonder, if 
 in the end they seem to be verified by consistent or 
 even plausible results. If we first fabricate our cri- 
 teria so as to suit the phenomena under consideration, 
 it is no longer a startling fact when these phenomena 
 afterwards appear to fall in with our critical canons. 
 
 2. A direct inference from the principle just stated 
 is, that the argument from style and diction has 
 no independent value, unless the differences be so 
 marked, and in such a degree irreconcilable with unity 
 of authorship, that they impress any reader of ordinary 
 discriminating literary taste at first sight. To argue 
 from a few bare phrases and isolated words is simply 
 absurd. The evidence, if it be valid at all, must bear 
 out the literary idiosyncrasy of the author : it must 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT. 2/ 
 
 not only be complete and manifold, but constitute 
 one cognate whole. We do not believe that, in the 
 light of this canon, the results of critical analysis 
 will stand very favorably. For centuries and centuries 
 the pretended differences were not discovered, which 
 is a de facto proof that they are not of such a nature 
 as may be rightly demanded for independent argu- 
 mentation. 
 
 3. Before a fair conclusion can be reached, we 
 must eliminate the influence which the diversity of 
 subject-matter will always have on both diction and / 
 style. Legal language constitutes a genus by itself, ^ 
 and can be judged only by its own characteristics. 
 Furthermore, it is admitted on both sides that the 
 Elohist wrote or copied priestly, ritual law; whilst the 
 Jehovist legislation is chiefly concerned with laying 
 down the fundamental principles of civil life. Now, 
 it is self-evident that the same author, writing on both 
 lines, would be obliged to use a different terminology 
 in each case. The ritual has its own ideas and con- 
 ceptions, for which certain words are exclusively em- 
 ployed ; and so with civil law. The idiom of neither 
 can be expected to re-appear in the other. Only when 
 two laws treat of the same topic, and an actual diver- 
 sity as defined in the preceding paragraph exists, 
 can we draw a valid inference of diversity of author- 
 ship. 
 
 4. Due importance must likewise be attached to 
 the context and the situation in which the alleged 
 peculiarities appear. That they recur in certain pas- 
 sages cannot be taken as proof that these together 
 form a separate document. On the contrary, the 
 
28 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 a.«isertion will stand improved so long as it is possible 
 that other influences may have caused the appear- 
 ance of such characteristic expressions in all instances 
 under consideration. We have no right to Hmit the 
 writers in their selection of phrases, or to confine 
 them to the use of one set of words. Neither can 
 the privilege of employing synonymes be denied them. 
 They may consult their subjective taste, which is 
 always more or less fluctuating, have regard to rhythm 
 in the construction of their sentences, and in many 
 ways be influenced by what they think conducive to 
 fulness and elegance of diction. What the critics 
 must show, is that one class of phenomena testifies 
 to such a developed taste in grammar and style as 
 would render the other class of phenomena insup- 
 posable in the same writer. And since it is not pos- 
 sible, in view of our partial acquaintance with the 
 Hebrew, to determine by what considerations the 
 writer may have been led in the use of his vocabu- 
 lary, or the shaping of his sentences, we must insist 
 upon it, that the critics on their part show the im- 
 possibility that such causes should have been at work 
 as might account for the facts consistently with unity 
 of authorship. We must continually remember, that 
 in this whole matter the burden of proof lies on the 
 other side. 
 
 5. The critics constantly indulge in certain favorite 
 practices which strongly tend to destroy any thing 
 objective in their argument. One of these is to take 
 a single verse, or half a verse, or even a smaller por- 
 tion still, out of its natural connection, and attach it 
 to a section from which it is remotely separated, for 
 
r^ 
 
 THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT. 29 
 
 the simple reason that it does not conform to their 
 literary canons. The method looks very innocent, 
 but is at bottom extremely deceptive in a twofold 
 aspect : a. It begs the question, for thus all traces 
 of an Elohistic itsiis loqiLendi may be eliminated from 
 Jehovistic sections and the reverse ; if this be allowed, 
 the argument might as well be given up. b. What 
 the critics in reality do by this method, is just by a 
 dexterous but suspicious movement to turn in their 
 favor wdiat is in fact against them. That an Elohis- 
 tic phrase all at once makes its appearance in the 
 midst of a purely Jehovistic environment, is a most 
 perplexing difficulty, which cannot be relieved by 
 declaring it the result of a variety of hands which 
 have been at work upon the composition of the Pen- 
 tateuch. For it is a sound critical axiom, that diver- 
 sity of style and diction can only be verified by a 
 comparison of lengthy passages, whose nsiis loqtiendi 
 is exclusive. Isolated exceptional cases turn back 
 upon the theory, and prove exactly the opposite ; viz., 
 that the criteria intermingle, which is tantamount to 
 saying that they are no criteria at all. In every in- 
 stance in which such a mixture appears, critics must 
 leave it alone ; and we have a right to claim it as 
 evidence on our side. Another practice, of which we 
 have a right to complain, is the frequent calling in of^ 
 a redactor to do away with troublesome facts. When 
 the Sinaitic Decalogue is found to contain certain 
 characteristically Deuteronomic expressions, Well- 
 hausen is ready to assume a Jehovistic redaction to 
 account for it. We need hardly say, that to such 
 cases the same maxim applies w^hich was laid down a 
 
30 THE PENTATEUCIIAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 moment ago. To us the redactor is as yet no living 
 personality : our belief in his existence will, to a large 
 extent, depend on the estimate we shall put on the 
 critical analysis. It is very obvious, therefore, that 
 to fall back on his mysterious influence for the re- 
 moval of difficulties, involves an o^^^xv pctitio principii. 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT EXAMINED. 3 I 
 
 A 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT EXAMINED. 
 
 WHEN we test the claims of the critics by these 
 principles, the first question is, what a pinori 
 right have they to analyze the Pentateuchal Codes ? 
 The most plausible answer refers us to the use of 
 the divine names in Genesis in connection with the~ 
 fact, that the writers of the Elohistic and Jehovistic 
 documents had evidently both planned a history 
 covering the time from creation down to the con- 
 quest of the Holy Land. Here, however, a difficulty 
 appears. The whole body of Pentateuchal legisla- 
 tion falls after Exod. vi. 2, 3 ; and so the basis on 
 which the right of analysis would rest, breaks down 
 immediately. And, as to the prospective features of 
 the Elohistic and Jehovistic documents, they are 
 most easily accounted for by ascribing them to the 
 redaction of Moses, who may have combined the two 
 so as to form a real unity. 
 
 Still, we must admit that these considerations, 
 whilst they deprive the argument of independent 
 Value, do not entirely destroy its basis. There can 
 be no objection against here also using the criteria 
 furnished by an analysis of Genesis, where there cer- 
 tainly exists, in the alternation of divine names, an 
 a priori right to attempt the analysis. If it were 
 
32 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 possible to show that they re-appear after Exod. vi. 
 2, 3, with the same, or even greater, frequency and 
 regularity, in lengthy coherent passages, which admit 
 of an easy and natural separation from their context, 
 in that case it might not be easy to dispute further 
 the claims of critical analysis to the whole domain of 
 the Pentateuch. Both Kuenen (" Hist. krit. Onderz.," 
 i86i, i. p. 85) and Delitzsch ("Genesis," 4te Ausg., 
 p. 30) put the argument on this basis. As we shall 
 see hereafter, in the hands of less cautious critics it 
 has long since outgrown these modest beginnings. 
 
 As far as we have been able to ascertain, the fol- 
 lowing words and phrases, considered as belonging 
 to the Elohistic 2lsus loqitcndi of Genesis, re-appear 
 after Exod. vi. 2, 3. Where they are not too numer- 
 ous, we shall add the references. 
 
 !• D"'"\jp {sojournings or pilgrimage), passim in Genesis; 
 Exod. vi. 4. 
 
 2. ninx {possessio7i) , ten times before Exod. vi. 4, passim 
 in Leviticus-Numbers, once in an Elohistic passage of Deu- 
 teronomy, xxxii. 49. 
 
 3. DD'ninS, DJiilS, rnnnS, and rni-13 {in his, their, or 
 your generations), four times before Exod. vi. 4, viz., Gen. 
 vi. 9, xvii. 7, 9, 12 ; passim in the middle books. 
 
 4. irpS or ^nrpS, r\yr:h> CinrpS {after his, her, or their 
 kind), sixteen times before Exod. vi. 4, nine times in Levit- 
 icus, four times in Deuteronomy. 
 
 5. n-TH DT^n DVjL'S {in the self- same day), three times 
 before Exod. vi. 4, viz., Gen. vii. 13, xvii. 23, 26 ; three times 
 in Exodus, xii. 17, 41, 51 ; five times in Leviticus, xxiii. 14 
 (□>•;' nj')j 21, 28, 29, 30; once in an Elohistic passage of 
 Deuteronomy, xxxii. 48. 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT EXAMINED. 33 
 
 6. n'")3 D'pn {establish a covenant^, six times before 
 Exod. vi. 4 ; once in Exodus, vi. 4 ; once in Leviticus, xxvi. 
 9 ; once in Deuteronomy, viii. 18 (iT"(3 rnj, Gen. xvii. 2, 
 Num. XXV. 12). 
 
 7. "iDJ-jS {stranger),, twice before Exod. vi. 4, viz., Gen. 
 xvii. 12, 27; once in Exodus, xii. 43 ; once in Leviticus, 
 xxii. 25. 
 
 8. N'tyj {prince'), four times before Exod. vi. 4, viz., Gen. 
 xvii. 20, xxiii. 6, xxv. 16, xxxiv. 2 ; four times in Exodus, 
 xvi. 22, xxii. 28, xxxiv. 31, xxxv. 27 ; once in I^eviticus, iv. 
 22 ; sixty- two times in Numbers. 
 
 9. The Hiphil of I'r {beget), fifty-eight times before 
 Exod. vi. 4 ; once in Leviticus, xxv. 45 ; twice in Numbers, 
 xxvi. 29, 58 ; twice in Deuteronomy, iv. 25, xxviii. 41. 
 
 10. njpp {boKght or price), five times before Exod. vi. 4, 
 viz., Gen. xvii. 12, 13, 23, 27, xxiii. 18 ; once in Exodus, xii. 
 44; four times in Leviticus, xxv. 16, 51, xxvii. 22. 
 
 11. dSi;; {for ever), with a noun in construction, eight 
 times before Exod. vi. 4 ; thirty-eight times in Exodus- 
 Numbers ; four times in Deuteronomy, xiii. 16, xv. 17, 
 xxxiii. 15, 27. 
 
 12. "^DT-S^ {every male), seven times before Exod. vi. 4; 
 once in Exodus, xii. 48 ; three times in Leviticus, vi. 18, 29, 
 vii. 6 ; thirteen times in Numbers. 
 
 13. v'lK' {J^ring forth abundantly') , and yyy^ {creeping 
 thing), seven times before Exod. vi. 4 ; twice in Exodus, 
 i. 7, viii. 3 ; passim in Leviticus ; Deuteronomy xiv. 19. 
 
 14. "Ti^p ij^p {exceedingly) , four times before Exod. vi. 4, 
 viz., Gen. vii. 19, xvii. 2, 6, 20 ; once in Exodus, i. 7 ; once 
 in Numbers, xiv. 7. 
 
 15. r;'J3 ]">« {land of Canaan), passim before Exod. 
 vi. 4 ; once in Exodus, xvi. 35 ; three times in Leviticus, 
 xiv. 34, xviii. 3, xxv. t^Z ; passim in Numbers ; Deuteronomy 
 xxxii. 49. 
 
34 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 i6. riDil TT^D {be fruitful and multiply)^ passi?H in Gen- 
 esis, Lev. xxvi. 9. 
 
 17. r\yr>':i {gathering together), Gen. i. 10, Exod. vii. 19, 
 Lev. xi. 36. 
 
 18. r\h2\^ {food), four times before Exod. vi. 4, viz., Gen. 
 i. 29, 30, vi. 21, ix. 3; once in Exodus, xvi. 15 ; twice in 
 Leviticus, xi. 39, xxv. 6. 
 
 19. E^D"^ {creep), and t^^n {creeping thing), passim in 
 Genesis ; three times in Leviticus, xi. 44, 46, xx. 25 ; 
 Deuteronomy iv. 18. 
 
 20. Tlie emphatic repetition of riK^;^ with |3 (^^ //<f did), 
 once in Genesis, vi. 22 ; six times in Exodus, vii. 6, xii. 28, 
 50, xxxix. 32, 43, xl. 16 ; three times in Numbers, i. 54, viii. 
 20, xvii. 26. 
 
 21. The Hiphil of SiS {separate), five times in Gen. i. ; 
 once in Exodus, xxvi. t^t^ ; passim in Leviticus ; four times 
 in Deuteronomy, iv. 41, x. 8, xix. 7, xxix. 21. 
 
 22. nDp]^ "^Dr {male and female), six times before Exod. 
 vi. 4, viz., Gen. i. 27, v. 2, vi. 19, vii. 3, 9, 16 ; four times in 
 Leviticus, iii. i, 6 (ix-Dx), xii. 7 (ij^), xv. ^iZ C?]"'?)^ Deut. 
 iv. 16 (in). 
 
 23. Sx'^ty'-nn;; bnp {the assenibly of the congregation of 
 Israel), Exod. xii. 6, and Num. xiv. 5. 
 
 24. '£)S {according to), once before Exod. vi. 4, viz., Gen. 
 xlvii. 12; three times in Exodus, xii. 4, xvi. 16, 18; twice 
 ■n Leviticus, xxv. 16, xxvii. 16; twice in Numbers, ix. 17, 
 .cxvi. 54. 
 
 25. 1^33 {soul), in the sense of " person," /czj-i-/;;/ before 
 Exod. vi. 4 ; in Exodus-Numbers, passim. 
 
 26. nj {stranger), twice before Exod. vi. 4, viz.. Gen. xv. 
 13, xxiii. 4; Exodus-Deuteronomy, passim. 
 
 27. 3K^in {sojour7ier), once before Exod. vi. 4, viz., Gen. 
 xxiii. 4 ; once in Exodus, xii. 45 ; Lev. xxii. 10 ; seven times 
 in Lev. xxv. ; Num. xxxv. 15. 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT EXAMINED. 35 
 
 28. it:;3-S3 {all flesh), passim in Genesis; three times 
 in Leviticus, xvii. 14; Num. xvi. 22, xviii. 15, xxvii. 16; 
 Deut. V. 23. 
 
 29. nnsty {maidservant), passim before Exod. vi. 4 ; 
 Exod. xi. 5, Lev. xix. 20. 
 
 30. niriiJiZ/rp'p {according to families), with suffixes, passim 
 in Genesis ; Exodus-Numbers, passi?n. 
 
 31- ;?1J {expire), passim in Genesis; Num. xvii. 26, 28, 
 XX. 3, 29. 
 
 32, tontr; {slay), twice before Exod. vi. 4, viz., Gen. xxii. 
 10, xxxvii. 31 ; Exodus-Numbers, passim. 
 
 Z?i' r^nt!^ {destroy), in the Piel and Hiphil species, /iZJ-j-/;;^ 
 before Exod. vi. 4 ; passion in Exodus-Deuteronomy. 
 
 34. i:^;!"> (^<?/) , and t:;0"i {substance), passim in Genesis; 
 Num. xvi. 32, XXXV. 3. 
 
 35. ni<rp {hundred), passim in Genesis; passim in 
 Exodus-Numbers. 
 
 36. "3 Sj< ;'pr> {hearken tinto), four times before Exod. 
 vi. 4, viz., Gen. iii. 17, xvi. 11, xxi. 17, xxxix. 10 ; Exod. vi. 9, 
 16, 20. 
 
 37. 5<inn K^SJn nn")3ji (//m/ soul shall be cut off). Gen. 
 xvii. 14 ; passim, Exodus-Numbers. 
 
 38- pjp {substance), Gen. xxxiv. 23, xxxvi. 6; Lev. xxii. 
 
 We find accordingly that thirty-eight words and 
 phrases in all, which are claimed in Genesis to be- 
 long to the ustis loqtiendi of the Elohist, re-appear 
 after Exod. vi. 2, 3. At first blush, the not inconsid- 
 erable number might impress us ; but, after the ne- 
 cessary sifting, a very scanty harvest will remain. 
 There is much in this collection that cannot stand 
 the test of our principles laid down above (pp. 25 jf). 
 
36 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 1. Some of these terms occur only in Gen. xvii., 
 which is confessedly a chapter of legal contents ; so 
 that their re-appearance in the Codes has nothing to 
 do with Elohistic or Jehovistic authorship. The 
 fact, that they are nowhere else found in Genesis, 
 warrants us to consider them as legal expressions. 
 This rules out njpp '° (besides Gen. xvii., only in 
 xxiii. i8), 1DT-S3'2 (besides Gen. xvii., only in xxxiv., 
 and there likewise with reference to circumcision). 
 'i3J-||7 ri*inS3 with suffixes (only once besides Gen. 
 xvii., viz., vi. 9). 
 
 2. Likewise we must exclude from the list all words 
 that occur only once or twice in Genesis, since it is 
 an open fallacy to conclude from such few cases that 
 they are Elohistic. This applies to nipp ^^ (only in 
 Gen. i. 10), the emphatic phrase nt^;' jii^o (once, 
 Gen. vi. 22), '3'7 24 (once in Genesis, xlvii. 12), ^V^ 
 (twice, XV. 13, xxiii. 4), Td^'p\^^ (only in xxiii. 4), Dnu^32 
 (xxii. 10, xxxvii. 31), j'Jp^^ (Gen. xxxiv. 23, xxxvi. 6). 
 In all such cases, the occasional use in Genesis is 
 probably nothing but a prolepsis of legal terms. 
 
 3. Neither can we admit as characteristic those 
 words which, though perhaps frequent in Genesis, 
 appear in the Codes in one or two instances at most. 
 It is evident that such isolated words are no index of 
 style. To this class belong D"?;?' (only in Exod. vi. 
 4), nxD ni5o^4 (Exod. i. 7, Num. xiv. 7), nn-j] n^a^^ 
 (Lev. xxvi. 9), nnsiy^g (Lev. xix. 20), ;nJ3i (Num. xvii. 
 and XX.), w:^'-\^\ and iyo-}34 (Num. xvi. 32, xxxv. 3), 
 "J S^ ;»DK/36 (only in Exod. vi.). 
 
 4. Our rule stated above, under No. 5, page 28, 
 forbids us to accept as criteria of the Elohist, words 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT EXAMINED. 37 
 
 which are found also in confessedly Jehovistic pas- 
 sages. Instances of this are ^^'m^ (Exod. xxii. 28 
 (27)), nn*^33 (Exod. xxi. 26, xxxii. 7), "i3 ^^ r^tr^s^ (Gen. 
 xvi. II, Jehovist according to Schrader, Knobel, 
 Kayser, Dillmann ; xxxix. 10, Jehovist according to 
 Schrader, Kayser, Dillmann), \\\X^ ]*"».»? ^5 (Gen. xlvii. 
 13, Jehovist according to Schrader, Kayser). 
 
 5. Of the residuum, a considerable number of 
 words are so intimately related to the idea to be 
 expressed or the thing to be mentioned, that it is 
 absurd to call in the influence of Elohistic style to 
 explain their occurrence. The thought and expres- 
 sion were inseparable, so that the presence of the 
 former necessarily involved that of the latter. If 
 the Jehovist had found occasion to convey the same 
 ideas, we may expect that he would have employed 
 the same forms. It remains only to ask why these 
 ideas and conceptions are peculiar to the Elohist, but 
 here also the answer is obvious. Critics have assigned 
 the ritual legislation to the Elohist exclusively, and 
 consider his narrative in Genesis as subsidiary to 
 this. It is no wonder, then, that the expressions in 
 question are found neither in the Jehovistic Code nor 
 in the corresponding narrative. We believe that the 
 author did not use them in Exod. xx.-xxiii. because 
 he did not touch the subjects which would have given 
 him occasion to do so. The following words are of 
 this character : I'rrpSj^ occurring only where the dis- 
 tinction of species is referred to ; and even then it 
 is not used exclusively, for the Elohist knows and 
 employs the synonymous term Dn'onpit/'p^ also (Gen. 
 viii. 19, Elohistic according to Hupfeld, Knobel, 
 
38 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 Schrader). It is difficult to see how this word could 
 have found a place in the Covenant-law. The only 
 occasions on which the Elohist uses it are in his ac- 
 count of the creation, of the flood, and in the laws of 
 food. Lev, xi. When the Deuteronomist treats of the 
 same topic, he, too, employs the very same expression. 
 dSi;'" with a noun in construction (often followed by 
 070"^"'^ 2), and the phrase J^inn t:/?^n nn-ipji^s? appear 
 only as sanctioning laws that constitute the essential 
 peculiarity of the theocratic people, such as circum- 
 cision, the passover, offerings, etc., and accordingly 
 could not be looked for in the Covenant-law, which 
 is rather ethical and civil. ]"?t^'3 means "to creep;" 
 and, if the Jehovist never employs the word, it is 
 simply because he nowhere refers to a creeping 
 thing. It is so little characteristic of the Elohist, 
 that he himself substitutes for it a number of times 
 the synonyme tr^'D^.'^ Xhe Hiphil of ^"13^' is evi- 
 dently a ritual term (compare Ezek. xxii. 26, xlii. 20, 
 SnS lynpn \i Vn^n), denoting the divinely consti- 
 tuted difference between "holy" and "profane." 
 Hence also it occurs in Gen. i., where the various 
 created bodies and elements are represented as 
 classified and distinguished from the beginning ac- 
 cording to a principle that regulated the plan of a 
 holy Creator. Of course, the Jehovistic legislation 
 is not concerned with such distinctions, i^^p.^^ ^T\^^ 
 denotes the physical sex-distinction : to designate the 
 ethical personality, the Elohist chooses ST\t'^\ t:^'X as 
 well as the Jehovist (Exod. xxxvi. 6 ; Lev. xxiii. 29, 38 ; 
 Num. V. 6, vi. 2. xxx. 17). And the Jehovist knows 
 n^pji -^pr also, and uses it occasionally (Gen. vii. 3, 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT EXAMINED. 39 
 
 Jehovist according to Schrader, Knobel). ti'Si^s in 
 the sense of ** person : " An examination of the 
 passages in Genesis discloses the fact that the word 
 occurs almost exclusively (when it has this sense 
 of '' person ") in connection with numerals. This 
 explains fully why it does not re-appear in the 
 Covenant-law, but rather in Leviticus and Numbers. 
 There it denotes frequently the legal personality of 
 man, that which constitutes him responsible to God 
 and his law. Hence the frequent use of '3 t^?*. 10 
 introduce certain laws, especially in Leviticus. That 
 this introduction is lacking in Exod. xx.-xxiii. is 
 partly accounted for by the general (less personal or 
 individual) tenor of these laws, partly because, as 
 Keil remarks, in many of them the predicate of the 
 sentence makes provision rather for the object than 
 for the subject of the action referred to, so that the 
 construction of the sentence forbade the emphatic, 
 personal mention of the subject by '3 i^s; at the 
 beg^innino:. n}<:3,35 in construction, is not character- 
 istic of the Elohist ; since he uses the absolute state 
 just as frequently, and the Jehovistic legislation had 
 no occasion to employ this numeral. The expres- 
 sions nna D'pn 6 and n^-^a |nj are not entirely synony- 
 mous with the Jehovistic n'"!3 ri"!^. In the latter, the 
 idea of a covenant made with sacrifice is rendered 
 prominent, and the concurrence of two parties em- 
 phasized (compare Ps. 1. 6) ; whilst in n'-)3 D'pn and 
 r\n3 jOJ, the fact is brought out, that the covenant- 
 relation springs from God's free grace ; that he 
 stoops to man, and establishes his covenant amongst 
 men, who could not advance to meet him. It is 
 
40 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC, 
 
 quite natural, therefore, that in Exod. xx.-xxiii,, the 
 phrase jT-i3 Tr\2 should repeatedly occur (xxiii. 32, 
 xxiv. 8 ; compare also xxxiv. 27) ; since, according to 
 xxiv. 4, 5, the Sinaitic covenant was solemnly con- 
 tracted with the offering up of sacrifices, n-jn^^ 2 occurs 
 only six times outside of the Pentateuch and Joshua, 
 if we except Ezek. xl.-xlviii., where it is in frequent 
 use. Num. xxxii. 22, which Schrader and Kayser 
 assign to the Jehovist, shows that the word does not 
 belong exclusively to the Elohistic diction. It de- 
 notes permanent and firmly held property, in contrast 
 with the unsettled, nomadic life of the patriarchs and 
 the Israelites in the desert. This explains its disap- 
 pearance from the common language after the con- 
 quest of Canaan, and its resumption by Ezekiel, who 
 wrote during the captivity. As a proper name, we 
 find it in Gen. xxvi. 26, a passage which Schrader and 
 Kayser give to the Jehovist. T^^jy orn DV;'3 5 appears 
 twelve times in the Pentateuch ; in each of these 
 cases, it serves to mark out the accurate date of a 
 momentous event: Gen. vii. 13, Noah's entering the 
 ark ; xvii, 23, 26, the first circumcision ; Exod. xii. 
 17, 41, 51, the exodus from Egypt; Lev. xxiii. 14, 
 the second day of Mazzoth ; ver. 21, the feast of 
 weeks ; ver. 28, 29, 30, the day of atonement ; Deut. 
 xxxii. 48, the announcement of Moses' death. 
 f It is an exceedingly small group to which the host 
 / of ''satellites" marshalled by the critics has thus 
 J gradually dwindled down. Three words only, dSdx/^ 
 \ the Hiphil of •i^;,9 and ntya-S^.^s have not found an 
 I explanation. The last two are found only once in 
 ^ the Levitical code, the first one tv/ice. The Oal- 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT EXAMINED. 4I 
 
 species of iV, which (in the sense of "begetting") 
 the critics claim as characteristically Jehovistic, does 
 not occur in Exod. xx.-xxiii. ; for in xx. 4, it means 
 *' to bear." The fact that these three terms occur 
 only in the Levitical law is hardly striking enough to 
 need an explanation. 
 
 If thus the argument drawn from the Elohistic 
 2istis loq7ic7idi of Genesis proves to be worthless^ we 
 can have no great expectations of the independent 
 evidence collected from the Codes themselves. To 
 say that the Levitical law employs a ceremonial ter- 
 minology which is wanting in the Jehovistic parts of 
 Exodus, is true, but so much so that it amounts to a 
 truism.- What hse is there in arraying a list of 
 names of utensils and implements of the tabernacle, 
 parts of the priestly apparel, etc., and then declaring 
 that they belong exclusively to the Elohist } Still, 
 Knobel has taken pains to do this ! Again, v/hat can 
 be made of the Jehovist not using a sacrificial phrase 
 like D?37i!n |'5 {between the evenings) ? or such as refer 
 specifically to the religious life of Israel, on which the 
 Jehovist did not legislate at all ? It sounds strange 
 when we hear 'c;ip «";)jp? {//ofy eonvocation) classed 
 as an Elohistic phrase. Do the critics mean, that in 
 the time of Jehoshaphat, or whatever date they may 
 choose to fix for the Origin of the Covenant-law, no 
 such "holy convocations'* were held .^ And, if not, 
 where is the slightest trace of proof that the Jehovist 
 has another word to designate the same thing } We 
 cannot but infer that he had no occasion to use the 
 word, and that this is the one and the only reason 
 why the word is not found in his vocabulary. He 
 
42 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 does use a similar phrase, however, in Exod. xxii. 30 
 (31) ; viz., ir^ip 'm;<^ {holy men). What is to be thought 
 of Elohistic words which do not occur even once in 
 the whole book of Leviticus, such as i~>i><?Y {hosts), 
 D'psiy {judgments) ? or of ri'p>» {jieighbor), which ap- 
 pears only in laws of injury done to a neighbor, 
 whilst, moreover, the Elohist employs the synony- 
 mous |32^ and V."^ in common with the Jehovist just as 
 well ? Besides ]*.7^?n J^^J?* the Old Testament knows 
 no other word for *' native of the land ; " and so we 
 will have to hold that its absence in the Jehovist has 
 no further cause than a want of occasion to use it. 
 It is useless to collect here all the pretended evi- 
 dence of this and like character, except in so far as 
 it might furnish an apt illustration of the ease with 
 which some critics make the transition from proving 
 a theory to applying it, all the while forgetting that 
 their application, as it results in a rcdnctio ad absnj'- 
 dmny instead of fortifying, practically weakens, all 
 the previous evidence. 
 
 We now turn to the Jehovistic part of the Mosaic 
 Code. The passages, Exod. xii. 24-27, xiii. 3-10, 11- 
 16, are assigned to it by Knobel, Dillmann, Noldeke, 
 Schrader, Kayser (Dillmann and Kayser, in addition, 
 xii. 21-24). Here, also, it is claimed that the dissec- 
 tion rests on solid literary grounds, which we shall 
 have to examine. 
 
 First, the proper name D't^yp {Egypt), not preceded 
 by the usual t^?^ {land), xii. 27. But neither form, 
 with or without V7^' is exclusively used by either the 
 Jehovist or the Elohist. The former uses the form 
 with y^^5. Gen. xiii. 10 (according to Schrader, Knobel, 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT EXAMINED. 43 
 
 Kayser, Dillmann), and xxi. 21 (according to Kayser) ; 
 also Exod. xxii. 20. The Elohist, on the other hand, 
 employs that without ]*;^^?, Gen. xlvi. 6-^^ (according 
 to Hupfeld, Knobel, Schrader, Dillmann). 
 
 Next comes D'"!?r, ri'3 {Jwitse of bondmen), xiii. 3, 4. 
 This is used only here and in xx. 2 ; also four times 
 in Deuteronomy. But the fact that the phrase does 
 not occur before the exodus shows that its use 
 does not depend on the style of the writer, but on 
 the intention of the law-giver. The reference to the 
 bondage of Egypt is urged as a motive to faithful 
 observance of God's commands ; and, of course, this 
 was only appropriate in such laws as directly re- 
 minded the people of their sojourn in Egypt (Pass- 
 over, Mazzoth, Treatment of strangers and servants), 
 and suited ethical commands better than ceremonial 
 prescriptions, which were given to the priests, not 
 addressed to the people in general. 
 
 T3J^ lyin {tJie month Abib), xiii. 4; also, xxiii. 15, 
 xxxiv. 18; Deut. xvi. i. A comparison of all the 
 passages will show, that, wherever a specific date is 
 given, the month is numbered also ; and, wherever 
 the date is left indefinite, the month is designated by 
 the name Abib. In all these pretended Jehovistic 
 passages, there is no specification ; and accordingly 
 Abib is retained. Of Wellhausen's assertion, that 
 the custom of numbering the months, in connection 
 with the adoption of the spring era, was derived 
 from the Babylonians during the captivity, we shall 
 have occasion to speak hereafter. 
 
 nin; ;^3i!^j {Jehovah szuair), xiii. 5, 11, xxxii. 13, 
 xxxiii. I. But the Levitical law contains no refer- 
 
44 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 ence to God's swearing, neither is it easy to see 
 at what occasion it could have introduced God as 
 doing so. 
 
 The enumeration of the seven Canaanitish nations, 
 xiii. 5 ; also, xxiii. 23, 28, xxxiii. 2, xxxiv. 11. But it 
 is not merely this complete enumeration which is pe- 
 culiar to the Jehovist, but the idea that the Israelites 
 shall possess the land of the Canaanite tribes. He 
 conveys this idea without the same enumeration, 
 Gen. xiii. 7, xxxiv. 30 : in Exod. xxiii. 28, only three 
 tribes are mentioned. That the idea is found with 
 him rather than with the Elohist is natural ; since 
 the critics assign to the latter only ritual law, with 
 wdiich it stands in no way related. And, even if we 
 suppose that it was peculiar to the Jehovistic docu- 
 ment in Genesis, what wonder would there be in 
 Moses' repeating the phrase 1 How do we know that 
 he cannot have appropriated some elements of the 
 diction of the documents } 
 
 "dyy} ^Sn nnr ]'^^? {land floiuing zvitJi milk and Jionc))^ 
 xiii. 5, xxxiii. 3. This phrase occurs also in Lev. xx. 
 24. In Num. xiv. 8, Schrader is obliged to divide a 
 single verse to eliminate it from an Elohistic con- 
 text. This must accordingly be given up as peculiarly 
 Jehovistic. 
 
 Snj {quarters or borders), xiii. 7, occurs in the Elo- 
 histic passages, Gen. xxiii. 12 ; Num. xx. 23, xxxiv. 
 3, 6, xxxv. 26, and elsewhere. How this can be 
 called Jehovistic may remain for the critics to deter- 
 mine. The word occurs throughout the whole Old 
 Testament. 
 
 *iu;'_3 {pccanse)y xiii. 8 ; also, xix. 9, xx. 20 ; passim 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT EXAMINED. 45 
 
 in Genesis. The expression is of frequent occur- 
 rence in the Old Testament, from Amos down to 
 Chronicles. It is absurd to call it the peculiar prop- 
 erty of the Jehovist, since it belonged evidently to 
 the common stock of the language. 
 
 "tnn {in time to conic), Exod. xiii. 14, xxxii. 5 ; Num. 
 iv. 25, xvi. 7, 16. The two latter passages are by 
 both Noldeke and Schrader assigned to the Elohist, 
 so that the word ceases to be characteristically Jeho- 
 vistic. Moreover, the Elohist has it in somewhat 
 different form, i^"jn;3p. Lev. xxiii. 11, 15, 16. 
 
 With regard to the Decalogue our task is easy ; 
 since the critics all admit that the criteria of Jehovist, 
 Elohist, and Deuteronomist intermingle. The sanc- 
 tion added to the Sabbath-command, ver. 11, refers 
 back to the Elohistic account of the creation. Also 
 the phrase hdj^So niy>' {do work) is Elohistic. T"1X'^^ 
 (/// thy gates), in ver. 10, is Deuteronomic. Well- 
 hausen claims the same for the whole of ver. 6, 
 D"'?;*^ n'5p {^fro^n the house of bondincji) is Jehovistic. 
 The whole Decalogue, however, forms a strict unit, 
 and the critical analysis will not apply. To assume a 
 post-Deuteronomic redaction, or even modifications 
 later than the final redaction of the Pentateuch 
 (Dillmann), seems precarious, and in the highest 
 degree improbable. Everybody who has no precon- 
 ceived idea that the Pentateuch must necessarily be 
 of composite character, and have gone through a 
 series of redactions, will not fail to find in these 
 phenomena a striking proof that the author of the 
 legislation employed words from the Elohistic, Jeho- 
 vistic, and Deuteronomic vocabulary promiscuously. 
 
46 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 The passage, Exod. xx. i8-xxiii., remains to be 
 ^examined. Here also we have an illustration of 
 criteria intermingling, on account of which the re- 
 dactor is again resorted to. Wellhausen assigns chap. 
 xxi.-xxiii. to J.' Dillmann thinks they were taken 
 by B (Wellhausen's E) from another source. With 
 regard to xxxiv. 10-25, Dillmann tries to vindicate 
 the authorship of C ; whilst Wellhausen assumes a 
 tertiuni quid, an unknown source, neither Q nor J 
 nor E, from which this piece alone has been pre- 
 served to us. Dillmann, moreover, gives as his opin- 
 ion that the whole passage, xxxiv. 1-28, is out of place 
 in the present connection, and stood in C originall}-, 
 behind xx. 20, xxiv. 1,2; so that the redactor must 
 have taken the twofold liberty of first substituting 
 the Covenant-laws, xx.-xxiii., for those found in C 
 (now chap, xxxiv. 10-26), and of afterwards using 
 the opportunity offered him by the breach and 
 restoration of the Covenant, to resume what he had 
 first thrown out. It is alike needless and useless 
 to follow the critics into this labyrinth of dissections, 
 transpositions, and interpolations, by which they 
 condemn themselves, and frequently each other. 
 Perhaps a dozen other ways might be devised to 
 transform a beautifully connected passage into a 
 miserable patchwork. A comparison of the criteria 
 will suffice to convince any unprejudiced mind how 
 impossible it is to prove diversity of authorship on 
 
 ^ In the nomenclature of Wellhausen, the Elohist is O, the Jehovist JE, 
 made up from two sources, J, the Jahvist, and E, the second Elohist. Dill- 
 mann calls the Elohist A, the second Elohist B, and the Jehovist C. This 
 last corresponds, not to the composite Jehovist of Wellhausen, but to what he 
 denominates the Jahvist. 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT EXAMINED, 47 
 
 literary grounds. For the traces of B, compare 
 Dillmann, " Exodus," p. 220. To C belong, amongst 
 others, n^n {divide), xxi. 35 ; np;;v {cry), xxii. 22 ; r>:n 
 HTfn {beast of the field) y xxiii. 12; nor niD (shall surely 
 be put to death), passim; p"l {pnly), xxi. 19 ; ^^p {curse), 
 xxi. 17. Of A we note the following words: N'm 
 {prince, rule?), xxii. 27 ; "^J {strange}), xxii. 20 ; r\nE^ 
 {destroy), xxi. 27 ; Dp.vn ]-i« (Z^/^^aT ^/ Egypt), xxi. 20, 
 xxiii. 8 ; ^i< rv\T\ {anger burn), xxii. 23 (in Genesis 
 the Jehovist is said to use nin as impersonal, with 
 the preposition S). The statement in xxiii. 18 has a 
 Deuteronomic color. 
 
 In Leviticus, chap, xvii.-xxvi. have been partially- 
 denied to the Elohist. Ewald, Noldeke, and Schra- 
 der accounted for the peculiarity of chap, xviii.-xx. 
 by the use which the Elohist had made of an older 
 Code. Graf assigned xvii.-xxii., xxv., xxvi., to Ezekiel. 
 Kayser, not content to deal with the material in such 
 a summary way, institutes a marvellous analysis 
 carried out with hair-splitting finesse. He agrees 
 with Graf in considering Ezekiel as the author, and 
 confidently claimed in 1874 to have settled this fact 
 beyond the possibility of doubt. Three years after- 
 wards, however, this theory had been already super- 
 seded ; since Klostermann instituted a still closer 
 comparison between Ezekiel and these chapters, 
 which showed, that, with much similarity, there were 
 also considerable differences in expression, making 
 the view untenable. With him Kuenen and Noldeke 
 agreed ; whereupon the former with Wellhausen re- 
 versed the order, and declared the chapters one of 
 the earliest exilic bodies of law composed in depend- 
 
48 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 ence upon EzcKiel, a sort of bricige between him and 
 the Pentateuchal Codes. Dillmann says emphatically 
 that for all this there is no ground in the contents 
 and language of these chapters, which he regards as 
 containing very old, even some of the oldest, laws. 
 The redactor composed the collection from two 
 different redactions of what Dillmann calls the '' Sina- 
 itic Law," these two redactions being respectively 
 those of the Elohist and the Jehovist. 
 
 Where there is so much disagreement among the 
 critics, it seems superfluous to discuss the numerous 
 divisions of which the majority must necessarily be 
 wrong. The greater part of the peculiar expressions 
 stated by Kayser (p. 66) arise naturally from the 
 contents : some express ideas that occur only here ; 
 several of them are confessedly Jehovistic, others 
 Elohistic ; the whole division is arbitrary and preca- 
 rious, one of the most striking proofs that the criti- 
 cal analysis, if consistently carried out, issues in 
 absurdities. Ofteri a single verse is sundered out, 
 because it present^ traces of the Elohist. And after 
 all, Kayser himself is obliged to confess that the 
 elimination of the new source ("law of holiness"), 
 though constituting a connected and somewhat cog- 
 nate whole, leaves the remaining parts incoherent 
 and detached, without any central idea, or guiding 
 principle of connection. 
 
 It may still further be remarked, that the denial of 
 the Elohist origin of Num. viii, 23-26 (Kayser assigns 
 it to the redactor) does not rest on literary consid- 
 erations, but is maintained in direct opposition to 
 the decidedly Elohistic language of these verses, 
 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT EXAMINED. 49 
 
 simply on account of a pretended contradiction to 
 chap. iv. 30. 
 
 We have reached the end of our discussion of the 
 literary argument, and may state as our conclusion, 
 that, whatever it be held to prove with regard to 
 Genesis, it is incompetent to prove a diversity ol 
 authorship for the Pentateuchal Codes. It appear^ 
 that the divisive methods partake rather of the nature / 
 of an applied hypothesis than of a strictly linguistic ' 
 argumentation. The conviction that the middle 
 books of the Pentateuch are of a composite char- 
 acter may rest on various grounds. With the. newest 
 school it is based on a historical theory of the de- 
 velopment of the ceremonial and religious institutions 
 for which of necessity a literary counterpart must be 
 sought. On the whole, the work has been carried 
 out for more than a century with marvellous inge- 
 nuity ; and the comparatively uniform results need 
 not surprise us. Given the preconceived notion of 
 a composite character in the critic's mind; given the 
 two Codes, though closely related, ~still sufficiently 
 distinct ; given furthermore the acute scrutinizing 
 and analyzing of a century, cautiously fortifying all 
 weak points, and guarding against exposure on any 
 point where any tolerable assertion may avoid it, — 
 and who can wonder, that, under the concurrence of 
 such favorable conditions, results have been obtained 
 that seem to equal in plausibihty the skill at work in 
 their production ? But the fruit, however beautiful 
 in appearance, has grown on a tree radically different 
 from that rooted in the soil of truly Evangelical 
 Criticism. Let us not appropriate theories and 
 
50 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 schemes, at the basis of which He historical concep- 
 tions, that we can never make our own. The crit- 
 ics may jump without hesitation from a composite 
 Genesis to a composite legislation : for us there is a 
 wide gulf between the two, and more than Christian 
 prudence prevents us from placing what claims to 
 be one continuous revelation of the livinc^ God on 
 our dissecting-tables before we have been furnished 
 with positive and unequivocal proof that it is com- 
 posite. All the evidence hitherto produced is such 
 that it convinces only him who is imbued with the 
 a priori belief, that there is no divine revelation in 
 the law : for all others, who repudiate such a belief, 
 it is no more than the outcome of a subtile and in- 
 genious, but none the less unfounded and deceptive, 
 imagination. 
 
INCOMPLETENESS OF THE CODES. 5 I 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 INCOMPLETENESS OF THE CODES. 
 
 IF we expect in the Mosaic Codes a complete legis- 
 lation in the modern sense of the word, we shall 
 surely be disappointed. As modern society, or even 
 Roman life, shaped itself, it presents many a feature 
 in its legislation for which the Codes of ancient 
 Israel have no correlative. But the principle of 
 Israel's constitution was radically different. The 
 theocratic idea made every thing subordinate to it- 
 self ; and the law presents this idea clothed in out- 
 ward, ceremonial and civil forms. Accordingly, 
 whatever is not so directly related to this one cen- 
 tral conception as to be moulded and transformed by 
 it, is omitted, and left to existing usage or future 
 provision. In this respect, the law does not preclude 
 development or increase. It has a spirit as well as a 
 letter, however the most recent critics may emphasize 
 the latter, in order to substitute the notion of devel- 
 opment for the former. On this point, diametrically 
 opposite objections meet ; for, whilst one finds fault 
 with the law on account of incompleteness, another 
 finds it far too elaborate and perfect for a nomad 
 tribe just awaking to the first consciousness of a life 
 of civilization. Both extremes may supplement and 
 
52 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 correct each other. We should constantly keep in 
 mind, that the Mosaic legislation was intended for 
 a peculiar people, that had a peculiar destiny. It 
 was to live, to a large extent, isolated, and the more 
 it could be protected against contamination by for- 
 eign influences, the better. There was no need of a 
 Code that would provide for all the complicated re- 
 lations that arise from a lively intercourse with sur- 
 rounding peoples. On the other hand, the agrarian 
 principle, on which the civil law proceeded, secured 
 to every member of the Covenant-people an equal 
 share in the promised inheritance of Canaan. It is 
 obvious how largely this tended to simplify both 
 public and private life among the chosen people. It 
 would be historically wrong to institute a comparison 
 between the Mosaic Codes and the Roman body of 
 law. The Romans were the people of law par ex- 
 cellence : in Israel the law was a subordinate means 
 to a higher and spiritual end, subservient and adapted 
 to the peculiar position which the nation occupied, 
 and to its unique calling in the history of God's 
 Church. 
 
SYSTEM, OR DISORDER? 53 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 SYSTEM, OR DISORDER? 
 
 ANOTHER objection frequently raised against 
 the unity of these laws is, that they present all 
 the features of a compiled body, where no guiding- 
 thread combines the collected material. This is in- 
 deed doing little honor to the redactor on the part 
 of those who hold the divisive theories. But even 
 among believers in the Mosaic origin and essential 
 unity of the Codes, it is not uncommon to hear the 
 remark made, that they are not arranged systemati- 
 cally on any legal or religious principle, and that the 
 sequence of the laws is only determined by the chro- 
 nology of their promulgation. This statement, how- 
 ever common it may be, involves a double mistake : 
 First, by laying so much stress on the chronological 
 principle, it tends to awaken the idea that a system- 
 atic and a chronological arrangement exclude each 
 other ; and secondly, it would seem improper to 
 assert that God, when revealing himself, and his 
 will concerning Israel, in successive acts or stages, 
 should do so without any inherent order. 
 
 Chronology is the frame of history ; and Israel's 
 history is nothing but the record of God's revelation, 
 its beginning, progress, and fulfilment. Separated 
 
54 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 from the world, that it might be holy unto God, with 
 Israel every thing becomes subservient to this high 
 calling. Hence its history is not shaped by accident 
 or chance, or according to earthly purposes : it does 
 not run its course independent of God's intentions 
 with regard to his people, but flows from beginning 
 to end in the channels of his revealing grace. 
 
 God is a God of order. We must therefore expect, 
 if the law be his revelation, and not the fruit of a 
 blind process of development, to find in it a system, 
 an intended adjustment of part to part, and of each 
 part to the whole, a gradual progress and advance 
 from the more fundamental and simple to the more 
 complex and specified in detail. 
 
 This order, if there be any, must be a genetic one. 
 God made Israel his Covenant-people at Sinai. He 
 did not present to them all at once their perfect and 
 complete constitution, requiring immediate conform- 
 ity to its demands. Gradually and progressively they 
 were organized and built into a theocratic nation, 
 first on a broad basis, then on a more specified plan, 
 till finally the superstructure appeared in its divinely 
 intended perfection and beauty. The process oi logic 
 has here become a process in time : the organism is 
 /shown to us, not in the reality of completion, but in 
 /the .mirror of history, only for this very reason the 
 / more clear and distinct. 
 
 Bertheau has found in the Code of Exodus-Num- 
 bers seven groups of Mosaic laws, each of them con- 
 taining seven series, each series ten commandments. 
 The four hundred and ninety commands thus ob- 
 tained, according to him, once constituted a Code of 
 
SYSTEM, OR DISORDER? 55 
 
 purely legal contents, and existed prior to the narra- 
 tive which now divides the groups, and is often inter- 
 woven with them. The hypothesis is very ingenious, 
 but cannot be carried out without great precarious- 
 ness in details. Reuss has characterized it as '* a 
 beautiful illusion." We shall have occasion to refer 
 to it more than once. 
 
 First of all we must consider the charges that 
 ave been made against the unity of the feast-laws in 
 Exod. xii. and xiii. A survey of the numerous criti- 
 cal divisions proposed cannot be given here. The 
 main divisions, on v^rhich all critics more or less 
 agree, have been stated before. They are^ Exod. 
 xii. 24-27, 29-39 (except ver. 37), xiii. 3-16, Jehovis- 
 tic, the rest Elohistic. 
 
 A positive exposition of the essential unity will 
 prove the best argument against all these dissections, 
 (i) xii. 1-20 contain the divine institution of Passover 
 and Mazzoth (unleavened bread) as given to Moses 
 ami Aaron. (2) xii. 21-27. The communication of 
 this divine command to" the elders of the people, so 
 far as it was required by immediate necessity. For 
 the latter reason, only the prescriptions concerning 
 the Passover-lamb are repeated, whilst the announce- 
 ment of the Mazzoth-law is reserved for a later occa- 
 sion. Ver. 28 states the fulfilment of this command 
 on the part of the people in the emphatic phrase, 
 *'so did they." (3) Ver. 29-42 describe the last 
 plague, the exodus, and how the children of Israel 
 were providentially compelled to leave Egypt with 
 unleavened dough. Ver. 40, seqq., contain a retro- 
 spective glance at the whole sojourn in Egypt during 
 
56 THE PEXTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 four hundred and thirty years, which serves to 
 enforce anew the sacredness of the feast instituted 
 as a memorial of this exodus. (4) Since ver. 38 had 
 stated that a mixed multitude went up with the 
 Israelites, a new provision was made necessary for 
 observance of the feast by strangers. This is given 
 in ver. 43-51. (5) The divine command to Moses 
 that the first-born henceforth shall belong to Jeho- 
 vah, xiii. I, 2. (6) The communication of this to the 
 people, ver. 11-16, after Moses had first discharged 
 the second half of the commission received before 
 the exodus, xii. 1-20, which was then only partially 
 given to the people on account of the peculiar cir- 
 cumstances, ver. 3-10. 
 
 All this forms a well-connected complete narrative ; 
 
 and, as we shall see, it is only a persistent refusal to 
 
 /consider each single part in the light of the whole, 
 
 that can give some semblance of necessity to the 
 
 application of the critical knife. 
 
 A chronological objection has been raised against 
 xii. 3 ; for whilst xi. 4 falls evidently on Abib 14, the 
 divine injunction to Moses and Aaron must have 
 been given before the loth, as on the latter date the 
 lamb was to be selected and set apart. The difficulty 
 disappears on the natural supposition, that the author 
 did not wish to interrupt his narrative of the plagues 
 .by this law, and therefore, having reserved it up to 
 •:his point, uses the account of its execution to men- 
 tion also its promulgation, though the latter actually 
 took place at least four days before. The expres- 
 sion nin nVSa in ver. 8 does not contradict this ; 
 for it does not designate the present night, but the 
 
SYSTEM, OK DISORDER? 57 
 
 night referred to in the context, and spoken of in 
 ver. 6. 
 
 Hupf eld's objection, that here a memorial is insti- 
 tuted and observed ante factitin, has no force at all. 
 The first Passover, as Wellhausen has strikingly 
 remarked, was no memorial feast, it was history; and 
 it was a sacrament, a real instrument of salvation. 
 Of the unwarranted inferences which Wellhausen 
 draws from this, we shall speak hereafter. As to the 
 fact, his statement is correct, and the best answer 
 to Hupfeld's objection. 
 
 Kayser alleges that the Elohist alone makes the 
 institution of Pesach (Passover) and Mazzoth precede 
 the facts of which they were memorials, whilst the 
 Jehovist gives the more natural representation that it 
 followed them. This is inaccurate ; for the Jehovistic 
 verses, as he reckons them, xii. 21-27, treat of the 
 rite, not as to be observed in the remote future, but 
 as in the immediate present, during the night of the 
 exodus : ver. 23 says, *'When He seeth the blood upon 
 the lintel," etc. 
 
 Common to nearly all the critics is the statement, 
 that the Jehovist (xii. 34) gives a different explana- 
 tion of the eating of Mazzoth from the Elohist. 
 The truth is, that neither of them gives an explana- 
 tion at all. At least, it is not explicitly stated in 
 the narrative. Ver. 34 simply informs us that the 
 Israelites were providentially compelled to take no 
 leaven out of the land of Egypt along on their 
 journey, which certainly had a deeper symbolic mean- 
 ing ; so that it would be exactly the Jehovist, whom 
 the critics charge with having ascribed the origin 
 
58 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 of such an important usage to so trifling an accident, 
 who intimates the real significance of eating Mazzoth. 
 
 But we are told ver. 8 of the Elohist is inconsis- 
 tent with ver. 34. If the flesh of the Passover-lamb 
 was to be eaten with unleavened bread, and for this 
 purpose, according to ver. 15, all leaven had to be 
 removed, how can it be ascribed to the haste of the 
 Israelites in departing, that they took their dough 
 before it was leavened t 
 
 The answer is obvious. According to ver. 21-27, 
 only the first half of God's commission to Moses 
 w^as communicated to the people before the exodus. 
 Concerning Mazzoth, as yet nothing was said. The 
 Israelites were simply instructed to kill the Pass- 
 over-lamb, and eat it with unleavened bread. God 
 evidently intended that Moses should confine his 
 immediate instructions to this point. That only the 
 Passover-law was to go into effect before the exodus, 
 is intimated by the peculiar position of ver, 11-14. 
 They apply only to the observance in Egypt ; and 
 their insertion between the Pesach-command and 
 the Mazzoth-law shows that the former was, the 
 latter was not, destined for immediate observance in 
 Egypt. Plence the regulations concerning Mazzoth 
 are kept general throughout, as they were evidently 
 adapted to a more remote period in the future. 
 Compare ver. 19 and 20. 
 
 Now, if Moses, in agreement with God's purpose, 
 published only the Passover-law immediately ; if, 
 further, this law neither commands nor forbids that 
 leaven should be altogether removed, but simply pre- 
 scribes that the lamb should be eaten with iinlcavejiai 
 
SYSTEM, OR DISORDER? 59 
 
 bread, — then it is entirely natural that the Israelites, 
 as yet not knowing that the Passover would be fol- 
 lowed byMazzoth, and that the latter feast would for- 
 bid the presence of any leaven in the houses, should 
 have kept their leaven, and were only prevented by 
 their hasty departure in the morning from using it 
 in the preparation of their dough and bread. 
 
 But even if we admit that all leaven was actually 
 removed for the observance of this first Passover, 
 still, it is not likely that the Israelites intended to 
 go on their journey without providing leaven. They 
 evidently thought, that, when the Passover-night was 
 past, the prohibition had ceased. God's providence, 
 however, as we have seen, intervened preparatory to 
 the promulgation of the Mazzoth-law. As Ranke has 
 beautifully expressed it, "Jehovah's history and Jeho- 
 vah's law were made by him the mirror of each other." 
 
 Kayser's allegation that ver. 11-13 make a violent 
 separation between 10 and 14, and are accordingly 
 a Jehovistic section interpolated by the redactor, is 
 groundless. The verses are entirely appropriate in 
 this connection when we understand them, as was 
 intimated above. They served, indeed, to make a 
 separation between ver. 10 and 14, though not a 
 violent, but a necessary one, which should indicate 
 that only the Passover-ordinance was to be published 
 immediately before the Exodus. 
 
 Neither is it true, as Kayser also asserts, that ver. 
 22 contradicts ver. 4 and 7. That small households 
 should combine for the purpose of consuming the 
 lamb, does not prove that they joined each other 
 during the night. They could do this the evening 
 
6o THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 before. To press the possessive pronoun in ver. 22, 
 '' Jiis house," is absurd. 
 
 It is claimed by Hupfeld and DiUmann, that ver. 
 42 stands very abrupt in its present connection. 
 Hupfeld asserts that it formed originally the close 
 of the section, ver. 1-13 ; whilst he makes ver. 14 
 prospective, and belonging to the Mazzoth-law. As 
 Bachmann, however, remarks, the transition from the 
 second person in ver. 1-13 to the third in ver. 42 
 (rD^^'V^nS) would be very strange. For this reason 
 Dillmann helps himself in another way by carrying 
 the verse back to ver. 39, and assigning it to B ; 
 though he finds this hard to reconcile with the expres- 
 sion ori"^''^ (proper to A), so that he must also call in 
 the redactor to account for its insertion. All this 
 trouble is avoided by giving the verse its natural 
 and unforced meaning. In connection with the re- 
 trospective glance at the whole sojourn in Egypt 
 (ver. 40, 41), it contains a new reminder of the 
 sacredness of the feast instituted in memory of the 
 deliverance from so long a bondage. 
 
 Dillmann, moreover, objects against the unity of 
 these chapters, that we have here two laws concern- 
 ing the consecration of the first-born, two concerning 
 Mazzoth, and three about the Passover, of which the 
 second (xii. 21, seqq) differs somewhat from the first. 
 The right view of the relation of these laws to each 
 other has been given already, and no other answer is 
 necessary. 
 
 Finally, the remark has been made that Moses, in 
 his instruction to the elders (ver. 21, scqq.), makes no 
 mention of unleavened bread at all ; which would fall 
 
SYSTEM, OR DISORDER? 6 1 
 
 in with Kayser's view, who combines these verses 
 with the following Jehovistic section. It is obvious 
 that we have here no verbatim report of Moses' 
 words, but simply a summary, which could be all 
 the shorter since the divine injunction had been 
 stated in full. The use of the article in noipn is an 
 independent proof that the ipsissinia verba of Moses 
 are not retained here. 
 
 If, then, all the objections urged against the unity 
 of these feast-laws prove irrelevant, we may proceed 
 to the book of the Covenant, The name is derived 
 from Exod. xxiv. 7, and the Mosaic authorship ex- 
 pressly stated in xxiv. 4. Whether it included the 
 Decalogue, it is difficult to determine ; but the view 
 that the passage last quoted refers to the Decalogue 
 alone, is certainly untenable. All critics agree that 
 we find in both the oldest preserved Code, though 
 not even this in its original form. Kuenen places its 
 '\ origin in the reign of David, *'if not earlier :" still, he 
 has serious objections against the Mosaic authorship. 
 Reuss assigns it to the reign of Jehoshaphat ; others, 
 to yet other dates. Proofs in the strictest sense of 
 the word are not given. We simply remark, that 
 whatever arguments are urged in favor of the rela- 
 tive antiquity of this Code, are entirely derived from 
 its peculiar significance and unique place in the con- 
 stitution of Israel. When Kuenen claims that the 
 laws of Exod. xx.-xxiii. distinguish themselves by 
 their simplicity and originality, this is exactly what 
 we would expect of a Code destined to be the funda- 
 mental law of Israel, and to present in a few general 
 tommands the primary relations and duties devolving 
 
62 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 upon the Covenant-people. To speak of originality 
 is begging the question, and the simplicity is fully 
 accounted for by the historical situation in which 
 the Pentateuch places it. Indeed, we should be sur- 
 prised if these commands were less simple, if God 
 had at the outset overwhelmed the Israelites with 
 a mass of ceremonial detail, and on such a basis 
 entered with them into a solemn covenant. Jer. 
 vii. 22 gives the right point of view. On the other 
 hand, how natural and fitting is the place of this 
 Code at the beginning of the great career upon 
 which Israel was to enter. The whole is an appli- 
 cation of the Decalogue to the most general features 
 of national life. Consequently, in chap. xxi. i we 
 meet the word D'ppp^p, designating '' the rights by 
 which the national life was formed into a civil 
 commonwealth and the political order secured." In- 
 timately connected with the Decalogue, they start 
 with emphasizing the same principle, — viz., the unity 
 and spirituality of God, — and cover nearly the same 
 ground. Exception has been taken to the lack of 
 the religious element ; but the objection leaves out 
 of view Exod. xx. 22-26 and xxiii. 14-19, which cer- 
 tainly formed a part of the book of the Covenant. 
 
 Next come the directions concerning the building 
 of the sanctuary (chap, xxv.-xxx.). After the people, 
 by their adhesion to the Covenant, had been consti- 
 tuted the peculiar property of God, their Theocratic 
 King, provisions are made for his dwelling amongst 
 them. The relation having been defined, the first 
 step is taken to realize it in the accurate description 
 of the tabernacle, which would be its symbol and 
 
SYSTEM, OR DISORDER ? 63 
 
 pledge. As Keil expresses it, '' A definite external 
 form must be given to the covenant just concluded, 
 a visible bond of fellowship constructed." This is 
 explicitly stated in chap. xxv. 8, with a clear allusion 
 to xxiii. 20, 21. The critics, otherwise so acute in 
 discovering traces of affinity, where details are con- 
 cerned seem to be blind for this most intimate re- 
 lation, which makes one passage grow out of the 
 other in the most natural way. Their dissecting 
 methods seem to have disqualified them for a true 
 appreciation of the theocratic idea, which germinates 
 in the soil of God's Covenant, and thence develops 
 itself into the manifold forms of a system in which 
 the social and religious life interpenetrate. 
 
 At first sight the section, chap. xxxi. 12-17, niight 
 appear superfluous and out of place. Keil justifies 
 its occurrence by suggesting that the Israelites 
 might have thought it unnecessary or non-obligatory 
 to observe the Sabbath-commandment during the 
 execution of so great a work in honor of Jehovah. 
 With him agree Knobel and Graf. There is nothing 
 in the context, however, to favor this view ; and it 
 seems better to explain the emphatic repetition of 
 this law from the great importance of the Sabbath as 
 a Covenant-sign between Israel and the Lord. In 
 ver. 13 it is called an niK, in ver. 16 a nna. For this 
 reason it is subjoined to that other visible bond of 
 fellowship, the tabernacle. As in the latter, God by 
 his glorious presence signified his gracious attitude 
 towards Israel, so Israel by the observance of this 
 day of rest would show its faithful adherence to Jeho- , 
 vah's Covenant. 
 
64 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 We pass on to chap, xxxiv. 10-27. As we have 
 seen already, DiUmann recognizes in these verses the 
 Covenant-law of C as it once stood after xx. 20 and 
 xxiv. I, 2, whilst Wellhausen postulates a new source 
 for this passage alone. The fact is, that we have here 
 nothing but. a shorter re-enactment and restatement 
 of the Covenant-law, that had been broken by idola- 
 try. As the first solemn conclusion of the Covenant 
 preceded the gift of the first tables, so, after the lat- 
 ter had been broken, the former must be renewed 
 before the new tables of the Decalogue can be handed 
 to Moses. It was a deep insight into the sinful 
 nature of the people and a clear apprehension of the 
 corrupt tendency manifested in this single act of 
 idolatry, that led to emphasizing specially the prohi- 
 bition of intercourse with the Canaanites. Also the 
 reference to the golden calf in ver. 17, nDD"? 'riSx, is 
 obvious. Both points of contact with the preceding 
 chapters are disregarded by the divisive critics. 
 It is more difficult to see why, from ver. 18 onward, 
 the feast-laws are restated with slight differences in 
 form from Exod. xxiii. Partly their religious and the- 
 ocratic importance may have caused their appearance 
 in this connection : partly their place at the end of the 
 Covenant-law (chap, xxiii.) may account for the fact 
 that they, and not other laws, are repeated. As the 
 first covenant began with the Decalogue, engraven 
 in stone, and closed with the feast-laws, so after the 
 breakinsT, thouc;h there be no formal restatement of 
 every particular, still we find the beginning and end 
 of the former law repeated, to indicate that this new 
 covenant rests ©n essentially the same basis as the 
 
SYSTEM, OR DISORDER? 65 
 
 old. The repetition is not pleonastic, but of deep 
 significance. Decalogue and feast-laws stand as rep- 
 resentatives of all the contents of the Covenant-book. 
 
 The promulgation of the Sabbath-commandment 
 in chap. xxxv. 1-3 is parallel to chap. xxxi. 12-17. 
 Moses had been commissioned to remind the Israel- 
 ites in particular of this Covenant-sign. Having 
 come down, according to chap, xxxiv. 29, he imme- 
 diately executes this commission as soon as the 
 opportunity offers itself. Here also there are regular 
 progress and perfect connection. Chap, xxxv.-xl. cor- 
 respond to xxx.-xxxv., and describe the execution of 
 what was commanded there. Of the peculiar position 
 which chap. xxx. i-io (of the altar of incense) oc- 
 cupies, we must speak hereafter. 
 
 The Levitical Code, though forming a unit in its 
 own compass, is nevertheless but a single link in the 
 great chain : as we hope to show, it takes up the 
 development of the Theocracy where Exodus left off, 
 and carries it onward. 
 
 j The^acxificialJa-ws (chap, i.-vii.) form, as the clos- 
 fing verses show, a coherent group. Their position at 
 this juncture is not only natural, but necessary. The 
 sacrifices in their whole ritual presuppose the com- 
 pleted sanctuary, the erecting of which was recorded 
 in Exod. xl. Moreover, it is stated (Lev. i. i), that 
 the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him, out 
 of the tabernacle of the congregation, in accordance 
 with his promise (Exod. xxv. 22). A third reason for 
 our statement that this Code occupies a fitting place 
 in the history of revelation, is that it is so general in 
 its character. No specification being made concern- 
 
66 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 ing the time for presentation of sacrifices, or the order 
 in which they were to succeed each other, or the 
 number of the animals to be offered at the various 
 occasions, all which was to be regulated afterwards, 
 the Code confines itself to what was its evident pur- 
 pose ; viz., the laying down of the general principles 
 of sacrificial service as a necessary supplement and 
 completion of the tabernacle-worship. The enumera- 
 tion of all chief topics proves beyond doubt, that we 
 possess the Code in its original, unaltered condition. 
 The last two chapters refer to the priests, and give 
 special instructions concerning their treatment of 
 sacrifices, which accounts for some repetitions of j^re- 
 vious statements. 
 
 Chap, viii.-x. describe the induction of Aaron and 
 his sons into the priestly office. The fulfilment of 
 the command given at the same time with the direc- 
 tions for the building of the tabernacle could not 
 have been placed earlier, because the laws of sacri- 
 fices had a bearing upon this act. It could not have 
 occurred later, because the completed regulation of 
 the tabernacle ceremonial required an officiating 
 priesthood, and waited but for their investiture to go 
 into full operation. Thus we find the place of these 
 three chapters again naturally and necessarily deter- 
 mined by what precedes and follows. Their omission 
 would leave a gap, and their insertion at any other 
 juncture would create a disturbance in the systematic 
 order of the whole. 
 
 In chap, xi.-xxv. we find the laws concerning un- 
 cleanness, purification, and holiness. They add a 
 new feature to the hitherto imperfect scheme of the 
 
SYSTEM, OR DISORDER? 6/ 
 
 Theocracy. We saw its constitution in the Covenant- 
 law, its initial realization in the laws of the sanctuary, 
 the sacrifices, and the priesthood : here our attention 
 is called to the fruits of purity and holiness which 
 this organization was intended to produce, both in a 
 ceremonial and moral aspect. Holiness was the 
 ever-recurring condition of God's dwelling amongst 
 them, — the one great demand, which the ritual was 
 both to symbolize and to effect. First it is only a 
 ceremonial and outward purity, announcing itself in 
 the discrimination between clean and unclean ani- 
 mals, and in the purification of the body (xi.-xv.) ; but 
 this in its turn becomes a type of that higher spirit- 
 ual and moral doing away of sin, whose completion 
 was foreshadowed in the Day of Atonement (xvi.), and 
 directly urged on the people by the moral commands 
 from chap. xvii. onward. It is important to notice 
 how at this very juncture, where the critics claim to 
 have discovered the attachment of an earlier Code 
 ("law of holiness") to a later one, there is the most 
 intimate coherence and connection manifested in a 
 gradual advance from the outward to the inward ; 
 from the ritual to the moral ; from what is demanded 
 of the people, to what is imposed on the priests, to 
 whom the call for holiness came with double force, 
 and in a more special sense (xxi.) ; from the every- 
 day life, with its distinction in the daily food, to those 
 holy exercises at the sanctuary, which were to be the 
 highest and most adequate expression of an all-pervad- 
 ing sanctity and entire consecration to God (xxiii.). 
 How the theocratic principle has shaped these laws, 
 and determined their sequence, is seen in the fact, that 
 
6S THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 holiness, though required in the most simple acts and 
 forms of life, is ultimately referred to as finding its 
 full realization in religious observances, in sacrifices 
 (xxii.), and holy convocations (xxiii.), and its most 
 significant representation in the burning lamps and 
 show-bread of the tabernacle (xxiv. 1-9). 
 
 The unity of chap, xxiii. has been doubted and 
 denied on various grounds. Chiefly the frequent 
 repetition of titles, ver. i, 9, 23, 26, 33, has led to the 
 inference, that the chapter presents a compilation of 
 feast-laws, notwithstanding the undeniable fact that 
 they are all ranged under one general principle, — the 
 holding of a ^d-\;^ j<-)p? {Jwly convocation), — and pre- 
 sented in the strictest chronological order. Dill- 
 mann thinks that ver. 9-22, 23-32, 33-43, once 
 formed independent regulations concerning the re- 
 spective feasts of which they treat. George, Hupfeld, 
 and recently Wellhausen, assumed two complete 
 feast-Codes, — one of the Elohist, ver. 1-8, 23-38; 
 and one of another hand, ver. 9-22, 39-43, interwoven 
 by the redactor. Both assertions are equally gratui- 
 tous. The two Codes as separated by Wellhausen 
 are not complete ; since the one lacks the feast of 
 weeks, the other Mazzoth. And against both views, 
 that of Dillmann as well as Wellhausen's, stand the 
 uniformity of treatment, the similarity throughout in 
 expression, and the retention of the same leading 
 idea in all the parts. The appearance of a second 
 title in ver. 4 is accounted for by the consideration, 
 that here the D"?>'p. the appointed seasons proper, 
 begin in distinction from the Sabbath. And how 
 the recurring titles can awake suspicion in critics 
 
SYS TEA/, OR DISORDER ? 69 
 
 who are accustomed to comment upon the redun- 
 dancy of the Elohist, we do not understand. By 
 taking ver. 37, 38, not as the close of the whole pre- 
 ceding chapter, but only of ver. 4-36 (of the D^"!;:p 
 proper), the difficulty arising from the words '' beside 
 the Sabbaths " is relieved, and at the same time the 
 reference of ver. 4 to the yearly recurring feasts 
 strikingly confirmed. This view also leaves room for 
 the supplementary Succoth-law (ver. 39-43) ; since, 
 according to it, ver. 37, 38, do not close the whole, 
 but only a subdivision, of the topic. The final close 
 does not follow until ver. 44. The positive explana- 
 tion of the supplementary character of ver. 39-43 is 
 best given by Bachmann ; viz., that the aspect of the 
 observance described in these verses stood in no 
 direct relation to the t^ip ^«")pP and the sanctuary, 
 and therefore could be better added subsequently 
 than connected with 34-36, since the latter would 
 have destroyed the unity of the chapter, which is up 
 to that point governed by one central idea. Nega- 
 tively, the view which holds ver. 39-43 to be an ad- 
 dition of the redactor from a different source is 
 untenable, as Dillmann remarks, against Wellhausen 
 and Kayser. For {a) The Elohist must have given 
 fuller directions concerning Succoth, which he had 
 not as yet treated in detail, than those contained in 
 ver. 34-36. (b) Ver. 39-43 is incomplete : it does not 
 even contain the name of the feast referred to, and 
 requires what precedes for its explanation, (r) The 
 language is Elohistic. We may finally remark, that 
 in chap, xxiii. special attention is paid to the feasts 
 not exhaustively treated before (Pentecost, Succoth). 
 
70 THE PEXTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 whilst others, for which full provision had been pre- 
 viously made already, are here more summarily dis- 
 missed (Passover, Day of Atonement). 
 
 The promulgation of the laws concerning murder, 
 damage, and blasphemy (xxiv. 10-23) was occasioned 
 by the blasphemy of Shelomith's son. 
 
 The heading of chap. xxv. indicates that its con- 
 tents close the main body of Sinaitic legislation, 
 which accordingly ends with the regulations for the 
 Sabbath-year and the year of jubilee. This position 
 is entirely appropriate. By these institutions the ex- 
 istence and continuance of the theocratic community 
 was insured, by securing a permanent validity to its 
 agrarian basis, which depended, of course, on the 
 equal division of property among all its members. 
 
 Chap. xxvi. formally closes the Leviticai Code with 
 a prophetic appeal to the people, urging upon them 
 faithful observance of God's law, and threatening a 
 curse against all disobedience, showing, in a warning 
 disclosure of future apostasy, to what dangers the 
 people would be exposed when once in possession of 
 the promised land. There is a manifest similarity in 
 the closing sections of the Covenant-law, the Leviti- 
 cai Code, and the Deuteronomic legislation, which be- 
 trays their essential unity. The Covenant-law made 
 last of all provision for the feasts : so does Leviticus. 
 And as the former was sanctioned by special prom- 
 ises in accordance with its special scope and charac- 
 ter (Exod. xxiii. 20-33), so the more voluminous law 
 of Leviticus has its more comprehensive statement 
 of the blessing and curse at its close. Such under- 
 lying harmonious unity far outweighs the numerous 
 
SYSTEM, OR DISORDER ? 7 1 
 
 external contradictions which the critics claim to 
 have discovered in detail. Unity lies at the bottom : , 
 the discord is superficial and imaginary. / 
 
 Chap, xxvii. treats of vows. Probably the non-ob- 
 ligatory character of this religious service caused its 
 treatment outside of the main body of laws. 
 
 During the promulgation of the Levitical Code, the 
 history of the Covenant-people had offered nothing 
 remarkable, which could have been the occasion of 
 the enactment of a new law. With a few exceptions 
 in chap, viii., ix., x., Leviticus contains no narrative. 
 
 In Numbers the historical principle becomes again 
 predominant, as it was in Exodus. There is this dif- 
 ference, however, — that in Exodus the majority of the 
 laws were so important that they influenced history, 
 and drew it into their own appointed course, so that 
 it became subordinate to legislation. In Numbers, 
 on the contrary, much refers to the temporary cir- 
 cumstances of the desert journey, and therefore ap- 
 pears as the historical occasions offered themselves. 
 Accordingly, the systematic arrangement has more 
 and more to give place to an external attachment 
 of legal fragments to the facts of history. 
 
 Still, even where the outward unity and connec- 
 tion are wanting, there is a ruling idea, which, as it 
 has determined the history of this period, also has 
 given a common character to its laws. They all 
 relate in some way to the civil and political consti- 
 tution of Israel, to the external and internal organi- 
 zation of the tribes as the army and the congregation 
 of Jehovah, either as this was determined for the pres- 
 ent by the journey towards Canaan (chap. i.-x. 10), 
 
72 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 or required for the future by possession of the Holy 
 Land (xxii.-xxxvi.). The former of these sections is 
 chiefly legal, the latter of a mixed character : all that 
 falls between them gives the history of the journey 
 from Sinai to the Jordan, interrupted by legal sec- 
 tions in chap, xv., xvii., xviii., xix. 
 
 Bertheau, up to this point having been able to 
 trace a combination of the significant numbers 7 and 
 10 in various groups and series and decalogues, is 
 now obliged to confess, that only a certain arrange- 
 ment on the principle of decades can be discovered 
 here. 
 
 The remarks made above concerning the chrono- 
 logical position of the laws which occur here, show 
 that a positive vindication of their systematic unity 
 would be in vain. We may content ourselves with 
 answering a few objections raised against the good 
 order of these legal passages. 
 
 Bertheau considers Num. iii. 1-4 as an insertion, 
 lacking all connection both w^ith what precedes and 
 with what follows, loosely suspended between ii. 
 and iii. 
 
 The reason, however, why the generations of Aaron 
 should be given at this juncture, is obvious; viz., to 
 distinguish the priests at the outset from the Levites. 
 Had the service of the latter been described without 
 this distinction being made, it would have appeared 
 as if they stood on a par with the priests. Ver. 6 
 states emphatically that the Levites were to minis- 
 ter unto Aaron tJic priest. 
 
 The first part of chap, ix has suggested to many 
 a twofold difficulty, {^i) It seems unnecessary that 
 
SYSTEM, OR DISORDER? 73 
 
 the Passover-law should have been repeated here 
 without any additional or supplementary directions 
 (ver. 1-5). {b) The date mentioned in ver. i carries 
 us back before the date given in chap. i. i. 
 
 Both difficulties are best removed by considering 
 ver. 1-5 as an introduction to the law of the second 
 Passover, from ver. 6 onward. This instruction was, 
 according to the context, revealed by God to Moses 
 in the first month ; i.e., at the regular Passover-time. 
 But the supplementary provision for defiled persons 
 w^as not made until some time after the regular ob- 
 servance, — -according to i. i, at least fourteen days 
 later. Thus the chapter fits well in the chronology 
 of the book, and ver. i repeats a command given a 
 few weeks before to introduce the new provision 
 stated in ver. 6, seqq. 
 
 Dr. Kuenen objects to chap, xv., that it is evidently 
 an interpolation. His reasons are, that it is not con- 
 nected with what precedes and follows, and that ver. 
 2, as it stands now, comes in very inappropriately, and 
 sounds almost like sarcastic irony in the mouth of 
 God, after the events narrated in the two preceding 
 chapters. The fact is, that these laws were given 
 during the thirty-nine years' wandering in the desert. 
 As there is a break in the history here, neither the 
 exact chronological position, nor the historical occa- 
 sion of the announcement of them, can be determined. 
 The irony would certainly disappear, if, between the 
 judgment of chap. xiv. and the directions of chap. 
 XV,, some months, or even years, had intervened. In- 
 stead of sarcasm and irony, it would seem that there 
 fell a ray of hope and divine consolation on the back- 
 
74 THE PENTATEUCH A L CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 ground of these verses, in so far as the possession of 
 Canaan is alluded to. Probably this was done to 
 remind the rising generation that to them God would 
 keep his promise, and bestow upon them these bene- 
 fits which their fathers had forfeited by their rebel- 
 lion and unbelief. 
 
 This part, also, of our task is now accomplished. 
 Having shown that all the laws in Exodus-Numbers, 
 so far as language and context are concerned, form 
 one systematic, progressive, well-connected whole, 
 we possess a vantage-ground on which to meet the 
 critics in their next attack upon the unity of the pre- 
 Deuteronomic Codes. 
 
CONTRADICTIONS AND REPETITIONS. 75 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 CONTRADICTIONS AND REPETITIONS. 
 
 IT is claimed that the Pentateuchal Codes, even 
 when Deuteronomy is left out of view, confront 
 us with cases of flat and irreconcilable contradiction. 
 Of course, if this be true, it precludes most positively 
 all unity of authorship. Two contradictory laws can- 
 not have been in operation at the same time : the 
 one must have been antiquated when the other went 
 into effect. And least of all is it thinkable, the 
 critics say, that the same legislator should have pre- 
 scribed two contradictory laws, and thus destroyed 
 his own work and authority. 
 
 I. It must be admitted, if a number of contradic- 
 tory laws, exclusive of each other, can be pointed out, 
 without any reason to account for their difference in 
 the altered circumstances, or any explicit statement 
 that the one has been substituted for the other, that 
 in this case we shall be shut up to the denial of the 
 unity, and consequently the Mosaic authorship, of 
 the Code. On the other hand, nothing less than this 
 can accomplish the result, which the critics wish to 
 produce, of putting Moses at variance with himself. 
 A second condition to which this argument is tied, 
 should be that a considerable number of discrepancies 
 
']6 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 I be adduced. To argue from a few isolated cases, and 
 
 I to leave the perfect agreement on the whole out of 
 
 \ sight, is to substitute the letter for the spirit, and 
 
 T awaken^ a strong suspicion against the critics, that 
 
 they are intent upon making out a case ; that it is 
 
 not the contradictions which compel them to deny 
 
 the unity, but that tJicy strain and press the former 
 
 unduly to summon them as witnesses against it. It 
 
 requires a very strong combination of individual facts 
 
 to overthrow the presumptiv^e evidence in favor of 
 
 unity, which we have discovered in the remarkable 
 
 similarity and agreement of all the Codes. 
 
 2. Abstractly, all admit the possibility that two 
 laws might apparently contradict each other, whilst 
 the difference might simply arise from the peculiar 
 aim of each. In modern law, instances of such a 
 character are numerous ; but, whilst they are ab- 
 stractly obliged to make this concession, the critics 
 never endeavor to harmonize in concrete cases. This 
 
 IjClearly proves that the question at issue is begged 
 [from the outset : it is a settled affair with the critics 
 ithat the Codes are distinct. Thus prejudice and 
 ||bias deal with the law in an unlawful way, and de- 
 mrive it of its inherent right to speak for itself. The 
 lawgiver is stopped in the midst of his instructions ; 
 and the dislocated and detached sentences of laws 
 thus rendered incomplete, are triumphantly held up 
 as contradictins: each other. All such methods must 
 be met with a bold protest ; and no reasoning which 
 in its premises anticipates an element of the conclu- 
 sion to be reached, can be considered as valid. 
 
 3. Dr. Kuenen distinguishes two sorts of contra- 
 
CONTRADICTIONS AND REPETITIONS. 7/ 
 
 dictions : i. The discrepancy, though it actually ex- 
 ists, is of such a character that exegetical ingenuity, 
 combined with the arts of jurisprudence, can solve 
 the harmonistic problem. 2. The one law positively 
 excludes the other. We must protest against this 
 ^/;7'^;7 decision of how much jurisprudence may be 
 admitted in the exposition of law. If historical in- 
 terpretation may be guided by historical canons, 
 why not facilitate the explanation of law by all legal 
 means } That the solution of a complicated legal 
 problem can be reached only with the help of fine 
 distinctions, gives Dr. Kuenen no right to affirm that 
 the discrepancies actually existed in the mind of the 
 lawgiver. 
 
 4. If it be admitted that law may and must be 
 interpreted and harmonized on legal principles, we 
 find that there are in general two ways in which, 
 apparent contradictions can be removed ; and it is 
 but fair to try either of them before an absolute 
 disagreement is alleged. 
 
 {a) Systematically we harmonize two statements 
 by assigning to each its proper domain, considering 
 them from the peculiar point of view which the law- 
 giver had in mind when he prescribed them, by 
 making the one supplement the other. 
 
 \li) Historically the chronologically later passage 
 must be given the preference over the one enacted 
 earlier. There is nothing unreasonable in the as- 
 sumption that provisional directions were subse- 
 quently modified, especially when at first only stated 
 in outline rather for theoretical than practical pur- 
 poses. This right of historical harmonization must 
 
y8 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 be insisted on the more firmly, since the Pentateuch 
 presents codified law in the framework of history, 
 from a historical point of view. In many cases, the 
 earlier enactment was not given for a legal, but 
 simply for a historical, purpose, or only intended to 
 suit a transient state of affairs. When the latter 
 ceased, it became self-evident that the provisional 
 law had lost its binding force. This principle is of 
 wide application in comparing Deuteronomy with 
 the Levitical Code. 
 
 To both methods as presented by Delitzsch (Genes. 
 Einl, 43, 44), Dr. Kuenen again takes exception. 
 Delitzsch had referred to the corpus juris Jnstinia- 
 neuin as a parallel, and shown by a quotation from 
 Savigny, how jurists resort to the same princi- 
 ple, when the Digesta, Institutiones, and the Codex 
 occasionally contradict each other or themselves. 
 Kuenen remarks, " I do not believe that the Mosaic 
 origin of the Pentateuchal Codes is made more prob- 
 able by this analogy. Does not the discrepancy be- 
 tween the various parts of the corpus juris arise 
 from the origin of its laws in various periods.? If, 
 therefore, the case be the same with the Pentateuch, 
 the successive origin of the Mosaic Codes becomes 
 highly probable." This retort of his own argument 
 upon Delitzsch would be justified if we had the same 
 historical testimony for the gradual origination of 
 the Mosaic institutions as there is for the develop- 
 ment of Roman law. The opposite of this is true. 
 And Dr. Kuenen overlooks, that the point of analogy 
 consists simply in the fact that a Code may be in 
 operation of which the individual laws seem to con- 
 
CONTRADICTIONS AND REPETITIONS. 79 
 
 traciict each other. What may be the cause of this 
 discrepancy is not the question here : it is enough 
 that the fact be verified. If the corpus juris was 
 valid law at a certain time, why not the Mosaic law 
 also } And if it be proven that the variations in the 
 former are due to diversity of origin, we will wait till 
 the same evidence is presented for the Mosaic laws. 
 The contradictions in themselves do not prove any 
 thing as long as — 
 
 {a) They can be harmonized. 
 
 ip) The difference explained on other grounds. 
 
 if) The positive proof that they owe their origin 
 to diversity of authorship is not given. 
 
 We cannot enter here upon the discussion of i 
 dividual cases, most of which will, moreover, come up 
 at later points of our inquiry. And it can be con- 
 fidently claimed that all of them have met with a 
 satisfactory solution long ago. 
 
 With regard to repetitions, a few remarks may 
 suffice : — 
 
 1. The objection based on the frequent restatement 
 of essentially the same law, disregards the peculiar 
 relation in which the living God stood to his Cov- 
 enant-people Israel. He was the great Law-giver 
 and Theocratic King, but at the same time the 
 father of his subjects ; and where he had to command 
 in the former capacity, he could urge and beseech 
 repeatedly in the latter. 
 
 2. The Pentateuch, as a whole, is not a legal Code, '\ 
 but a history of the foundation of the Theocracy. ^ 
 What may be less appropriate in an official Code, 
 becomes quite natural in its historical environment. 
 
8o THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 3. The character of the repeated laws affords an 
 easy explanation of this fact. Most of them are of 
 the highest importance for Israel's religious life. As 
 an example, we may refer to the Sabbatical laws. 
 Not less than eleven substantially the same are 
 found in Exodus-Numbers. 
 
 4. Very few actual repetitions exist where the sub- 
 ject is not approached in every new treatment from 
 a different side, or with the purpose to introduce 
 some modification. 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF LAW. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 DEVELOPMENT OF LAW. 
 
 BY far the most formidable objection raised by 
 modern critics against the miity of the Penta- 
 teuchal Codes, rests on the assertion that they 
 betray by their contents and form a natural growth 
 from the simple to the complex, and that their vari- 
 ous parts represent each a different stage of religious 
 development, and fit exactly into the historical periods 
 to which their origin is respectively ascribed. This 
 evolutionary theory, of course, has led to the recon- 
 struction of the whole Jewish history. If the essence 
 of the Christian conception of revelation consist in 
 a direct interference of God, the creation of a new 
 order of things, the implanting by an act of grace of 
 what nature had become unable to produce; if the 
 perfect and absolute stand here at the beginning, and 
 are the source, not the fruit, of all development, — 
 then it will surely follow that a naturalistic philoso- 
 phy must end with the beginning, and begin with the 
 end. The difference must needs be radical. Who- 
 soever, like Dr. Kuenen, rules out the supernatural 
 element from Israel's history cannot occupy a half- 
 way position : he will place the contents of revela- 
 tion at the end, because, at every other .point, their 
 interpolation would disturb the order of development. 
 
82 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 The law according to Wellhausen is an accommo- 
 dation to the natural tendencies of the people. Origi- 
 nally the ceremonial cultus was rooted in the soil of 
 heathen nature-worship, and in its primitive form it 
 was the spontaneous expression of a natural religious 
 impulse. To the first part of his Prolegomena, treat- 
 ing the history of the cultus, he has prefixed the 
 motto. Legem non Jiabentes natura faciiuit legis opera. 
 What distinguished Israel from the Gentiles was not 
 its ceremonial institutions, — rather the opposite; for 
 "the cultus is the heathen element in the Jewish re- 
 ligion." Only after the codification and systematiz- 
 ing of these primitive elements during and after the 
 exile, did the law become the exponent of the people's 
 peculiar character. First, prophecy had raised its 
 powerful voice in opposition to all outward rites, as 
 being rooted in, closely allied to, and in necessary 
 connection with, the worship of other gods. Pure 
 Jahveism in a spiritual sense was the ideal which the 
 prophets continually held up before the people, with- 
 out being able to realize it amongst them. How we 
 shall account for the sudden appearance of a class of 
 men with such spiritual ideas and lofty aspirations, 
 among a people scarcely awakened out of the mystic 
 sleep of Oriental nature-worship, to the first faint 
 consciousness of something more definite and per- 
 sonal, we ask in vain. The fact is surely not less 
 miraculous and astounding than the promulgation of 
 a divine law on Sinai. But the prophetical voice so 
 powerfully raised at first, became weaker and weaker, 
 and at last was silenced entirely. Spiritualism had 
 taken up arms against ritualism, and lost the battle. 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF LAW. 83 
 
 Seeing that it could not successfully resist this natu- 
 ral tendency of Israel, it began to accommodate its 
 demands to the desires of the people, and tried to 
 assimilate the essentially heathen elements to its own 
 Jahvistic ideas ; and by this strange but dexterous 
 renouncement of former principles, the strongest 
 obstacle in the way of Jahvistic monotheism was all 
 at once transformed into its most powerful incentive 
 and reliable safeguard. What happened, according 
 to Wellhausen, finds an illustration in the methods 
 followed by the Christian Church, in adopting hea- 
 then practices and customs, and making them the 
 symbols of Christian facts and ideas. 
 
 It is true this scheme presents a difficulty which 
 has not entirely escaped the critics themselves. 
 Wellhausen confesses that the Levitical Theocracy 
 indicates a retrogressive movement in the religious 
 growth of Israel. He characterizes the introduction 
 of the Pentateuchal Codes as a systematic relapse 
 into that heathenism which the prophets had con- 
 demned and opposed with all their might. There is 
 a break in the process here. Prophetism had pro- 
 claimed spiritual Jahveism, and condemned ritualism : 
 instead of adhering to this vital principle (its only 
 raison d'etre), and exalting the idea above the form, 
 which was the true import of its mission, it now for- 
 sakes the essential and spiritual aim of all its striv- 
 ing, satisfied if merely the form be saved, if only a 
 sort of Jahveism, be it ever so gross and supersti- 
 tious and ceremonial, be preserved. 
 
 Not all critics agree as to the precise order in 
 which the several portions of the various Codes 
 
84 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 ori2:inated. As to the Codes themselves, the most 
 favorite succession is that proposed by the recon- 
 structionists of Wellhausen's type, being Covenant- 
 law, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel's Programme, Priest 
 Code. Graf distributes the legal contents of the 
 Pentateuch in the following way : — 
 
 1. The Jehovistic recension of the Elohistic narra- 
 tive (which he assigns to the time of King Ahaz) 
 contained Exod. xiii., xx.-xxiii., xxxiv, 
 
 2. The law-book discovered in the eighteenth year 
 of King Josiah, and written during his reign, con- 
 tained Deut, iv. 45-xxviii. 69. Of this, however, 
 chap, xxi.-xxv. belong to an earlier time, and formed 
 originally a supplement to the laws of Exodus. 
 Graf is inclined to identify the Deuteronomist with 
 Jeremiah. 
 
 3. Ezekiel is the author of Lev. xviii.-xxvi., and 
 of the Sabbath-law in Exod. xxxi. 
 
 4. In the time of Ezra, and probably by Ezra him- 
 self, were written Exod. xii. 1-28, 43-51, xxv.-xxxi. 
 and xxxv.-xl. ; Lev. i.-xvi. (only chap. xi. contains 
 an older law), xxiv. 10-23 ; Num. i. 48-x. 28, xv.-xix., 
 xxviii.-xxxi., xxxv, i6-xxxvi. 13. 
 
 5. Soon after the time of Ezra the whole was com- 
 pleted by the addition of Lev. xxvii. and some minor 
 parts. 
 
 Since the latest schemes place Deuteronomy be- 
 tween the Covenant-book and the Levitical laws, we 
 must anticipate some parts of our discussion. The 
 historical side of the problem will also come here, 
 already more or less under consideration. 
 
UNITY, OR PLURALITY, OF SANCTUARY? 85 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 UNITY, OR PLURALITY, OF SANCTUARY? 
 
 IT is alleged, that before the Deiiteronomic reform 
 and the centralization which it effected, sacrifices 
 were offered, even by the most pious Israelites, at all 
 places throughout the land, specially on the Bamoth, or 
 high places, to which a peculiar sanctity was ascribed. 
 The Covenant-law is claimed to testify to this state of 
 affairs ; and the classical passage, Exod. xx. 24-26, is 
 generally quoted as decisive for the view, that, long 
 after the conquest of the land, a plurality of sanctu- 
 aries was not only tolerated, but legalized. 
 
 All will, of course, depend on the exegesis of this 
 passage ; and the latter will be determined by the 
 context. As we have hitherto discovered no evi- 
 dence of the composite character of the Codes, we 
 vindicate our right to interpret these verses in the 
 light of what precedes and follows. Thus viewing 
 them, we would state their bearing on the present 
 question under the following heads : — 
 
 I. They contain simply some provisional direc- 
 tions : — 
 
 {a) For the altar to be erected for the Covenant- 
 sacrifice (Exod. xxiv.). 
 
 ip) For all sacrifices to be offered before the taber- 
 nacle was ready (compare also Josh. viii. 31). 
 
86 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 The only objections that can, be reasonably urged 
 against this natural explanation are the following 
 two : — 
 
 (i) The time between the promulgation of this 
 command and the erection of the tabernacle was 
 too short to require a special provision. 
 
 According to Exod. xl. i, the tabernacle was not 
 reared before the first day of the first month of the 
 second year after the exodus. And even then the 
 tabernacle-service could not go into effect, because 
 the sacrificial laws had not yet been given. Not 
 before Lev. viii. do we find the command to consecrate 
 Aaron and his sons (compare also Num. i. i). Thus 
 the time between the publication of this command 
 and the inauguration of the tabernacle-service was at 
 least eight full months. Were the children of Israel 
 without sacrifices all this time 1 If not, and if each 
 was his own priest, and built his own altar, what was 
 more natural than a provision of this character.'* 
 Afterwards, of course, it was partially abrogated by 
 the fuller and permanent arrangement of the ritual 
 system. 
 
 (2) The directions that the altar should be of un- 
 hewn stone, and that it should not be ascended by 
 steps, are claimed to be of general character, and 
 thus to preclude the subsequent promulgation of the 
 Levitical law, which contradicts them. 
 
 As to the first of these points, we claim on our 
 side that the command is not general, but special 
 and temporary. Because the altar which each man 
 w^ould build for himself could not be consecrated, it 
 should consist of simple, undefiled, natural material. 
 
UNITY, OR PLURALITY, OF SANCTUARY? 8/ 
 
 Of course, to the altar of the tabernacle, made ac- 
 :ording to God's own prescriptions, solemnly conse- 
 crated and served by an official priesthood, these 
 restrictions did not apply. 
 
 The prohibition to ascend the altar by sjteps, had 
 in it an element of permanent validity, as ver. 26 
 intimates. Only the special way in which this neces- 
 sity was met, had no perpetual binding force. Hence, 
 whilst the Levitical law preserved the former, it could 
 disregard the latter. The principle was maintained, 
 but in the manner stated in Exod. xxviii. 42, xxxix. 28. 
 
 2. The critics cannot satisfactorily account for the 
 addition, ''where I record my name." Wellhausen 
 dismisses the significant phrase with the following 
 insignificant remark : " This only means that the 
 place of communion between heaven and earth is 
 not to be regarded as arbitrarily choseUj but as in 
 some way designated by God himself." The refer- 
 ence of this clause to the successive stations of the 
 tabernacle during the desert-journey, is not excluded, 
 but does not do full justice to the meaning. It is in- 
 tended that all places become sacred by a manifesta- 
 tion of God, whether it be in a theophany, or by the 
 Shechinah, or in some other way. On Sinai, God re- 
 corded his name in a glorious revelation ; and thus to 
 the Israelites the provisional right could be given 
 to build an altar there. Afterwards, v/hen the mani- 
 festation of God's glory was transferred to the tent of 
 the testimony, this of necessity became the only 
 recognized sanctuary. The passage clearly intimates, 
 that, as often as altered circumstances would in the 
 future render centralization of worship practically 
 
8S THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 impossible, the same freedom would be restored, 
 always, of course, with the same restriction, that no 
 place of sacrifice should be arbitrarily chosen, but 
 only such as were sanctified by "a recording of God's 
 name." Actually, we find in subsequent history that 
 all such consecrated spots had been the scene of a 
 theophany: they were so many " Sinais," where the 
 same command could be repeated, and the pious 
 Israelite once more erect his simple altar of earth or 
 unhev/n stone, and sacrifice his burnt-offering- and 
 peace-offering, his sheep and oxen. 
 
 That the Covenant-law positively presupposes unity 
 of worship and cultus, is seen from the feast-laws, 
 Exod. xxiii. 17, 19, where every male is required to 
 appear three times in the year before the Lord God. 
 If the sanctuaries were so numerous as the critics 
 assert, and accordingly visited continually and fre- 
 quently by all Israelites, a command like this, to 
 appear three times before the Lord, would have been 
 superfluous and unmeaning. 
 
 We see that the attempt to bring the Covenant- 
 law into contradiction with the subsequent Codes, 
 or to show that it sanctions a more primitive form of 
 sanctuary-worship, rests on a very forced interpreta- 
 tion of a single passage severed from its context. 
 That there was a relative element in this regulation, 
 is absurd to deny ; and the absolute principles involved 
 were retained, though in a somewhat modified form, 
 in the Levitical law, so that no discrepancy exists. 
 Surely no development of centuries was required to 
 effect the unessential difference between these verses 
 and the description of the altar in the tabernacle, 
 
UNITY, OR PLURALITY, OF SANCTUARY? 89 
 
 modifications which are fully accounted for by the 
 historical situation that conditioned both. 
 
 It is further alleged that this first Code makes no 
 provision for the priests and their support, and thus 
 silently assumes the common right of all Israelites to 
 offer sacrifice. We deny that the latter proposition 
 can be logically deduced from the former ; and as to 
 the silence of the Code, if the argument proves any 
 thing, it proves that there was no privileged priest- 
 hood as late as the time of David or Jehoshaphat, 
 which is more than even the most destructive critics 
 are willing to assert. The arginnentum e silentio 
 has no force unless it be shown, that to legislate 
 on this topic fell within the scope and purpose of 
 this law. It regulates simply the Covenant-relation 
 between Jehovah and his people. Shall we conclude 
 from the silence as to circumcision and leprosy, 
 and many other topics, that these were unknown in 
 the tenth or ninth century } But we have no more 
 right to draw any inference from the fact that no 
 priests are mentioned here. Moreover, an evidently 
 prospective statement is made (Exod. xxiv. i, 9) con- 
 cerning Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, who are com- 
 manded with Moses to come up to the Lord. By 
 this distinction they are singled out from the rest of 
 the people; and on no other ground could this dis- 
 tinction of Aaron's sons have been made, than in 
 view of their future priesthood, and their appearing 
 before God in the tabernacle. 
 
 Deuteronomy is quoted as testifying to the actual 
 state of affairs during the transition period immedi- 
 ately before the centralization under Josiah. It con- 
 
90 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 tains, we are told, the reminiscences of what the 
 Covenant-law represented as indispensable reality. 
 The Deuteronomist writes throughout in a polemic 
 tone, and assumes the character of a reformer. It 
 indicates certainly no great concession when we ad- 
 mit that the Deuteronomic Code enforces and incul- 
 cates unity of worship more than any thing else. To 
 draw from this the direct inference, that it must be 
 both the product of, and the norm for, the re-action 
 against Bamoth-worship in the latter part of the sev- 
 enth century B.C., is very hasty and sweeping. 
 What the critics may be called upon to prove, is not 
 that Deuteronomy had a striking fitness to serve as 
 a reform-Code in the days of King Josiah. Nobody 
 denies this, and there is abundant evidence that it 
 was actually used thus. Neither will the evidence 
 that the Code could accomplish a greater and more 
 important mission in the seventh century than in 
 the Mosaic time, justify the conclusion that it owes 
 its origin to the former, and not to the latter. God 
 did not inspire his holy word for a single age or gen- 
 eration : it never returneth void, but accomplishes 
 sooner or later all that which he pleases. The one 
 and the essential point which we wish the higher 
 criticism to establish, is this, that the Code does not 
 fit into the historical situation, by which, according to 
 its own testimony, it was called forth. As far as we 
 know, this has never been done. The two preceding 
 points have been settled, which it required surely no 
 higher criticism to do ; but we object to a use of them 
 as if they warranted an inference that can only be 
 drawn from the third. Is there any impropriety in 
 
UNITY, OR PLURALITY, OF SANCTUARY? 9 1 
 
 the tone and contents of the book, when we realize 
 that the Israelites were to enter upon the possession 
 of a land, for centuries defiled by a heathen cultus so 
 that almost every high place would by its associa- 
 tions expose them to the utmost danger of relapsing 
 into idolatry and nature-worship ? If ever a time 
 called for an urgent appeal to the people to maintain 
 the centralization of their cultus as a safeguard 
 against Canaanitish influences, it was the latter part 
 of the Mosaic period. And the remarkable fact, that 
 Deuteronomy emphasizes as much the permanence 
 of the once established sanctuary as its unity, suits 
 far better the Mosaic time than the seventh century, 
 when the thought that the temple could be removed 
 from Jerusalem would have been considered ab- 
 surd. Entirely too much has been made of the fre- 
 quently recurring expressions : " the place which the 
 Lord your God shall choose Onr) out of all your 
 tribes to put i^^"^) his name there (j^ii^S)." Riehm 
 asserts that this could not have been spoken by 
 Moses with reference to the uncertain place of the 
 tabernacle. But here criticism, otherwise so averse 
 to prophetic foresight, seems to claim for Moses a 
 minute knowledge of the future fate of the sanctuary. 
 What else could Moses expect than that, after the 
 conquest of Canaan, a definite place would be chosen 
 by God to dwell there, either in tabernacle or temple t 
 Even long after the Mosaic age, in the same time to 
 which critics ascribe the origin of Deuteronomy, all 
 these terms were applied to the tabernacle and its 
 locality by Jer. vii. 12. D-^ ^r?iy ^rip3'^ nivx iVi;;:!. 
 So much about the prospective character of Deu- 
 
92 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 teronomy. Since it has a retrospective side also, we 
 must briefly inquire whether this lends stronger 
 support to the critical view. Does Deuteronomy 
 paint the past with such colors as compel us to pos- 
 tulate between it and the Covenant-law a period of 
 at least two centuries ? 
 
 We are referred chiefly to such expressions as the 
 following : '' Ye shall not do after all the things 
 that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is 
 right in his own eyes " (xii. 8, scqq). Deuteronomy, it 
 is said, " opposes consciously " *' what we are now ac- 
 customed to do." Its reform is not merely modify- 
 ing, but condemning, previous legislation, not only 
 reformatory, but polemic. And to explain this 
 marked difference between it and the Jehovist, a 
 considerable interval of time must be assumed. It is 
 impossible, if the Covenant-law had been promulgated 
 at Sinai and Deuteronomy in the plains of Moab, that 
 the latter should condemn what the former had ap- 
 proved of. 
 
 In answer to this we remark, — 
 
 1. The promulgation of the Levitical Code, which 
 according to our view falls between the Covenant-law 
 and Deuteronomy, has been overlooked here by the 
 critics. The tabernacle represented absolute unity 
 of worship ; and, this having been abandoned in the 
 desert, it is not Strange that Deuteronomy con- 
 demns in the most polemic terms a subsequent re- 
 lapse into previous customs, which had now become 
 unallowable. 
 
 2. That such a subsequent relapse took place dur- 
 ing the thirty-eight years of wandering in the desert 
 
UNITY, OR PLURALITY, OF SANCTUARY? 93 
 
 under the judgment of God, is proved by historical 
 testimony, not only that of the Pentateuch, but also of 
 Amos V. 25, 26. Whatever may be the more definite 
 exegesis of this difficult passage, it doubtless alludes 
 to such a state of affairs as Deuteronomy condemns. 
 It is true that Amos does not directly charge the 
 Israelites with having sacrificed in a plurality of 
 places at the same time, but only that they had 
 " taken up the tabernacle of Moloch and Chiun their 
 images, the star of their god, which they made to 
 themselves." But it is clear that the former is a di- 
 rect inference from the latter statement. Unity of 
 worship stood and fell with pure Jahveism, of which 
 the central idea is the recognition of one personal 
 God, to whom belongs the initiative in all that per- 
 tains to his service. The moment this definite and 
 exclusive idea is lost, there returns with the vague 
 conceptions of nature-worship, the unlimited freedom 
 to sacrifice at all places where this uncircumscribed 
 deity of nature reveals itself; i.e., everywhere. That 
 the idolatry to which Amos refers was conducted 
 throughout the camp, and not centralized in the tab- 
 ernacle, admits of no doubt ; and this alone furnishes 
 a sufficient ground for the polemical tone of Deuter- 
 onomy. For it is true of the past as well as of the 
 future, that the prophet's eye takes in more than a 
 single day : it covers periods, and sees them in the 
 light of their most significant features. Hence the 
 prophet Moses, looking back upon the last forty years, 
 could even in the fields of Moab, at the dawn of a 
 new period, truthfully say, '' Not as we are now accus- 
 tomed to do." 
 
94 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 3. The protest against a plurality of places of sac- 
 rifice is brought into close connection throughout the 
 Code with the warning against heathen idolatry (Deut. 
 xii. 2, 3, and so passim). But the critics are emphatic 
 in telling us that Bamoth-worship was Jahveh-wor- 
 ship. Accordingly, this feature suits the Mosaic 
 period far better than the age of the later Judaic 
 kings. The dark future and the still darker past 
 combined in these days of Moses to inspire him with 
 fear for Israel's corrupt tendencies in this direction. 
 
 4. That Deuteronomy in its general representa- 
 tions often approaches very closely to the later times, 
 proves nothing more than that we have here an ex- 
 ample of generic prophecy. These later evils were 
 the natural results of the dangers to which Israel was 
 exposed in the midst of a heathen environment. It 
 did not require a great amount of supernatural fore- 
 sight to discern them beforehand. And all critics 
 admit that Deuteronomy, on the whole, has a pro- 
 phetic character. How can it awake our surprise, 
 that the prescription of a general remedy for a gen- 
 eral class of evils was found appropriate as often and 
 as late as the occasion or the necessity required } 
 
 5. We close with the remark, that in view of the 
 striking resemblance between the Mosaic time and 
 the state of religion in the seventh century, and the 
 almost perfect fitting of Deuteronomy into the his- 
 torical circumstances of both, it must surprise us, that 
 the critics have not been bold enough to reject the 
 whole history of Israel's apostasy, and wandering in 
 the desert, as a "historical fiction," a new and unpre- 
 cedented example of carrying back the present into 
 
UNITY, OR PLURALITY, OF SANCTUARY? 95 
 
 the past with a Jesuitical intention. If the attempt 
 has been successful in the case of the tabernacle, we 
 do not see why it should not be practicable here. 
 But if there are so many te-mptations to reiterate the 
 bold hypothesis, and nevertheless the stern reality of 
 history would not allow them, it may well serve us as 
 a warning not to yield too readily to similar facts, 
 presented in the same attractive light, where, with a 
 little less historical testimony, the critics have actu- 
 ally risked the dangerous step of proclaiming that 
 the history of the past is but an embellished repro- 
 duction of a subsequent present. We are content to 
 call neither a counterfeit of the other, but to find in 
 both the genuine reflection, which in all times and all 
 places the invariable methods of God's dealing with 
 men will produce in the mirror of history. 
 
 According to Wellhausen, there is no other differ- 
 ence between Deuteronomy and the Priest Code on 
 this point than that the latter takes for granted 
 what the former requires. With regard to a second 
 point closely allied to the one just discussed, the 
 case stands different. We must, in the second 
 place, examine the pretended development of the 
 sacrificial system. 
 
96 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM. 
 
 HERE the Jehovist and Deiiteronomist go to- 
 gether, and stand diametrically opposed to Eze- 
 kiel and the Priest Code. And even within the 
 limits of the Priest Code itself, an expansion of 
 the ceremonial is traceable. Wellhausen makes 
 substantially the following statements : — 
 
 1. According to the Jehovist and the Deiiterono- 
 mist, sacrifices are a universal and extremely simple 
 means of honoring the Deity, and conciliating his 
 favor. They are pre-Mosaic, and along the line of 
 Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, go back to the begin- 
 nings of humanity, to Cain and Abel. The Elohist, 
 on the other hand, represents the sacrificial worship 
 as an immediate divine institution, characteristically 
 Mosaic in origin. 
 
 2. With the Jehovist and in Deuteronomy the 
 important question is, " To whom 1 " The Elohist 
 emphasizes the questions, " When, where, and by 
 whom ? " In other words, the Jehovist has not, and 
 the Elohist has, an elaborate programme of ritual. 
 
 3. In the Jehovistic and Deuteronomic Codes, no 
 other than burnt-offerings {plah) and peace- (or thank-) 
 offerings {she /cm y zebah, zcbah shclauiiin) appear. 
 
THE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM. 97 
 
 Moreover, the olah constitutes no separate class for 
 itself, but is simply the substitute in a large zebah 
 (consisting of several animals) of a single whole vic- 
 tim for all the pieces of fat and the blood, other- 
 wise offered to God, of each individual animal. 
 Hence olah occurs almost always in connection with 
 the zcbahim in the singular number. That part of 
 every zebaJi which came upon the altar (fat and 
 blood) could appropriately be called olah. Still, 
 Wellhausen admits that the term is never used in 
 this sense, but always denotes a oXoKavcrrov. In 
 Ezekiel and the Priest Code the order is reversed, 
 and zebali has become subordinate to the olah. The 
 altar is called inizbah-ha-olah (the altar of burnt- 
 offering). Two new kinds of sacrifices are added, — 
 chattatJi (sin-offering) and asJiam (trespass-offering). 
 
 4. It is claimed that we have a gradual modifica- 
 tion of the idea of sacrifice. 
 
 {a) The primitive conception is that of a meal in 
 which the Deity is host, and the offerer a guest. Sac- 
 rifices are identical with sacrificial meals. 
 
 {b) Next comes the sJiclcm (peace-offering) of the 
 Priest Code with a reminiscence of the old custom, 
 in so far as the sacrificial meal is retained. The 
 modification consists in the giving of the breast and 
 the right shoulder to the priest. This is a first re- 
 striction upon the conception of a meal. 
 
 {c) Then follows the olah (burnt-offering) of the 
 Priest Code. Here also the priests have their part 
 in the skin. The whole victim is burnt upon the 
 altar, which still admits the conception of a one- 
 sided meal, consumed by God alone. 
 
gS THE PENTATEUCH A L CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 {cf) In the cJiattatJi (sin-offering) and asJiam (tres- 
 pass-offering), even this is lost ; since none of the 
 fiesh is brought upon the altar, but the whole 
 eaten by the priests. All that could remind of a 
 sacrificial meal, as flour, oil, wine, salt, is wanting ; so 
 that the last trace of the original idea is effaced. 
 
 5. As an example of modification within the 
 limits of the Priest Code itself, stands the case of 
 the offering of incense and altar of incense. The 
 latter is unknown to the older parts of the Code, not 
 mentioned among the utensils of the tabernacle, 
 Exod. xxv.-xxix., but spoken of at the end, in a sepa- 
 rate passage, evidently of later origin (xxx. i, etc.). 
 The rite of the most solemn sin-offering, according 
 to Exod. xxix.. Lev. viii. and ix., was not performed 
 at this altar. On the Day of Atonement, Aaron 
 offers incense, not on the altar, but in a censer be- 
 fore the mercy-seat within the veil. So also Lev. x.. 
 Num. xvi., xvii. In all these chapters, the altar of 
 burnt-offering is called Jia-niizbeaJi, which precludes 
 the existence of another altar. In the later sections 
 of the Pentateuchal Code, the name inizbaJi-Jia-olah 
 appears ; and these are exactly the passages which 
 know the altar of incense. This whole idea of a 
 golden altar was an after-development from that of 
 the golden table of show-bread. Other points in 
 which a development is traceable are mentioned by 
 Wellhausen ; e.g., the flour first used was nr?p. (^mcal), 
 the Priest Code demands nSb {fijie floiu). The old 
 custom of boiling the meat gave place to roasting, 
 — a refinement in the rite, of course, arising from 
 a refinement of the eater's taste. 
 
THE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM. 99 
 
 With reference to all these points, we would 
 remark, — 
 
 1. If Deuteronomy lays so much stress on the 
 centralization of the cultus, it would be naturally 
 expected, provided this were the formative principle 
 of the development, as Wellhausen claims, that a 
 corresponding change would be noticeable in its sac- 
 rificial prescriptions. This, however, is not the case. 
 We have Wellhausen's own confession that Deuter- 
 onomy falls in with the Jehovist on the whole line. 
 This is a clear proof that the alleged discrepancies 
 are not to be explained on the principle of develop- 
 ment, but out of the peculiar aim of each Code in 
 particular. In Deuteronomy, to say the least, we 
 have positive proof that the two conceptions of sacri- 
 fice — that of a ceremonial act bound to a single 
 place, and that of a joyful meal — are not exclusive, 
 but mutually supplement each other. 
 
 2. The contrast that the Jehovistic legislation is 
 only concerned with the question ''to whom .-^ " and 
 the Priest Code exclusively emphasizes, " how, when, 
 where, and by whom V is by far too sharply drawn. 
 We find with the Jehovist, provisions in the latter 
 direction (Exod. xx. 24-26, xxiii. 18, 19). On the 
 contrary, the Levitical law enforces principles which, 
 according to the critics, are Jehovistic (e.g., Lev. xix. 
 4, 5, xx. 1-5). 
 
 3. That sacrifices were originally extremely simple 
 in their ritual, and pre-Mosaic in their essential fea- 
 tures, does not prove any thing against the Mosaic 
 origin of the Priest Code. The Levitical law 
 nowhere asserts that Moses for the first time in- 
 
100 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 stituted sacrifices : it simply states that the ritual 
 system, as adapted to Israel's new position as God's 
 Covenant-people, dates from the Mosaic period. 
 
 4. That the olaJi did not originally constitute a 
 separate class of sacrifices for itself, requires stronger 
 proof than Wellhausen has been able to produce. 
 All that he shows, is that olaJi and zebahim were 
 frequently combined. This, however, is also the case 
 in the Priest Code. The impossibility of consider- 
 ing the olaJi as a subordinate part of the zcbah is 
 manifest ; because the fat and blood of an individual 
 zcbah are never called olah, as Wellhausen is obliged 
 to admit. The term is exclusively employed of 
 whole-burnt offerings, 6Ao;<ai;crra. It is plain, then, 
 that the specific difference lies not in the coming 
 upon the altar : in other words, olah and zcbah are 
 esseiitietlly distinct. 
 
 5. It is true that in the Jehovistic Code, only 
 burnt- and peace-offerings are mentioned (Exod. xx. 
 24, xxiv. 5). But, on the one hand, nothing can be 
 inferred from two passages : on the other hand, as 
 the Levitical Code had not yet been promulgated, 
 the Covenant-law retained provisionally the older 
 practice and ritiis. 
 
 6. Concerning Wellhausen's denial of the actual 
 existence of the altar of incense, we remark, — 
 
 {a) It cannot be maintained that Exod. xxx. i-io is 
 out of place, and proves itself by this position a later 
 appendix. The description of the utensils of the 
 tabernacle began with the ark, and ended with the 
 altar of incense; because both constituted, as it were, 
 the two polar points of the sanctuary. Hence the 
 
THE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM. lOI 
 
 altar is called D'^ip. t^Vp {Holy of holies), in preference 
 to the candlestick, and table of showbread. 
 
 {b) That the altar is not mentioned in connection 
 with the most solemn rite described in Exod. xxix. 
 (consecration of the priests commanded), Lev. viii. 
 (the same executed), and Lev. ix. (entrance of Aaron 
 and his sons upon their actual service), need not sur- 
 prise us when we remember, that in all these cases, 
 the priests, while still undergoing the rite of conse- 
 cration, are not treated as priests. Hence the pre- 
 scription of Lev. iv., to put some of the blood upon 
 the horns of the altar of incense, did not apply here ; 
 because, de facto, Aaron was not a high-priest as long 
 as the induction to his office lasted. Only for the 
 sin-offering of the high-priest and the whole con- 
 gregation, was the blood put upon the altar of in- 
 cense (Lev. iv. 22, scqq). 
 
 if) When, according to Lev. xvi., Aaron on the Day 
 of Atonement brought incense in a censer before the 
 mercy-seat, we surely could not expect him to have 
 carried the heavy altar within the veil. And that 
 coals are taken from the altar of burnt-offering is 
 equally natural. Even the fire for the daily offering 
 of incense was taken from this altar. The only 
 remaining difficulty is, that in chap. xvi. only one 
 altar is mentioned as being sprinkled with blood. 
 '' The altar that is before the Lord " seems to denote 
 the olaJi altar. Universal tradition has referred it to 
 the altar of incense ; and so does Delitzsch (Luth. 
 Zeitschr., 1880, iii. p. 118), who adds the remark, that 
 the name is exclusively used of the golden altar in 
 the holy place. The context, however, plainly con- 
 
I02 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 tradicts this : from ver. 14-20 the order is the same 
 as in the recapitulation of ver. 33. In the latter 
 verse the altar cannot but designate the olah altar. 
 Accordingly we must understand ver. 18 in the same 
 sense. The chapter distinguishes throughout be- 
 tween (a) the holy place (here the Holy of holies), 
 {b) the tabernacle of the congregation, (r) the altar 
 that is before the Lord, which can only mean the 
 altar in the court. 
 
 The true explanation why the altar of incense is 
 not' specially mentioned, is that it was included under 
 the general term, "the tabernacle of the congrega- 
 tion," together with the candlestick and table of 
 show-bread. On the contrary, the olaJi altar is 
 marked out, beciuse it was the only thing in the 
 court to be atoned for. The phrase "before the 
 Lord " is evidently intended in a wider sense here, 
 to denote that the altar of burnt-offering stood in 
 front of the whole tabernacle, God's dwelling-place. 
 
 {a) Lev. X. and Num. xvi., xvii., as extraordinary 
 or unlawful transactions, do not come under consider- 
 ation here. 
 
 {e) It is untrue that the name ha-mizbeah, applied 
 to the olah altar, precludes the existence of another 
 altar. The former could be appropriately designated 
 by that name, because it was the place of sacrifice, 
 if not exclusively, yet par excellence. 
 
 if) No more difficulty is created by the fact, that 
 those sections of the Pentateuch which show ac- 
 quaintance with the altar of incense, use the more 
 definite name for the olah altar, whilst those which 
 do not know the former, call the latter ha-mizbeah. 
 
THE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM. IO3 
 
 The simple explanation is, that, in passages where 
 both altars are referred to, a closer distinction was 
 necessary to prevent confusion. In other passages, 
 where only the olah altar was mentioned, this was 
 superfluous, and the simple name ha-inizbcah was 
 sufficient to indicate that the altar par excellence 
 was meant. 
 
 {g) Wellhausen alleges that the idea of a golden 
 altar is a mere development of that of the golden 
 table of showbread, and finds confirmation for this 
 theory in Ezek. xli. 22. ''The altar of wood," etc. ; 
 ''this is the table that is before the Lord." The fact 
 is, that in Ezekiel's sanctum, neither candlestick nor 
 table of show-bread appears, — which once more 
 proves how absurd it is, to draw from his Thora any 
 inference as to the state of the ritual in his days. 
 The statement in ver. 22 appUes to nothing else than 
 to the very altar whose existence Wellhausen denies. 
 It is certainly more probable that the prophet called 
 the altar a table, than the table an altar. The des- 
 ignation of the altar as a table is warranted by 
 post-exilic usage. Furthermore, Ezekiel clearly dis- 
 tinguishes two altars in the temple (ix. 2). 
 
104 ^-^-^ PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC, 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 PRIESTS AND LEVITES. 
 
 OUR next point of inquiry concerns the priests 
 and Levites, and their relation to each other. 
 Critics claim that in no point is the development 
 more clearly traceable step by step than here. By 
 a gradual restriction, the priestly office became the 
 exclusive prerogative of the so-called sons of Aaron. 
 Ezek. xliv. 6-i i describes the degradation of the 
 great mass of Levites from priests to temple-ser- 
 vants, and is the bridge between Deuteronomy, 
 which recognizes all Levites as priests, and uses 
 the two terms interchangeably, on the one hand, and 
 the Priest Code on the other hand, where only the 
 sons of Aaron are allowed to appear before Jahveh. 
 According to i Kings ii. 27, 35, Abiathar was re- 
 moved by Solomon from the priesthood for political 
 reasons, and replaced by Zadok, whose descendants 
 from that time onward seem to have monopolized 
 the temple-service. As Deuteronomy shows, in the 
 days of King Josiah the Levites could still claim an 
 equal right to this service. The distinction between 
 the sons of Zadok and the other Levites was not 
 one of rank, but simply of actual service. Accord- 
 ingly we find them in juxtaposition in statements like 
 
PRIESTS AND LEVITES. I05 
 
 the following : D^i'^n-Si) pnv (Zadok and all the Le- 
 vites), 2 Sam. xv. 24 (Graf, p. 48). Only within the 
 circle of the sons of Zadok themselves, Graf admits 
 that there may have been a certain gradation in 
 rank, from the lowest temple-servant upward to the 
 ^njn |rl3 or v}^-^t\ jriD {high-priest), 2 Kings xii. 11, 
 xxii. 4, 8 ; Jer. xx. i. With the centralization of 
 Deuteronomy, the seed for the future distinction of 
 rank was sown. The Levitical priests of the prov- 
 ince, separated from their altars, could no longer 
 remain priests. Deuteronomy still puts them on a 
 par with the sons of Zadok ; but the latter had long 
 ceased to consider them as equals, and now began to 
 question their rights altogether. This was the ac- 
 tual state of affairs, which Ezekiel tries to present in 
 a moral light. He reproves the idolatrous minister- 
 ing of the Levites as priests at the Bamoth ; and, in 
 punishment for this iniquity, they are degraded to 
 temple-servants. Thus they shall atone for what 
 was most abominable in the prophet's estimation, 
 and henceforward the Levites exist as an order dis- 
 tinct from the priests. Notwithstanding this moral 
 semblance, it is clear that Ezekiel's retributive jus- 
 tice was of a peculiar retrogressive kind : he proclaims 
 as a punishment what had long ago been the real 
 situation, and was after all but a natural consequence 
 of the centralization. What the prophet did, was to 
 settle the controversy between Levites and Zadok- 
 ites in favor of the latter. He did not claim for 
 the house of Zadok, Aaronic descent, because in his 
 days it was well known that the old line had ceased 
 durin"- the rei^^n of Solomon. Not until after the 
 
I06 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 exile, when the thread of tradition had been lost, 
 could the Priest Code present this claim, and the 
 chronicler establish it by a series of artificial gene- 
 alogies. 
 
 We have accordingly in this development the fol- 
 lowinsf sta2;es : — 
 
 1. Jehovistic Code. No mention of priests. Young 
 men offer sacrifices (Exod. xxiv. 3-8). A priestly 
 order, but no priestly family. 
 
 2. Deuteronomy recognizes a hereditary clcrus 
 consisting of numerous families with exclusive and 
 indisputable privileges. Also the name '' Levitical 
 priests " appears. The principle of heredity, though 
 afterwards carried back into the Mosaic age, actually 
 dates from the later times of the kingdom, and was 
 entirely Judaic in origin. 
 
 3. Ezekiel legalizes the distinction between the 
 priestly family connected with the temple and the 
 families before connected with the Bamoth. This 
 distinction had long been valid as a matter of fact ; 
 viz., ever since the Bamoth were destroyed. Now, 
 however, it is clothed with divine authority. 
 
 4. What Ezekiel saw it necessary to justify as a 
 divinely authenticated innovation, the Priest Code 
 finds it possible to proclaim as an '* eternal statute." 
 Reminiscences of opposition appear in the history 
 of Korah's rebellion (compare also Num. xvii. 10, 
 xviii. 23). Here we have the regular gradation 
 in descending order : Aaron as high-priest, his 
 sons as priests, his tribe as Levites, constitute 
 a systematic hierarchy. In pre-exilic history and 
 literature, an imposing figure like that of the high- 
 
PRIESTS AND LEVITES. 107 
 
 priest was wholly unknown. The priesthood was 
 rather a royal dependency. But in the Priest Code 
 the high-priest is sovereign, the top of the pyramid 
 of Israel's congregation reaching into heaven, and 
 unto Jahveh himself. A theocratic king beside him 
 is unthinkable. That the head of the cultus is at 
 the same time head of the nation, points us to a 
 time when the nation was robbed of its secular inde- 
 pendence, and had nothing left but its ecclesiastical 
 organization. Israel has become a congregation, 
 n"j>*. Dependence on foreign power is the neces- 
 sary prerequisite for the origin of a hierarchy. 
 Hence the Priest Code must be post exilic. 
 
 In commenting upon this ingenious theory, it will 
 be necessary more than once to cast a side-glance at 
 the historical arguments by which it is fortified. 
 Our remarks are the following : — 
 
 I. It is positively untrue that the Jehovistic law 
 knows nothing of a priestly order. That it is only 
 occasionally alluded to, and not repeatedly mentioned, 
 cannot awake suspicion : for {a) it did not exist when 
 the Covenant-law was promulgated ; {U) the purpose 
 of this law was not to regulate the ritual system, but 
 simply to furnish a basis on which it could be con- 
 structed. On the other hand, that incidental allu- 
 sions and prospective remarks 'should be made in 
 reference to the subject can be expected. The fol- 
 lowing passages, which are Jehovistic, fully warrant 
 us in saying that the Covenant-law is not contradic- 
 tory to, but rather preparatory for, the more full 
 Levitical legislation (Exod. iv. 14, xix. 22, xxxii. i, 
 29, xxxiii. 7-1 1). VVellhausen rules out such pas- 
 
I08 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 sages from the list of arguments by mere capricious 
 remarks like the following : " Exod. xxxii. 29 stands 
 on the basis of Deuteronomy," and '' Exod. xix. 22 
 can hardly (?) have belonged to the original Jehovis- 
 tic sources " (Prolegomena, 2d ed., p. 146). 
 
 2. It is inaccurate, also, to say that Deuteronomy 
 puts the priests and Levites on a par. No argument 
 for this can be drawn from the absence of a strongly 
 marked and everywhere emphasized distinction. As 
 we hope to show hereafter, this absence is wholly in 
 accordance with the general character of the book. 
 Moreover, Deuteronomy does not aim to give com- 
 plete or precisely formulated directions, but only 
 compact popular restatements of matters minutely 
 regulated elsewhere. That the author speaks of 
 Levites in general in not a few passages, where, more 
 accurately expressed, the priests are meant, must be 
 explained on the rule, that the genus may be used to 
 designate the species, where there is no danger of 
 ambiguity. The same inaccuracy occurs in the his- 
 torical books (compare Josh. iii. 3, viii. 33, xiii. 14, 
 xviii. 7; i Sam. ii. 27; 2 Chron. v. 5, xxx. 27) : even 
 IMalachi, who wrote after the pretended promulgation 
 of the Priest Code, speaks in the same manner (li. 
 4). The priests were Levites in reality. Is it not 
 natural that in the middle books of the Pentateuch, 
 in laws enacted while yet Aaron and his sons occu- 
 pied the priestly office, the priests should have been 
 designated by the familiar term "sons of Aaron".'* 
 and that afterwards, when both Aaron and two of his 
 sons had died, in a book of prophetic character, the 
 more general term " Levitical priests" should have 
 
PRIESTS AND LEVITES. 1 09 
 
 been chosen, denoting ''those Levites who shall be 
 priests at any time of the future " ? The lack of defi- 
 niteness in Deuteronomy, where it employs these 
 terms, cannot be construed as proving entire igno- 
 rance of the distinction. The passage (Deut. xviii. 
 i) is instructive in this respect. Graf and other crit- 
 ics hold that " Levites " stands here in apposition to 
 "priests," and the expression "all the tribe of Levi " 
 to "priests (and) Levites." On this critical presup- 
 position we have three terms to express that which 
 each of them separately would have expressed with 
 sufficient clearness, so that at least two are super- 
 fluous. Under these circumstances we are certainly 
 justified in taking an alternative, and considering the 
 construction as an asyndeton : " The Levitical priests 
 (and) the whole tribe of Levi," which is in full ac- 
 cordance with the context. In ver. 5, if the priest- 
 hood of the whole tribe was presupposed, we would 
 naturally expect " him (the priest) and his brethren 
 forever." The phrase "him and his sons'' strikes 
 us as more suitable to a hereditary priesthood within 
 a single family, than to the existence of a priestly 
 tribC; 
 
 Other instances of this generic designation of the 
 priests occur in the Old Testament, even in books 
 written after the exile, which cannot but have known 
 the distinction between Levites and priests (Ezra x. 
 5 ; Neh. x. 28, 38, xi. 20). 
 
 But, we are told, Deuteronomy allows the Levites 
 " to stand before the Lord," ry\r\\ ^jaS ip;; ; "minister 
 to the Lord," njn: ^w'l n^:^ (nin; n^ — ); "bless in 
 the name of the Lord," nin; d*^3 ']'\1; all these being 
 
no THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 in the Priest Code the exclusive prerogatives of the 
 Aaronic priests. 
 
 These expressions occur in five passages (x. 8, xvii. 
 12, xviii. 5, 7, xxi. 5). In two, however, the functions 
 referred to are predicated of the priests, no mention 
 being made of Levites ; viz., xvii. 12 and xxi. 5. We 
 have only to examine the remaining ones, x. 8, xviii. 
 5,7. It is a remarkable fact, that in those very books, 
 which, according to the critics, have reconstructed 
 the history, and thus are beyond suspicion of non-con- 
 formity to the Levitical law, — that in those very 
 books, we say, the identical expressions are applied to 
 the Levites. How absurd it would be to infer from 
 2 Chron. xxix. 4, 5, 11, 12, where the Levites are 
 addressed by Hezekiah as " standing before the Lord, 
 and serving and ministering unto him," that the 
 author of Chronicles did not distinguish between 
 priests and Levites ! (compare also 2 Chron. xxiii. 6). 
 Why shall we make the expression to prove in Deu- 
 teronomy what it cannot prove with any possibihty 
 in Chronicles t If Deuteronomy be wTitten before 
 the Priest Code, then Chronicles also. 
 
 We need not deny that these phrases originally in- 
 dicated a function peculiar to the priesthood, espe- 
 cially in the case of "' '^aS ir?;* {stand before JchovaJi). 
 But it is equally plain, that they gradually assumed a 
 looser and wider signification, which made them alike 
 applicable to the work of both priests and Levites. 
 The name for all service at the sanctuary was taken 
 a potion ivom. its most honorable and important part 
 in which the priests officiated. This fully accounts 
 for their exclusive use in the middle books with refer- 
 
PRIESTS AND LEVITES. Ill 
 
 ence to the priests, and for their modified sense in 
 subsequent literature. 
 
 All that remains of the argument, is that in x. 8 the 
 phrase "to bless in his name" is without any speci- 
 fication applied to the whole tribe of Levi. There 
 are no other instances in which this same construc- 
 tion, ^"^5 with the preposition 3, is used, when others 
 than priests are spoken of. Still, this is far from ad- 
 mitting that the verse under consideration teaches 
 the equality of priests and Levites. The best exe- 
 gesis seems to be, to take the whole verse as predi- 
 cated in general of the whole tribe of Levi. Of the 
 duties enumerated, part belonged to the Levites and 
 priests in common, as, "to stand before the Lord," 
 "to minister unto him;" part to the Levites espe- 
 cially, as the bearing of the ark ; part to the priests 
 alone, as "to bless in the Lord's name." All this 
 was so perfectly self-evident, that no specification 
 was needed. 
 
 3. Ezekiel's Thora is for the modern critics what 
 his 80? /xot TTov (JT^ was for Archimedes. With their 
 interpretation of it and the inferences drawn there- 
 from, the whole structure of their historical theories 
 stands or falls. At first blush, the point would seem 
 to have been very badly chosen for historical argu- 
 mentation. The whole section is of a highly ideal 
 character, and was written in a time when, from his- 
 toric reality, the cultus had become already a distant 
 dream, and the prophetic idealization could accord- 
 ingly be given free play. It is needless to point out 
 in detail how many features in these chapters will not 
 admit a historical or literal interpretation, and never 
 
112 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 received one even at the hand of the most obstinate 
 literaHst. It has been reserved for the higher criti- 
 cism to handle and utihze this unwieldy material in 
 the most sober and practical way. 
 
 In the face of their ideal, prospective character, the 
 critics have been bold enough to make these chapters 
 speak for the past, forgetting that the threads of his- 
 torical tradition had been freely interwoven with 
 those of bold forecast of the future, so as to form a 
 prophetic mantle. We must remember that this is 
 a vision, and in it Ezekiel sees only higher spiritual 
 realities through the medium of an ever-changing 
 and ever-growing symbolism. Though the latter had, 
 of course, its points of contact with the present and 
 the past, it could not be limited by them : the essen- 
 tially new truth, which the prophet revealed, required 
 also new and modified forms, in which to clothe it- 
 self. It is from this point of view, that the critics 
 should have estimated the historical significance and 
 value of what they are accustomed to style "Ezekiel's 
 programme." 
 
 But let us grant, that there is at least a background 
 of historical truth in the statements of Ezek. xliv. 
 5-16, with which we have here specially to deal. 
 Do they bear out the critical theory of a degradation 
 of some Levitical priests to temple-servants as the 
 first origin of the legal distinction between priests 
 and Levites } 
 
 The answer to this question can only be obtained 
 from a careful and fair examination of the passage 
 itself. Ezekiel makes three statements : the first 
 contains an accusation, the second an announce- 
 
PRIESTS AND LEVITES. II3 
 
 ment of punishment, the third confirms a privilege. 
 I. Uncircumcised persons have been used for menial 
 employments in the temple. 2. Certain Levites have 
 committed idolatry, and in punishment are hencefor- 
 ward to perform the same menial service, formerly 
 done by the uncircumcised. 3. Certain Levitical 
 priests, specified as the sons of Zadok, who have 
 remained faithful when the others apostatized, are 
 honored with the exclusive privilege of officiating 
 before the Lord. 
 
 Our first remark is, that there must be more than 
 an incidental connection in the j^rophet's mind be- 
 tween his first and second statement. It is unnatu- 
 ral to suppose that both are mentioned together, 
 simply because the removal of the uncircumcised 
 made a return of the Levites necessary, or' because 
 the punishment of the latter required the removal of 
 the former, or finally because by a play of history 
 both gave the prophet an occasion for ingenious 
 combination. A more than superficial reading of the 
 passage will convince us, that there is a deeper, more 
 causal, connection. That the apostate Levites have 
 to occupy the place of the uncircumcised, is for no 
 other reason than because by their apostasy they had 
 made the employment of the latter possible. They 
 abandoned what was their specific duty, — viz., the 
 ministering unto the priest in the temple, — sinned 
 themselves, and became the cause of the defilement of 
 the sanctuary. Hence a double penalty is inflicted : 
 I. The destruction of their self-chosen places of wor- 
 ship; 2. The restitution of what had been abstracted 
 from the sanctuary, by their becoming again temple- 
 servants. 
 
114 ■ '^^^ PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 We regard it as settled by this interpretation, that 
 Ezekiel does more than spread a moral mantle over 
 historical facts. His words imply that the facts 
 themselves had a moral quality. The Levites who 
 served at the Bamoth had not always been there, but 
 wilfully left their original position at the only legal 
 sanctuary. 
 
 The prophet does not further specify who these 
 Levites were. That he calls them Levites (ver. lo) 
 decides nothing, since his terms are not derived from 
 their former position, but already from the future 
 degradation he imposes. Neither does the fact that 
 their destiny to officiate as temple-servants is con- 
 sidered as a punishment, prove, on the other hand, 
 that they held a higher position at the sanctuary 
 before. The only thing that can be said about it, is 
 that they were Levites : whether exclusively non- 
 Aaronic, or partly Aaronic, is not stated. It is highly 
 probable, however, that both priests and Levites, in 
 the more strict sense of the term, were found amongst 
 them. 
 
 The critical allegation, that they consisted of noth- 
 ing else than Bamoth-priests out of occupation, rests 
 on the arbitrary assumption, that the sons of Zadok 
 are honored, not for their exceptional faithfulness to 
 Jehovah, but on account of their extraordinary posi- 
 tion. They were the priestly family for centuries in 
 charge of the temple-worship. Hence, the critics 
 infer, Ezekiel's approval of their attachment to Jeho- 
 vah can but mean a prophetic sanction of the tem- 
 ple as the only legal sanctuary, and at the same time 
 a side-attack upon all other places of worship. In 
 
PITIES TS AND LEVITES. II5 
 
 Other words, the sons of Zadok were not examples of 
 a rare attachment to Jehovah, but the favored incum- 
 bents of a highly lucrative office. It was not a ques- 
 tion of right and wrong, but of facts. If all this be 
 true, if they were not only the original and highest, 
 but also the exclusive, officers of the temple, our posi- 
 tion, that the Levites now condemned to perform 
 menial service, had once shared this privilege with 
 the sons of Zadok, cannot be maintained. If the 
 one party is approved simply for officiating at the 
 temple, then the other was condemned simply for 
 officiating at the Bamoth ; and other moral consid- 
 erations cannot have influenced the degradation of 
 the latter. 
 
 The answer to the question, " For what special 
 reason did the sons of Zadok deserve praise.'^" will 
 decide every thing. A priori it seems improbable 
 that the prophet should bestow upon them such a 
 eulogy simply because they did not leave their com- 
 fortable position at the chief sanctuary of the land. 
 It needed no great amount of self-abnegation and 
 pious adherence to Jehovah, to make them stay 
 where they were. But why may not their faithful- 
 ness have manifested itself in quite another way '^. 
 We know from history, that the temple itself had 
 been more than once the central seat of apostasy. 
 Urijah was the instrument of the idolatrous lusts of 
 King Ahaz ; and, when Manasseh defiled the temple, 
 no opposition on the part of the priests is so much 
 as heard of. That such abominations were not un- 
 common, even after Josiah's reform, the prophet's 
 vision in chap. viii. sufficiently shows. Hence there 
 
Il6 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 is all reasonable ground to assume that the merit of 
 the sons of Zadok consisted in something more than 
 a matter-of-fact serving in the Jerusalem temple. 
 They evidently had remained faithful when others, 
 occupying the same or similar privileges with them, 
 had gone astray. And, instead of an objection, we 
 may find in this high praise, with which their conduct 
 is extolled, a confirmation of our view that others 
 had abandoned that same trust, which they had so 
 faithfully and piously kept. 
 
 This explains how Ezekiel with the Priest Code 
 and all before him could still make a degradation out 
 of that which the critics have declared to be expli- 
 cable only on their suppositions. The whole solution 
 lies in the fact, that pcrha]3S many of the apostates 
 had been priests in the temple before. They had 
 left the central sanctuary, and sought the Bamoth. 
 In the reform of Josiah they lost their position. Now, 
 in this ideal vision, Ezekiel describes their degrada- 
 tion from priests, which they had once been lawfully, 
 and afterwards illegally, to Levites. 
 
 But is not this an objection to our view, that cer- 
 tainly the majority of these priests of the Bamoth 
 must have been originally Levites } How in tJieir 
 case will the punishment apply t Can the restora- 
 tion to a previous state after apostasy be called a 
 penalty for the latter } In rashly answering these 
 questions in the negative, the critics have found a 
 tempting occasion to display their sarcasm. Dr. 
 Kuenen asks, '' How can common citizens be threat- 
 ened with the penalty that henceforward they shall 
 have no seat and vote in a council of noblemen "i " 
 
PRIESTS AND LEVITES. 11/ 
 
 But what if these citizens had either legally or ille- 
 gally possessed for a considerable time this right of 
 vote and session ? When they were afterwards 
 deprived of these in punishment of their intrusion, 
 could anybody take exception to such a penalty ? 
 The case is not different here. The Levites had 
 probably left the temple, aspiring to a higher posi- 
 tion ; viz., that of priests. As such they had offici- 
 ated at the Bamoth. When these are destroyed, 
 their punishment is made to consist in the disgrace- 
 ful and humiliating re-entrance upon functions which 
 in self-exalting pride they had left. What is there 
 inappropriate in all this .'' 
 
 Still, it will be said that the deposed priests must 
 have gladly accepted the most humble charge, and 
 that so, after all, the punishment was turned into a 
 favor, and failed to reach its end. History, however, 
 testifies to the contrary. At the first return from 
 the captivity under Zerubbabel and Joshua, forty-two 
 hundred and eighty-nine priests, and only three hun- 
 dred and forty-one Levites, joined the expedition. 
 At the second, under Ezra, only thirty-eight Levites 
 were with much trouble collected. This shows how 
 even a long exile had not extinguished the priestly 
 pride in those who could no longer claim a higher 
 rank than that of Levitical servants. When they 
 preferred captivity to this humiliation, how can it be 
 doubted that they considered it as a punishment 
 from the outset, and that accordingly Ezekiel was 
 justified in representing it as such } 
 
 So much in positive explanation of Ezekiel's state- 
 ments. We do not claim to have relieved all difficul- 
 
Il8 THE PEXTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 ties, but may console ourselves with the thought, 
 that even what remains dark and mysterious, stands 
 out in a far more credible form than the absurdities 
 to which the critical theory necessarily leads. We 
 notice the following points : — 
 
 I. At the time of the first return from exile under 
 Zerubbabel and Joshua, the distinction of rank be- 
 tween priests and Levites was so firmly established 
 that nobody questioned its validity any longer. The 
 whole population of Jerusalem consisted, according to 
 I Chron. ix., of Israel, priests, and Levites, "^j^V^;, D'^^2, 
 d;"!.^. On this all critics agree. But, on the critical 
 supposition, this universal recognition of the Aaronic 
 prerogative is a most astonishing fact. Before the 
 exile a violent opposition was continually carried on 
 by the provincial priests against the Zadokites at 
 Jerusalem. No doubt, the Bamoth priests argued 
 that the sons of Zadok possessed their exclusive 
 rights, not dc jure, but de facto. They once occupied 
 the place, and it was impossible to expel them. 
 This opposition continued during the first part of 
 the exile. With the abolition of the temple-service, 
 the Zadokites lost their only stronghold ; viz., the 
 actual occupancy of the office. From that time on- 
 ward they were no more than the other Levites, 
 like them deprived of their sanctuary. Instead of 
 there being reason for the opposition to subside, 
 and for the superiority of the sons of Zadok to 
 gain silent recognition, all things seemed to work in 
 the other direction. And still, a few verses of the 
 prophet Ezckiel, in a never-realized vision, were suffi- 
 cient to conjure the strife, and make out of the 
 
FjR/ests axd levites. 119 
 
 proud Bamoth priests, humble Levites and temple- 
 servants ! Who would believe, that from all the fea- 
 tures in Ezekiel's vision, to which the returning 
 exiles attached no importance, this single one was 
 excepted, and that the slighted Levites meekly suf- 
 fered the exception to their own degradation ? 
 
 2. Among those who returned, there were far 
 more priests than Levites. In the first expedition, 
 the proportion was twelve to one. With Ezra, only 
 thirty-eight Levites returned. How will this agree 
 with the theory that Ezra was the writer of the 
 Priest Code } Surely the proportion between Le~ 
 vites and priests there assumes a totally different 
 character, and cannot be explained out of the actual 
 state of affairs, immediately after the exile. Well- 
 hausen assumes that the priesthood in Jerusalem 
 was as numerous as that of the Bamoth. He con- 
 cludes from the genealogies of the chronicler, that 
 the proportion must have been changed in conform- 
 ity with the statements of the Priest Code. This 
 change was effected by Levitizing strange families 
 of Nethinim, singers and janizaries. But that the 
 Zadokites were as numerous as all the Bamoth 
 priests together, is highly improbable ; for in Ezekiel 
 they appear as a small exception in contrast with an 
 apostate majority. Then the assumption that non- 
 Levitical families were Levitized rests on no his- 
 torical basis whatever. And finally the critics must 
 not only account for the proportion in Chronicles, 
 but for that in the Priest Code itself. 
 
 3. It is arbitrary to assume that only this part 
 of Ezekiel's Thora had binding force, and that all 
 
120 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 other parts were utterly disregarded. If the degra- 
 dation of priests to Levites was so persistently 
 adhered to, it becomes incomprehensible how after- 
 wards a conscientious man like Ezra could substitute 
 a legal fiction for a divinely authorized prophecy, 
 of which he admitted, in part at least, the obligatory 
 character. 
 
 4. It cannot be properly called a gradual restric- 
 tion, when Ezekiel limits the priesthood to the sons 
 of Zadok, and the Priest Code confines it to the 
 wider circle of Aaron's descendants. Thus, the 
 Priest Code would not only have carried out one 
 part of Ezekiel's statements, and disregarded others, 
 but in the same matter accepted one element, and 
 rejected the others. On Ezekiel's authority, it con- 
 tinues to keep down the Levites : still, it goes back 
 on the prophet's limitations, and widens the circle of 
 favorite priests. The sons of Aaron are substituted 
 for those of Zadok. This is no restriction, but relaxa- 
 tion : God's words are made of no effect. Doubt- 
 less, there had been Aaronites among the Bamoth 
 priests. That they were afterwards re-admitted into 
 the priesthood, wc can understand when we recognize 
 the ideal character of Ezekiel's prophecy ; but the 
 critics can by no means do so, who make it the 
 basis of historical argumentation. 
 
 All this shows in what difficulties the critical theo- 
 ries involve us, so far as their so-called Deuterono- 
 mic period and the subsequent time are concerned. 
 But when we go back to the pre-Deuteronomic times, 
 the difficulties are not less numerous, and the pre- 
 carious methods by which critics remove them not 
 
PRIESTS AND LEVITES. 121 
 
 less obvious. We can only point out the weakest 
 spots of the theory here, without laying claim to an 
 exhaustive treatment of the subject. 
 
 I. The theory fails to explain how the tribe of 
 Levi became the priestly tribe par excellence. A 
 denial of this fact is impossible, since the historical 
 testimony is too plain and unequivocal. Throughout 
 the Old Testament, Levites appear clothed with 
 priestly authority (Judg. xwii.-xx., passim ; i Sam. vi. 
 15 ; 2 Sam. xv. 24; i Kings viii. 4, xii. 31). This 
 will never agree with a theory that holds to the 
 original universal right of all Israelites to officiate 
 as priests. And, apart from this, the historical basis 
 for such a distinction as we meet here is entirely 
 wanting in the critical scheme. The only possible 
 solution of the mystery of Levitism is that proposed 
 by the Priest Code, which says that God separated 
 the tribe of Levi from the other tribes for this pur- 
 pose. The historical books, moreover, testify to this 
 origin of the distinction, i Sam. ii. 27, 28 ; Deut, 
 xxxiii. 8-1 1 (a so-called independent NorthTsraelitish 
 document). It is easy to see how a single family 
 could gradually form itself into an hereditary priest- 
 hood ; but when, in the time of the Judges, we find 
 a whole tribe clothed with this prerogative, we look 
 for something more than logical possibilities in ex- 
 planation. Priestly tribes do not originate in such 
 an incidental way. If Levi possessed the priest- 
 hood in the days of the Judges, he must have 
 possessed it long before, and obtained it at a defi- 
 nite point of time ; since the elements out of which 
 a scheme of development might be constructed are 
 
122 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 entirely wanting. It seems absurd, in the face of this 
 historical testimony, for critics to persistently deny 
 any connection of this distinction with the facts that 
 both Moses and Aaron were Levites, and with the 
 momentous changes of the exodus. A historical ex- 
 planation must be given here ; and when one that is 
 suitable, and accounts for all the facts, and is verified 
 by history, presents itself, there is no ground for 
 rejecting it. And finally, even apart from all this, 
 the fact that from the earliest historic (according to 
 the critics, even prehistoric) times, this distinction 
 between Levites and non-Levites existed, is fatal 
 to the whole hypothesis of gradual restriction. It 
 proves, that in the history of the cultus, there was a 
 stable and fixed element from the beginning, which, 
 for this reason alone, cannot have arisen from un- 
 conscious development, but must have been based 
 on intentional appointment. 
 
 It is amusing to see how the critics try to get 
 around this fact. Wellhausen in particular makes 
 two statements here, whose boldness, bordering upon 
 temerity, is evidently only a cover for the weakness 
 of his position on this important point. The first is, 
 that no real connection whatever exists between the 
 tribe of Levi (early dissolved into the neighboring 
 tribes) and the priestly caste afterwards designated 
 by that name. Both actually existed, but neither of 
 them had any thing to do with the other. The tribe 
 had long since disappeared when the caste rose into 
 prominence. All this is based on a critical inter- 
 pretation of Gen. xlix. 5-7, and clearly invented to 
 escape the consequences which this, as we think un- 
 
PRIESTS AND LEVJTES. 1 23 
 
 avoidable, combination involves. For the existence 
 of Levi as 2, priestly tribe in the time of Judges, com- 
 pare xvii. 7-9, xix. I, 18, and afterwards i Sam. vi. 
 15, 2 Sam. vi. 7. 
 
 Wellhausen's second statement is a conclusion 
 drawn from a series of premises, which we quote 
 from him in their logical order without any further 
 comment, since they speak for themselves : — 
 
 (i) Jonathan the Levite, who joined the Danites, 
 was a descendant of Moses, according to Judg. xviii. 
 
 30. 
 
 (2) The priestly family at Shiloh stood also in 
 genealogical connection with Moses (!), according to 
 I Sam. ii. 27. 
 
 (3) There is historic probability that the house of 
 Eli descended from Phinehas, who was, in the early 
 period of the Judges, priest of the ark. 
 
 (4) This Phinehas, according to Josh. xxiv. 33 
 (Elohistic), was a son of Eleazar. 
 
 (5) Though tradition uniformly claims Eleazar for 
 a son of Aaron, it has no right to speak in this 
 matter. 
 
 (6) Eleazar does not differ in its orthography 
 from Eliezer. And Eliezer was a brother of Ger- 
 shom, a son of Moses. 
 
 (7) When we, therefore, read Eliezer instead of 
 Eleazar, and disregard tradition, the following facts 
 are established : {a) Jonathan the Levite descended 
 from Moses ; {b) The priestly house at Shiloh de- 
 scended from Moses. 
 
 Conclusion : All that appears of an hereditary 
 priesthood must be explained by descent from Moses. 
 
124 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 In his family the priestly office was perpetuated. 
 The priests at Dan and Shiloh claimed Mosaic 
 extraction for themselves. All priests considered 
 Moses, if not as their genealogical ancestor, still as 
 the institutor of their guild. In Judah the guild 
 became a "gens." Levite, at first the name of an 
 office-bearer, now became a nonicn gentile ; and thus 
 the Levitical priesthood originated. 
 
 2. Within the limits of the tribe of Levi itself, 
 however, a distinction is traceable. First we have 
 Deut. xxxiii. 8-11. The passage, as a whole, applies 
 to the tribe of Levi (notice the transition to the 
 plural number in ver. (^ and 10). In Moses and 
 Aaron, Levi was proved, his fidelity tested by the 
 Lord. But the very fact that these two were treated 
 as representatives of the whole tribe, shows that they 
 stood in a certain representative relation to it, not 
 merely as leaders, but, in the case of Aaron, as the 
 person in whom the priestly character culminated. 
 To say the least, we have an allusion here to the 
 peculiar position which the house of Aaron occupied 
 in the tribe of Levi. The same representative capa- 
 city is ascribed to Aaron in the words i Sam. ii. 27, 
 28. 
 
 The existence of an Aaronic priesthood is con- 
 firmed by abundant testimony, both for the beginning 
 and the close of the period of Judges. The facts 
 are these : {a) The tabernacle was in Shiloh (xviii. 
 31) ; {b) It was called '' tJie house of the LoRD,"/rt'r 
 excellence, exckrding, at least legally, all others (xix. 
 18) ; (<f) the ark of the covenant was at Bethel (xx. 27) ; 
 {d) Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, 
 
PRIESTS AND LEVITES. 12$ 
 
 " Stood before it in those days." Here we have one 
 legal sanctuary in which only the descendants of 
 Aaron have the right to perform the highest func- 
 tions, ''to stand before the ark." The First Book of 
 Samuel testifies to the same for the close of this 
 period (i Sam. ii. 14, 22, 24, 30). Here the same 
 indisputable facts appear, — one tiniversal sanctuary 
 served by an Aaronitic priesthood, which could only 
 be deposed by direct divine interference, and accord- 
 ingly must have been based likewise on direct divine 
 appointment by Jehovah himself. 
 
 It has been claimed by Kuenen and others, that 
 the passage, Deut. xxxiii. 8-1 1, implies the right of 
 the whole tribe of Levi to the priestly prerogatives 
 of bearing Urim and Thummim. But apart from 
 the fact, that, in ver. 8, 9,^ the singular is used, and 
 nothing prevents us from referring it to Aaron (or 
 ideally to the high-priestly line descended from him), 
 it involves no concession when we say that the ''holy 
 one" is a personification of the whole tribe. For in 
 this case we could simply understand the passage as 
 describing the prerogatives of the tribe, without any 
 specification which of them belonged to the priests 
 exclusively, which to the Levites. If it could be 
 said that the whole tribe of Levi was proved at 
 Massah, and striven with at the waters of Meribah, 
 whilst only Aaron and Moses are meant, it surely is 
 not inconsistent to say that the whole tribe had 
 the Urim and Thummim, though in reality only the 
 high-priest could consult them. 
 
 The name "priests" occurs thirty-four times in 
 the books of Samuel, sixty times in those of Kings, 
 
126 THE PENTATEUCIIAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 that of Levites twice in Samuel (i Sam. vi. 15, 2 
 Sam. XV. 24), once in Kings (i Kings viii. 4). This 
 preponderant use of the former shows aU'eady that 
 both terms were not synonymous. That the two 
 offices were distinct is evident from the last refer- 
 ence, I Kings viii. 4, "the priests and the Levites," 
 
 That specific priestly duties are not particularly 
 emphasized is easily accounted for when we find that 
 in none of the numerous passages where the name 
 occurs, was there any occasion for it (see the state- 
 ment in Curtiss's ** Levitical Priests," p. 89). That 
 Levites are mentioned as handling the ark (i Sam. vi. 
 15) does not prove that all Levites were priests. All 
 we can infer, is that in Beth-shemesh there were 
 '' Levitical priests." If the use of the general term 
 " Levites " implies a denial of their descent from 
 Aaron, we may just as well infer from the second 
 half of the verse, that the "men of Beth-shemesh" 
 who offered and sacrificed were not Levites. Beth- 
 shemesh was a priestly city, so that the priests must 
 have been present at this solemn occasion. 
 
 Of the alleged deviations in the pi-axis of that 
 time from the Levitical law, we shall speak hereafter. 
 
 A few remarks concerning the high-priest may be 
 added. The critical opinion, that such an imposing 
 figure as his was entirely unknown before the exile, 
 has been stated. We must now examine the argu- 
 ments adduced to sustain this statement : — 
 
 I. Wellhausen asserts, that in no product of Old- 
 Testament literature prior to the Priest Code does 
 the term high -priest appear as a standing designa- 
 
PRIESTS AND LEVITES. 12/ 
 
 tion of a peculiar office, and that persons to whom 
 the title is given are in other places called simply 
 \r\3r\ (the pidest). Only in the Priest Code and 
 thereafter the use of the term becomes fixed in the 
 traditional sense. At first blush, this fact might 
 seem to corroborate the critical theory of a gradu- 
 ally originating hierarchy. When examined more 
 closely, however, it loses all value, for the following 
 reasons : — 
 
 {a) The term "M'rrs jri3 {JiigJi-pricst) appears as a 
 synonyme. 
 
 {b) The rare use of the name proves nothing, since 
 it occurs only thrice in the Priest Code itself (Lev. 
 xxi. 10, Num. XXXV. 25, 28). In all other instances, 
 the simple insn {tJie priest) is employed. 
 
 if) The chronicler, who must have attached special 
 importance to the name if the office was unprece- 
 dented in importance, and required historical justifi- 
 cation, would certainly have used the term frequently. 
 But the opposite is true. In most cases, he desig- 
 nates the high-priest with the simple jri^n {the priest). 
 In Ezra, Joshua, the son of Jozadak, has no title at 
 all. Neither is any found in the genealogy of the 
 high-priests (Neh. xii. 10, seqq.). 
 
 2. The second argument is, that no historical evi- 
 dence of such an eminent position occupied by a sin- 
 gle priest is found anywhere in the historical books. 
 We answer, just as much there as in the Priest 
 Code. When we leave the period of Judges out of 
 the account, do we not find Eli, Ahijah, Ahimelech, 
 Abiathar, Zadok, Jehoiada, Hilkiah, Azariah, all 
 called absolutely jn3n, wearing the ephod, consulting 
 
128 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 the Urim and Thummini, evidently in great authority 
 and of great influence with kings and people alike ? 
 What more can be demanded ? If an explicit and 
 accurate description of the high-priest's apparel and 
 his work w^ere given, how little would the critics 
 hesitate to declare it a gloss or interpolation of later 
 date ? When assertions are made so strongly, and 
 theories constructed so boldly, have we not the right 
 to demand at least the evidence that somebody other 
 than the high-priest officiated in the Holy of holies ? 
 All that can be adduced is i Sam. iii. 3, where Sam- 
 uel is said to have slept near the ark. The passage 
 simply means that Samuel slept within the same pre- 
 cincts where the ark was. 
 
 Even Wellhausen's exaggeration of the plenipo- 
 tentiary authority of the high-priest after the exile, 
 as described in the Priest Code, does not entirely 
 lack parallels in previous times. The example of 
 Jehoiada and the important part acted by him in the 
 revolution that placed Joash on the throne may be 
 remembered here. That before the exile the sanc- 
 tuary was a royal dependency, is only true with refer- 
 ence to the apostate idolatrous Northern kingdom. 
 While Amaziah of Bethel speaks of a king's sanc- 
 tuary, ^S-p i:^"np?, the temple at Jerusalem is, without 
 exception, called "' t^'np'P, the sanctuary of Jehovah ; 
 and the priests are always "' 'Jn3, the priests of 
 Jehovah. Wellhausen himself admits that the Priest 
 Code nowhere claims secular power for the high- 
 priest. Still, in the next sentence, he does not hes- 
 itate to make the bold assertion, that beside him, 
 no theocratic king is thinkable. If the former be 
 
PRIESTS AND LEVITES. 1 29 
 
 true, we do not see how the latter can be maintained. 
 Do not the historical books mention more than one 
 instance where kings consulted their priests, and 
 Urim and Thummim decided ? And to the possibil- 
 ity of the co-existence of two powers, each relatively 
 sovereign and absolute in its own sphere, the co- 
 existence for centuries of prophetism and the king- 
 dom abundantly testifies. The post-exilic high-priest 
 is no more imposing figure beside Ezra and Nehemiah 
 than Samuel beside Saul. 
 
 3. The third statement is that Deuteronomy knows 
 nothing of a high-priest. That the blessing of Moses 
 (xxxiii. 8-1 1) teaches the contrary, we have already 
 seen (compare also xvii. 12). 
 
ISO THE PEA' TATE CfCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 LEVITICAL AND PRIESTLY REVENUES. 
 
 CLOSELY related to the question just discussed, 
 is that concerning Levitical and priestly rev- 
 enues. The measure of priestly authority and in- 
 dependence must necessarily have determined the 
 priestly income. According to Graf and Wellhausen, 
 the following modification in the latter respect is 
 traceable in the Codes and in the corresponding his- 
 tory : — 
 
 A. The priest's part of the sacrifices. 
 
 In Deuteronomy : The shoulder, the two cheeks, 
 the maw. From the analogy of the Levites, it may 
 be supposed that priests shared in the sacrificial 
 meals. Originally this was the only thing which 
 the priests could lay claim to. 
 
 In the Priest Code : Sacrificial meals become sub- 
 ordinate. JMincJiaJi (meat-offering) and cJiattatJi (sin- 
 offering) and asJiam (trespass-offering) (at least in 
 some cases) fell, as a whole, to the priest. Of olah 
 (burnt-offering), the skin was for him. Of the sJicla- 
 mini (peace-offerings), the breast and the right shoul- 
 der. Wellhausen finds an approach towards cJiattatJi 
 and asJiani in the fines of money mentioned in 2 
 Kings xii. i6, ''the trespass-money and sin-money." 
 
 We remark on this, — 
 
LEVITICAL AND PRIESTLY REVENUES, I3I 
 
 1. The difference between the Priest Code and 
 Deuteronomy as to sacrificial meals is entirely due 
 to the critics imposing on the latter their self-made 
 theory, that all sacrifices were originally nothing but 
 sacrificial meals. There is no warrant for this in the 
 legislation, neither do the historical books favor the 
 view. 
 
 2. All that needs reconciliation is the apparently 
 contradictory statement, that, according to Deuter- 
 onomy, the priests obtained the shoulder, two cheeks, 
 and maw ; according to the Priest Code of sJielamim, 
 the breast and the right shoulder. Here every thing 
 will depend on our interpretation of the passage 
 Deut. xviii. 3. Two opinions can be and have been 
 actually maintained concerning it : it has been taken 
 either as a modification of the Levitical law, or as a 
 supplementary new legislation. The context favors 
 the latter, which is also the traditional interpretation 
 followed by Josephus and the Mishna and the later 
 practice. We then understand the passage to mean, 
 that, of all animals slaughtered for food, these three 
 parts fell to the priest. An additional reason why 
 we should understand the verse of private slaugh- 
 tering is found in ver. i, where the income of the 
 priests, is said to consist in "the offerings of the 
 Lord made by fire." The word nc/s^ {fij^e-offering) 
 occurs only here in Deuteronomy, and evidently 
 refers back to the Priest Code, where it is of exten- 
 sive currency. This would involve that Deuter- 
 onomy refers to the Levitical law for a more definite 
 statement of the priest's share, and ver. 3 becomes 
 of necessity a new, supplementary regulation. 
 
132 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 B. The tithes. 
 
 According to the early praxis (Gen. xxviii. 22 ; 
 Amos iv. 4, scqq) and Deuteronomy (xiv. 22-29), '^^^ 
 tithes are not delivered to the priests, but are carried 
 to the sanctuary for the purpose of being eaten in 
 sacrificial meals. Only corn, wine, and oil are tithed 
 (ver. 23). Every third year the tithe was to be 
 distributed among those who possessed no landed 
 property. Wellhausen sees in the last appointment 
 an innovation of the Deuteronomist, made in view 
 of the destruction of the local sanctuaries. 
 
 In the Priest Code, the clcrus lays claim to the 
 whole tithe. At first the Deuteronomic regulations 
 were disregarded. Afterwards a second tithe was 
 added in conformity with the older and original 
 praxis. 
 
 Another point of discrepancy is that the Priest 
 Code extends the tithe system to cattle (Lev. xxvdi. 
 32), and in general to all products of husbandry. 
 Wellhausen denies that this law was ever enforced. 
 
 1. The historical instances referred to by Well- 
 hausen — viz., that of Jacob and the prophecy of 
 Amos — do not prove any thing: unless we assume 
 the narrative in Genesis to be proleptic and unhis- 
 torical, what Jacob did will not decide what was law 
 centuries thereafter. And Amos, in the passage re- 
 ferred to, does not say what was done with the tithes 
 brought to Bethel and Gilgal. Even if we admit that 
 a joyful meal is referred to, all may be explained by 
 finding the so-called second tithes of Deuteronomy 
 mentioned here. See, however, under 2. 
 
 2. The tithes in Deuteronomy do not exclude these 
 
LEVITICAL AND PRIESTLY REVENUES. 133 
 
 in Leviticus, or the reverse. There is nothing incon- 
 sistent or unnatural in the assumption of two tithes, 
 the one for the priests, the other for the offerer him- 
 self. As Wellhausen himself reminds us, Jewish 
 tradition harmonizes the passages in this way. Or 
 if we prefer another explanation, which indeed seems 
 to be favored by the analogy of the first-born, it may 
 be suggested, that the priests restored to the offerer 
 enough of his tribute to enable him to prepare his 
 meal. From Deuteronomy we get the impression 
 that the cases of tithes and firstlings were of simi- 
 lar character. Now, it is difficult to conceive of 
 "second first-born," so that the latter view seems to 
 deserve the preference. 
 
 3. The very conception of tithes — i.e., of a definite 
 and specified proportion of the produce — seems to 
 involve the idea of a tribute paid to somebody. If 
 they were destined for sacrificial meals exclusively, 
 and had no further destination than the offerer's en- 
 joyment, we would not expect a specification of the 
 amount to be consumed. This consideration favors 
 the view proposed under 2 B. 
 C. The firstlings. 
 
 Here the same principle is assumed, that all the 
 original gifts to the Deity were destined for religious 
 meals. When Exod. xxii. 30, where the first-born are 
 commanded to be given to Jehovah, seems to con- 
 tradict this assumption, Wellhausen appeals to Deu- 
 teronomy in proof that "to give to Jehovah" need 
 not mean "to pay to the priests," but simply "to 
 eat before Jehovah." It is significant, however, that 
 Deuteronomy never uses the phrase *'to give to 
 
134 ^^^ PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 Jehovah " with reference to the tithes to be eaten at 
 the sanctuary. We are not therefore warranted to 
 understand the passages Exod. xxii. 30 and Deut. xv. 
 19 as implying nothing more than that a sacrificial 
 meal should be eaten. That this is called "a giving 
 to Jehovah" makes it necessary to suppose that a 
 part, at least, fell to the priest. What is intimated 
 in Exodus is stated in Deuteronomy ; for the eating 
 which is required in xv. 20, and the sacrificing which 
 is forbidden in ver. 21, are not synonymous, but stand 
 in juxtaposition, so that a twofold use of the first- 
 lings is also implied here. Thus understood, both 
 the Covenant-law and Deuteronomy will bear out 
 the fact, that the priest received the firstlings, but 
 restored so much of them to the offerer as to enable 
 him to prepare a meal. And this agrees fully with 
 what the Priest Code teaches. Num. xviii. 15. 
 
 D. The Levitical cities. 
 
 Num. XXXV. assigns' forty-eight cities to the Le- 
 vites, of which thirteen fell to the priests. That the 
 right of full possession is intended, admits of no 
 doubt. Compare the execution of the command, 
 Josh. xxi. In addition to each city, a square of two 
 thousand cubits was set apart, to serve for suburbs 
 or commons. 
 
 I. The principal objection raised by critics against 
 these appointments regards the practical impossi- 
 bility of carrying them out. So first Gramberg, and 
 afterwards Graf and Wellhausen. The latter says, 
 " The directions to set apart a common of two thou- 
 sand cubits square around the cities (in which the 
 latter are considered as mere points), to serve as 
 
LEVI TIC A L AND PRIESTLY REVENUES. I 35 
 
 pasture-ground for the Levites, could perhaps be exe- 
 cuted in a South-Russian steppe, or in the case of 
 newly built cities in the West of North America, but 
 by no means in mountainous Palestine, where such 
 a geometrical space is nowhere to be found," etc. 
 
 2. Historical traces of the existence of these Le- 
 vitical cities do not appear outside of the Book of 
 Joshua. A considerable number of them was still 
 in the possession of the Canaanites during the period 
 of Judges and the early kings ; e.g., Gibeon, Gezer, 
 Taanach, Shechem. 
 
 3. In the Deuteronomic time the Levites lived 
 scattered over all Judah : each place had its own, no- 
 where did they live together in a compact mass. 
 
 4. Even after the exile the situation of the Levites 
 was not materially changed. The execution of this 
 command was deferred until Messianic days : indeed, 
 it did not lie within the compass of human power, 
 and cannot have been demanded in full earnest by 
 the Priest Code itself. 
 
 5. The first historical germs of the whole concep- 
 tion must be sought in the cities of asylum of Deu- 
 teronomy. All altars were originally asyla. But 
 whilst the former were destroyed by Josiah's reform, 
 of course the need of the latter remained, and was 
 provided for by the appointment of these cities of 
 refuge. The truth is, that all of them were priestly 
 or Levitical cities, moreover famous seats of the old 
 cultus. Hence the suggestion, that the law of the 
 Priest Code arose from nothing but the reminis- 
 cences of the pre-exilic plurality of places of worship. 
 The idea of altar and j^riesthood was associated with 
 
136 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 many a city, and found natural expression in declar- 
 ing the forty-eight places to have been the peculiar 
 inheritance of the clems ever since the Mosaic times. 
 Let us briefly see what these serious charges 
 amount to. The impracticability of the command 
 might be considerably less than Wellhausen imagines. 
 His objection, that the arithmetical precision with 
 which every thing is described proves an ideal char- 
 acter, falls immediately away as soon as we consider 
 the numbers given as indicating the average allow- 
 ance to be made for pasture-ground, nothing more 
 than a general limit, a minimum which might be 
 modified according to the circumstances or the geo- 
 graphical condition of the country. That the cities 
 are considered as a point is true, if we take the point, 
 not in its geometrical sense, but as having the size of 
 each individual city. If Wellhausen means that the 
 square of two thousand cubits included the city, there 
 is nothing in the text to justify this view. The com- 
 parison with newly built cities is not entirely out of 
 place ; since in the conquest of Canaan many a city 
 must have been destroyed, and a clean sweep made. 
 That Levitical cities remained in possession of the 
 Canaanites is nothing remarkable, and may at the 
 same time account for the statement of Deuteronomy 
 and later historical facts, which presuppose a partial 
 scattering of the Levites all over the country. Well- 
 hausen's remark, that no traces of the existence of 
 Levitical cities appear in subsequent time, is most 
 positively untrue. The fact is, that some very strik- 
 ing coincidences make the existence of this law 
 highly probable. \Vc refer to what happened in 
 
LEVITICAL AND PRIESTLY REVENUES. I37 
 
 Beth-shemesh ; to the fact that Jeremiah, of priestly 
 descent, was born in Anathoth ; that Abiathar, when 
 dismissed by Solomon, was told to go to Anathoth ; 
 that Nob was a residence of priests. To see in the 
 mention of all these cities in Joshua, not the origin 
 of their priestly character, but simply the reminis- 
 cence of it, is possible indeed ; but the critics should 
 never forget that such statements are mere applica- 
 tions, not proofs, of their theory. That, according to 
 Deuteronomy, the Levites lived scattered all over the 
 country, may be attributed to various causes. If we 
 could grant that the critical opinion of the late origin 
 of the book was true, the natural explanation would 
 be, that at the schism under Jeroboam I. the Levites 
 of the Northern kingdom emigrated to Judah. This 
 shows, however, from their own premises, that the 
 critics have no right to conclude the non-existence 
 of the law. But it will suffice to assume only so 
 much prophetical foresight in Moses as enabled him 
 to see that the Levites might not immediately or 
 perpetually enjoy the full possession of their patri- 
 mony. For a believer in prophecy, it is not impos- 
 sible to suppose that Moses, under the inspiration of 
 God's spirit, penetrated the future, even so far as to 
 take in the time of Jeroboam and Josiah. Deuteron- 
 omy seems to allude to the Levitical cities in chap, 
 xviii. 8^ : '' beside that which cometh of the sale of 
 his patrimony" (compare Keil /;/ loco, from whom 
 Schultz differs). If it must be admitted that these 
 laws did not go into operation after the exile, what 
 can hinder us from putting them back into the 
 Mosaic time, and assuming that they were never 
 
138 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 fully lived up to for the same reasons that prevented 
 their execution after the exile ? As to ineffective- 
 ness, the case stands alike ; and as to historical 
 inducements to frame such regulations, the Mosaic 
 period certainly offered more of them than the time 
 of Ezra. The latter must have known that the law- 
 was impracticable : the Israelites in the desert need 
 not. The analogy with the cities of refuge in Deu- 
 teronomy and the division of the land in Ezekiel is 
 so far-fetched, and there are so many discrepancies 
 between the latter and the Priest Code, that it is 
 impossible to assume any other real connection, than 
 that the prophet in a free manner reproduced what 
 was known to him from the Priest Code. That such 
 an institution as the cities of refuge could not have 
 taken its rise in the reign of Josiah, but must at the 
 very least be anterior to the establishment of the 
 kingdom, is strongly argued by Dr. A. P. Bissell, in 
 ''The Law of Asylum in Israel," Leipzig, 1884. 
 
FEASTS. 139 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 FEASTS. 
 
 THE last and most important point in regard to 
 which the critics have attempted to point out a 
 modification in \.\i^ praxis, followed by a correspond- 
 ing development in the laws, is that of the feasts. 
 In the Jehovistic-Deuteronomic part of the Penta- 
 teuch, a cycle of three feasts is known (Exod. xxiii., 
 xxxiv. ; Deut. xvi.) ; and all these are designated by the 
 name Jn {pilgrimage festival) : Mazzoth, unleavened 
 bread; Kazir, harvest (Shabuoth, weeks) ; and Asiph, 
 ingathering (Succoth, tabernacles). Whilst, with re- 
 spect to the two last-mentioned, there is perfect 
 agreement between the Jehovist and Deuteronomy, 
 a difference appears with reference to the first. 
 Exod. xxxiv. connects the offering of firstlings with 
 Mazzoth : Deuteronomy uses the name Pesach {pass- 
 over) for the first time. The inference is, that Pesach 
 and Mazzoth are distinct and originally independent 
 from each other, the latter by far the elder of the 
 two, constituting a triad with Kazir and Asiph. All 
 three are essentially agrarian feasts. Mazzoth indi- 
 cates the beginning of harvest ; and accordingly a 
 sheaf is offered to Jahveh, as the first produce of 
 the ground in its most simple form. This is also 
 
I40 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 alleged to be the original meaning of Mazzoth ; viz., 
 that of hastily prepared, inartificial bread, symboliz- 
 ing the new, fresh harvest, which men do not take 
 time carefully to leaven, to knead, and to bake (Well- 
 hausen). Kazir closes the grain-harvest, to which the 
 loaves of wheat bread correspond. Finally, Asiph 
 celebrates the autumnal ingathering of oil and wine ; 
 and here the agrarian character has been preserved 
 by dwelling in booths of branches, as is indicated by 
 the name Succoth. 
 
 A second point, in which Deuteronomy shows an 
 advance upon the Covenant-law, is the more definite 
 specification of the time at which the feasts are to 
 be held. Exod. xxiii. and xxxiv. prescribe in vague 
 and general terms, Mazzoth in the month Abib, Kazir 
 when the wheat is cut, Asiph when the ingathering 
 of fruits is ended. The centralization of the cultus 
 made a more fixed date necessary, as is found in the 
 expressions, ''The first day at even," xvi. 4; "At 
 even, at the going down of the sun," ver. 6 ; ''Thou 
 shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents," 
 ver. 7 ; " Seven weeks shalt thou number," ver. 9 ; 
 "The feast of tabernacles seven days," ver. 13. 
 
 Thirdly, the quantity of the gifts to be brought 
 to the feasts was at first left to the choice of the in- 
 dividual, afterwards settled more definitely. Exodus 
 does not require any precise amount of the firstlings 
 or of the produce of the field : Deuteronomy requires 
 the tithe. In case of the first-born, of course, no 
 determination was needed. 
 
 Fourthly, in accordance with its centralizing ten- 
 dency, Deuteronomy commands that all feasts shall 
 
FEASTS. I4T 
 
 be kept at the sanctuary of Jehovah. On the whole, 
 the primitive cycle of feasts is said to have a purely 
 agricultural basis : it is only in Deuteronomy that 
 the first modest traces may be seen of that substitut- 
 ing history for nature, of which the later legislation 
 is so fruitful. 
 
 The peculiarities and innovations of the Priest 
 Code are by Wellhausen stated under the following- 
 heads : — 
 
 1. The sacrificial meals of the feasts have given 
 place to minutely prescribed burnt- and sin-offerings 
 (Num. xxviii.). 
 
 2. The aparchae {firstfrnits and firstlings) are sep- 
 arated from the feasts : they appear no longer as 
 offerings, but have been transformed into priestly 
 revenues. 
 
 3. The date of the harvest-feasts is now definitely 
 settled, — Mazzoth on the fifteenth of the first month, 
 Succoth on the fifteenth of the seventh month, Sha- 
 buoth seven weeks after Mazzoth. This shows that 
 they have ceased to be purely agrarian feasts, which, 
 as such, could never have been bound to a fixed date, 
 but were dependent on the ripeness of the harvest. 
 
 4. The historical interpretation of the feasts is car- 
 ried to the extreme. Succoth becomes a memorial 
 of the dwelling in tents in the desert. Passover is 
 not merely made a sacrament, but a sort of mass : it 
 was celebrated, according to the Priest Code, in the 
 night of the exodus, and effected the salvation of 
 Israel. In the same manner, the keeping of Mazzoth 
 is already commanded before the exodus. Only on 
 Shabuoth no historical interpretation is imposed. 
 
142 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 5. The Priest Code requires that all feasts from 
 beginning to end shall be kept at Jerusalem, and in 
 this respect advances upon Deuteronomy. For by 
 requiring a Mikra Kodesh (holy convocation) on the 
 seventh day of Mazzoth, visitors who did not live 
 in the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem were 
 under the necessity of remaining there through the 
 whole feast-week. To Succoth the Priest Code adds 
 an eighth day. In Ezekiel, both Mazzoth and Suc- 
 coth are still limited to seven days each (chap. xlv.). 
 
 6. The Priest Code has added two new feasts 
 to the original cycle of three ; viz., the feast of 
 Teruah (trumpets), on the first of the seventh month, 
 and the Yom Kippurim (Day of Atonement), on 
 the tenth of the same month. During the exile the 
 ecclesiastical new year began on the tenth of the 
 seventh month. The Day of Atonement was not 
 observed before the year 444 B.C., or even later, and 
 had its origin in the commemoration of the days of 
 Jerusalem's destruction during the exile by fasting. 
 Ezekiel mentions two days of reconciliation, the one 
 falling on the new moon of the seventh month (xlv. 
 20, according to the Septuagint). Afterwards the 
 Priest Code reversed the order of the new year and 
 Kippurim by putting the latter on the tenth, and the 
 former on the first, day of the seventh month. 
 
 7. The law of the Sabbath-year is modified by 
 the Priest Code in two particulars : {a) What was 
 a relative year in Exod. xxiii. 10, 11, is now abso- 
 lutely fixed ; all fields have to rest in the same year. 
 {b^ Not only reaping, but also sowing, is to be sus- 
 pended. The Year of Jubilee is entirely an inven- 
 tion of the Priest Code. 
 
FEASTS. 143 
 
 The first attempt to establish the theory just 
 stated, occupies itself with pointing out the natural- 
 istic origin of the triad of main feasts. Wellhausen 
 takes great pains to claim for all of them a purely 
 agricultural basis. The Trptorov xj/^vho^ of his reasoning 
 consists in the assumption that this naturalistic 
 basis would exclude an additional historical sanction 
 or confirmation. We grant that its relation to the 
 harvest was probably the only significance of Pente- 
 cost, and admit that such a relation exists with re- 
 gard to Mazzoth and Succoth, but do not bind our- 
 selves by this concession to the naturalistic denial 
 of all other accessary historical associations. 
 
 More than this. We maintain that the imposition 
 of this theory, on what the critics claim to be the 
 earliest legislation and the earliest history, cannot be 
 accomplished without the most arbitrary methods of 
 reconstructing history and of misinterpreting Scrip- 
 ture. This admits of demonstration in detail. We 
 hope to show that the historical origin of the feasts, 
 in addition to their natural basis, is not only possible, 
 but absolutely required by all accessible evidence. 
 What falls outside of this, is, of course, pure hypoth- 
 esis. 
 
 Let us examine the primitive laws. For Pente- 
 cost, a historical basis is nowhere claimed. For Suc- 
 coth, only in the Priest Code (Lev. xxiii. 43). For 
 Mazzoth and Pesach (Passover), however, in all the 
 laws without a single exception: both are ahvays 
 brought in connection with the exodus (Exod. xxiii., 
 xxxiv. ; Deut. xvi.). This fact is a serious obstacle 
 in the way of Wellhausen's naturalizing presenta- 
 
144 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 tions. It is wonderful how innocently he tries to 
 remove it, as if a mere incidental feature, and not a 
 vital principle, were at stake. He remarks that the 
 cycle presupposes the original similarity of all its 
 members. Hence, if Kazir and Asiph are harvest- 
 feasts, Mazzoth cannot have been a historical one. 
 This critical '^cannot'' is weighty enough in Well- 
 hausen's view to set aside the explicit testimony of 
 both the Covenant-law and Deuteronomy. A sem- 
 blance, indeed, of proof is adduced: "The feast 
 proper is not called Hag-ha-Pesach, but Hag-ha-]\Iaz- 
 zoth : only the latter stands co-ordinate with both 
 the other harvest-feasts. . . . For a companion with 
 Kazir and Asiph, only Mazzoth can come under con- 
 sideration." 
 
 It is difficult to see what is gained by this violent 
 separation of Mazzoth from Pesach. But let us sup- 
 pose for a moment that the two could be severed. 
 Would this alter the case with regard to Mazzoth } 
 Not in the least ; for in the Covenant-law the exodus 
 is twice mentioned as the historical ground of Maz- 
 zoth, and not of PesacJi. Wellhausen's language con- 
 veys the erroneous impression that the primitive 
 laws brought only Pesach in connection with the 
 exodus. The opposite is true : the passages in Exod. 
 xxiii. and xxxiv. do not so much as mention Pesach ; 
 and in Deuteronomy, though Pesach is made more 
 prominent than Mazzoth, still the great fact of deliv- 
 erance from Egypt is almost exclusively combined 
 with the latter. 
 
 Let us now consider in how far the severance of 
 Pesach and Mazzoth can be justified. In Exod. xxiii. 
 
FEASTS. 145 
 
 15 no allusion to the Passover appears. But in ver. 
 18 it is said, ''Thou shalt not offer the blood of my 
 sacrifice with leavened bread ; neither shall the fat of 
 my sacrifice remain until the morning." We do not 
 know how Wellhausen, understands this verse, but to 
 us every other explanation but that which refers it 
 to the Passover-lamb seems unnatural : ver. 18 is evi- 
 dently an appendix to ver. 15 (Mazzoth), ver. 19=^ to 
 ver. 16 ('Kazir), ver. 19^ to ver. 16^ (Asiph). So 
 Hengstenberg, Bertheau, Knobel, Bachmann, Keil. 
 The passage xxxiv. 25 is parallel. Moreover, in 
 Exod. xxxiv. 19, 20, the command to give the male 
 first-born of men and animals to Jehovah is immedi- 
 ately subjoined to the Mazzoth-law. The offering of 
 the first-born belongs to Pesach, so that also in this 
 passage the two appear inseparably connected. Deu- 
 teronomy makes Mazzoth already subordinate to Pe- 
 sach. So they must have co-existed already for a 
 considerable time, and not only this, but have been 
 intimately connected. 
 
 We take it to be established beyond doubt, that, 
 according to the Covenant-law and Deuteronomy, the 
 institution of Mazzoth rested on a divine act of deliv- 
 erance ; that, though in part an agricultural feast, it 
 had at the same time a national and historic charac- 
 ter. If, however, Pesach is so closely allied to Maz- 
 zoth, that the two always appear together, it would 
 seem fair to infer the historical basis of the latter 
 from that of the former. 
 
 On the other hand, the question of Pesach is one 
 of the most intricate and difficult problems which 
 the newer criticism will have to solve. The numer- 
 
146 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 ous hypotheses proposed in explanation of this 
 mystery may help us to form an estimate of the 
 hopelessness of the task. We cannot enter into a 
 discussion of all these, for the simple reason, that 
 none of them rests on either exegetical or historical 
 warrant, or even claims to rest on such ; they are 
 hypotheses in the true sense of the word, products 
 of the critical imagination : and we shall confine 
 ourselves to scriptural facts. 
 
 The name even is not clear. No satisfactory ety- 
 mology, besides the scriptural one, has as yet been 
 given. Wellhausen says, " Essentially Pesach is the 
 feast of the offering of the first-born." The natural 
 inference would seem to be, that this definition con- 
 firms our view of the historical origin of the feast. 
 For the right of Jehovah to Israel's first-born is, so 
 far as we know, everywhere founded on his sparing 
 them when he slew the first-born of the Egyptians. 
 This is not only the case in the Priest Code, but 
 also in the Jehovist (Exod. xiii. 11, scqq). Well- 
 hausen is candid enough to admit this. How, then, 
 does he avoid the inference fatal to his theory 1 His 
 first recourse is to the dissecting-knife of analytical 
 criticism. He declares that (also on other grounds) 
 the whole section (xiii. 1-16) does not belong to the 
 sources of the Jehovist, but w^as added by a Deu- 
 teronomic redactor. We cannot follow him into this 
 labyrinth of divisive operations. But let us suppose 
 that the passage be Deuteronomic. It is in any case, 
 together with Deut. xvi., according to Wellhausen's 
 own view, the first explicit statement concerning Pe- 
 sach. As such, it has the right to be heard as the 
 
FEASTS. 147 
 
 oldest historical testimony accessible. That the 
 critics refuse to recognize the historic credibility of 
 Deuteronomy, we cannot help. Still, a reason must 
 be given why the Deuteronomist, seeking an histori- 
 cal ground for the origin of Pesach, hit exactly upon 
 this point, Israel's exodus from Egypt. 
 
 Wellhausen helps himself by the following hypoth- 
 esis : The exodus occurred, according to early tradi- 
 tion, about the time of the ancient spring-festival. 
 Exod. V. I, Moses and Aaron ask from Pharaoh, *' Let 
 my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in 
 the wilderness." This is made to prove that the feast 
 existed before the historical occasion assigned to it 
 in the law. Also chap. xii. ver. 21 is quoted, where 
 Moses addresses the elders of Israel with the words, 
 '' Kill the Passover." The feast was the occasion of 
 the exodus. Afterwards the order was reversed ; and 
 after the feast had thus been supplied with an his- 
 torical basis, its main and original feature, the offer- 
 ing of the first-born, required an explanation also. 
 This was found in the narrative of God's slaying 
 the first-born of Egypt. And he adds, " Unless we 
 assume the existence of the custom to offer the first- 
 born, the narrative becomes unexplainable, and no 
 reason is given why the pestilence made such a 
 strange selection." 
 
 That this is unscrupulously distorting facts to suit 
 a theory, the critic seems not to feel. Not a parti- 
 cle of evidence, either in law or in history, can be 
 claimed to favor this hypothesis. That it is the 
 only thing ''which suits the nature of the case," is 
 true, if the transactions were purely natural. This 
 
148 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 is exactly what we deny, the very point at issue : to 
 assume it, is openly begging the question. To those 
 who believe in the supernatural element in history, 
 it may be somewhat easier than for Wellhausen to 
 explain why the pestilence made such a strange selec- 
 tion among the Egyptians. 
 
 The two passages quoted from Exodus decide noth- 
 ing. Exod. V. I only proves that the Israelites de- 
 sired to keep a feast. That it was an annually 
 recurring feast, is not stated, and rather doubtful. 
 But if we grant that a spring-festival was observed, 
 this cannot warrant Wellhausen in discarding all ad- 
 ditional historical explanation. That Moses said to 
 the elders, " Kill tJic Passover," is due to the writer 
 unconsciously putting a term familiar to himself into 
 the mouth of the speaker. Of course, the narrative 
 does not pretend to give the ipsissiina verba of Moses' 
 communication to the elders. 
 
 After all, the former of these passages would 
 make strongly against Wellhausen's theory of Maz- 
 zoth being an agricultural feast. The Israelites de- 
 sired to hold a festival in the desert. And a rural 
 festival in the wilderness is a downright absurdity. 
 How impossible it is to put Mazzoth on a par with 
 Kazir and Asiph, is seen from two other features : 
 {a) Mazzoth occupied seven days, Kazir only one : 
 had both been rural festivals, the one to celebrate 
 the beginning, the other the completion, of harvest, 
 we would expect the latter to have lasted the longer. 
 {b) Wellhausen's explanation touching the origin of 
 eating unleavened bread, leaves out of view that all 
 leaven had to be removed out of the houses. How 
 
FEASTS. l^f) 
 
 this feature will ever be explained on naturalistic 
 principles, it is not easy to determine. 
 
 Another consideration would be enough to dis- 
 prove the naturalistic element, which all newer hy- 
 potheses with regard to Pesach have in common ; 
 viz., that it was simjDly a sacrificial feast, on which 
 the first-born, either in reality or by substitution, 
 were offered to God. We refer to the fact, that, in 
 connection with it, the male first-born of ihcji are 
 claimed for Jehovah. If the offering of the first- 
 born was the occasion of a spring-feast, and this the 
 origin of Pesach, we must logically infer that at this 
 spring-festival also human sacrifices were brought. 
 The two commands stand on a par, and logic is 
 severe. It is impossible to see how the idea of offer- 
 ing human first-born could ever arise in connection 
 with Pesach, at so early a time that the Jehovist 
 already combines the two, unless they were actually 
 combined. We must, then, assume that this primi- 
 tive prehistoric rural feast witnessed the terrible 
 scenes of manslaughter in honor of the Deity. In 
 spite of all his naturalism, Wellhausen is not in- 
 clined to follow others, who actually hold that human 
 sacrifices were more or less common among the 
 Israelites. He is candid enough to admit, that only 
 a few examples of such a horrible practice are found, 
 and that it appears as throughout voluntary and ex- 
 ceptional. Not until shortly before the exile did the' 
 burning of children become more customary. 
 
 It must be necessary to account for the combina- 
 tion in some other way. We look for this in vain. 
 All that Wellhausen gives us is contained in this 
 
150 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 sentence : "■ When the human first-born are also 
 claimed, this is nothing but a later generalization." 
 It will not escape the thoughtful reader, that this is 
 nothing but a groundless assertion. And, at any 
 rate, the generalization needs an explanation just as 
 much as the practice. 
 
 / Under these circumstances, where all the evidence 
 \ is on our side, and on the other hand the critics are 
 obliged to support one assumption by another, we 
 must protest against all naturalistic explanations of 
 Pesach which make any higher pretensions than that 
 of being logically possible. The old historical view, 
 given by the Bible in Exod xii., accounts fully for 
 all the facts, gives a plausible etymology of the 
 name, is not half so one-sided as that of the critics, 
 since it does not exclude the connection between 
 Passover and the incipient harvest. 
 
 That neither the Covenant-law nor Deuteronomy 
 alludes to the historical associations of Succoth, can- 
 not be made to speak for a later origin of this 
 historical idea. Even in the Priest Code these his- 
 torical associations are not made prominent. The 
 whole tenor of the law. Lev. xxiii. 39-43, shows that 
 the main end of the feast was to celebrate the 
 autumnal ingathering of fruit. The customary dwell- 
 ing in booths in memory of the desert -journey was 
 secondary, and is only incidentally referred to at the 
 end in a single verse. And here also it appears 
 what the aro^mnentiim e silentio is worth. The re- 
 markable fact is, that both the Jehovist and Deu- 
 teronomist place Pesach or Mazzoth m a historical 
 light ; the Priest Code, on the contrary, does not so 
 
FEASTS. 1 5 I 
 
 much as allude to its historical character in Lev. 
 xxiii., — in both cases, exactly the opposite of what 
 the critical theory would lead us to expect. Surely, 
 no critic would infer from this silence that the a2:ri- 
 cultural significance of Mazzoth was unknown to 
 the Jehovist and the Deuteronomist. Just as little 
 need we infer from their silence as to the historical 
 character of Succoth, that this must have been the 
 fruit of a later development. 
 
 We turn to Deuteronomy, and ask in what the 
 pretended advance upon the Covenant-law consists. 
 [The dates of the feasts are said to have been more 
 definitely fixed, in accordance with the centralization 
 of the cultus. The truth is, that no dates are given 
 besides a single relative one ; viz., that Shabuoth 
 shall be seven weeks from Pesach. But this is no 
 advance, nor is the specification new in Deuteron- 
 omy ; since Exod. xxxiv. already uses the name Sha- 
 buoth, which implies the dependence of the feast 
 for its computation upon Mazzoth. All the other 
 specifications of time regard only the duration of the 
 feast, or the exact time of day to begin its observ- 
 ance, all which cannot have had any thing to do 
 with the centralization of the cultus. On the con- 
 trary, where a specification for this purpose might 
 be expected, it is not made. Chap. xvi. i, "Observe 
 the month of Abib," is even more indefinite than 
 the Jehovistic phrase, " in the time appointed of the 
 month Abib," Exod. xxiii. 15. Indeed, it is hardly 
 conceivable, if Deuteronomy was written with the 
 tendency ascribed to it by the critics, that the author 
 would have failed to secure what was first of all 
 
152 THE PE.VTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 necessary to centralization ; viz., to fix for each feast 
 a definite date. 
 
 Deuteronomy, it is alleged, shows an advance by 
 defining the exact quantity of the produce of the 
 field which had to be brought to the feasts. It does 
 not appear, however, that Deuteronomy identifies 
 the first-fruits and the tithes in this way. They 
 were distinct, and are kept so in chap, xxvi., where 
 ver. i-ii treat of the first-fruits, ver. 12-15 o^ the 
 third year's tithe. Naturally the first-fruits, the 
 quantity of which is nowhere determined (chap, xxvi., 
 a basket), would be taken along at the occasion of a 
 feast : still, this is nowhere prescribed. The command 
 to give the first-born to Jehovah is in Exod. xxxiv. 19 
 subjoined to that of Mazzoth on account of the his- 
 torical connection. Chap. xxii. 30 seems even to pre- 
 clude the offering at a feast ; as it says, '' The eighth 
 day thou shalt give it me." Exod. xxiii. 19 refers 
 probably to the single sheaf of Shabuoth. The only 
 evidence in favor of this view lies in the position of 
 Deut. XV. 19-23 immediately before the Passover- 
 law. Indeed, when we combine this with the injunc- 
 tion to sacrifice the Passover to the Lord of the flock 
 and the herd, the suggestion gains in plausibility 
 that the firstlings were offered at Passover or Maz- 
 zoth. But this is far from proving Wellhausen's 
 theory, that the feasts were originally nothing else 
 than occasions to offer the aparcJiae. The law knows 
 nothing of such an identification of the two, any 
 more than it identifies tithes and first-fruits. An 
 explicit statement would in both cases have been 
 necessary, as Wellhausen himself admits. " In the 
 
FEASTS. 153 
 
 Jehovistic and Deuteronomic Codes, the connection 
 between npaixhae and feasts is rather assumed than 
 expressed." And assumed it is, not, however, by the 
 laws, but by the critic himself. 
 
 With regard to the four pecuUarities of the Priest 
 Code first mentioned, Httle need be said. That sacri- 
 ficial meals were changed into minutely defined sin- 
 and burnt-offerings, rests on the utterly fallacious 
 notion, that, until shortly before the exile, all sacri- 
 fices were sacrificial meals. We have spoken of this 
 before. It is self-evident that the feast-offerings of 
 the Priest Code (Num. xxviii.) do not exclude the 
 ^1^31 ji^if [Jlock and herd), which Deuteronomy com- 
 mands to be freely offered, and then to be eaten 
 before the Lord. The whole passage in Deuteron- 
 omy does not purport to give complete regulations 
 concerning the feasts and their ceremonies and sacri- 
 fices, but simply considers them under the one great 
 aspect, that of unity of cultus, for the maintenance 
 of which they were one of the most effectual and 
 important means. 
 
 The aparchac, it is further alleged, are separated 
 from the feasts : they appear no longer as offerings, 
 but have been transformed into priestly revenues. 
 We have already seen that Deut. xv. 19-23 furnishes 
 the only support to the view that the aparcJiae were 
 connected with the feasts at all. Historical probabil- 
 ity is all that can be claimed here. But that the 
 Priest Code severs the aparcJiae from the feasts is 
 positively untrue. It simply does not specify a time 
 when they shall be offered, and this for the obvious 
 reason, that the words, Num. xviii., are addressed to 
 
154 ^^^ PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 the priests, who were the receivers, and not to the 
 people. The other half of Wellhausen's statement 
 is equally inaccurate. It is true that the Priest 
 Code makes the aparcJiae priestly revenues. Com- 
 pare Num. xviii. 13, 15. Still, the context itself 
 shows that this is not meant in such a sense as would 
 be inconsistent with the evident purpose indicated in 
 Deut. xiv. and xv., that they should serve as a joyful 
 meal to the offerer. Num. xviii. 17, 18, shows that 
 the first-born were to be offered as sJielamini^ with 
 this distinction only, that not only breast and 
 shoulder, but all the flesh, fell to the priests. Now, 
 when we remember that probably all the first-born 
 came in at the same time of Passover, it becomes 
 almost impossible that the priests should have kept 
 all this to themselves. The most natural inference 
 is, that they restored a portion of the meat to the 
 oJerer, sufficiently large to enable him to keep the 
 meal mentioned in Deuteronomy. 
 
 Thirdly, the critics discover an advance in the fact 
 that the Priest Code has finally settled the dates of 
 all the feasts. The main point is, to show that the 
 original conception of agricultural feasts has been 
 entirely lost. The latter, depending on the ripeness 
 of the harvest, cannot be bound to any definite date. 
 
 The critics must admit that the Priest Code does 
 not onl)/ recognize an agricultural element in its 
 feast-laws, but dwells upon it with special emphasis 
 in the case of both Mazzoth and Succoth (Lev. xxiii.). 
 Still, it assigns to each a fixed date. Is any thing 
 more required to show that both are perfectly con- 
 sistent, and that the Liw could definitely appoint the 
 
FEASTS. 155 
 
 time of observance without giving the sceptical critics 
 any well-grounded suspicion that the two could not 
 go together ? How impracticable that Priest Code 
 must have been ! 
 
 But in the fourth place, still graver charges are 
 made against it. It is accused of fictitiously substi= 
 tuting historical combinations for the natural basis of 
 the feasts. We saw how little this is the case. Lev. 
 xxiii. does not mention the historical occasion of the 
 institution of Pesach and Mazzoth, whereas both 
 the Jehovist and the Deuteronomist do so. Also in 
 the case of Succoth, the historical element is given 
 only a secondary importance. Succoth is the only 
 feast for whose historical significance we have inde- 
 pendent testimony outside of the law in Hos. xii. 10. 
 
 That in Exod. xii., Pesach and Mazzoth are insti- 
 tuted not merely in commemoration of the exodus, 
 but as an effectual means of saving Israel, is true, 
 The cause, however, lies not in any tendency pursued 
 by the author, but in the peculiar position of Israel. 
 Their whole history, and relation to the Gentiles, were 
 typical of the relation of God's saved people to the 
 world. Hence, that which distinguished them from 
 the Egyptians, and secured their safety from the 
 slaying angel, could be nothing else than a type of 
 that great Passover-lamb, participation in which 
 would one day distinguish the spiritual Israel from 
 the world under condemnation. The case finds a 
 parallel in the institution of our Lord's supper 
 before the crucifixion. 
 
 By prescribing a Mikra Kodesh (holy convocation) 
 on the seventh day of Mazzoth, the Priest Code 
 
156 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 makes it obligatory for all Israelites to spend the 
 whole feast in Jerusalem. Critics find in this a new 
 advance upon Deuteronomy. Stahelin, Von Len- 
 gerke, De Wette, Hupfeld, and Knobel understand 
 by Mikra Kodesh a holy convocation at the central 
 sanctuary, so that a pilgrimage thither was required. 
 Though the words in themselves might have this 
 meaning, the view becomes mitenable when we see 
 that a Mikra Kodesh w^as appointed not less than three 
 times for one — viz., the seventh — month. Since it 
 would have been impossible to demand three pilgrim- 
 ages to Jerusalem in one month, the phrase must 
 necessarily denote any convocation in a local place 
 of worship, for the purpose of observing the day. 
 Hence we reach the conclusion, that neither in Le- 
 viticus nor in Deuteronomy does the law determine 
 how Ions: the Israelites were to remain at the sanctu- 
 ary at the annual feasts. That the prevalent custom 
 was to stay all seven days, is probable. Still, the law 
 does not expressly demand it. Deut. xvi. 7 seems 
 even to indicate the contrary: "Thou shalt turn in 
 the morning, and go unto thy tents." As they sup- 
 pose that the laws recjuire a seven days' stay, Keil and 
 Riehm take this as signifying a return to their homes 
 and lodgings at the place of the sanctuary. This in- 
 volves the assumption, that the Passover was eaten 
 in the court of the sanctuary by all Israelites, which 
 would have been hardly practicable. We understand 
 ver. 7 as containing a permission to return after the 
 first night. That the custom was to remain during 
 the whole feast, is not denied. But the law allowing 
 this return in the morning, evidently tries to empha- 
 
FEASTS. I 5 7 
 
 size the absolute necessity of being at the place of 
 the sanctuary at least during that one night. 
 
 To both Mazzoth and Succoth, the Priest Code 
 adds one day, according to Wellhausen. That Lev. 
 xxiii. assigns eight days to Succoth is clear. On 
 the other hand, Deuteronomy speaks only of seven 
 days of the feast. Its silence respecting the eighth 
 day of r\-^%:j;, {solemn assembly) is easily accounted for. 
 The purpose of Deuteronomy was not to lay down 
 minute rules for feast-observance. So only the feast 
 proper, consisting of seven days, is summarily re- 
 ferred to. And even the Priest Code does not con- 
 sider the eighth day as an essential part of the feast. 
 It is rather a close to the whole cycle of feasts, and 
 consequently added to the last. Num. xxix. 35, in 
 assigning to it fewer sacrifices than to the feast 
 proper, puts this beyond doubt. The notion that 
 the Priest Code makes Mazzoth one day longer than 
 Deuteronomy, arises simply from the popular use of 
 the date in Lev. xxiii. 5, " On the fourteenth day of 
 the first month at eve," evidently meaning, "On the 
 evening with which the fifteenth day begins." This 
 was also the beginning of the first Mazzoth-day, and 
 so no contradiction exists. 
 
 , We come now to the last and most serious charge 
 against the Priest Code ; viz., that it has added two 
 new feasts, unknown before, that of Teruah (trum- 
 pets) and the Yom Kippurim (Day of Atonement). 
 That the Priest Code adds new feasts, is inaccurate. 
 Lev. xxiii. does not enumerate the feasts, but simply 
 the Moedim (appointed seasons) on which a Mikra 
 Kodesh (holy convocation) was held. That neither 
 
158 THE PEXTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 the Covenant-law nor Deuteronomy makes mention 
 of these two Moedim, is in consequence of their 
 enumerating only such feasts as required an appear- 
 ance before the Lord at the sanctuary. Hence the 
 Sabbath is not even alluded to in connection with 
 the feast-laws. Since Teruah and Yom Kippurim 
 required only a Mikra Kodesh, they are omitted. 
 
 In so far as Wellhausen holds that before the exile 
 the Jewish year began in the autumn, it is strange 
 that he should consider Teruah as of post-exilic origin. 
 It is highly probable a priori, that the beginning of 
 the harvest-year was celebrated by a feast, the more 
 so since the ordinary observance of the new moons 
 would naturally lead to it. But this point also must 
 be utilized to prove the late origin of the Priest Code. 
 During the exile, the Jews derived their spring-era 
 from the Babylonians, whose year, according to As- 
 syriologists, began in the spring. The Priest Code 
 wishing to preserve the old autumn-year, made a dis- 
 tinction between the civil and the ecclesiastical vear. 
 Against this hypothesis of Wellhausen, the simple 
 reference to such passages as 2 Sam. xi. i ; i Kings 
 XX. 22, 26; Jer. xxxvi. 9, 22, and/^i-^/w, may sufifice. 
 For the rest, even Graf admits (p. 40), that, from the 
 silence of the previous Codes, no conclusion as to 
 the non-existence of Teruah can be drawn. 
 
 The argument against a pre-exilic existence of the 
 Day of Atonement is twofold. First, the common 
 argnmcntuvi e silentio. Little need be said about 
 this. The critics agree that the cycle of the three 
 great feasts dates back to the earliest times of the 
 possession of Canaan. Instead of repeated mention. 
 
FEASTS. T59 
 
 as we would expect, we find the observance of Sha- 
 biioth but once stated before the exile (2 Chron. viii. 
 13), Succoth four times (probably Judg. xxi. 19 and i 
 Sam. i. 20, 21 ; I Kings viii. 2, xii. 32), Pesach twice 
 (probably Isa. xxx. 29; 2 Kings xxiii. 21), the three 
 together (i Kings ix. 25 and 2 Chron. viii. 13). At 
 the same time the prophets speak in terms which 
 presuppose a fixed cycle of yearly feasts (Isa. xxix. 
 i). When we add to this, that the arguinc]ituin e 
 silentio, strictly applied, would bring the origin of the 
 Day of Atonement down to the time of John Hyrca- 
 nus, or even of Herod the Great (37 B.C.), little more 
 need be added. -< 
 
 In Ezek. xl. i, we read that the prophet received 
 his vision in "the beginning of the year, in the tenth 
 day of the month." Ezekiel follows the autumn-era 
 in other instances (compare chap. xlv. 18, 20). Ac- 
 cordingly, Lev. XXV. 9 would be parallel, where the 
 Year of Jubilee is said to begin on the tenth day of 
 the seventh month, in the Day of Atonement. As 
 the critics recognize a close relationship between 
 Lev. xviii.-xxvi. and Ezekiel, the inference would 
 not be rash, that Ezekiel takes "the beginning of 
 the year" and "the tenth day of the month" as 
 synonymous ; was acquainted with the Year of Jubi- 
 lee as beginning on that particular day, and conse- 
 quently with the Day of Atonement itself, since its 
 connection with the beginning of the year of release 
 was not incidental, but of deep significance (compare 
 Isa. Iviii., especially ver. 5). Wellhausen avoids the 
 inference by declaring D")^i33n DV3 {in the Day of 
 Atoiiement) an interpolation of a later hand, and is 
 
l6o THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 consequently obliged to assume that to Ezekiel the 
 new year began on the loth of Tisri. How this hap- 
 pened to fall on the tenth of a month, he does not 
 explain ; for what is said on p. 114 hardly deserves 
 the name of an explanation. That it became easy, 
 after the beginning of the civil year had been trans- 
 ferred to spring, to fix upon any date whatever, is not 
 true. The old date, Tisri i, was there; and what 
 could have occasioned its change from the beginning 
 to the middle of the month, it is not easy to see. 
 
 But there is another w^ay of arguing e silentio. 
 It is alleged that there are certain pre-exilic passages, 
 where mention of the day would have been appro- 
 priate, or even necessary, had it been in existence. 
 We give them in their order of occurrence, and add 
 a few explanatory remarks to each respectively : ' — 
 
 In I Kings viii. 6%, the consecration of the temple 
 is said to have occasioned a double feast. The feast 
 referred to in ver. 2 must have been Succoth. The 
 chronicler gives his comment upon this in his second 
 book (vii. 7-10). According to him, the last seven 
 days closed on the twenty-third of the- seventh 
 month. Hence the additional seven days preceded 
 the common Succoth-w^eek. But then they extended 
 from the eighth of the month onward, and the feast 
 of consecrating the temple coincided with the Day of 
 Atonement. Since the latter was a day of affliction, 
 this would have been impossible ; and critics claim 
 to have here the most conclusive argument, that 
 no Day of Atonement existed either in Solomon's 
 
 ^ For much on this point, we are indebted to the paper of Dr. Delitzsch in 
 Luthardt's Zeitschrift, iSSo, Heft. iv. 
 
FEASTS. l6l 
 
 time or in that of the chronicler. For the chroni- 
 cler would not have failed to notice and correct the 
 incongruity, had it really existed. We remark, — 
 
 1. The conception of the Day of Atonement was 
 not so much that of sadness and gloom, as to be 
 entirely inconsistent with the consecration of the 
 temple (compare Isa. Iviii.). Both the Mishna and 
 Gemara present it as a day of joy. 
 
 2. If the consecration of the temple was going on, 
 and no rites and ceremonies could be legally per- 
 formed before this came to an end, it was not strange 
 if the observance of the Day of Atonement was dis- 
 regarded for once. The idea of purifying a sanctuary 
 newly built, not yet quite consecrated, and filled with 
 the glorious presence of God, is absurd. 
 
 3. That, according to the chronicler, Solomon put 
 this initiatory feast at the time of the yearly atone- 
 ment, is highly significant, and contained rather an 
 allusion to the day than a proof of its non-existence. 
 
 Ezra iii. 1-6. From Tisri 536 the full sacrificial 
 service commenced. Accordingly, neither Yom 
 Teruah nor Yom Kippurim was observed. But how 
 could the latter, when, according to ver. 6}" the founda- 
 tion of the temple of the Lord had not yet been laid } 
 
 In Neh. viii. 13-17, which speaks of the year B.C. 
 444, the feast of tabernacles is observed, but as some- 
 thing new. This shows, says Wellhausen, that the 
 Thora, which contained Lev. xxiii. (with the excep- 
 tion of ver. 26-32), had not yet been promulgated, 
 and was now published by Ezra and Nehemiah in 
 this very year 444. 
 
 From Ezra iii. 4, it is clear that an absolute igno- 
 
1 62 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 ranee of Sueeoth eannot be assumed. The emphasis 
 in the passage referred to, Hes evidently in the so 
 (viii. 17). Hence the theory, that Ezra now pubhshed 
 the Code for the first time, finds no support in this 
 fact ; and no inference of the non-existence of the 
 Day of Atonement can be drawn. Compare, for a 
 parallel case, Deut. xxiii. 4-6 with Neh. xiii. i. The 
 fast-day in Neh. ix. is radically different in conception 
 from the Day of Atonement. 
 
 Ezekiel mentions no Day of Atonement, but only 
 two days of reconciliation, on the first of the first 
 and seventh month respectively. Apart from the 
 fact that Ezekiel is also silent with regard to other 
 feasts, of which we know he was not ignorant (e.g., 
 Shabuoth), we have seen already that chap. xl. i 
 contains probably an allusion to this day. And it is 
 far more probable, that the two days of reconcilia- 
 tion were a modification of the Day of Atonement 
 than the reverse. 
 
 Even the post-exilic Zechariah is summoned as a 
 witness against this day. Graf says, ''When inter- 
 rogated concerning the commemorative fast-days, he 
 does not even allude to the Day of Atonement " 
 (chap vii. and viii.). The simple reason is, that he 
 had no occasion to do so. For the Day of Atone- 
 ment was not a day of sad historical remembrance, 
 not a ^^ dies ater'' in the sense in which the four re- 
 ferred to were. 
 
 There are several considerations which make the 
 high antiquity of this day very plausible. 
 
 I. Ail ancient peoples had special feasts of purifi- 
 cation. It is not likely that the Israelites formed an 
 exception. 
 
FEASTS. 163 
 
 2. It is difficult to conceive how, without any 
 precedent in the practice before the exile, such a 
 fiction could, after the exile, have found immediate 
 acceptance. 
 
 3. That the Day of Atonement was not so univer- 
 sally observed, and did not make such a deep im- 
 pression upon the national life of the people, must 
 be attributed to its deep spiritual significance. The 
 joyful agricultural feasts appealed more to the na- 
 tional inclinations than the day of affliction to the 
 consciousness of sin. 
 
 4. That, especially after the exile, more traces of 
 such a consciousness appear, must be explained on 
 the same ground. The judgment of the captivity 
 had greatly deepened the sense of sin, and taught 
 them better to appreciate this atoning feast. 
 
 5. The ceremony with the goat for Azazel points 
 to a high antiquity. So also other forms of language. 
 
 6. The most incredible feature of the newer theory 
 is, that at a time when no ark or mercy-seat existed 
 any longer, or could be hoped ever to exist again, the 
 law should have been framed in which they play 
 such a prominent, almost exclusive, part. 
 
 7. The critics cannot help themselves by merely 
 removing Lev. xvi. from the Priest Code. The 
 whole Code in all its parts abounds in references to 
 it (compare Exod. xxx. 10, Lev. xxiii., xxv.). Num. 
 viii. 7 is very striking. Also the name of the mercy- 
 seat, J^^.33, reminds us of the solemn ceremony of 
 sprinkling atoning blood on the cover of the ark 
 once a year. 
 
 Finally, Wellhausen asserts that the Priest Code 
 
164 THE PE.VTATEUCnAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 makes of t?ie relative Sabbath-year, an absolute one, 
 which required all fields to rest at the same time. 
 But the expressions in Exod, xxiii. 10, 11, do not 
 decide either for or against Wellhausen's theory, 
 that at first the year was chosen arbitrarily by each 
 individual for each separate field. And his second 
 statement, that the Priest Code advances upon the 
 Covenant-law by requiring the suspension of sowing 
 also, rests on a mistaken exegesis of Exod. xxiii. 11, 
 which refers the suffix (it), not to ]*7^? {land), but to 
 nxori {fruit), of the preceding verse. That the 
 Year of Jubilee does not appear in any previous 
 legislation, need not awake surprise. Neither does 
 the Covenant-law mention new moons. It is true, 
 history offers no instance in which the law was ob- 
 served ; but this simply shows that it was in a certain 
 sense very impracticable, and difficult to carry out. 
 Still, the prophets allude to it (compare Isa. Iviii., 
 Ixi. I ; Ezek. xlvi. 17). 
 
 f We have reached the end of our discussion of 
 J the pretended development in the cultus of Israel. 
 However deficient it may have been, we hope it 
 shows that the newest Pentateuchal criticism has 
 weak points in its very strongholds. No single point 
 has been discovered which was utterly inconsistent 
 with the unity of the Codes. We approach a new 
 topic now. Having found the unity of the laws in 
 Exodus-Numbers confirmed by positive proof, and 
 the objections brought against it unfounded, we may 
 proceed to consider the relation of this body of the 
 law to Deuteronomy. 
 
DEUTERONOMY AND PRECEDING BOOKS. 1 65 
 
 73 Li- ' ^) 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 UNITY OF DEUTERONOMY AND THE LAWS OF THE 
 INTERMEDIATE BOOKS. 
 
 ON the essential unity o£ Dent, v.-xxvi., all critics 
 agree. They differ somewhat in opinion as to 
 the subsequent parts of tlie book. Also, the intro- 
 ductory chapters have been severed from the bulk of 
 the book, which is legal. Still, they are often attrib- 
 uted to the same author, wdio forged the Code, and 
 composed them afterwards to unite his book wTth the 
 Jehovistic document. For example, Graf holds that 
 Jeremiah was the author of Deut. i.-xxx. Kayser 
 ascribes to one and the same author, iv. 44-xxvi., xxvii. 
 in part, and xxviii. He does not decide whether the 
 introductory and closing chapters belong to him or 
 not (p. 141). Kuenen thinks that chap. i. i-xxxii. 
 47 were composed as one piece. 
 
 When we speak here of unity, it is obviously in a 
 wider sense than before. The Sinaitic legislation 
 was given within a few months, w^hilst between it 
 and Deuteronomy fall more than forty years. It is 
 not unity of time, much less of circumstances and 
 environment, but unity of authorship of spirit and 
 aim, and of underlying ideas, which we seek. Even 
 the old view of Dclitzsch, who held that a man like 
 
1 66 THE PEXTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 Joshua, or one of the elders, D'jpr, on whom the spirit 
 of Moses rested, supplemented the Elohistic narra- 
 tive by writing Deuteronomy, maintains the essen- 
 tial unity in this wide sense. Kleinert's view, on 
 the other hand, that Deuteronomy was written in the 
 time of Samuel, would already give it up ; and to 
 speak of laws, originating in as late a period as that 
 of the Kings, as Mosaic, is not only inaccurate, but 
 misleading. 
 
 We are chiefly concerned with two questions 
 here : — 
 
 1. Does a relative unity between Deuteronomy and 
 the middle books exist } 
 
 2. To which of the two must we assign the priority } 
 
 I. Does a relative unity exist t 
 
 The peculiar character of Deuteronomy has been 
 defined in various ways, owing to the fact that indi- 
 vidual traits have been exclusively emphasized, and 
 \ made to account for all the others. Kurtz and Riehm 
 describe it as the people's Code, and find in this 
 destination the main distinction from the Levitical 
 legislation. Keil speaks of ''a hortatory description, 
 explanation, and enforcement of the most essential 
 contents of the Covenant relation and Covenant-laws, 
 with emphatic prominence given to the spiritual prin- 
 ciple of the law and its fulfilment." Ewald as "a 
 fresh and independent law, standing side by side 
 with the earlier one, — a transformation of the old 
 law, to suit altered circumstances." Schultz gives as 
 the aim of the book, "to secure by supplementary 
 regulations that the laws and institutions of the pre- 
 
DEUTERONOMY AND PRECEDING BOOKS. 1 67 
 
 vious books, whose full validity is presupposed, shall 
 be observed, not only in an external way, but as to 
 their inner significance, their higher aim, their spir- 
 itual principle," etc. 
 
 A comparison of all these definitions will be the 
 best test of their accuracy. Once admitted that 
 each of them has some support in the book, their 
 deficiency will immediately appear by observing that 
 they do not cover each other. That Deuteronomy is 
 the people's Code, does not explain why it should not 
 only interpret, but also enlarge and add. The same 
 objection may be raised against Schultz's definition 
 and that of Keil. The supplementary character of 
 the Code is by no means so accidental and secondary 
 that it can be overlooked in a definition. 
 
 Another inference is, how little right we have to 
 determine the date of a book from the indications 
 of a single feature. All these traits must have an 
 underlying common cause. Their bearing upon the 
 critical question of authenticity can be truly esti- 
 mated only when this deeper principle has been 
 recognized. Individual features derive their true 
 significance from their common source, and severed 
 from this are very likely to be misinterpreted. 
 
 This one principal tendency seems to have been 
 best appreciated by Havernick. He recognizes two 
 prominent contrasts with the Levitical law, — sub- 
 jectivity and parenesis or hortatory character. Pro- 
 ceeding on this observation, Havernick finds in 
 Deuteronomy the fundamental type of all Old-Testa- 
 ment prophecy. '* Moses appears here as a prophet, 
 X^3^i ; and subsequent prophetism is considered as 
 
1 68 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 nothing but the development of his work, standing 
 with it in the most intimate and vital connection." 
 
 It is remarkable how much light is shed by a 
 just appreciation of this principle on all other fea- 
 tures of the Code. That it addresses the people, 
 no longer awakens surprise. Prophecy roots itself in 
 the law, not abolishing, counteracting, or modifying 
 it, but explaining, exhorting, enforcing, above all 
 things evolving the spiritual kernel from the objec- 
 tive external form. Subjectivity and a reflective 
 character are adequately explained. Once more, 
 prophecy does not indulge in scholastic repetition 
 of separate statutes, but seizes upon the prominent 
 points, which, under the circumstances of the time, 
 need special elucidation and enforcement. Thus 
 also for what the Code passes by in silence, Haver- 
 nick's view assigns a satisfactory ground of omission. 
 How it embraces the features which Schultz has so 
 well brought out, is self-evident. Not less does it 
 include the view of Ewald and Riehm, for Moses is 
 prophet and legislator at the same time. Havernick 
 says, "As mediator of the Old Covenant, he stands 
 at. the summit of all prophecy : . . . the distinctive 
 character of his work is, that it not merely approaches 
 the law from the stand-point of subjective application, 
 but also develops and completes it." 
 
 The correctness of this view may further be tested 
 by its applicability to all the phenomena. We can- 
 not enter upon the matter in detail, but only indicate 
 the rough outlines along which the argument ought 
 to proceed. 
 
 (i) Instead of God speaking to Moses, and Moses 
 
DEUTERONOMY AND PRECEDING BOOKS. 1 69 
 
 to Aaron and his sons, Moses speaks here directly as 
 God's mouthpiece in long discourses to the people. 
 That such is the conception of prophecy, the book 
 states itself (xviii. 15, seqq.). 
 
 (2) The hortatory, parenetical style exhibits a 
 mind not bound by the letter*of the law, but aroused 
 and swayed by the powerful impulse of direct in- 
 spiration, 
 
 (3) The generalizing method, which seizes upon 
 points of present practical importance, adapts and 
 applies the law to the wants of contemporary history, 
 and emphasizes principles instead of giving legal 
 viiniLtiac, exhibits a striking conformity to the work 
 of the later prophets. 
 
 (4) The generic treatment of the future. Where 
 there is foresight, and provision is made for remote 
 conditions, they are still such as will be the natural 
 outgrowth of the present, and germinally contained 
 in it. This is the case with the law of the king- 
 dom (chap, xvii.) and of prophecy (xviii.). The pro- 
 phetic eye saw the future in the present, since the 
 former was conditioned by the latter. This ac- 
 counts for the emphasis laid on centralization of wor- 
 ship, and for the possibility of making regulations 
 now which could be used centuries after as refor- 
 matory rules. 
 
 (5) The same principle may have caused the gen- 
 eral treatment of certain classes — e.g., the priests 
 as Levites — and a few other peculiarities. 
 
 We are now enabled to put the question more 
 definitely. Does the diversity of character preclude 
 
lyo THE FENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 the unity of authorship ? In other words, is it un- 
 thinkable that one and the same person should com- 
 bine in himself the qualifications of a legislator and 
 a prophet ? That the modern criticism has answered 
 this question in the negative, is enough to show how 
 incapable it is of a deeper philosophical conception 
 and appreciation of the Old Testament. It deals 
 with phenomena as if they were the ultimate data; 
 mathematical figures, which can be made to repre- 
 sent whatever value the critic ascribes to them. 
 At the bottom of all this lies the naturalistic denial 
 of those great principles whose recognition is abso- 
 lutely necessary to a right understanding of the Old 
 Testament. "In all induction, theory leads." Dr. 
 Kuenen himself declares it impossible to argue from 
 facts alone. He admits, that from certain indubitable 
 points the chief lines must be drawn, and that these 
 must guide in our interpretation of the rest. But 
 whilst he accuses Schrader of having disregarded 
 this principle, we might retort the charge upon him- 
 self and the newer criticism in general. In using 
 the facts to establish its theory of development, this 
 criticism has already violated the rule, that they are 
 not to be interpreted outside of their legitimate 
 sphere, or in the light of a naturalistic philosophy, 
 but by the relation they sustain to the system of 
 God's revelation of which Scripture is the record. 
 
 We believe, that, on the basis of a sound psychol- 
 ogy, nothing can be said against the union of these 
 qualifications in Moses. The example of Ezekiel, of 
 whose Thora the critics have made such an extensive 
 use, is enough to decide the question. Looked at 
 
DEUTERONOMY AND P RECEDING BOOKS. I /I 
 
 from an historical stand-point, the combination was 
 favored by all the circumstances. Israel was at the 
 eve of a new period in its history, which would bring 
 the final realization of long delayed promises, but at 
 the same time expose to new and unknown allure- 
 ments from the heathen world. It entered with the 
 possession of Canaan upon a crisis of the same kind 
 as those which in later ages called forth the warning 
 and consoling voice of prophecy. It would have 
 been anomalous, had it made this transition so far- 
 reaching in its consequences without the attending 
 light of a prophetical interpretation of the law to 
 guide it. Not less obvious were these circumstances 
 with regard to Moses himself, which favored this 
 result. He had now nearly attained the end of his 
 labors ; and as, before his death, he saw the promised 
 land from the top of Nebo, so in the sphere of time 
 the range of his vision is widened. As the dying 
 patriarchs saw and foretold the future fate of their 
 descendants, and blessed their house in their last 
 moments, so Moses, the greatest of all Old-Testament 
 saints, left to the whole house of Israel, as a dying 
 father, the best of all blessings, a law adapted to all 
 future conditions. His work was not for one genera- 
 tion : "mediator of the Old Covenant," he stands 
 high above all other prophets and saints ; already half 
 glorified, no longer subject to the limitations of time, 
 he surveys the Israel of all ages until the coming of 
 Christ, and accordingly his work assumes a prospec- 
 tive and ideal character, so striking that unbelieving 
 critics could not but mistake it as the evidence of a 
 much later origin. 
 
1/2 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 Even a man like Dr. Kuenen admits that these 
 formal characteristics of Deuteronomy do not neces- 
 sarily prove that it was written by another hand 
 than the intermediate books. It is only in connec- 
 tion with other material points that they obtain 
 significance and convincing power. We need not 
 examine all the arguments that have been adduced 
 to prove the diversity of authorship, such as the 
 peculiar style and language, the silence of Deuter- 
 onomy with regard to certain laws, the modification 
 of previous laws, addition of some entirely new laws, 
 etc. Some of these points have been partially dis- 
 cussed before ; and all of them have been so exhaus- 
 tively treated by Hengstenberg, Havernick, Keil, 
 Schultz, and others, that our remarks could be nothing 
 more than a repetition of their statements. 
 
 We pass on to the second question involved : — 
 2. To which of the two legislations (that of the 
 intermediate books, or of Deuteronomy) shall we 
 assign the priority } 
 
 It might appear almost unnecessary after having 
 thus defined the relation of Deuteronomy .to the 
 other Codes, to put the question just stated. If our 
 conception of the book as prophetical is in the main 
 correct, and verified by its applicability to the phe- 
 nomena, this will decide the matter at once. Proph- 
 ecy presupposes the law, — roots itself in it, and 
 grows out of it. The legal and formal is before the 
 spiritual and ideal, not in the mind of God, but in 
 its historical realization. Nevertheless, since the his- 
 tory of modern criticism is very instructive on this 
 
PEUTERONOMY AND PRECEDING BOOKS. 1 73 
 
 special point, and a fair exponent of its unreliable 
 character, we offer a few remarks. 
 
 I. In 1 86 1 Dr. Kuenen gave the following com- 
 ment on the views of Von Bohlen, George, and Vatke, 
 who asserted that the Deuteronomic legislation was 
 earlier than that of the middle books of the Pen- 
 tateuch : "He [George] assumes that the histori- 
 cal elements of the Pentateuch are the oldest, that 
 Deuteronomy was written during the reign of Josiah, 
 whilst the greater part of the laws in Plxodus- 
 Numbers did not exist until after the exile. His 
 arguments are partly external, partly internal ; i.e., 
 derived from a comparison of the two legislations, 
 (i) Jeremiah, who knows Deuteronomy and makes 
 frequent use of it, shows no acquaintance with the 
 laws in Exodus-Numbers, as appears from chap. vii. 
 21-23, where he appeals to Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2, xxvi. 
 18, but ignores the whole sacrificial Thora. But 
 Jeremiah could, as Hosea, Psaiah, and other proph- 
 ets before him, exalt the moral commands of the law 
 far above its ceremonial prescriptions, and consider 
 the former as the real basis of the Covenant with 
 Jahveh, without the implication that a ceremonial 
 Code did not yet exist in his time : he could even 
 pronounce his conviction, that the laws concerning 
 burnt-offering and sacrifice are later than the moral 
 commands, and still it would not follow from this 
 that Exodus-Numbers were committed to writing 
 later than Deuteronomy. (2) Internal evidence. The 
 priority of Deuteronomy is argued on the ground 
 of several strange assertions, wJiicJi are not zvoitJfy 
 of refiLtation ; to wit, that before the Babylonish cap- 
 
174 THE PENrATEUCIIAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 tivity, there was no distinction between priests and 
 Levites, high-priest and priests ; that the Mosaic 
 tabernacle never existed ; that the spirit and ten- 
 dency of Deuteronomy indicate an earUer period 
 than those of Leviticus. Deut. xxxi. 14 is consid- 
 ered wholly arbitrarily as a later addition : xviii. 2, 
 xxiv. 8, are left out of view. The view of George in 
 this form as presented by him has been almost uni- 
 versally rejected." 
 
 So far Dr. Kuenen. The quotation is instructive 
 in many respects. It proves : {a) That a critic may 
 proclaim as incontestable truth at one time what, a 
 decade before, he deemed unworthy of refutation. 
 (//) That he may use the same statements at differ- 
 ent times to establish views which are diametrically 
 opposed to each other (this with regard to Deut. 
 xviii. 2, xxiv. 8). {c) That he may propose, as a 
 reasonable explanation of certain phenomena, what 
 he condemns afterwards as uncritical dogmatism in 
 others (this with regard to Jeremiah), {d) That so 
 long as his mind is unbiassed by preconceived philo- 
 sophical theories, he may find the postulates of his 
 own later philosophy absurd, {c) That consequently 
 his theory is not determined by the facts, but that 
 the facts are colored by a theory framed independ- 
 ently of them, and afterwards imposed upon them. 
 
 2. This is not the only instance, however, in which 
 criticism has itself closed the way to its own later 
 development, which it was not far-sighted enough to 
 discern sufficiently long in advance. It is well known 
 that Graf in 1866, five years after the appearance 
 of Kuenen's introduction, declared the lecfislation of 
 
DEUTEKON'OMY AND PRECEDING BOOKS. 1 75 
 
 the middle books posterior to that of Deuteronomy. 
 Connected with this was the statement that Deu- 
 teronomy presupposed not only the Jehovistic, but 
 {a potiori) also the Elohistic, narrative. Pp. 9-19 
 of Graf's book contain an elaborate argument to 
 prove that the narrative of the Elohist in Exodus- 
 Numbers was known and used by the Deuterono- 
 mist. It was shown no less in detail that the 
 Deuteronomist did not know the Levitical Code. It 
 was evident, however, that in the Elohistic docu- 
 ment, narrative and legislation were so indissolubly 
 blended, that even the most daring critic could not 
 sever them. This state of affairs was soon realized. 
 Kuenen immediately discovered the weak point in 
 Grafs hypothesis, and called his attention to it in a 
 letter. Now, when two mutually inconsistent propo- 
 sitions have been independently established by an 
 elaborate survey of facts, the natural suggestion 
 would be, to reject the whole process of criticism, 
 that had led to such results, as unreliable. Instead 
 of doing this, however, Kuenen advises Graf to ex- 
 tend his hypothesis to the narrative of the Elohist 
 also. This advice was followed ; and out came the 
 present theory of Wellhausen, Kuenen, etc. We 
 ask what has become in the mean while of Graf's 
 arguments apparently so conclusive, that the Elohis- 
 tic narrative was known to Deuteronomy.? Have 
 they been carefully reviewed } Not in the least. 
 Dr. Kuenen simply declares it necessary, that either 
 the laws should follow history, or history follow the 
 laws. Here, however, criticism has denied its own 
 principles. Whosoever claims to argue from facts, is 
 
176 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 not allowed to discard one of his conclusions to save 
 another. If two conclusions are mutually exclusive, 
 then nothing remains but to declare the whole argu- 
 ment invalid. We have exactly the same right to 
 ignore Graf's proofs that the Deuteronomist shows 
 no acquaintance with the Levitical law, in order to 
 recognize merely his arguments that he knew the 
 Elohistic narrative, and then, after the innocent re- 
 mark that the laws must follow history, to consider 
 the pre-Deuteronomic existence of the whole Priest 
 Code established. But the idea of one thing " fol- 
 lowing" the other has no legitimate place in the 
 sphere of criticism. 
 
 When placed in the light of the two facts just 
 mentioned, the following considerations obtain a 
 double force : — 
 
 1. The fact that Deuteronomy, on the whole, at- 
 taches itself to the Jehovistic Code, is no proof that 
 the Levitical law did not then exist. The Covenant- 
 law furnished the real basis for the Covenant between 
 God and the people. It is no more than natural that 
 Deuteronomy, wishing to bring out the fundamental 
 ideas of this Covenant-relation in their spiritual 
 bearing upon the popular life, should go back to 
 the Code in which they were already germinally 
 contained. 
 
 2. Whilst, in most cases, it is difficult to decide 
 how two laws stand related to each other, it is quite 
 different with history. One clearly stated proof that 
 the Deuteronomist knew the narrative of the Elohist, 
 is enough to settle the matter. But numerous proofs 
 have been given by Graf and others. It is therefore 
 
DEUTERONOMY AND PRECEDING BOOKS. I'J'J 
 
 safer to abandon the ambiguous method of ascertain- 
 ing the relative age of two laws by a comparison of 
 their contents, and to adhere to the results obtained 
 from history, than the reverse. 
 
 3. {a) There are some indications, however, that 
 Deuteronomy knows the Elohistic legislation. Atten- 
 tion has been called by the critics from a stylistic 
 point of view to the frequent combinations of r^'ipn 
 {statutes), r^iyp {cominandnicnts), D'psiyp {judgments), 
 x\y\T\ {lazv), nn>^ {testimojiy). When we remember 
 that the statutes of the Covenant-law are pre-emi- 
 nently called D'p3L!/p {judgments), Exod. xxi. i, and 
 that the other terms are predominantly used of the 
 Levitical legislation, then their combination in Deu- 
 teronomy becomes highly significant. Besides, it 
 gives us the impression that the author of the latter 
 had a voluminous body of law in mind, to which he 
 referred the people. It is unnatural to refer the 
 terms he uses to the scanty contents of the Jehovis- 
 tic Code (Exod. xiii., xx.-xxiii., xxxiv.). 
 
 {b) The two laws (Lev. xi. and Deut. xiv. 3-21) are 
 so similar in language and contents, that their inter- 
 dependence cannot be doubted. Graf assigns the 
 priority to Deuteronomy. This view is at once over- 
 thrown by the consideration that the language is 
 Elohistic, and is accordingly in its place in the Priest 
 Code, and out of place in Deuteronomy. Graf seeks 
 to relieve this difficulty by assuming that both the 
 Elohist and the Deuteronomist drew from an older 
 source, but there is not the least ground for this 
 assumption. And how this older source came to 
 possess such a remarkable resemblance in language 
 
1/8 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 and contents to the Priest Code of much later date, 
 remains a profound mystery. Moreover, the origi- 
 nahty in the Priest Code is clear, because the refer- 
 ence to the touching of a dead carcass does not 
 coincide with the plan of Deuteronomy, which is 
 only to give law about clean and unclean food, but 
 agrees perfectly with the plan of the Priest Code, 
 which is to treat of every kind of defilement. 
 
 (r) Other cases of interdependence in which the 
 priority of Leviticus is clear are Lev. xix. 19 = Deut. 
 xxii. 9-1 1, Lev. xix. 13 — Deut. xxiv. 14, Lev. xix. 
 35 =: Deut. XXV. 13-16. 
 
 {d) That Deuteronomy alludes to the priesthood of 
 Aaron and Eleazar (x. 6), to the Urim and Thummim 
 (xxxiii. 8), and to the priestly inheritance (x. 9, xii. 
 12, xiv. 27, 29, xviii. i), has been pointed out before. 
 
 {c) The passages, Deut. xxiv. 8, and xxxi. 14, are 
 even by Dr. Kuenen admitted as proof for the prior- 
 ity of Leviticus. When Kayser sees no reference in 
 the former passage to the law of leprosy in Lev. xiii., 
 xiv., but assumes that some other law may have been 
 alluded to just as well, this other law exists only in 
 his imagination, and there is not the slightest trace 
 of its actual existence. 
 
 (/) A comparison of Deut. xxviii. with Lev. xxvi. 
 will show that the Deuteronomist knew the latter 
 discourse, or rather that both proceeded from the 
 same author ; in which case the priority of the chap- 
 ter in Leviticus as the shorter one is, of course, 
 beyond dispute. 
 
 (yg) Lev. xvii. and Deut. xii. leave no doubt, both 
 as to their mutual relation and their Mosaic origin. 
 
DEL'TERONOMY AND PRECEDING BOOKS. I 79 
 
 Without the Levitical law being presupposed, that in 
 Deuteronomy could have no meaning. Deuteronomy 
 here abolishes in the fortieth year what the Priest 
 Code had enacted in the second. The same relation 
 exists between Deut. iv. 41, xix. 1-13, and Num. 
 XXXV., treating of the cities of refuge. 
 
 {Ji) A reference to the ark in chap. x. i points back 
 to Exod. XXV. 10. 
 
 4. All these cases, in which Deuteronomy makes 
 short, incomplete, and evidently supplementary state- 
 ments in regard to matters not treated by the Jeho- 
 vist, are so many proofs of the priority of the Priest 
 Code. 
 
 5. It was generally acknowledged that Deuteron- 
 omy throughout presupposes the Levitical legislation, 
 until theoretical bias obliged the critics to deny it. 
 Even a man like De Wette once declared, "Deutero- 
 paK),ium prigribus libris tamquam fundamento nitiv^^*-^-^'-^ 
 quaevis paglna docet." '--^-j*^ 
 
l80 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE MOSAIC ORIGIN OF THE 
 DEUTERONOiMIC CODE. 
 
 ' TT^E have come to the conclusion, that, whilst the 
 V V unity of the Codes is vouched for by all evi- 
 j dence that can be reasonably demanded, the argu- 
 ! ments adduced against it, when considered each on 
 ; its own merits, cannot stand the test of a fair criti- 
 cism. We could sum up the result in the statement, 
 that the newest phase of Pentateuch-criticism pre- 
 sents no theory, but merely a hypothesis, one of the 
 many ways of accounting for a number of facts.. We 
 believe that w^e have shown that the old hypothesis, 
 if we may indeed call it so, accounts for these facts 
 just as well as the new one, and in many respects 
 better. 
 
 But it is not a matter of indifference which of the 
 two hypotheses we shall choose. For whilst the new 
 one must stand or fall on the mere merits of its 
 plausibility and applicability, the old one has all the 
 advantage of the direct testimony of the law itself, 
 which lifts it out of the category of hypotheses, so 
 that it becomes a theory founded on such facts as 
 will admit no other interpretation. 
 
 For the whole Deuteronomic Code, we have in 
 
MOSAIC ORIGIN OF DEUTERONOMIC CODE. l8l 
 
 chap. xxxi. 9, 24, the expHcit testimony, that it was 
 not only promulgated, but committed to writing, by 
 Moses himself. With this statement, to be sure, 
 nothing is decided as to the authorship of Deuter- 
 onomy as a whole. We may have our peculiar views, 
 like Delitzsch and Kleinert, with regard to the com- 
 position of the book as a whole, and still agree on 
 the fact, that Moses actually delivered these dis- 
 courses. The only question that must be considered 
 here, is whether the statements in ver. 9 and 24 do, 
 or do not, refer to the whole Pentateuch. On this 
 point, there is considerable difference of opinion. 
 Hengstenberg, Havernick, Keil, Schultz, etc., extend 
 them to the whole Pentateuch, with the exception of 
 the closing sections of Deuteronomy. Delitzsch, 
 Kurtz, and, of course, the whole host of modern 
 critics, limit them to the legal discourses of Deuter- 
 onomy. The latter view seems to be the most plau- 
 sible one, for the following reasons : — 
 
 I. The passages xxix. 19, 26, xix. 10, xxx. 20, xxviii. 
 58, 61, suffer no other interpretation than that they 
 refer to the Deuteronomic Code. From analogy 
 we would expect the same to be intended here. 
 Schultz admits this, but, since Deuteronomy proper 
 does not extend beyond chap, xxx., claims that the 
 rest is wTitten as a closing section of the whole 
 Thora, and may accordingly refer to it as a whole. 
 If such were the case, however, we w^ould naturally 
 first expect a direct statement that Moses committed 
 Deuteronomy to writing, before it could be tacitly 
 included under the general term of the Thora as a 
 written whole. As this is nowhere found, and xxxi. i 
 
1 82 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 speaks simply of Moses having spoken all these 
 words, we must seek it in ver. 9 and 24. 
 
 2. It is not impossible, still it is improbable, that 
 the delivering of this law mentioned in ver. 26 was 
 a mere symbolic act, as the other view implies. 
 
 3. It was the special duty of the priests to pre- 
 serve the law, and more specially the Levitical law 
 was intrusted to them. We must therefore suppose 
 that the latter had been delivered to them long be- 
 fore. If it be said that this may have been a mere 
 copy of the Code, but that now the historical work 
 of the Pentateuch was handed to them, we may 
 answer that this analogy makes it only the more 
 probable, that also the Deuteronomic Code was at 
 first put into their hands separately without its his- 
 torical frame. 
 
 4. The passage xxix. i shows that the Covenant 
 made in the fields of IMoab is considered as a sepa- 
 rate one, distinct from that contracted at Horeb. 
 There is no reason, then, to deny, that, according 
 to the analogy of i"^5<Tn nnan {tJiis covenant), also 
 l^^^^r\ rr\ST\r\ {this /azu) means simply the Deuterono- 
 mic law. 
 
 5. Josh. viii. 32 can hardly mean that the whole 
 Pentateuch was written in stones on Mount Ebal. 
 Keil claims that the expression used in Deut. xxvii. 
 2, 8, "All the commandments, which I command you 
 this day," is clearly intended to indicate, that /icj'e 
 the whole Pentateuch is not meant, and that for this 
 reason it does not decide any thing for the less 
 explicit statements in other passages. But chap, 
 xxviii. I shows that the addition of "this day" can- 
 
MOSAIC ORIGIN OF DEUTERONOMIC CODE. 1 83 
 
 not have been made for this special purpose. We 
 have, therefore, a right to consider the passages where 
 it is found as parallel to all the others, and find in 
 them a confirmation of our view that also the latter 
 speak only of the Deuteronomic Code. 
 
 It appears, then, that, from Deut. xxxi. 9, 24, no 
 direct argument for the Mosaic origin of the other 
 Codes can be obtained. It does contain, however, 
 an indirect testimony. If the Deuteronomic dis- 
 courses were committed to writing immediately after 
 their deliverance, we may infer a potiori, that Moses 
 did the same with regard to the previous laws. 
 That such was his custom, as it was the last thought 
 at the end of his life, shows how much he laid to 
 heart the careful preservation of the Codes. 
 
 Since the modern critics find themselves at liberty 
 to disbelieve this explicit self-testimony of the Deu- 
 teronomic Code, there should be a strong weight 
 of evidence to the contrary. Before we proceed to 
 • examine this, it is important to realize fully what 
 such a disbelief involves ; for on it will depend how 
 much contrary evidence we demand in order to be 
 convinced. 
 
 The term *' literary fiction" has found large ac- 
 ceptance with the critics to designate their pre- 
 tended origin of Deuteronomy. It does not fully 
 suit the case, however. Again and again, critics have 
 been anxious to remind us that the ideas of literary 
 property were not so developed in antiquity as they 
 are in our days. The Book of Deuteronomy, present- 
 ing itself to us as the work of Moses, has been com- 
 pared to a parable ; and Robertson Smith declares, 
 
184 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 that it matters little ''whether these things were 
 spoken by I\Ioses literally, or in a parable." Dr. 
 Kuenen, at least, is fair enough to confess that the 
 fiction of the Deuteronomist cannot be defended 
 from our stand-point of morality, but hastens to add, 
 that a writer in the time of Manasseh cannot be 
 measured by our moral standard. We must ac- 
 knowledge, he says, that such a pia fraiis was in 
 those days quite consistent with a high degree of 
 religious development. 
 
 Before proceeding farther, we must distinguish 
 between a literary fiction and a legal forgery. When 
 Riehm draws a parallel between Ecclesiastes and 
 Deuteronomy, and then puts the question, '' Why 
 should we grant this liberty to the philosopher, and 
 deny it to the lawgiver and prophet } " he has him- 
 self already intimated the answer that should be 
 given to such questions. Suppose that Ecclesiastes 
 were a literary fiction, still we could not blame 
 the author for having introduced his work under 
 the name of Solomon, because the fictitious charac- 
 ter was not concealed, but intended to be under- 
 stood and appreciated. On the other hand, there 
 is every possible proof that the author of Deuter- 
 onomy wished his work to pass for the genuine work 
 of Moses. The element of ''falsehood" would be 
 surely involved here. Most decisive in this respect 
 is his statement that Moses ivrotc this law ; also 
 the fact that he docs not allow any additions or sub- 
 tractions or modifications to be made in what he 
 gives as the words of Moses, iv. 2, xii. 32. How 
 can we free from the charge of deceit, him who 
 
MOSAIC ORIGIN OF DEUTERONOMIC CODE. 1 85 
 
 condemns most emphatically in his book a practice 
 of which the book itself was the product ? Further, 
 the writer of Ecclesiastes would have giv^en nothing 
 more than subjective human speculation, under the 
 authority of Solomon, since he need not have had the 
 intention of foisting his book into the Canon. But 
 the Deuteronomist applied his fictitious methods in 
 the sphere of divine authoritative law, and knew, if 
 he succeeded, that the first result of his success 
 would be a deception of men in their most holy 
 interests, an adulteration of the Canon, and in its 
 ultimate analysis an encroachment upon God's sov- 
 ereign right to prescribe law to Israel. It would be 
 necessary to think that the times of Manasseh and 
 Josiah were like the nineteenth century, when those 
 initiated into the secrets of criticism do not hesitate 
 to laugh contemptuously within the walls of their 
 schools at the superstition of God's common peo- 
 ple, who still cling to the antiquated notion of the 
 Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. The writer of 
 Deuteronomy must have had some resemblance to 
 our present heroes of Old-Testament science, who 
 for themselves having long outgrown the traditional 
 notions, still, out of the fulness of their benevolence, 
 are willing to leave the less instructed class a kind 
 of regulative knowledge. It is exceedingly sadden- 
 ing in the present state of the question, whilst the 
 one alternative is '^ fraud,'' that even a man like Dr. 
 Delitzsch declares that the Church at larsre has no 
 
 o 
 
 interest in the Pentateuch question, and ought not 
 to have. It is no longer the time to mislead our- 
 selves by unmeaning phrases. The Church has an 
 
1 86 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 interest in this matter. If she has been deceived 
 by the Deiiteronomist more than twenty-five cen- 
 turies ago, it is more than time that she knew it 
 now. With Dr. Kuenen we say it is " either one 
 thing or the other," and every attempt at compro- 
 mise involves a concession to our opponents. 
 
 Before we hear the grounds on which critics think 
 themselves justified in assuming this terrible fraud, 
 let us survey the indirect testimony of Deuteronomy 
 to its Mosaic origin. 
 
 1. The time in which the author speaks is evi- 
 dently the later part of Moses' life. The people 
 appear to be on the point of crossing the Jordan, 
 the conquest of Canaan is promised as the reward of 
 fidelity to Jehovah, the people are encouraged not to 
 dread the Canaanites, commanded to extirpate the 
 Canaanites, etc. To quote passages is superfluous. 
 
 2. The author shows intimate acquaintance with 
 the geographical condition of the country in which 
 Israel received this law. Whilst his statements con- 
 cerning the eastern side of the Jordan betray by 
 their minuteness and accuracy an eye-witness, those 
 concerning the west side are general throughout. 
 
 3. When Riehm and others ascribe all this to the 
 endeavor of the Deuteronomist to make his work 
 pass for that of Moses, all the evidence is against 
 them. For {a) The information concerning the Mosaic 
 period is in part new, not contained in the previous 
 books of the Pentateuch ; and there is no proof that 
 the Deuteronomist used other sources, {b) The his- 
 tory, though conforming to that of Exodus-Numbers, 
 is remodelled with a freedom that nobody would havp 
 
MOSAIC ORIGIN OF DEUTERONOMIC CODE. 1 8/ 
 
 allowed himself to use in post-Mosaic times, least of 
 all a writer who wished to authenticate his work with 
 the impress of a genuine Mosaic character, and who 
 everywhere proclaims the sacred, inviolable charac- 
 ter of the Mosaic law. {c) It should be noticed, that 
 all these references to the Mosaic period present 
 themselves as natural and unintentional. If we had 
 to assume that they were interwoven with a purpose, 
 we would expect them to be more explicit, promi- 
 nent, and emphatic. 
 
 4. Though Deuteronomy presupposes throughout 
 the possession of the promised land, the point of 
 view is never lost, that the conquest is still future. 
 The possibility of fiction is precluded here by the 
 promise of extended territory (xi. 24, "From Leba- 
 non, from Euphrates, unto the uttermost sea"), such 
 as even the most visionary expectations of later times 
 could not have aspired to. How could a contemporary 
 of King Manasseh or Josiah say, *' From the river 
 Euphrates shall your coast be," without exposing 
 himself to ridicule t 
 
 5. Retrospectively the Code contains many refer- 
 ences to the sojourn in Egypt of such a character as 
 only the national consciousness in the Mosaic period 
 could understand or appreciate. Memory of the 
 Egyptian bondage is made an incentive to kind treat- 
 ment of servants and strangers. The book is full of 
 Egyptian reminiscences (xi. 10, xx. i, xxiii. 4, 7, xxiv. 
 22). The modern criticism has attributed all this to 
 mercantile intercourse with Egypt. Apart from the 
 fact, that in this case the allusions would have been 
 more direct and intentional, the explanation is only a 
 
1 88 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 partial one. Mercantile intercourse was not adapted 
 to make the reminder of Egyptian servitude a forcible 
 incentive to humane treatment of servants. Neither 
 would it account for historical coincidences, since 
 there is no proof that intercourse with Egypt led 
 to a professional study of Egyptian history and an- 
 tiquities. 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 1 89 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 A LL this, however, is most daringly rejected by 
 ±\- the critics, as the product of a legal fiction 
 which took to itself a Mosaic dress, thus to have 
 better opportunity of imposing upon the people. 
 Though there is some difference of opinion as to the 
 exact date of composition, all agree that it is a Re- 
 form Code prepared in the days of the later Judaic 
 kings. De Wette, Knobel, Schrader, Kayser, assign 
 it to the reign of Josiah ; Ewald, Bleek, Kuenen, to 
 that of Manasseh ; Riehm, who also first declared 
 himself in favor of the second half of Manasseh's 
 reign, afterwards changed his opinion, and preferred 
 the time of Hezekiah. A peculiar view is held by 
 Stahelin and Kleinert, that it was written during the 
 period of the Judges. 
 
 When we ask for the proof of all this, it is arrayed 
 before us in a series of propositions. Riehm's treatise 
 affords a fair example of the common method. He 
 proves in succession : i.* Deuteronomy is not Mosaic, 
 but written a considerable time after the conquest of 
 Canaan. 2. After the reign of ^lomon. 3. Not 
 before that of Jehoshaphat. 4. Not before that of 
 Hezekiah. 5. In the second half of the reign of 
 
IQO THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 Manasseh, between 66j and 640. All which is in- 
 ferred from internal evidence and corresponding facts 
 in history during the period of the Kings. 
 
 That this method of determining the date of origin 
 of a prophetical book involves a denial of its super- 
 natural character, is obvious. When Deuteronomy 
 prohibits exactly those things in which Solomon 
 transgressed, it is claimed that there must be a 
 vaticiniiiin ex cvcntn. So far as these assertions pro- 
 ceed on the denial of the supernatural element in 
 the history of Israel, no common ground of debate 
 is left between us and the critics. 
 
 But there are others, like Riehm and Kayser, who 
 recognize the supernatural element, and profess to 
 derive their conclusions, not from an a priori philoso- 
 phy, but from critical premises. Between them and 
 us the question is reduced to the simple statement, 
 whether these utterances of Deuteronomy exhibit 
 the internal character of vaticinia ex eventu, or of 
 real inspired prophecies. 
 
 Let us consider the law of the kingdom first. 
 Chap. xvii. 14-20 offers several points of contact 
 with Solomon's reign : i. Multiplication of horses, ver. 
 16. 2. Multiplication of wives, ver. 17.^ 3. Of sil- 
 ver and gold, ver. ly^ These points would certainly 
 have some force to convince us, if it could be shown 
 that Solomon's conduct in this respect was excep- 
 tional and distinct from what Eastern monarchs were 
 a-ccustomed to do. If not, there is no reason why 
 Moses should not have dreaded for a king of Israel, 
 what was prevailing at all Oriental courts, and hit 
 upon exactly those vices which foreign influence 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. I9I 
 
 afterwards tempted Solomon to imitate, in spite of 
 the Deuteronomic law. That the author of i Kings 
 X. 26-29, xi. 2, uses nearly the same terms as Deu- 
 teronomy, does not prove that the latter merely copied 
 the facts. The author of Kings may just as well 
 have clothed the facts in Deuteronomic language. 
 When Riehm objects that he evidently describes 
 with admiration and approval the liixiLS of Solomon's 
 courts, and hence was not acquainted with the disap- 
 proval and condemnation of the law, this sounds 
 strano:e in the mouth of a critic who declares in a 
 footnote, that the writer of Kings did not live before 
 the exile. Then, he must have known Deuteronomy, 
 after all ; and w^hat becomes of the argument from 
 approval or admiration t 
 
 The narrative of i Sam. viii. has also been used, 
 or rather abused, to deny the authenticity of this law. 
 What is there condemned, is here commanded. But 
 such a summary statement leaves out of account sev- 
 eral facts. First of all, Deuteronomy does not com- 
 mand, but merely allows, the institution of the kingly 
 office. It does this with certain restrictions touching 
 the points which would tend to make the office an 
 object of national pride, derogatory to the honor of 
 God, to whom alone such glory was due among 
 Israel. The passage bears all the evidence of being 
 a restrictive law. In one sense a kingdom is per- 
 mitted, but evidently this permission is but subsidi- 
 ary to the prohibition of it in another sense. It is 
 clearly stated what the Israelites would be allowed 
 to have, in order to bring out more emphatically and 
 distinctly what they would not be allowed to desire. 
 
192 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 So, whilst there is no command in either sense, the 
 whole is equivalent to a prohibition in the one sense. 
 The restrictions stated constitute the very essence 
 of kingly pride among the heathen nations of the 
 East. Considered in this light, the Deuteronomic 
 law not merely does not contradict, but strikingly con- 
 firms, the narrative in Samuel. The people desired 
 exactly that kind of royalty which the Code pro- 
 hibited, and from the very motive which the law con- 
 demned. Because the nation wished to transfer the 
 national pride which it should have had in God alone 
 to an earthly monarch, the spirit of the law was vio- 
 lated, even though the transgressors dared to quote 
 its letter in their favor. That other causes co-oper- 
 ated with this to make the desire sinful, is not denied. 
 Schultz has discussed the matter very thoroughly, 
 thousfh he seems to seek the solution rather in a 
 peculiar interpretation of i Sam. viii. than of Deu- 
 teronomy. 
 
 The law presents no features which are not fully 
 consistent with its Mosaic origin. But it contains 
 some statements which are inconsistent with a later 
 origin. The following may be noted : {a) The pro- 
 hibition to confer royal authority upon a stranger, 
 ver. 15. For this the whole post-Mosaic period offers 
 no single point of contact. What Professor Robert- 
 son Smith adduces, rests on the misinterpretation 
 of an isolated passage, Isa. vii. 6. {b) The reminis- 
 cence of Egyptian servitude, ver. 16. How the mul- 
 tiplication of horses could tend to make the people 
 return to Egypt, has never yet been satisfactorily ex- 
 plained on the critical hypothesis. Riehm's explana- 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 1 93 
 
 tion, together with his view of the passage xxviii. 6'^, 
 rests on ingenious but unwarranted combinations, by 
 which more is assumed than history has recorded. 
 {c) If this law had been forged in a time when the 
 kingly office had existed for many centuries, it is 
 impossible that no more definite and concrete state- 
 ments should have been made. 
 
 The same remarks apply to the institution of 
 Tudo-es, and of what the critics would call a supreme 
 court (Deut. xvii. 8-13). Both are the necessary re- 
 sult of the people being scattered over the land im- 
 mediately after the conquest. Here also the critics 
 have substituted for this very natural interpretation 
 an extremely forced one. They claim that Deuter- 
 onomy gives only the abstract statement of what 
 Jehoshaphat had introduced in the concrete. But 
 law and history conflict in so many points, that only a 
 superficial acquaintance with both can make the one 
 the reflex of the other. The following are essential 
 differences : {a) Deuteronomy presents as future what 
 under King Josiah had already existed for a considera- 
 ble time, {b) What Jehoshaphat instituted was really 
 a supreme court, consisting of Levites and laymen, 
 with two presidents, — the high-priest Amariah, and 
 Zebadiah the son of Ishmael. Deuteronomy knows 
 nothing of this : the judge in ver. 9 is only the occa- 
 sional president at the local court at the seat of the 
 sanctuary, and he owes his right of decision in cases 
 of appeal to his benefit of priestly assistance and 
 instruction. The high-priest in ver. 12 is not intro- 
 duced as such, but merely in his priestly capacity, to 
 indicate that his assistance was not a matter of judi- 
 
194 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 cature, but of instruction, (r) The absence of con- 
 crete and detailed statements is here also a strono- 
 testimony against later origin. 
 
 As the law of the kingdom does not warrant us in 
 bringing Deuteronomy down to Solomon's time, so 
 that of the Judges does not prove its origin during 
 or after the reign of Jehoshaphat. More general, 
 but most whimsical and worthless of all, is the argu- 
 ment derived from the promises in chap, xviii., that 
 prophets like Moses would succeed him, and specially 
 the reference to false prophets from ver. 20 onward. 
 By remanding all this to a later time, we take away 
 the only basis on which to rest prophecy. The 
 eminent position and undisputed authority of later 
 prophetism become a mystery when the law had 
 made no provision for both. This is an apt illustra- 
 tion of the untenable positions to which the critical 
 theories lead. If, as has been customary of late, 
 prophecy is not considered as the fruit and interpre- 
 ter of law, but law as the petrifaction of prophecy, 
 the latter of necessity comes to hang in the air. The 
 reference to false prophets, if it proves any thing, 
 will prove against the later origin. In ver. 22 the 
 people are exhorted not to be afraid of them, 
 li^p iijn '^. In what a contrast does this supposed 
 denunciatory character of the false prophets stand to 
 the later reality ! (compare i Kings xxii. 22, seqq. ; 
 Isa. ix. 15; XXX. 10; Jer. xiv. 13, 14). Another feature 
 which forbids us to think that the author had the 
 development of prophetism behind him, is the prom- 
 ise that the prophets would be like unto Moses. So 
 only God and Moses could speak. None of the later 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 1 95 
 
 prophets ever thought of claiming equality with 
 Moses. 
 
 In Deut. iv. 19, xvii. 3, star-worship is emphatically 
 forbidden. The historical books mention, that after 
 the schism it became prevalent at first in the North- 
 ern kingdom, afterwards also in Judah, in the time 
 of Ahaz and Manasseh. Hence the critics inferred, 
 that this kind of idolatry was not of Canaanitish 
 origin, but was imported from the Far East, and not 
 known before the schism. The protest of Deuter- 
 onomy against it then proves its later origin. We 
 need not determine to what influences the increasing 
 popularity of star-worship under the later kings was 
 due, but have only to show that prior to this star- 
 worship existed. This does not merely follow from 
 the second command of the Decalogue forbidding to 
 make a likeness of any thing " in heaven above," but 
 also from the statement of Amos v. 26. The proph- 
 ets of the Assyrian period refer to it ; e.g., Isa. xvii. 
 8 (where the Revised Version has sun-images). Also 
 the name Beth-shemesh (house of the sun) is note- 
 worthy in this respect. Schultz calls attention to 
 the fact that the service of Baal and Astarte was 
 connected with star-worship ; but, as Deuteronomy 
 treats of this idolatry separately (iv. 3, xii. 31, xviii. 
 20), the passage (iv. 19) must refer to something dis- 
 tinct from it. That Deuteronomy considers this cult 
 under the aspect of nature-worship, and not so much 
 of Polytheism as it came pre-eminently to be after- 
 wards, makes the acquaintance of the writer with this 
 later state of affairs improbable. 
 
 The phrase p"!:n n5;'.3 {beyond Jordan) has been 
 
196 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 appealed to as indicating the true stand-point of the 
 later writer. It is used interchangeably of the east 
 and the west side of the river. In making this fact 
 a proof of later origin, the critics involve themselves 
 in a serious difficulty. All evidence of Mosaic origin 
 is summarily dismissed with the remark, that the 
 Deuteronomist would take care to reproduce faith- 
 fully the Mosaic situation. In all other instances 
 he succeeded so completely, that for centuries all 
 critical opinion was led astray by his fiction. How, 
 then, could he fall out of his role here.'' Even 
 granted that Deuteronomy is non-Mosaic, the double 
 sense in which the writer employs the phrase puts 
 beyond doubt that he considered it as geographically 
 fixed already in the Mosaic time. Still, it is most 
 probable that even in this case he would not have 
 made Moses employ it of the east side, for fear that 
 people less instructed in ancient geographical ter- 
 minology might suspect the Code on account of this 
 expression. Riehm, feeling this, tries to protect the 
 Deuteronomist against this charge of thoughtless- 
 ness, by saying that he continually distinguishes be- 
 tween his own work and the discourses of Moses, and 
 that in the latter the phrase is only applied to the 
 western country. Chap. iii. 8 is enough to overthrow 
 this notion, where Moses himself speaks: "And we 
 took . . . the land that was j1"«:n "i;3;'.3 from the river 
 of Arnon unto Mount Hermon." Riehm is under 
 the necessity of declaring the latter words to be a 
 gloss of a later hand ; but with the same right we 
 might declare all passages where the term is applied 
 to the eastern country interpolations, which would 
 
OBJECTION'S ANSWERED. ■ T97 
 
 certainly be the easiest way to relieve the whole 
 difficulty. As the matter stands, the critics may 
 choose between admitting that the Deuteronomist 
 fell out of his role here, which will add the more 
 weight to other evidence of Mosaic origin, or that 
 he thought Moses could have spoken thus. We 
 take the latter alternative in view of the impossi- 
 bility that a man who wore his mask so well should 
 have made such a blunder here, and because we do 
 not see why Moses and the Israelites in general 
 could not be familiar with a settled phrase like this. 
 The western side was at all times, even from the 
 days of the patriarchs, the real Canaan, the fixed 
 point, determining the usage of all relative terms. 
 Much more could it be so for Moses, who continually 
 in the prophetic spirit transfers himself to the future 
 time, and speaks for the period when Western Canaan 
 would be already conquered and occupied. 
 
 We close with noticing a few positive arguments 
 which make the later origin of Deuteronomy very 
 improbable. 
 
 I. The military law of chap, xx., which commands 
 emphatically the extirpation of the Canaanites, is out 
 of place in the time after Solomon, since he made the 
 remnant of Canaan's heathen inhabitants servants 
 to Israel in a peaceful way. The warning against 
 an idolatrous cultus may not have been superfluous 
 at a later date ; but the military law had become ut- 
 terly unmeaning, and the latter could never have been 
 used as a safeguard against the former. Professor 
 Robertson Smith admits that "this feature points 
 us directly back to the days of Moses." 
 
 \ 
 
198 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 2. The curse upon Amalek (chap. xxv. 17) leads 
 to the same conclusion. According to i Chron. iv. 
 43, the last remnant of the Amalekites was destroyed 
 by the tribe of Simeon positively not later than the 
 reign of Hezekiah, as even Graf and Kayser admit. 
 That the passage is simply repeated from Exod. xvii. 
 14 will not help us. Kayser should have made clear 
 what occasion there was in Josiah's time to make the 
 repetition. 
 
 3. The hostile attitude towards the Ammonites 
 prescribed in xxiii. 3-6 could be explained just as 
 well from the later times. Parallel passages are 
 found in Jeremiah and Zephaniah. But the friendly 
 feelings towards Edom lack all points of contact 
 with the history of the seventh century. The same 
 applies to the mention of Egypt (xxiii. 7). Until the 
 destruction of Jerusalem the proj^hets speak of Edom 
 as the representative of the enemies of God's people. 
 A command, "thou shalt not abhor an Edomite," 
 would be unparalleled in the prophetic literature of 
 Israel. When Kayser tries to show that Judah was 
 occasionally on friendly terms with Edom, his quota- 
 tions do not prove this. Riehm infers from the 
 tendency in Hezekiah's time to seek the alliance of 
 Egypt, that this required a friendly relation to the 
 Edomites, and that accordingly the Deuteronomist 
 would recommend it. But both Kayser and Riehm 
 have overlooked that Deuteronomy is written in a 
 prophetic spirit, and could by no means approve of 
 this tendency to lean upon Egypt, or favor any thing 
 resulting from it, since all the prophets unanimously 
 condemn such associations. It is therefore impos- 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 1 99 
 
 sible that the writer should speak in such terms of 
 Egypt. Josiah himself, whose conduct better ex- 
 presses the theocratic spirit out of which Deuter- 
 onomy must have been written, according to the 
 critics, opposed Egypt, and lost his life in doing 
 so. 
 
 4. Deut. xii. 15 contains a modification of the law 
 (Lev. xvii.), which was practicable only during the 
 desert-journey, when the people lived in the imme- 
 diate vicinity of the tabernacle. Its impracticability 
 at any other time is self-evident. Even the plural- 
 ity of sanctuaries afterwards would not have made it 
 practicable, since they were by no means so numer- 
 ous that all slauG^hterinc: of animals could be done in 
 their neisfhborhood. 
 
 5. Several laws present features that become un- 
 intelligible in the light of later conditions. For 
 instance, xx. 5-8 makes military service almost a 
 matter of free choice. How could this be in the 
 ■warlike period of the later kings } Compare also 
 xxii. 13-21, evidently an old custom, which must have 
 been antiquated long before the seventh century ; 
 also xxvii. 21. 
 
 6. Though Deuteronomy is eminently prophetical 
 in one sense, it is in so far distinguished from the 
 later prophets, as that no re-action appears against 
 ceremonial formalism. This is an unequivocal sign 
 that such a contrast did not yet exist. Positively the 
 ideal character of the law is exhibited, but nowhere 
 is observance of its external prescriptions negatively 
 condemned. The critics, who make such an exten- 
 sive use of this latter feature in their interpretation 
 
200 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 of the prophets, should at least have wondered why 
 it is entirely lacking in Deuteronomy. 
 
 7. Finally, this fact speaks against a later origin, 
 that, so far as would appear from Deuteronomy, the 
 passing of Jordan, the complete conquest of Canaan, 
 and its quiet, undisturbed possession, coincide. This 
 is wholly inconsistent with the theory of historical 
 retrospection. The latter knew that a long period 
 had been necessary to subdue the Canaanites, and 
 that the task was not fully accomplished before 
 Solomon. 
 
LAIVS IN EXODUS-NUMBERS. 20I 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE MOSAIC ORIGIN OF THE LAWS IN 
 EXODUS-NUMBERS. 
 
 IF our belief in the Mosaic origin of the Deiiter- 
 onomic Code rests on valid grounds, we have an 
 a potiori argument for the authenticity of the laws 
 contained in the middle books. Our work is ren- 
 dered more easy and simple, because a great number 
 of traces of later origin discovered by the critics in 
 Deuteronomy are not found here. 
 
 I. We first state the direct testimony of the laws 
 to their own origin, which is of a twofold character : 
 {a) when simply Mosaic origin is claimed ; {b) when 
 it is explicitly stated that Moses committed certain 
 laws to writing. 
 
 {a) A great number of laws are introduced by 
 formulas like the following: "The Lord spake unto 
 Moses." ''And the Lord called unto Moses, and 
 spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congre- / 
 gation." " And he [Moses] said unto Aaron." " And 
 the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron." "And 
 the Lord spake unto Moses in Mount Sinai." These 
 introductory statements cover the whole book of 
 Leviticus, and in Numbers we find the same repeated 
 throughout. All these laws claim for themselves 
 Mosaic origin. 
 
>, 
 
 202 THE PENrATEUCIIAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 {b) The passages in which Moses is said to have 
 committed certain laws to writing are the follow- 
 ing : — 
 
 Exod. xvii. 14: "And the Lord said unto Moses, 
 Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it 
 in the ears of Joshua : for I will utterly put out the 
 remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." The 
 statement falls outside of the Code, and is important 
 for our present purpose only in so far as the book 
 referred to might furnish an indirect testimony to the 
 fact that Moses wrote the history of his lifetime. 
 The Massorah has it, "i^33 {i?i tJie book), with the 
 article. Though the presence or the absence of the 
 article depends on the punctuation, still we may 
 inquire whether the Massorah had no good grounds 
 in putting it here, in spite of its omission in the 
 Greek and Arabic translations (the only ones which 
 could express it). For, as the punctuation without 
 the article would have doubtless been the more na- 
 tural one, its addition must have rested on positive 
 reasons in the nature of the case. Now, we cannot 
 but find it absurd to call a separate note of this char- 
 acter *'a book," or even to preserve it as an isolated 
 sentence in written form. The passages which Bleek 
 adduces, do not prove that a single sentence com- 
 mitted to writing could constitute a book. One of 
 them (Jer. xxxii. 19) does not speak of a book, and 
 the others refer to more comprehensive laws or 
 decrees. The most plausible interpretation is that 
 which the Massorah intimated by adding the article ; 
 viz., that Moses was accustomed to commemorate 
 important events and commands, and that this book, 
 
LAWS IN EXODUS- NUMBERS. 203 
 
 the origin of our present Pentateuch, is referred to 
 by God. 
 
 Exod. xxiv. 4 : *' And Moses wrote all the words 
 of the Lord." The words of the Book of the Cove- 
 nant are meant, which included chap. xx. 22-xxiii. 33. 
 Whether the Decalogue was included is not certain, 
 but improbable for the following reasons : {a) The 
 book was read in the audience of the people (ver. 7) ; 
 this would have been superfluous in case of the 
 Decalogue, which God himself had promulgated with 
 audible voice, {b) It is not stated that Moses wrote 
 the Decalogue : God himself wrote it on tables of 
 stone, if) The parallel Covenant-law in chap, xxxiv., 
 equally committed to writing, did not repeat the 
 Decalogue. 
 
 Num. xxxiii. 2 : Moses wrote the list of stations 
 during the desert -journey (ver. 3-49). 
 
 These passages cover a comparatively small part 
 of the Sinaitic legislation. Critics have rashly in- 
 ferred that we have no positive testimony of its 
 codification by Moses, and have even gone to the 
 length of asserting that the passages just enumer- 
 ated exclude the writing of any other part of the 
 law by Moses. Dr. Kuenen says, " When in the 
 first four books of the Pentateuch, only a few pieces 
 of little length are ascribed to Moses, it becomes 
 probable that all the rest, in the writer's opinion, is 
 non-Mosaic." Delitzsch and Bleek and many others 
 are of the same opinion. 
 
 We believe that this conclusion is as unwarranted 
 as the other extreme, to which some conservative 
 critics have gone, of asserting that we might reason, 
 
204 TFIE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 from the part being written by Moses, that the whole 
 was. The truth is, that these passages prove noth= 
 ing in either direction ; since the special command to 
 write was clearly occasioned by extraordinary circum- 
 stances, and served a special purpose. That Exod. 
 xvii. 14 presupposes a more comprehensive work, we 
 have seen already. The Covenant-law had to be 
 written separately for its symbolic use in the solemn 
 transaction (chap. xxiv.). After the Covenant had 
 been broken, the second law (chap, xxxiv.) was, of 
 course, written separately after the analogy of the 
 first. 
 
 There can be, then, no doubt that the Jehovistic 
 and Elohistic legislation claim for themselves Mosaic 
 origin. We must accept this self-testimony, so long 
 as it has not been disproved by other evidence. Ac- 
 cordingly we might stop here, and, remembering how 
 the unity of the laws in Exodus-Numbers has been 
 established, dismiss the subject. Still, it may be well 
 to survey the contents of the intermediate books 
 wit'h special regard to — 
 
 2. Their indirect internal evidence of Mosaic 
 origin. 
 
 Many of the Levitical laws are so formulated, that 
 they presuppose the sojourn of the people in the 
 desert-camp around the tabernacle ; and many com- 
 mands rest for their practicability entirely on this 
 situation. It is superfluous to point this out in de- 
 tail. Compare Lev. i.-vii., xi.-xvi., xiii., xiv., xvi., 
 xvii. ; Num. i., ii., iv., x. 1-8, xix. 
 
 In the case of other laws, the form is determined 
 by the historical event that occasioned them, so that 
 
LAWS IN EXODUS-NUMBERS. 20$ 
 
 they cannot have existed separate apart from the 
 latter. Exod. xxxv.-xl. is thus connected with chap. 
 xxv.-xxxi. Lev. xvi. attaches itself to chap. x. i. 
 
 Bleek based on these facts the following proposi- 
 tions : — 
 
 1. Even if the Pentateuch in its present form be 
 not composed by Moses, and it be shown that many 
 individual laws are the product of a later time, still 
 the Pentateuchal Code as a whole is, as to its spirit 
 and character, genuine and Mosaic. 
 
 2. The art of writing must have been already 
 known among the Hebrew people in the Mosaic 
 period, and practised to such an extent that compre- 
 hensive law-books were in existence. 
 
 3. We stand in the Pentateuch (as far as the 
 middle books are concerned) throughout on an his- 
 torical basis. 
 
 At first blush, it would seem that these positions 
 were unassailable. The old way of speaking of 
 myths, legends, or at best of traditions, so exten- 
 sively applied to history, proved impracticable here. 
 All the characteristics of myths and legends were 
 wanting ; and, as Wellhausen strikingly remarks, 
 ** For the originality of legends, exactly the opposite 
 criteria decide from those by which actual history is 
 tested. Legends are at the farthest distance from 
 their source, where they appear in connection with 
 an exact chronology." And so the case actually 
 stands. The phenomena admit of only two theories 
 for their explanation ; more and more the extremes 
 draw to themselves the occupants of abandoned 
 intermediate positions ; we have to choose between 
 
206 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 Baal and God, nature-worship and supernatural re- 
 ligion, fraud and history. 
 
 The modern criticism has not shrunk from taking 
 the former of these alternatives. The Priest Code 
 cannot be Mosaic. Still, it bears the impress of 
 Mosaic origin. To reconcile these two facts, only 
 one way is left open : what is not genuine, and still 
 so striking, must have been fabricated with a pur- 
 pose ; the Mosaic dress of the priestly laws is woven 
 for it by the skilful hands of exilic and post-exilic 
 fraud. 
 
 These extreme views seem to have no common 
 ground left on which to meet each other. What we 
 recognize as one of the most striking proofs of 
 Mosaic origin, is immediately construed on the other 
 side as the meanest sort of Judaizing fiction. The 
 material, under the moulding hands of criticism, is 
 like clay in the hands of a potter. There is no man- 
 ner of argumentation which is not instantly, under 
 the influence of these profane principles, turned round 
 in the opposite direction. 
 
 To decide this question critically, no amount of 
 philosophy or religious conviction will suffice. It is 
 only when on both sides the following principles are 
 admitted, that there is some hope of an historical 
 solution of the problem : — 
 
 I. A legal as well as a literary fiction, however in- 
 geniously devised, will always more or less betray the 
 time of its origin. The veil thrown over it will be 
 so transparent in some spots, that the actual situa- 
 tion can be recognized. With regard to Deuter- 
 onomy, the whole critical argument rests on the 
 
LAIVS IN EXODUS-NUMBERS. 20/ 
 
 validity of this principle. We do, therefore, no injus- 
 tice to the critics in applying it here. 
 
 2. The fiction will naturally seize upon such points 
 in the fictitious situation which it portrays, as stand 
 in immediate contact with the present for which it 
 tries to provide. The ideal is not for its own sake, 
 but serves a practical purpose : it must accordingly 
 be chosen so as to have a direct bearing upon the 
 latter. 
 
 Even a superficial observer cannot but discover 
 that the pretended Priest Code does not comply with 
 either of these conditions. Numerous historical 
 allusions, referring even to minute and unimportant 
 points, as we saw, are discovered in Deuteronomy. 
 Historical data are disentangled from their Mosaic 
 environment, and successively assigned to their al- 
 leged true place in the history of later times. Riehm 
 proves by a purely internal process, that Deuteronomy 
 must have been w^ritten after the time of Solomon, 
 Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Manasseh, in the reign of 
 Josiah. Will the critics lay before us a similar series 
 of propositions, that we may gradually and reasona- 
 bly convince ourselves of the post-exilic origin of the 
 Priest Code 1 No semblance of internal evidence is 
 given, neither do the critics claim that any exists. 
 There must certainly be a reason, if the Code origi- 
 nated between Ezekiel's Thora (B.C. 574) and its 
 promulgation by Ezra (B.C. 444), a time of such 
 critical and momentous changes in the history of 
 Israel, — there must, we say, be a reason why it lacks 
 all historical references. Had the art of forgery 
 made such marvellous progress in the mean while, 
 
208 THE PENTATEUCTIAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 that, whilst the Deuteronomist still partially failed, 
 the writers of the Priest Code fully succeeded in 
 hiding themselves behind the shield of Moses ? 
 
 What point of contact do the exilic and post-exilic 
 times offer for Lev. xvii. ? What practical bearing 
 could such a law as that of chap, xvi., concerning the 
 Day of Atonement, have upon a period when the 
 ark no longer existed.? How can we find a positive 
 reason for the forging of such commands .? The 
 cultus of the past was in many cases deficient, and 
 could not furnish a norm. Neither did Ezekiel's 
 Thora bind them. What other principle can have 
 governed the framers of these laws, if not their adap- 
 tability to the future restoration.? How, then, shall 
 we account for the scene of the whole not beins: laid 
 in Canaan, but in the desert, and, moreover, the laws 
 being adapted to a large extent only to the desert- 
 life } It is no answer to say that the fictitious 
 character made such dissimulation necessary. The 
 question is, why was exactly this form of dissimula- 
 tion chosen .? That the Mosaic mask could have been 
 imposed on more attractive and appropriate features, 
 the critical opinion of Deuteronomy shows. Why is 
 not Moses represented as giving a law with special 
 reference to the settled life of the people in Canaan ."* 
 All these questions the newer criticism fails to 
 answer. As it has stripped the Mosaic period of its 
 miraculous character, so it has enshrouded the time 
 of the exile and the subsequent period in an im- 
 penetrable mist. 
 
 We ask whether there are no portions of these 
 laws whose authenticity can be established independ- 
 
LAIVS IN EXODUS-NUMBERS. 209 
 
 ently of this self-testimony, so that we may make 
 them the basis for farther argumentation. If only 
 one case can be indicated where the internal evidence 
 is verified beyond doubt by external considerations, 
 the critical theory of fiction fails. 
 
 Now, there are such cases. The Mosaic institu- 
 tions, as they are represented in the Codes, are full 
 of Egyptian reminiscences. It is true, every resem- 
 blance does not justify us in assuming a historical 
 connection, since certain rites and ceremonies are 
 common to all ancient peoples. But in some cases 
 the similarity may be so striking, and so strongly 
 corroborated by historical testimony, that accident is 
 out of the question. An illustration of this we find 
 in the law concerning leprosy, and its treatment by 
 the priests (Lev. xiii., xiv.). The following facts, as 
 stated by Delitzsch, concur to establish their Mosaic 
 origin almost beyond dispute : {a) The exodus of 
 Israel has been identified by nearly all Egyptolo- 
 gists with the expulsion of the lepers spoken of by 
 Manetho, Chaeremon, Lysimachus, Tacitus, Diodo- 
 rus, and Justinus. {b) The peculiar form in which 
 Egyptian tradition has preserved this memory of 
 the exodus can only be accounted for by the assump- 
 tion that leprosy prevailed more or less among the 
 Israelites. Over-population, the result of their rapid 
 increase in Goshen, may have been the natural cause 
 of this impurity. This is confirmed by Scripture 
 testimony of Jehovistic character (Exod. iv. 6; Num. 
 xii. 10, 15). if) On account of this plague, the Egyp- 
 tians would necessarily consider the Jews as the 
 importers of leprosy, and, as they carried their sys- 
 
210 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 tematic purifications to an extreme for themselves, 
 would exert an influence in the same direction upon 
 the Israelites, {d) This sanitary, and more specially 
 prophylactic, treatment of the disease was among the 
 Egyptians assigned to the priests, and must have 
 been pursued in accordance with certain fixed rules, 
 as was the case with their medical practice in general. 
 (yC) It admits of no doubt, that the Israelites would 
 follow in their treatment of the plague Egyptian 
 usage. (/) Actually we find in their laws a care- 
 fully prescribed method of dealing with it ; diagnos- 
 tic criteria are given ; it appears also as the special 
 task of the priests, to discern the various phases of 
 the disease, and declare the persons clean or unclean 
 after a careful inspection. All these traits com- 
 bined, amount almost to a logical demonstration of 
 the Egyptian, and consequently Mosaic, origin of the 
 law of leprosy. 
 
 That there was such a law prior to the. Deuter- 
 onomic Code, the passage xxiv. 8 shows. When the 
 critics resort to the arbitrary assumption, that some 
 other law may just as well have been referred to by 
 the Deuteronomist, we have reached the sphere of 
 the unknowable, where it is not safe to carry on the 
 discussion. 
 
 This case of a clearly established Mosaic law 
 within the limits of the Priest Code has significance 
 in more than one respect, i. As in the regulations, 
 mention is made of the tabernacle of the congrega- 
 tion and of the camp (xiii. 46, xiv. 11), we infer 
 that such local specifications, when occurring else- 
 where, are justly considered as internal marks of 
 
LAWS IN EXODUS-NUMBERS. 2 1 1 
 
 Mosaic origin, and that, in the main, the local col- 
 oring of these laws is not fictitious, but reliable. 
 2. The fact that the tabernacle appears here as a 
 place of sacrifice in ver. ii, and not merely as a tent 
 for consulting God, which, according to the critics, 
 is its Jehovistic conception, proves that in the laws 
 of the tabernacle and of the Aaronic priesthood we 
 stand on historic ground. 3. The mention of the 
 sin- and trespass-offering in chap. xiv. is a proof that 
 these two species of sacrifice were pre-exilic, and 
 indeed Mosaic, in their origin, and not, as the critics 
 assert, post-Ezekielian. 
 
 If any thing in this collection of laws is Mosaic, 
 it will be the Decalcgue. Belonging to what the 
 critics themselves consider the oldest Code, and, 
 according to the oldest history, being written on 
 tables of stone by the finger of God, its simple 
 form, early appearance, and indubitable presence in 
 the ark in later time, all combine to render the 
 highest antiquity plausible. To this may be added 
 the remarkable fact, that the Decalogue of Exodus, 
 though slightly differing in form from the Deuterono- 
 mic one, is nevertheless essentially Deuteronomic 
 in language and expression. At the same time, it 
 shows the usual characteristics of the Jehovist. What 
 the critics adduce against its Mosaic origin, cannot 
 outweigh these strong presumptions in favor of it. 
 The alterations in the Deuteronomic text can only 
 awake surprise when we assign as late a date to the 
 composition of the book as the critics do. Moses' 
 reproduction might be a free one, as his whole Deu- 
 terosis of the law evidently is. That the Deuter- 
 
212 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 onomic Decalogue puts the Sabbath-law on another 
 basis is inaccurate. The truth is, that the real foun- 
 dation of the command is not restated, but a practical 
 incentive substituted, — the reminder that the people 
 had been servants in Egypt ; and this reference to 
 Egypt pervades the whole Code. Another objection 
 of Reuss, Wellhausen, etc., is, that the prohibition 
 to worship God under an image cannot reach up to 
 the time of Moses, and that the cultus instituted by 
 Jeroboam after the schism proves its non-existence at 
 that date. But the assertion that Jeroboam's cultus 
 was not essentially new or exotic, but was customary 
 long before in Canaan (R. Smith), cannot be proved. 
 Neither did the earlier prophets tolerate the calf- 
 worship, except as a lesser evil an contrast with the 
 service of Baal and Astarte. The calf made in the 
 wilderness by Aaron reminds us of Egypt : likewise 
 Jeroboam's cultus jorobably proceeded from Egypt, 
 where he had enjoyed the hospitality of the king. 
 This transgression of a well-known command is not 
 without parallel in history : certainly the Romish 
 Church, in adoring Mary, the angels, and saints, 
 shows no ignorance of the Decalogue. Just as well 
 may Jeroboam have quieted his not too tender con- 
 science by some forced interpretation of the law. 
 The newer critics, who are inclined to leave to Moses 
 as little as possible, generally make an exception 
 in this case. Smend admits the Mosaic origin of 
 the Decalogue unconditionally. Others with some 
 restrictions. Graf conceded Mosaic origin in some 
 original form, different from the one we possess now, 
 
LAWS IN EXODUS-NUMBERS. 213 
 
 and holds that the ten words were at first transmitted 
 orally. Noldeke is unwilling to grant even as little 
 or as much as that ; and Reuss, with Wellhausen, 
 goes to the length of denying that Moses had any 
 thing whatever to do with the Decalog-ue. 
 
214 THE PENTATEL/CHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE HISTORICAL BOOKS, -JUDGES, FIRST AND 
 SECOND SAMUEL, FIRST AND SECOND KINGS. 
 
 THE radical difference between our conception of 
 the Old Testament and that of the critics is such 
 that it makes historical argumentation extremely dif- 
 ficult. Of course, all depends on our estimate of the 
 sources ; and here the disagreement begins already. 
 Joshua is so dependent on the Pentateuch, that its 
 testimony is a piiori declared invalid. Judges has 
 undergone various redactions, in which the historical 
 truth was moulded for religious instruction (Reuss, 
 Gesch., p. 337). First, it consisted of a number of 
 independent legends, lacking all unity except that 
 of a common national spirit. They were collected into 
 a body, and the religious tendency of the redactor 
 furnished the thread of their connection. History 
 was made revelation, says Reuss. ''Judges is a pro- 
 phetical sermon." To the author's generation, the 
 old, heroic times had become quite unintelligible ; so 
 that it devolves upon an omniscient criticism to cor- 
 rect in a pedantic schoolmasterly way the wrong 
 conceptions entertained by the Israelites concerning 
 their own history. The case stands no better with 
 the books of Samuel and Kings (compare Reuss, 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 21 5 
 
 §§ 245, seqq., 340, scqq). And how the newer criti- 
 cism has dealt with Chronicles, is too well known to 
 need special mention here. 
 
 From all this, it appears that to assail the critics on 
 historical grounds is lost labor. They have their con- 
 ception of the Old Testament, and we have ours. 
 When, in Judges, certain deviations from the Mosaic 
 law appear, often with the express disapproval of the 
 author, all statements of the latter character are 
 attributed to the redactor, who sees the facts in his 
 own subjective light, so that the disapproval is not 
 God's, but his. According to our view, the historical 
 books were written with the very purpose of making 
 past history a mirror and warning for the future 
 Israel. According to the critics, all tendency to- 
 wards instruction is of later date. In other words, 
 we claim that the self-conscious, revealing God was 
 in history from the beginning, and caused history to 
 be written as such : the critics refuse to recognize 
 any history as genuine except as it presents itself 
 under the fascinating disguise of a legend or myth. 
 All deeper conception of history is excluded. This 
 amounts, of course, to a denial of the supernatural 
 element in its course. But the fact remains, that it 
 is a hopeless task to convince our opponents by 
 adducing phenomena, because they will construe 
 them according to their own theory, as we do accord- 
 ing to ours. The illusion that theories are founded 
 on facts, has to be given up : neither should it be so, 
 for without more or less of preconceived hypothesis, 
 the facts alone remain dark and indifferent. 
 
 P'or this reason, we think it useless to prove posi- 
 
2l6 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 tively from the historical books, that, in the time of 
 which they treat, the Pentateuchal Codes, or, even as 
 Hengstenberg and others have attempted to demon- 
 strate, the Pentateuch itself, existed. The direct 
 testimonies collected from such passages as 2 Sam. 
 xxii. 23 ; I Kings ii. 3, vi. 12, viii. 53, are not of such 
 a character, or so numerous, but the critics can help 
 themselves with the assumption of a few interpola- 
 tions. References to civil or ceremonial usages of 
 similar character to those described in the Codes do 
 not prove that the latter existed ; for all the critics 
 admit, e.g., that the ritual was pre-exilic in substance, 
 though not codified before the exile. Only manifest 
 verbal quotations would help ; but these, again, are 
 not numerous enough to warrant general and decisive 
 conclusions : and very seldom is the relation of two 
 passages such that it permits only one view concern- 
 ing their interdependence. We do not mean to say 
 that the traces of the existence of a ritual, as they 
 appear in the historical books, have no right to speak 
 in this matter, but simply that they are no decisive 
 proofs of the existence of the Pentateuchal Codes. 
 Their value consists in the evidence they afford, that 
 the ritualistic spirit was by no means exclusively the 
 fruit and exponent of post-exilic Judaism, but one of 
 the features of Jewish national life from the begin- 
 ning. Israel was the people of the law long before 
 the pretended origin of the Priest Code. And, in 
 so far as the historical books bear testimony to this 
 fact, they furnish abundant material for the con- 
 struction of a solid argument against the newest 
 phase of criticism. It should also be remembered, 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 21/ 
 
 that the difference between ritualistic usage and rit- 
 ual law is not so great as it is often represented by 
 the critics. Every one who admits that a ritual 
 existed corresponding to the tccJuiiqiic of the Priest 
 Code, has thereby taken our side with regard to 
 the main question ; and we will not dispute with him 
 on the subordinate point, whether this usage was 
 written or unwritten law. Usage, when once fixed, 
 necessarily becomes law. 
 
 In the main, our attitude on this point must be 
 apologetic. In making this concession, we can justly 
 claim that the critics shall not construe the silence 
 of history concerning any law as a proof of its non- 
 existence. We do not infer from the mention of 
 some usage, that it was regulated by law. Neither 
 should our opponents infer from the absence of such 
 mention, that no law could have existed. For the 
 rest, we simply try to show that the facts, which are 
 admitted as historical on both sides, do not exclude 
 the existence of the Pentateuchal Codes. 
 
 We begin with the period of Judges. That the 
 people sacrificed at Bochim (ii. 5), Gideon at Ophrah 
 (vi. 21), Manoah at Zorah (xiii. 19), can by no means 
 have involved a transgression of the law ; for in all 
 these instances, there was an appearance of the 
 "' "^^^ {angel of Jehovah) ; and the provisionary 
 regulation given at Sinai, before the promulgation 
 of the Levitical law, went into effect once more. 
 That this is the true explanation, is specially seen 
 from one fact generally overlooked ; viz., that no 
 theopJiany took place without a sacrifice, which shows 
 how closely the ideas of a revelation made by God, 
 
2l8 THE FENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 and of a sacrifice made by man, were connected in 
 the Israelitish mind : so that we are not only war- 
 ranted in thus harmonizing law and history, but posi- 
 tively claim that the right to sacrifice at an arbitrary 
 place, as the critics postulate it, was utterly incon- 
 sistent with the most primitive elements of the 
 Hebrew religious consciousness. 
 
 For Gideon's sacrifice (vi. 26), the peculiar circum- 
 stances and the symbolical significance are enough 
 to make it an exceptional case. In the place where 
 the idol had been served, Jehovah reclaimed what 
 was his own. This nocturnal, private olaJi, on a spot 
 whose vicinity had been shortly before sanctified by 
 a theophany (ver. 11, seqq.), decides, of course, noth- 
 ing as to the common j^ractice. 
 
 In other passages, no mention of sacrifices is made. 
 Gideon's altar was strictly memorial, as appears from 
 the fact that (a) he gives it a name : altars erected 
 for practical use had no names, (b) Until this day it 
 is yet in Ophrah ; i.e., as a memorial or ancient relic. 
 (c) Gideon is commanded in ver. 26 to build a second 
 altar, this time for a practical purpose. That in chap. 
 xi. II, Jephthah is said to have uttered all his words 
 before the Lord at Mizpeh, can be used on the criti- 
 cal side only by a double allegation : (^7) that the 
 swearing of an oath was necessarily connected with 
 sacrifices, of which the preceding verse is already 
 a flat contradiction ; {b) that "' 'JsS must refer to a 
 sanctuary. It simply means, ''as in the presence of 
 Jehovah," a circumlocution for "taking Jehovah as 
 witness," "testifying with invocation of his name;" 
 i.e., " solemn swearing." Chap. xx. i must and can be 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 2 19 
 
 explained on the same principle. Neither does the 
 narrative of chaps, xx., xxi., afford any serious dif- 
 ficulty ; for in xx. 27 it is explicitly stated that the 
 ark was in the vicinity with Phinehas the priest, 
 howsoever we may understand ^J^ n'3 (Bethel, or 
 house of God) in ver. 26 and in chap. xxi. 2. 
 
 In other cases, where there is an actual transgres- 
 sion of the law, as that of Micah and the Danites, the 
 censure of the writer is not only expressed in the 
 whole tenor of the narrative, but also explicitly stated. 
 
 The objection that others than pr^'csts officiated in 
 sacrificial transactions, has still less force. Gideon 
 and Manoah offered, because Jehovah, in approaching 
 them visibly, sanctioned an immediate exercise of 
 that priestly right, which, belonging to all Israel, was 
 only representatively vested in the Levitical priests. 
 Wherever the Lord appears, there is his altar. To 
 whomsoever he draws near, he gives the right to 
 come near, which is the essence of the priesthood. 
 
 It is alleged that we do not get the impression 
 from the first chapters of Samuel, that the elaborate 
 Levitical law was in operation. This is certainly 
 true ; but very little dependence can be placed on 
 such an impression, which it certainly could not be 
 the intention of the writer to convey. Who will be' 
 rash enough to infer, because Eli's sons are the only 
 priests mentioned, that there were no others 1 From 
 I Sam. xxi. we get the impression that there was 
 only a single priest, Ahimelech, at Nob. But chap, 
 xxii. takes away the impression by stating that not less 
 than fourscore and five priests were slain by Doeg. 
 
 It was an old objection, already made by Gramberg, 
 
220 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 and now revived by Wellhausen and the newer 
 school, that, in the oldest sacrificial /7'^,rz>, the meat 
 was boiled, i Sam. ii. 15-17 is quoted as an exam- 
 ple. But the most superficial inspection of the pas- 
 sage shows that there is no allusion to the offering 
 of cooked flesh at all. Ver. 15 says, "Before they 
 burnt the fat : " we have to do here with shelamiui. 
 The sin of the priests consisted in desiring their 
 part before Jehovah. For the rest, the whole passage 
 implies that the customs then in vogue at the sanc- 
 tuary cannot be taken as exponents of the existing 
 laws. 
 
 The circumstances of Samuel's time — first the 
 captivity of the ark, afterwards its separation from 
 the sanctuary, the general apostasy of the people — 
 account for all the facts that confront us here. It 
 has been asked, If unity of worship was the divine 
 command, why was not the ark, after its return, re- 
 stored to the sanctuary, and the centralization of 
 sacrifices enforced } The answer is obvious. Then, 
 as at all times, mighty reforms require a period of 
 long inward preparation. To effect the latter was 
 Samuel's mission, and to keep this in mind affords 
 the only key to a right understanding of his whole 
 life. This meets the critical objection, that, if Israel 
 were deprived of a national sanctuary, all worship, 
 at least sacrificial worship, ought to have ceased. 
 Between Eli and David's time, this slow process of 
 inward preparation went on ; the spirit of reform was 
 striving with the spirit of apostasy ; all intermediate 
 phenomena testify to an abn6rmal state. So at least 
 the Old Testament itself considers it (Jer. vii. 12, 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE IHSTORICAL BOOKS. 221 
 
 14, xxvi. 6; Ps. Ixxviii. 60, 6%). The transition was 
 from Shiloh to Zion. What happened at both was 
 legal, and does bear witness to the law : what falls 
 between them was in part abnormal, in part illicit, 
 and should not be made to testify against the law. 
 Still, even here matters do not stand out in so bad a 
 light as critics represent them. When Saul under- 
 takes to sacrifice, without waiting for Samuel's pres- 
 ence, he is severely rebuked ; and this act becomes 
 the turning-point in his life. This certainly does not 
 look like a state of affairs in which everybody could 
 sacrifice. When the author of the books of Samuel 
 mentions with manifest approval, that Saul built an 
 altar, this must be understood in the entire light of 
 Saul's character : it expressed a sort of piety, though 
 in a deficient form. What David did on the thresli- 
 ing-floor of Araunah was justified by the appearance 
 of the angel, and the authority of a prophet of God, 
 and was in anticipation of the erection of the sanctu- 
 ary on that very spot. The repeated sacrifices on 
 the high-place of Gibeon are accounted for by the 
 presence of the tabernacle and olah altar (i Chron. 
 xvi. 39, 40). That David was accustomed to worship 
 God on the top of the mount in the neighborhood of 
 Jerusalem, does not imply that he sacrificed there. 
 His ephod was not the high-priestly garment, but 
 simply an ephod bad ; that is, a linen ephod. The 
 modification made by David in the age fixed for the 
 Levites' entering upon the service at the sanctuary, 
 is best explained by the change in the abode of the 
 ark, which had now become a permanent one, so that 
 the work of the Levites became easier, and the time 
 
222 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 of their service could be proportionally prolonged. 
 Those who defend the post-exilic origin of the Priest 
 Code may try their skill in harmonizing the passages 
 2 Chron. xxxi. 17, and Ezra iii. 8, which prove that 
 not only in Hezekiah's time, but also in that of 
 Zerubbabel, the limit was twenty years. Notwith- 
 standing the prominent part taken by Solomon in the 
 consecration of the temple, nothing is ascribed to 
 him which would have been an intrusion upon the 
 rights of the priesthood. For the true character of 
 this whole period from a religious point of view, 
 compare i Kings iii. 2. 
 
 For the period succeeding the schism, the exist- 
 ence of a divinely authenticated law becomes a 
 postulate without which the history is wholly unin- 
 telligible. This only could prevent the Northern 
 kingdom from becoming fully apostate, and relapsing 
 into complete heathenism. There was a restraining 
 power, even in the worst days of the dynasty of 
 Omri : there was what Elijah called a ''halting be- 
 tween two opinions." It is, indeed, possible to find 
 in all this nothing but the influence of long existing 
 usage, owing its origin to the centralization in the 
 days of David and Solomon. But, on the one hand, 
 the period in which this iisus should have gained 
 ascendency is far too short to account for the un- 
 wavering attachment which the pious in Israel re- 
 tained to the sanctuary at Jerusalem : on the other 
 hand, the re-action in the Northern kingdom opposed 
 the modified cultus so long and so firmly, that it 
 must have had a deeper source than the custom of a 
 few decades ; the only satisfactory explanation is, that 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 223 
 
 it rooted in the divine Thora, and preserved a clear 
 consciousness of this origin to tlie very last. 
 
 The objection was raised already by Eichhorn and 
 Vatke, and afterwards has often been repeated, that 
 the prophets of the Northern kingdom (Elijah and 
 Elisha) did not oppose the idolatry of the golden 
 calves, but simply Baal-worship. But obviously their 
 opposition was determined by the sins that were 
 most objectionable at the time; and, when Baal-wor- 
 sliip had found such general acceptance, the idolatry 
 of the golden calves became a comparatively unim- 
 portant affair. How the prophets who were not in- 
 fluenced by this excess of wickedness, judged of the 
 plurality of altars and the worship of the calves, is 
 seen in Amos, Hosea, and the Micaiah of i Kings 
 xxii. The passage, i Kings xix. 14, must, of course, 
 be explained on the same principle. It is not neces- 
 sary to think of the altars referred to as connected 
 with those at Dan and Bethel. And, though their 
 existence was not in strict accordance with the letter 
 of the law, it had become a temporary necessity. 
 The attitude of the prophets in Israel towards the 
 existing national cultus is manifest in the fact of 
 their forming schools at the famous seats of idolatry, 
 Bethel, (Jericho,) Gilgal, in standing protest against it. 
 
 Before we turn to the prophetical books them- 
 selves, one point calls for a fuller discussion. ' The 
 origin and character of the Bamoth-worship (that on 
 high-places) in the kingdom of Judah are of para- 
 mount importance for the question of the existence 
 or non-existence of the Codes. It has a bearing on 
 the whole debate concerning the primitive religious 
 
224 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 state of Israel. The critics claim, that, before the 
 temple at Jerusalem existed, all places of worship 
 were equally honored and sacred. In the time of 
 Solomon, not so much a centralization as an eleva- 
 tion took place of the newly built temple to be the 
 sanctuary par excellence. But the Bamoth (high- 
 places) existed all along, and their right of existence 
 was not disputed. The war afterwards waged against 
 them was the result of a higher stage of religious life 
 among the prophets, — that great movement which 
 resulted in the production and enforcement of the 
 Deuteronomic Code. The prophets Amos, Hosea, 
 Isaiah, do not yet condemn the Bamoth per se, but 
 simply their corrupting influence tending towards 
 idolatry. It was not an abnormal cultus, but a primi- 
 tive state of affairs : in one continuous line it can 
 be traced back, from the eighth century upwards, 
 through the reigns of Solomon, David, Saul, into 
 the period of the Judges. 
 
 We must begin with denying the last proposition, 
 which is indeed the basis of the whole arirument. 
 The statement needs considerable qualification be- 
 fore it will satisfy the facts. These are, that, when 
 there was no legal central sanctuary, the Bamoth- 
 worship was temporarily tolerated, in order that the 
 spontaneous impulse of the pious might find opportu- 
 nity to express itself. This was the state of affairs 
 from Samuel onward, until the building of Solomon's 
 temple. It was, however, condemned, and considered 
 illegal, as long and as often as the presence of God 
 in his dwelling-place constituted this the only place 
 of worship, as during the period of Judges at Shiloh, 
 
and after Solomon's time at Jerusalem. The chain 
 which the critics have fabricated lacks two necessary 
 links : i. Judges contains no evidence that the wor- 
 ship on high-i^laces was allowed or practised by the 
 pious. 2. The same evidence is wanting for the time 
 subsequent to the building of the temple in Solomon's 
 reign, till the first only partially successful attempt of 
 Hezekiah to do away with the Bamoth. 
 
 The second ground on which this theory rests, is 
 that the earlier prophets do not condemn the wor- 
 ship as s'mhil /ycr sc, but only on account of its cor- 
 rupting tendency. If there are passages in Amos 
 and Hosea which would bear out this meaning, 
 the natural inference is, that they accommodated 
 their teaching to the difficult situation in which the 
 northern people had been placed by the tyranny of 
 their rulers. On the whole, it is very artificial to 
 ascribe such a distinction between *'/rr se" and 
 "per accidcns " to the prophets. Even the law did 
 not prohibit plurality of sanctuaries because of any 
 inherent necessity in the character of Jahveism, but 
 for the practical purpose of securing by unity purity, 
 by centralization elevation of the cultus. When the 
 prophets, in accordance with their general method, 
 do not state the law in abstracto, but in its inner 
 meaning ; when they emphasize more the final cause 
 of the command than the command itself, — this ex- 
 hibits only the more strikingly their true relation to 
 the law as its spiritual interpreters. They immedi- 
 ately go to the root of the matter, and state not 
 only the "what," but the " why " also. This is all 
 that the critical distinction amounts to. 
 
/ 
 
 2Z6 THE PENTATEUCIIAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 The critics themselves must admit that the writer 
 of Kings represents all Bamoth-worship since the 
 building of the temple as unlawful, and imputes it 
 even to the pious kings of Judah as sin, that they did 
 not terminate it. That the latter did not take their 
 stand as strongly against this cultus as afterwards 
 Hezekiah and Josiah, finds its full explanation in what 
 has been remarked. Bamoth-worship, tolerated from 
 Samuel till Solomon, had become a second nature 
 to the people. The consciousness of its abnormal 
 character had been lost. It may have been revived 
 in the pious kings more or less : the people as a 
 whole were not awake to it. The objection, that if 
 such ignorance prevailed, the prophets could not 
 have reckoned neglect of the law as sin, finds its 
 answer in Hos. iv. 6. " My people are destroyed 
 for lack of knowledge : because thou hast rejected 
 knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be 
 no priest to me : seeing thou hast forgotten the law 
 of thy God." It is as if the passage were written 
 in direct refutation of the critics. To produce a re- 
 form among the people, a renewed enforcement by 
 a special divine providence of the prophetical Deu- 
 teronomic Code was required, to which point we shall 
 hereafter direct our attention. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY PROPHETS. 22/ 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY PROPHETS. 
 
 IT will not be necessary for our purpose, to in- 
 vestigate all the amount of evidence that might 
 be collected from the prophetical writings of the 
 Old Testament. We are chiefly concerned with the 
 books of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah. Of Joel 
 we cannot make any use, since a number of critics 
 remand his prophecy to the post-exilic period. Jere- 
 miah and Ezekiel wrote after the pretended origin of 
 the Deuteronomic Code. Deutero-Isaiah is declared 
 to be exilic. 
 
 The testimony of the earlier prophets has a double 
 weight, since they speak as contemporary witnesses. 
 When the author of the Book of Kings makes men- 
 tion of the Mosaic laws, the critics are ready to call 
 it one of his anachronisms. This is precluded here. 
 We have no reason to fear that we shall find our- 
 selves hunting our own shadow. 
 
 We have first the passages in which a direct refer- 
 ence to the 'P^Sp:'.^ T\-\'\T\ {laiv of JcJiovah) is found. 
 They are in succession the following : Amos 
 Hos. iv. 6., viii. i, 12 ; Isa. i. 10, ii. 3, v. 24, viii. 
 20, xxiv. 5, XXX. 9 ; Mic. iv. 2. 
 
 The value of this testimony seems to be somewhat 
 
 ii. 4; / 
 h. 16, / 
 
228 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 lessened by the consideration that the phrase "' ri").in, 
 or n~)in, absolutely may designate something else 
 than the Mosaic law. On the one hand, the ety- 
 mology (from nv jacerc, cjicere, vuuium cxtcndere, and 
 then instrnerc, docerc), on the other hand, the exegesis 
 of some passages, as Isa. viii. i6, xxx. 9; Mic. iv. 2, 
 which require the more general sense, go to prove 
 that the phrase may denote all iiistiitction of God, 
 whether given in his law, or by the prophets. Com- 
 pare the instances where n")ln is parallel with ^y^^ 
 {zvord). The Mosaic law doubtless was Thora from 
 the beginning ; but that it was Thora in the later 
 specific, traditional sense cannot be proved. All 
 that can be said, is that it was probably the Thora of 
 \ J e h o vah /(!7 r cxcellen ce. 
 
 We may concede all this without depriving our- 
 selves of the ability to show that the prophets refer 
 and appeal to Mosaic laws. For after the subtraction 
 of all the passages where the general meaning is 
 admissible, we keep a residumn where no other 
 sense than that of ''written laiv'' will satisfy the 
 context. 
 
 There are cases where Thora designates God's in- 
 structions in days gone by. To this class belong, — 
 
 Isa. xxiv. 5: "They have transgressed the laws, 
 changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting Cove- 
 nant." Thora is here parallel with the "everlasting 
 Covenant," and with "ordinance," the former of 
 which would certainly not apply to " prophetical 
 teachins:." 
 
 Amos ii. 4 : " Because they have despised the law 
 of the Lord, and have not kept his commandments, 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY PROPHETS. 229 
 
 and their lies caused them to err, after the which 
 their fathers have walked." 
 
 Hos. iv. 6. Here a priestly law had not only 
 been disobeyed, but forgotten, which implies its ex- 
 istence for considerable time. Its knowledge and 
 interpretation are represented as a priestly inherit- 
 ance. 
 
 Hos. viii. I : " Because they have transgressed my 
 Covenant, and trespassed against my law." Here 
 "law" and ''Covenant" are synonymous, as in Isa. 
 xxiv. 5. 
 
 But the critics will say, How can we know, when 
 Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah refer to a Thora, different 
 from their own words, that this must be the Thora 
 of Moses } Why can it not refer to the teaching of 
 the older prophets, who had preceded those of the 
 ninth and eighth century.? We might just as well 
 retort the answer, Why can it not refer to Moses, 
 for he certainly was a prophet } Still, this is not 
 enough. Our claim is, that Moses occupies a unique 
 position. He is the -^xo-^YvoX par excellence, the legis- 
 lator to whose work the later prophets appealed, in 
 whose institutions they lived and moved and had 
 their being. We must show, that, in the passages 
 referred to, nothing but the Mosaic law can reason- 
 ably be meant. This follows from several considera- 
 tions : — 
 
 I. In two of them the law is used parallel with 
 ''Covenant," meaning the conditions which the 
 Covenant imposes. This conception must date back 
 to a definite, historical event, which is, according to 
 the whole Old Testament, the Sinaitic legislation. 
 
230 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 Hence the Thora which stands parallel to the Cove- 
 nant must be the Sinaitic Thora. 
 
 2. The prophetic word was a fleeting one, which 
 had as yet no permanence and stability. It was 
 God's intention, that it should be preserved for future 
 generations ; but till a relatively late period, it served 
 only the needs of the present. It is therefore im- 
 probable that Amos, Hosea, and IsaiaK should have 
 referred their contemporaries to the words of earlier 
 prophets, who had long ceased to speak, and of the 
 preservation of whose commands there is no evi- 
 dence. The prophecies in their time were "testi- 
 mony" in the strictest sense. They came and went, 
 but constituted no codified law, 
 
 3. To fall back upon earlier prophets transfers, but 
 does not relieve, the difficulty. So far as we know, 
 the mission of all prophets was to enforce and vindi- 
 cate the law. They never pretend to introduce a 
 new religion, never require of the people that it shall 
 commit itself to unreasonable authority. All their 
 appeals are addressed to the conscience, the moral or 
 national consciousness of Israel, both of which pre- 
 suppose the law as their root and norm. Even Smend 
 says, " Antiquitus tradita atque accepta esse oporte- 
 bat, ad quae prophetae provocare poterant." Now, 
 it will certainly do to say that the younger prophets 
 appealed to the older ones, the later to the earlier. 
 But to what did the older and the earlier appeal } 
 Did they stand on their own authority } Did tluy 
 prescribe law, instead of upholding it 1 To this 
 assertion the critics must resort, but it is out of all 
 analogy. Wc touch here again the weak spot in the 
 
2^1 
 
 reconstructive scheme. Prophetism, at least incipi- 
 ent prophetism, hangs in the air. It had no seed to 
 spring from, no soil to root in : its origin and growth 
 are involved in a profound mystery. The early 
 prophets, we claim, must have stood on the platform 
 constructed by Moses. 
 
 Next comes the passage Hos. viii. 12, which de- 
 serves to occupy a place by itself, — 
 
 Oii/n^ '^P^? 'j?1ij"> '12"^ '1^ ^^^??^- 
 
 We follow the reading of the Kethib, and translate 
 131 "ten thousand." 
 
 Our first remark is, that 'r\^)r\ m can by no means 
 refer to prophetic teaching. It does not matter 
 whether we take i3"i in apposition, or as the nonicji 
 rcgens of 'n"nn : in either case, the reference must be 
 to law proper. The prophetic Thora constituted one 
 whole : it appears as synonymous with "' "i^"!, a mere 
 abstraction. Accordingly, neither translation — "My 
 Thora, ten thousand," or "Ten thousand of my 
 Thora" — will apply to it. Also the word 3inDX pre- 
 cludes all other meanings than that of written law. 
 The prophets, as remarked above, did not teach their 
 contemporaries by writing, but by the living word. 
 
 We may infer that the idea of a written law was 
 very familiar in Hosea's time. Whether this verse 
 contains a definite allusion to law actually written, 
 will depend partly on the context, partly on the con- 
 struction of :3inDX. 
 
 Keil takes the latter as an historical present, from 
 which the meaninc; would result, " I have written 
 
232 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 ten thousand precepts of my law [in the time of 
 Moses], which still exist." But there is no evidence 
 that the Hebrew future ever has such a sense. It is 
 not equivalent to the Greek perfect, but to the Latin 
 imperfect, and denotes repeated action ; so that the 
 meaning would be, that God by Moses, and afterwards 
 by the prophets, had repeatedly prescribed law to 
 Israel. 
 
 This is, indeed, Ewald's interpretation. There is 
 no evidence, however, of such a legal literature as 
 Ewald imagines to have existed. 
 
 We may explain the future with Hitzig as purely 
 hypothetical : "Though I had written ten thousand," 
 etc. But how could the multitude of commandm.ents 
 increase the guilt of disobedience } We would ex- 
 pect that in this case, the prophet had taken as 
 small a number as possible to express this idea. 
 
 Smend does i:^ot understand the i:^"* of numerous 
 commands, but rather in a qualitative sense, com- 
 mands minutely stated. This certainly yields a 
 meaning appropriate to the context, but is less suit- 
 able to the hypothetical interpretation. 
 
 Two more views are possible. Either we may 
 take the future as a pracscns Jiistoricnvi, not in 
 Keil's sense of the Greek perfect, but in the sense 
 of a simple Hebrew perfect, for which, in the alac- 
 rity of discourse, it is often substituted (Gesenius, 
 § 127, 4 c), or we can understand the future to intro- 
 duce a conditional clause, — ''Even when I write to 
 him ten thousand of my law, they are counted as 
 nothing." 
 
 Wc must choose between the last two construe- 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY PROPHETS. 233 
 
 tions, either of which presupposes the existence of a 
 written divine law in the days of Hosea. 
 
 The context furnishes no sufficient data to deter- 
 mine wliat the contents of this law were. Only ver. 
 II might give us a glimpse. ''Because Ephraim has 
 made many altars to sin, his altars shall be unto him 
 to sin." Ewald considers the two members of the 
 verse as expressing the same thought, which would 
 be nothing more than a truism. The sin which the 
 Israelites had committed consciously in erecting the 
 many altars, cannot be the sin to which God's right- 
 eous judgment gave them up. It must have been a 
 new phase of evil consequent upon the former. The 
 most natural explanation is, that because Israel 
 sinned in transgressing the command, which required 
 unity of worship, the many altars would be produc- 
 tive of the further sin of apostasy and idolatry. One 
 sin was punished by a process, a sliding scale of 
 sin. With this interpretation and the immediately 
 following statement of ver. 12, "that God's com- 
 mands were counted for nothing," we can hardly fail 
 to recognize in it an allusion to the Deuteronomic 
 Code, whose principal aim was to enforce unity of 
 the sanctuary. 
 
 Smend, in his "Moses apud Prophetas," admits all 
 this in principle, and still refuses to see in it a proof 
 of the existence of the Pentateuchal Codes. He 
 says (p. 13), " Itaque Hoseae verba octavo saeculo, 
 apud Ephraimitas muitas leges scriptas fuisse com- 
 probant . . . quamvis a magna populi parte negliger- 
 entur . . . ut adeo divini juris videantur, acsi ab 
 ipso Jchova scriptae essent." Page 19, "Certe plu- 
 
234 ^-^^ PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 rimas illas leges quariim Hosea mentionem facit, ad 
 Mosem inventorem relatas esse putandum est." His 
 argument for this is quite conclusive. All laws, ac- 
 cording to the prophets, have their foundation in the 
 Covenant between God and the people. But the 
 Covenant was Sinaitic : " Re vera semel in Monte 
 Sinai per Mosem junctum esse, traditione certissima 
 atque unanimi antiquitas constabat. Ni [Moses] fuis- 
 set, prophetarum munus ne cogitari quidem potuis- 
 set." 
 
 These remarkable confessions give all that can be 
 reasonably demanded. There were many written 
 laws, which the prophet and his contemporaries 
 ascribed to Moses. They were universally neg- 
 lected. Though their contents cannot be accurately 
 determined, nothing contradictory to the Pentateu- 
 chal Codes is ever approved of. The Sinaitic legis- 
 lation was considered as an historical fact. And, 
 after having granted all this, the critic stands up in 
 his own authority, and declares, '* At libros illos, si 
 quidem multi erant non ex antiquissimis temporibus 
 Mosis originem traxisse jure concludas ! " We ask 
 with what right } Does critical scepticism go so far 
 as to deny the credibility of the prophets' testimony 
 for the time that lay behind them 1 When Hosea 
 says that God gave the law at Sinai through Moses, 
 shall the critics say. It cannot have been, laws must 
 have gradually appeared .'' Or, do they desire that 
 Hosea and Amos shall tell us in so many words, 
 *' The laws which we refer to are no other than the 
 Mosaic Codes " } There is no evidence that any col- 
 lection of laws ever existed but the Mosaic. And 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY PROPHETS. 235 
 
 we must deny to the critics the right of substitutin< 
 an imaginary one, to do away with the plain meanin< 
 of Hosea's words. 
 
 As in the historical books, we do not believe that 
 much can here be made of the ceremonial usages and 
 religious customs referred to by the prophets. When 
 we would array it as evidence of the existence of the 
 Codes, Wellhausen would from his stajid-point have 
 the right to remind us, " Legem non habentes natura 
 faciunt legis opera." Once more our attitude must 
 be an apologetic one. We must show that the Codes 
 may have existed.' 
 
 First of all, the critics discover in these prophets 
 an antagonism against the priesthood and ceremonial 
 institutions in general, and consider them as de- 
 fenders of a more spiritual type of religion. The 
 principal passages are: Amos v. 21, seqq., viii. 10; 
 Isa. i. II, scqq., xxix. 13 ; Mic. vi. 6-8 ; Hos. vi. 6, 
 vii. 14, x. 12, xii. 6. Dr. Kuenen says, "The prophets 
 nowhere insist upon fidelity in observing the holy 
 ceremonies. On the contrary, they speak of them 
 with an indifference which borders upon disapproval, 
 sometimes even with unfeigned aversion." 
 
 It must be remembered, that Rosea and Amos 
 prophesied in the Northern kingdom, where there 
 was no legal Aaronic priesthood. The priests op- 
 posed by the prophets were no rightful priests. Still, 
 they are hardly ever condemned in this official capa- 
 city, but for lack of knowledge, for being murderers, 
 
 I On this point, compare what was said on a previous page in regard to 
 the historical books. 
 
236 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 robbers, etc. The point at issue is, whether the 
 prophets condemned the ceremonies per se, or on 
 account of their wrong performance. An unpre- 
 judiced examination of tlie evidence will not leave us 
 in doubt on which side the truth lies. We note the 
 following points of decisive importance : — 
 
 I. If the ceremonies had been condemned by the 
 prophets pe?' sc, in contrast with a more spiritual 
 religion, Jehovah's attitude ought to have been repre- 
 sented as one of indifference towards them. This is 
 not the case. When Kuenen speaks of *' indifference 
 bordering upon disapproval, sometimes unfeigned 
 aversion," all these words are not synonymous : in- 
 deed, they are mutually exclusive. God disapproves 
 of the ceremonies, not for formal, but for material, 
 reasons. He hates, despises, the feast-days. He will 
 not smell in their solemn assemblies : his ears revolt 
 against the melody of their viols. The ritual is 
 represented as offensive in the highest degree. W^e 
 are warranted to draw from such positive terms two 
 conclusions: (i) There must have been a positive 
 element of sin in the ritual performances which the 
 prophets condemn. (2) The very fact, that they 
 offend God, awake his hatred and revolt, shows that 
 he stands in a sort of necessary relation towards 
 them. He cannot disregard or abolish the ceremo- 
 nies, but is obliged {sit venia vcrbo) to attend, to see, 
 to hear. No stronger evidence could be furnished 
 that the ritual was a divine institution, and recog- 
 nized as such by the prophets. Isa. i. 14 is very in- 
 structive in this respect : " They are a trouble unto 
 me; I am zveary to bear them." 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY PROPHETS. 237 
 
 2. Ceremonies and true piety were so closely allied 
 in the religious consciousness of the time, that even 
 evil-doers thought they could either conciliate by 
 them the favor of God, or at least secure the es- 
 teem of the pious. That the right conception of 
 sacrifices was known and shared by the prophets, 
 is not disproved by this self-righteous abuse of 
 the wicked, but on the contrary presupposed by 
 it. 
 
 3. The high esteem in which the prophets held 
 the ceremonial, and how far the idea of emancipating 
 Israel from it was outside of their intentions, are 
 shown incidentally several times. In Amos vii. 17, 
 the Lord threatens Amaziah "that he shall die in 
 a polluted land." There is a climax in the verse: 
 of all evils which would befall the priest, this dying 
 in a polluted land would be the most formidable one. 
 The land and the priest are called pure, not on 
 account of their piety, but on account of the out- 
 ward worship and cultus of the true Jehovah, which 
 was lacking in heathen lands. Now, if this ritual, 
 as it was represented in a wicked priest, was still 
 sufficiently sacred to make the land of Israel pure, 
 we surely are not warranted to consider Jehovah and 
 his prophets as despisers of the ceremonies. The 
 soil itself contracted purity and impurity from the 
 worship of its inhabitants. Smend calls this senti- 
 ment " Levitismus." Of the same character is the 
 passage Hos. ix. 1-6 : "They shall eat unclean things 
 in Assyria : . . . their sacrifices shall be unto them 
 as the bread of mourners ; all that eat thereof shall 
 be polluted," etc. (compare also iii. 4). Smend con- 
 
238 THE PENrATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 fesses, ''(Qui) talia judicent iis quae in ipso Levitico 
 inveniuntur nihil cedunt." 
 
 4. Tlie jDassage Isa. xxix. 13, which has been 
 claimed in favor of the critical view, teaches, properly 
 interpreted, exactly the opposite. The contrast is 
 not between commands given by man and commands 
 prescribed by God, but between those learned from 
 man and those learned from God. The former rep- 
 resents mere external ritualism ; the latter inward 
 piety, expressing- itself in outward forms. The cere- 
 monial worship of the people was not a spontaneous 
 manifestation of spiritual-mindedness, but worthless 
 compliance with a form from self-righteous motives. 
 This externalism is strikingly characterized as ''doing 
 precepts learned from men." Of course, nothing as 
 to the origin of these precepts is decided thereby. 
 
 5. The estimate put by the prophets on the ritual 
 system is throughout very favorable. Isaiah asso- 
 ciates it with the vision of his great commission 
 (chap. vi.). He sees an altar (ver. 6), and smoke 
 (of sacrifices.^) (ver. 4). The Egyptians, when con- 
 verted, will erect an altar and a rnazzebah (pillar) for a 
 monumental purpose, do sacrifice and oblation, vow 
 a vow, and perform it (chap. xix. 19, scqq.). Jehovah 
 has a fire in Zion and a furnace in Jerusalem (xxxi. 
 9). In Hos. iv. 4 it is counted the highest contu- 
 macy to strive with a priest. 
 
 6. The passage Amos v. 25, 26, seems to deserve 
 a closer examination. We do not intend to in- 
 quire into the kind of idolatry of which the verse 
 speaks, but simply raise the question, whether Amos 
 denies in this passage the antiquity of the ritual in 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY PROPHETS. 239 
 
 general, or at least of the ritual as it was in his 
 day. 
 
 The verse has been interpreted in the most vari- 
 ous ways. The question of paramount importance is, 
 whether a positive or negative answer was expected 
 by the prophet. That he supposed the answer to be 
 obvious, is clear ; so much so, that he did not even 
 think it necessary to add it. 
 
 Vaihinger and Kuenen claim that an affirmative 
 answer is presupposed. Kuenen gives as the mean- 
 ing, that the Israelites had combined the offering of 
 sacrifices to God with idolatry, and that the prophet 
 takes this as proof of the worthlessness of sacrifices, 
 which were consistent with the greatest apostasy. 
 To this interpretation, there are the following ob- 
 jections : {a) The use of n, and not 5<Sn, leads us to 
 expect a negative answer. Though n may be fol- 
 lowed by an affirmation, it is only where the answer 
 is doubtful, never where it is considered as self-evi- 
 dent, {b) If the co-existence of Jehovah-worship 
 and idolatry were emphasized, we would expect in ver. 
 26 a 1 consecut. cum fiUuro ; but there is a perfect. 
 Djnj?y;j\ {c) The argument would have been very incon- 
 clusive to the contemporaries of the prophet. That the 
 sacrifices of their idolatrous ancestors were worthless, 
 proved nothing against theirs. And if those who are 
 addressed here were idolaters themselves, the prophet 
 would not have used such a far-fetched argument. 
 
 The majority of commentators admit that the 
 words imply that the Israelites did not sacrifice to 
 Jehovah in the desert. But they differ widely as to 
 the reason assigned for this : — 
 
240 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 {a) It is most commonly held, that the suspension 
 of sacrificial worship was a result of the idolatry de- 
 scribed in ver. 26, whatever that may have been. So 
 Keil and Hitzig and many others. Against this in- 
 terpretation, the following objections are urged : 
 I. The order of the w^ords in the Hebrew. It is 
 claimed, if Jehovah were contrasted with strange 
 gods, the question would have been introduced by 
 '^H) ^vith the emphasis on inc. 2. The example of 
 the forty years' wandering in the desert was, accord- 
 ing to Keil, intended to show how, from the begin- 
 ning, the Israelites were a perverse and apostate 
 people. But how can, in ver. 21-24, the excess of 
 ceremonial, and in ver. 25, the suspension of the 
 same, be urged alike as a proof of Israel's iniquity.'' 
 
 {b) The same objection bears against the view of 
 those who separate ver. 25 from the preceding verses. 
 They understand that the prophet addresses in this 
 verse other persons than in ver. 21-24. After hav- 
 ing rebuked those who self-righteously put their trust 
 in sacrifices, he now proceeds to condemn the false 
 security of others based on the Covenant of Sinai by 
 reminding them that the Covenant had already been 
 broken in the desert. But there is no trace in the con- 
 text of a transition from the persons first addressed 
 to others. 
 
 (c) Smend's interpretation is, that the prophet 
 wishes to show that God's favor was not dependent 
 on outward ceremonies, and that for this purpose he 
 refers to the sojourn in the wilderness, during which, 
 notwithstanding the fact that the ritual was neces- 
 sarily suspended, still God's favor was not withdrawn. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY PROPHETS. 24 1 
 
 Of course, this makes it necessary to understana 
 ver. 26 either of the present or of the future. 
 Smend translates with Ewald : ''Ergo tolletis ; i.e., 
 cum idolis vestris exsulatum abibitis." To this view 
 it may be objected, i. We would, if the subjects of 
 ver. 25 and 26 were not the same, expect to see the 
 latter introduced by nrii'i, or something analogous. 
 2. It is doubtful whether the preterite can be used 
 in this connection in the future sense, which Smend 
 ascribes to it. We may add, however, that it is ne- 
 cessary to take the verb in ver. 27 as a future, and 
 why not, then, ver, 26 also .? 3. The forty years' wan- 
 dering in the desert are always considered elsewhere 
 as a period of apostasy, in which God's favor was 
 actually withdrawn. The only consideration in favor 
 of this view lies in the separation of ver. 25 from 
 the verses 21-23 by ver. 24. The latter verse seems 
 to begin the statement of what God did require in 
 contrast with what he did not demand in ver. 21-23. 
 We might infer from this, that the conduct of the 
 Israelites in the desert is referred to as an exponent 
 of what was really well-pleasing to God. 
 
 We do not pretend to give a new and better 
 explanation of this difficult passage than any one 
 stated above. But we have certainly shown that 
 nothing can be inferred from it inconsistent with the 
 high antiquity of the Sinaitic legislation. We may 
 once more quote Smend, who says with regard to it, 
 "Attam'en falluntur qui quum certas Pentateuchi 
 leges recentiores esse contendunt se Amoso teste uti 
 putant." 
 
242 THE FENTATEUCI/AL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE POETICAL BOOKS. 
 
 DELITZSCH assures us that the Hterature of the 
 time of David and Solomon presupposes the ex- 
 istence of the entire Thora in its present form. He 
 verifies this statement by several quotations, of which 
 the greater part do doubtless show acquaintance with 
 the Pentateuch. Still, we would be greatly mistaken 
 if we considered his argument as decisive. What 
 Delitzsch assigns to the Davidic and Solomonic age, 
 becomes with our present critics the product of a 
 much later time. Reuss supposes Job to have been 
 written about the time of the destruction of the 
 Northern kingdom, before Deuteronomy and the 
 Priest Code were as yet in existence ; and that 
 the 'Song of Solomon was composed shortly after the 
 schism. He declares that his doubts do not go so 
 far as to deny to the period of the Kings the compo- 
 sition of any Psalm whatever. After this magnani- 
 mous and liberal concession, he hastens to add that 
 it must be limited to the first division of the Psalter, 
 which originally contained Ps. iii.-xli. Even the 
 largest part of this is post-Deuteronomic, the whole 
 collection not pre-exilic ; and for our present purpose 
 we would retain nothing more than Ps. ii., xviii., xx., 
 
TESTinrOAry OF THE POETICAL BOOKS. 243 
 
 xxi. (xl\^, xlvi., xlix.). Probably the Psalter contains 
 no Davidic Psalms at all. 
 
 He claims that the Solomonic authorship of not a 
 single line in the Book of Proverbs can be proved. 
 The book, as a whole, was published after the exile. 
 Koheleth (Ecclesiastes) is remanded to the time of 
 the Ptolemies, 200 B.C. 
 
 Reuss, however, goes farther, especially with re- 
 gard to the Psalms, than the very boldest among 
 German doubters have done. Hitzig and Ewald 
 agree on the Davidic origin of at least Ps. iii., iv., 
 vii., viii., xi., xix.^ Ewald admits in addition,, ii., xx., 
 xxi., xxiv., xxix., xxxii., ex. Hitzig, on the other 
 hand, ix., x., xii., xiii., xv., xvi., xvii., xix.^ Leaving 
 out of the account those Psalms which both Hitzig 
 and Ewald consider as pre-Deuteronomic, we obtain 
 the number of twenty-one Psalms, to wdiich we may 
 safely appeal, without being suspected of traditional 
 prejudice in calling our witnesses. 
 
 After all this deduction, our harvest must be scanty. 
 Its power lies, not so much in the number of wit- 
 nesses as in the unequivocal character of their testi- 
 mony. A single indisputable mention of the Thora, 
 or reference to it, outweighs many arguments e si- 
 lentio. The former leaves no choice : the latter do. 
 
 A most important objection to the newer theory 
 of religious development may be drawn from the 
 deep spiritual conceptions, the lofty moral senti- 
 ments, which these Davidic Psalms breathe through- 
 out. A David who was the prototype of the picture 
 drawn by the critics could not have written such 
 hymns. He could by no means have anticipated 
 
244 THE PENTATEUCnAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 what lay hidden in the future consciousness of proph- 
 etism two centuries after his reign. All the laws 
 of development protest against it. Moreover, there 
 is no trace in his songs of that peculiar re-action 
 against an exaggerated ritual which characterizes the 
 prophets of the ninth and the eighth centuries. The 
 outward is here the clear mirror in which the in- 
 ward throws its spontaneous reflex. This leads to 
 a twofold observation: i. When spiritual religion 
 and ceremonial worship conflicted afterwards, this 
 cannot have been the original, normal relation, but 
 must be considered as the result of externalization 
 of the ritual. Thus, the testimony of the prophets, 
 that Israel's religious state was one of apostasy, is 
 verified anew. 2. This spiritual conception of the 
 law as we find it in David cannot be the product of a 
 natural development, but testifies to a divine origin 
 of both the spirit and the letter. Whether a devel- 
 opment of religion by contrasts on the principle of 
 negativity may, or may not, account for the opposi- 
 tion to ceremonies on the part of the prophets, it cer- 
 tainly fails to explain the synthesis of this spiritual 
 appreciation in David. The following passages are 
 noteworthy in this respect : Ps. iv. 5, seqq., vii. 8, 9, 
 scqq., XV., passim, xx. 3, seqq., xxiv. 3, 4, and especially 
 the whole of xxxii. 
 
 The "judgments" of the Lord are mentioned (x. 
 5) ; his words (xii. 6), ''his judgments and statutes" 
 (xviii. 22). The second part of the nineteenth Psalm 
 speaks of the Thora in a way not different from that 
 in which a Jew after the exile would have done. It 
 is easy to remand all this to Maccabean times ; but 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE POETICAL BOOKS. 245 
 
 when even Hitzig concedes the Daviclic origm, we 
 may safely say that our critics have no other reason 
 to deny it than an over-anxious regard for their own 
 hypothesis. 
 
 Zion is the only legal sanctuary, where God dwells 
 in the centre of his people (ix. 11) ; the holy temple, 
 a symbol of his heavenly dwelling-place (xi. 4) ; the 
 tabernacle, to which only the pure and righteous 
 may ideally approach (xv. i, seqq), from whence help 
 is sent in the day of trouble (xx. 1,2); his holy place 
 (xxiv. 3), from whence the rod of his strength is 
 sent (ex. 2), where the cherubs are attached to the 
 ark as a symbol of his throne and power (xviii. 10). 
 
 It may also be remarked, that in Ps. vii. 7 the term 
 nij:. occurs, which, accordmg to Wellhausen, can only 
 be understood in connection with the Levitical sys- 
 tem, and is therefore post-exilic. The few instances 
 that it occurs in Judges may be set to the account 
 of a redactor, but in a Davidic Psalm this will not 
 do. Perhaps also ex. 4 implies a contrast with the 
 Aaronic priesthood. 
 
 Ps. xxiv. 4 reminds us of the third commandment 
 in a very striking way. Ps. iv. has several allusions 
 ro the very words of the Covenant-law ; likewise 
 Ps. xvi. (Compare Delitzsch in Luth. Zeitschrift, 
 1882, Heft vi.). 
 
 Neither do references to the historical portions of 
 the Pentateuch fail. Ps. vii. 6, nro^p, "arise," and 
 verse 7, r\^w, "return," maybe compared with Num. 
 X. 35, 36 (Jehovistic) ; xvii. 8, \\\ ^"^3 \S'd'^, with Deut. 
 xxxii. 10, IT;!. \r^'^\ Ps. xi. 6, nn^Ji t^, with Gen. 
 xix. 24. 
 
246 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 Some of the allusions which Delitzsch finds in 
 Proverbs are of no use for our purpose. The " tree 
 and the way of life" are both Jehovistic; so that, 
 when the critics assign a relatively late date to the 
 collection of Proverbs, they lose their value. The 
 comparison of Deut. vi. 6, 8, with Prov. vii. 3 ; Lev. 
 xix. 36 with Prov. xi. i, has more force. 
 
 A connection between Canticles vi. 13 and Gen. 
 xxxii. I, 2, cannot be proved. Neither is it necessary 
 to translate Job xxxi. 33 "as Adam." But the ahu- 
 sions in Job xxxi. 11 to Lev. xviii. 17; of ver. 8-12 
 to Deut. xxii. 22 ; of ver. 26-28 to Deut. xvii. 2-5, 
 can hardly be denied. Even Kuenen calls them far 
 from improbable. And, as we saw, even Reuss thinks 
 that Job is pre-Deuteronomic. 
 
SECOND KINGS XXII. AND NEIL VIII.-X. 247 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 SECOND KINGS XXII. AND NEH. VIII.-X. 
 
 TT/'E conclude our survey with a short discussion 
 »V of the critical view of the narrative found in 
 these chapters. After all that has been said, we 
 may approach them without any prepossession, and 
 consider them as mere historical records, which have 
 to be interpreted in their own light. 
 
 Our criticism of the pia f raits theory imposed on 
 2 Kings xxii. is the following : — 
 
 I. According to the critics, the forgery of the 
 Deuteronomic Code was a skilful stroke of policy, 
 to which a despondent reform-party resorted as the 
 only means of reaching its ends. It had failed in 
 the days of Hezekiah, and its failure was a defeat. 
 The terms in which Kuenen speaks of the situation, 
 imply that the party-lines must have been sharply 
 drawn. There was an opposition to the centralizing 
 Mosaic tendency ; and it was strong, influential, and 
 fully on its guard against every movement of the 
 latter. Notwithstanding this, the bare assertion of 
 the reformers, that their programme was of Mosaic 
 origin, sufficed to silence all these opponents, many 
 of whom were doubtless reduced to poverty and dis- 
 grace, or even exposed to death by the intended 
 
248 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 reform. No trace of resistance is discovered : all 
 the people stood to the Covenant. We cannot but 
 observe that all this does not resemble the usual 
 execution of a coup d'etat. For this sudden change 
 in the relation of the parties, Dr. Kuenen gives no 
 other reason than what might be called an appeal to 
 the maxim, " Cujus rcgio, 2 Hi us rcligio.'' The regal 
 power was in the East and in Judah unlimited. The 
 majority of the people complied with the will and 
 command of their princes. How utterly inadequate 
 such general phrases are to explain the pretended 
 situation, will not escape any thoughtful observer of 
 the facts. 
 
 2. It is improbable, if the so-called Mosaic party 
 stood in favor with the king, and if the forgery was 
 perpetrated within the very circle aspiring to such 
 favor, and relying upon it for future success, that 
 the author or authors would have extended their 
 threatenings to the monarch himself in such a way 
 as is here done (Deut. xxviii. 36). 
 
 3. If the chief or only ends which the forgers had 
 in view were abolition of idolatry and Bamoth-wor- 
 ship, it is hard to see why they put themselves to the 
 unnecessary trouble of writing a whole Code, con- 
 taining numerous laws which served no present pur- 
 pose whatever. 
 
 4. It should also be remembered, that the practice 
 of forgery, as it is now claimed by the critics for the 
 origin of Deuteronomy and the Priest Code, stands 
 unparalleled in the whole domain of Old-Testament 
 literature. The Pseudepigraphae are all of later date, 
 and without exception owe their origin to far lower 
 
SECOND KINGS XX 11. AND NEH. VIII -X. 249 
 
 tendencies than we are warranted to ascribe to the 
 M'osaic party of King Josiah's time. 
 
 We now turn to Neh. viii.-x. The credibility of 
 these chapters was at first doubted by Dr. Kuenen 
 in 1861. Afterwards, in ' 1870, he retracted these 
 doubts ; since his whole hypothesis respecting the 
 origin of the Priest Code was based on the facts 
 wdiich they contain. The two important and de- 
 cisive questions to be answered here are, — 
 
 1. What portion of the Pentateuch did the law 
 read by Ezra comprehend } 
 
 2. What inferences may be drawn from Ezra's 
 knowledge and the people's ignorance of this law } 
 
 To the first, question, critics have but one answer. 
 Unanimously they declared the book of the law to 
 have been the priestly legislation. To prove this, 
 they commonly refer to what is said regarding the 
 feast of tabernacles. We must remark, however, 
 that this is far from settling the point in dispute. 
 That Lev. xxiii. belonged to the law that was read, 
 by no means shows that the Priest Code alone con- 
 stituted this law. So far from this being the case, 
 there are several reasons which forbid us to assume it. 
 
 I. The reading was continued for at least ten days, 
 and the first day for six hours. The terms seem to 
 imply that this reading was not a mere rehearsal of 
 what had been read before. It is, then, necessary to 
 assume that the law-book was more comprehensive 
 than Leviticus. When we remember that the Deu- 
 teronomic Code was read before the king and the 
 people at one time, this conclusion will appear all 
 the n;crc necessary. 
 
250 THE FENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 2. The reading of the law seems to have been in 
 execution of the command, Deut. xxxi. 11. Though 
 Deuteronomy speaks only of each seventh year, we 
 can easily conceive that the first opportunity to com- 
 ply with the newly published command was eagerly 
 seized upon. From Neh. x. 31, it appears that 
 hitherto the Year of Jubilee had not been observed. 
 It was therefore necessary to compute the seven 
 years from the publication of the law onward ; and 
 thus the current year became, ipso facto^ a Sabbath- 
 year, which required the reading of the law. We 
 conclude that not only the Priest Code, but also the 
 Deuteronomic law, was read. 
 
 3. Evidently the confession made by the Levites 
 on the twenty-fourth day of the month, contained in 
 chap, ix., is in substance and form the echo of the 
 frequent and diligent study of the newly published 
 law during the three previous weeks. Its contents 
 furnish the best means of identifying the law referred 
 to. Now, a careful examination will convince us that 
 this confession is full of reminiscences, not only of 
 the Elohistic narrative, but just as well of that of the 
 Jehovist and of Deuteronomy. 
 
 4. The promises made by the people are charac- 
 teristic of the Jehovistic and Deuteronomic law. As 
 such we note : the promise not to intermarry with 
 strange nations (Neh. x. 30; Exod. xxxiv. 16; Deut. 
 vii. 3), the promise to intermit the exaction of debts 
 every seventh year (ver. 31 ; Deut. xv. 2), the promise 
 to offer the corn, the new wine, and oil (ver. 37, 39; 
 Deut. xii. 17). 
 
 All these considerations favor the view, that Ezra 
 
SECOND KINGS XX IL AND NEH. VIII.-X. 25 1 
 
 did not publish the Priest Code merely, but the 
 whole Mosaic Thora, Elohist and Jehovist and Deu- 
 teronomist. The historical credibility of the narra- 
 tive cannot be doubted. The confession, as reported 
 in chap, ix., must be authentic. In denying it, the 
 critics would destroy the only basis on which they 
 rest their theory of the Ezraic origin of the Priest 
 Code. 
 
 Let us now consider the second question. What 
 are we to hold respecting Ezra's relation to the law, 
 which he is said to have read before the people t 
 
 It has become almost an axiom with the latest 
 critics, that Ezra was, if not the author, at least the 
 redactor, of the Elohistic legislation. ''The law of 
 God was in his hand" (Ezra vii. 14) when he went 
 to Jerusalem, in the year 458 B.C. Between this 
 date and the return under Zerubbabel and Joshua, 
 536 B.C., lies a period of nearly eighty years, con- 
 cerning whose history, as far as the remaining exiles 
 are concerned, we know absolutely nothing. This 
 utter ignorance has afforded the critics a splendid 
 chance to spin out their famous theory of the gradual 
 origin of the Priest Code. Where history has left 
 no record, conjectural criticism has not only free 
 play, but seems to a certain extent justified and 
 commendable. 
 
 The starting-point is Ezekiel's programme. Kue- 
 nen and others are candid enough to admit that his 
 work is no just exponent of the general sentiment 
 prevailing among the exiles. In his time his figure 
 is unique. So far as Ezekiel's testimony goes, the 
 people of his day were by no means • the priestly 
 
252 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 Israel which the prophet describes in his visionary 
 Thora. We have no ground to assume, that, besides 
 him, others were occupied with the elaboration of a 
 ritualistic system. In his own words (specially chap. 
 XX.), his priestly character stands out in bold contrast 
 with the indifference or anti-Jahvistic tendencies of 
 the mass. Even the following generation seems not 
 to have been influenced by his Thora, as no traces of 
 an attempt to execute it appear. We believe that 
 the Book of Ezekiel, as a whole, does not give the 
 impression that the exiles troubled themselves in 
 Babylon with writing priestly law. 
 
 Far less can the theory find support in the writ- 
 ings of the pretended Deutero-Isaiah. If he wrote 
 immediately before the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, 
 we have but one explicit testimony the more, that, 
 among the best elements of the captivity, no such 
 priestly tendencies prevailed. Deutero-Isaiah speaks 
 "like one of the old prophets," if not actually, still 
 seemingly opposed to all ritualism. Isa. Iviii. is deci- 
 sive in this respect. 
 
 Neither does it appear that special stress was laid 
 on the priestly cerem.onial side of their religion by 
 the exiles who returned' in 536. We need not 
 assume that intentional disobedience prevailed at 
 the beginning, but that soon a lack of zeal manifested 
 itself may be seen from Haggai and Zechariah. 
 How much Ezra and Nehemiah found to reform after- 
 wards, is abundantly known. Surely, if such an at- 
 tachment to the temple-service and the ceremonial 
 side of the national life had existed among the exiles 
 in Babylon, as could produce a lively interest in the 
 
SECOND KINGS XXII. AND NEII VIII-X. 253 
 
 law, even as to its theoretical aspects, we may take 
 for granted that the history of the new colony would 
 have shaped itself differently. 
 
 These are positively all the data from which we 
 can obtain any a priori information as to the eight 
 decades which, according to many critics at present, 
 enclose the mysterious birth of a whole legal system 
 in their unknown and ever unknowable history. A 
 posteriori there is but a single fact which gives us a 
 glimpse into the dark past, — the fact that Ezra came 
 from Babylon, with the law in his hand, as the ready 
 scribe, evidently with the purpose to instruct his 
 countrymen, and revive their zeal for the work of 
 God amongst them. 
 
 A correct estimate of these historical data will 
 immediately show whether the view, that during 
 these eighty years the Priest Code was framed, 
 deserves to be put on the list of plausible theories, 
 or under the head of ''legal fictions," fanciful and 
 arbitrary alike. 
 
 Notwithstanding our utter lack of historical infor- 
 mation, Kuenen, Wellhausen, and Reuss undertake 
 to tell us how within its limits the priestly laws suc- 
 cessively made their appearance. There was first 
 the so-called " Law of Holiness," comprising Lev. 
 xvii.-xxvi. Next comes a group consisting of Exod. 
 xii., xxv.-xxxi., Lev. i.-xvii., xxiv., xxvii., and most of 
 the priestly portions in Numbers. From both is still 
 distinguished a third group containing later additions. 
 
 I. To this whole scheme we must, first of all, 
 object the lack of all positive evidence, that the work 
 of codifying ritual law was carried on in Babylon on 
 
254 ^^^^ PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 such a grand scale. Where do the least traces 
 appear in Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah, Haggai, Zecha- 
 riah, the Book of Ezra, and of Nehemiah, we do not 
 say of the completion of the process (for this simply 
 begs the whole question), but of the tendencies that 
 I originated or the influences that favored and ripened 
 it? 
 
 But more than this. If we realize the situation 
 well, we cannot but doubt tiie critics' assumption, 
 that in the circles that remained at Babylon when 
 the first colony set out for Jerusalem, there was 
 enough of productive energy to create all at once 
 what centuries had not been able to produce when 
 the nation was still prosperous and independent, and 
 the temple-service flourishing and in high esteem. 
 
 First of all, the better element must have joined 
 Zerubbabel and Joshua. Those who remained were 
 certainly the least influenced by theocratic concern 
 in the restoration of the temple-worship and the re- 
 possession of the holy city. Ezra i. 5 states that 
 those whose spirit God had raised, went up to build 
 the house of the Lord. The rest seem to have been 
 on the whole indifferent, and to have preferred the 
 riches of Babylon to the wants and dangers of the 
 little caravan that set its face towards Jerusalem. 
 
 Secondly, the majority of the priesthood returned, 
 and comparatively a small number of priests remained 
 in Babylon. The priests were least of all likely to 
 prefer captivity in a polluted land to a relative free- 
 dom in the holy city. And what adds a decisive 
 weight to this, is the fact that not less than four 
 thousand priests joined the expedition of Zerubbabel ; 
 
SECOND KINGS XXI L AND NEH. VIII -X. 255 
 
 and with Ezra there went only two priestly families, 
 which cannot have been very numerous (Ezra viii. 2). 
 
 We have the indisputable facts that the theocratic 
 element left Babylon, and that amongst the worldly 
 remnant, there was only a comparatively small num- 
 ber of priests, and these so indifferent to the land 
 and people of God, that only two of their families 
 were induced to return under Ezra's protection. 
 
 Now, the critics wish us to believe two facts which 
 strangely contrast with the two we have just stated : 
 I. That among the better element, which rebuilt 
 Jerusalem and the temple, and restored its service, 
 there was a development for the worse in an anti- 
 theocratic direction. 2. That anions: the remnant 
 in Babylon, who had no temple amongst them, and 
 evidently no intentions of ever returning, there was 
 such an interest awakened in the temple-service, 
 that a long literary activity ensued, which resulted 
 in the production of a complete elaborated Code, 
 called by the modern critics the Priest Code. 
 
 This demand upon our credulity is most unreason- 
 able. The view contradicts all historic probability. 
 That it is so boldly and persistently maintained, is 
 due to the fact, that, where historical records fail, 
 critical ingenuity is at liberty to fill up the blank 
 with any picture of the imagination whatever. 
 
 Dr. Kuenen has felt this difficulty very seriously. 
 He tries to remove it in his own peculiar way, by a 
 number of considerations, which v/ould have force to 
 convince us if we could grant the premises on which 
 they rest. That the Jews were eagerly looking for 
 a future, more favorable, occasion to return, we will 
 
256 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 have to believe when it is proved. Why had they not 
 joined the expedition which departed under such au- 
 spicious circumstances, witli the favor and protection 
 of Cyrus, in direct fulfilment of ancient prophecies, 
 those of Jeremiah at least, to leave Deutero-Isaiah 
 out of view ? That they were desirous of religious 
 instruction, may be admitted in a general sense ; but 
 their attitude does not exhibit interest in that aspect 
 of the Jewish religion which was inseparable from 
 the sanctuary. When afterwards men like Ezra and 
 Nehemiah arose amongst them, their character was 
 not the fruit of the natural state of affairs, but 
 rather a new factor introduced by a special divine 
 intervention to provide for a special need of God's 
 people. The inferences which Kuenen draws from 
 Zech. vi. 9-15 are entirely too sweeping. That a 
 few men had come from Babylon, whose arrival is 
 evidently stated as an exceptional case, cannot be 
 made to prove that the great body of the exiles 
 entertained a lively interest in what happened at 
 Jerusalem, 
 
 The main objection against the whole scheme lies 
 in its impracticability. Here, as in the case of Deu- 
 teronomy, the question recurs. What made it neces- 
 sary for Ezra to ascribe his laws to Moses } What 
 accounts for the element of fraud entering this piece 
 of Jewish legislation also, as we are asked to believe } 
 
 Critics answer, when Ezra arrived at Jerusalem, 
 he found the colonists far below his ideal of right- 
 eous Israelites. After a first successful attempt at 
 reform, Ezra is silent for thirteen years. The reasons 
 for this interruption were chiefly twofold, i. He saw 
 
SECOND KINGS XXII. AND NEIL VIII.-X. 25/ 
 
 the necessity of adapting his law, formed in Babylon, 
 to the circumstances of the people. 2. He must 
 have met already in his first reform, as well as after- 
 wards, with a strong and influential opposition, as 
 appears from Neh. xiii. and Malachi's prophecy. It 
 was in part the zelotic spirit, which both Ezra and 
 Nehemiah manifested, partly more material objec- 
 tions against their innovations, which led to this 
 resistance. The reform involved a limitation of lib- 
 erty, imposed heavy duties upon the laymen, and on 
 the whole showed a decidedly hierarchical tendency. 
 On the other hand, it bound the priests themselves 
 henceforward to a written word, and thus essentially 
 modified their position. Such a radical revolution 
 did not fail to cause a strong re-action, both from 
 among the people and the priesthood. Hence the 
 claim of Mosaic origin for the Code was absolutely 
 necessary to the success of Ezra's plans. 
 
 So we meet here again with the same remarkable 
 phenomena as in the case of Deuteronomy. There 
 it was ''the people stood to the Covenant." Here 
 they make a sure covenant, write it, and seal unto it 
 (Neh. ix. 38). And in both cases alike the opposi- 
 tion is silent, no word of resistance is uttered, no 
 murmuring or dissenting voice heard. The ques- 
 tion recurs here as there : How was this possible, 
 if Ezra's Thora was a mere fiction t If it was genu- 
 ine and Mosaic, we can understand why the opponents 
 desisted. But suppose them to have been fully on 
 their guard, to have watched Ezra's every move- 
 ment, to have kept him in suspense for thirteen 
 years, and then finally to have accepted in the most 
 
258 THE PEXTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 meek and submissive way the most radical changes, 
 contrary to their own opinions and interests, simply 
 because Ezra pretended that his law was Mosaic ! 
 
 The story sounds incredible, and still we must 
 believe it if the critics are right. We can the less 
 conceive that the opponents were misled on this 
 occasion by the appearances, since, as we have seen, 
 the Priest Code was already combined with the 
 Jehovistic and Deuteronomic laws, and was read 
 together with them. What appears as an addition, 
 and in so far modifies the old, is, per sc, exposed to 
 suspicion. Still, Ezra's Code was not suspected ; 
 the people made a sure covenant, and sealed unto it. 
 
 It would certainly seem safer, in view of all these 
 impossibilities, to adhere to the old notion, be it 
 traditional or not, that Ezra published the Thora in 
 no other capacity than that of a ready scribe, who 
 had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, 
 and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and 
 judgments ; that he did this at a special occasion of 
 the feast of trumpets, at a special request of the 
 people, who expressed by this desire their gratitude 
 for the final completion of the walls of Jerusalem 
 under the supervision of Nehemiah. 
 
DID MOSES WRITE THE LAWS? 259 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 DID MOSES WRITE THE LAWS? 
 
 WE have hitherto occupied ourselves exclusively 
 with the question whether the claim of Mosaic 
 origin which the Codes make for themselves could 
 be vindicated. A few remarks may be added now 
 with regard to the related question whether Moses 
 committed the laws to writinsr. 
 
 That only the Book of the Covenant and the Deu- 
 teronomic Code are expressly stated to have been 
 written by Moses, was remarked on a previous page. 
 It will be necessary to keep in mind what was argued 
 there, that these emphatic statements with reference 
 to a part can never disprove the view that Moses 
 wrote the whole. 
 
 On the other hand, if it could be shown that Moses 
 wrote only these parts of the legislation, this would 
 not contradict the statements of the Pentateuch it- 
 self. Caution is more than anywhere else required 
 on this point of the discussion. The fact is remark- 
 able, that all parts of the Pentateuch, of which it is 
 expressly said that Moses zvrote thou, are Jehovistic- 
 Deuteronomic, have one common style, and are of the 
 same prophetic character. Even if the critics could 
 settle it beyond doubt that the writer of the Priest 
 
260 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 Code Avas not the same with the author of the Book 
 of the Covenant and of Deuteronomy, still the state- 
 ments of the Pentateuch concerning its own origin 
 would stand untouched. 
 
 Doubts have repeatedly been expressed whether 
 the art of writing was known among the Semitic 
 peoples, and among the Israelites in particular, during 
 the Mosaic age (compare Reuss, Geschichte des A. 
 T., § yG). In general, however, the possibility, and 
 even probability, of this knowledge at that time are 
 now recognized. Dr. Kuenen says, "That the Isra- 
 elites possessed an alphabet, and knew the art of 
 writing, in the Mosaic age, is not subject to reason- 
 able doubt, and now almost universally admitted." 
 The objection which he raises against an extensive 
 practice of the arts of reading and writing among 
 the Israelites from their more frequent mention in 
 Deuteronomy than in the middle books, has since 
 then lost all its power, because Dr. Kuenen himself 
 at present assigns the priority to Deuteronomy. 
 
 The Greeks received their knowledge of the art of 
 writing from Semitic colonists. But whence did the 
 Semitic tribes obtain this knowledge } Two answers 
 have been given to this question. Until recently, 
 many favored the derivation of the Semitic alphabet 
 from Babylon or the cuneiform inscriptions of As- 
 syria. At present, however, the opinion seems to 
 prevail among Egyptologists, that the alphabet came 
 from Egypt to the Semites, and was transferred by 
 them to the Greeks, and farther West. 
 
 Dr. Taylor, a recent writer on this subject, says 
 (I. p. 133), "It is proved beyond controversy (from 
 
DID MOSES WRITE THE LAWS? 26 1 
 
 the Moabite stone), that the Semitic alphabet was 
 fully developed and established as early as the begin- 
 ning of the ninth century ; while, to the practised eye 
 of the palaeographer, it also indicates that alphabetic 
 writing must have been in familiar use for a very 
 considerable precedent period" (compare also Ewald's 
 "History of Israel," I. p. 52, seqq). 
 
 On another page (p. 139), Dr. Taylor sums up his "A 
 conclusion from the facts in this statement : " The J 
 external evidence connects in an unmistakable man-^ 
 ner the date of the origin of the alphabet with Xh^ 
 period of the sojourn of Israel in Egypt." 
 
 Reconstructive criticism is ready to combine with 
 the denial of the historical character of the Penta- 
 teuch its own hypothetical conception of the primi- 
 tive state of Israel during the sojourn in Egypt and 
 the journey in the desert. We are reminded over 
 and over again, that the Jews were a wild nomad-tribe 
 possessing only the first germs of civilization. This 
 view, it must be remembered, rests on no historical 
 grounds whatever. According to the Pentateuch, 
 not only was Moses instructed in all the wisdom of 
 Egypt, but also the Israelites, as a whole, became 
 from nomads a settled people being influenced by 
 Egyptian civilization. They dwelt in houses, not by 
 themselves, but among the Egyptians, sustained 
 friendly relations to the latter, and adopted most of 
 their arts. When we consider how easily the Jews 
 have at all times assimilated the elements of foreign 
 civilization, it admits no longer of any doubt, that, at 
 the time of the exodus, they were something entirely 
 different from the nomad-tribes imagined by the 
 
262 THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES MOSAIC. 
 
 critics. Tliere is no ground, accordingly, for making 
 a distinction, as Reuss does, between Moses and the 
 other Israehtes, as if the former had been the only 
 cultured person amongst them, and the rest an un- 
 civilized horde. 
 
 It makes no difference whether we assume with 
 Ewald and De Rouge that the Semitic alphabet was 
 transmitted from the Hyksos to the Phoenicians, or 
 suppose with Lenormant and Sayce that the reverse 
 took place : the fact is firmly established, that the 
 Hebrews, before their exodus, had an alphabet ; and, 
 as Ewald says, '' We need not scruple to assume that 
 Israel knew and used it in Egypt before Moses." 
 
 That the Egyptian priests were accustomed to 
 write their laws and sanitary prescriptions, is well 
 known. Diodorus says that the physicians belonged 
 to the priestly class, received their salary from the 
 government, and were bound in their treatment of 
 diseases by a written law made up by many of the 
 most famous of old doctors. 
 
 Abstractly, it is not impossible to suppose that 
 even such comprehensive laws as the Priest Code 
 contains might have been orally transmitted in 
 priestly circles. Perhaps the hypothesis might 
 account for a gradual development of law consistent 
 with a germinal or substantial Mosaic origin. But 
 in view of the course of Hebrew history with its 
 numerous relapses, as in the days of Eli, Ahab, Ahaz, 
 Manasseh, and at other critical points, the preserva- 
 tion of a traditionary Code would be scarcely less 
 tjian a miracle. The fate of Deuteronomy suggests 
 
DID MOSES WRITE THE LAWS? 263 
 
 what might have become of a law existing only in 
 the mouth of an apostate priesthood. 
 
 To this, two other considerations may be added. 
 We have explicit testimony that the Covenant-law 
 w^as written in a book, and the Decalogue on tables 
 of stone. To assume a codification of the priestly 
 laws is simply to argue from analogy, or rather a 
 fortiori ; for if the people had their Code, much more 
 the priests, whose lips should keep knowledge, and 
 at whose mouth one should seek the law. 
 
 Finally, we learn that in his last days it was 
 Moses' chief concern to write down the Deuter- 
 onomic discourses. The end testifies to the whole. 
 We may expect, if he took care to fix the Deuter- 
 onomic Code in written form, and thus solemnly 
 bound the people by a permanent allegiance to God, 
 that he at the same time would protect them against 
 oppression on the part of the priesthood, which 
 wielded such extraordinary influence in Egypt. This 
 could be done in no better way than by codifying 
 and publishing the divinely authenticated rule, by 
 which both priesthood and people would be bound in 
 the future. 
 
 So far, therefore, as inherent probability goes, we 
 must accept, together with the Mosaic origin of the 
 Pentateuchal Codes, the view that they were written 
 either by Moses, or by others under his direction and 
 superintendence. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 ^un \ . -^ 
 
 inwmi- 
 
 
 
 JUh UU "T^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 »!» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A. 
 
^gr;- 
 
BS1225.4.V95C.2 , , 
 
 The Mosaic origin of the Pentateuchal 
 
 Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00012 1808