fiA^i. A
t\\>x /fe/ o^^Uk^ ^mZ^ c>»-0 W.:*«rtl, 1f^e>u,Jt^y^l^ r,
. 5 ^ ^
the schools of Alexandria, and its revival after the inven-
tion of the art of printing. The great names in critical
science. u4.^~t~^ Xv-k_ /.^t^vu.^^J'*
Freund's definition of criticism in philolog y. The a-ww-v. t
sphere of textual criticism, its pala:ographic and diplomatic ^
methods, and its more subjective and conjectural pro-
cesses. Use of the term loiver (or cxtermd) criticism. Ne-
cessity that it be supplemented by other methods, even in *^ '*»'-^^^^-_
dealing with texts. Meaning of the term higher "{Textual) .o£dUJZ.^
criticism, and the value of its best results. ^*»o.'~.^ Wo7*^ju*t t^^ .u^
Leaving the text, this criticism passes on to consider
the authorship of a work, and the time of its composition ;
— an inquiry of wider range, more delicate and difficult.
The value of presumptions; the warrant for misgiving or /j
doubt. The relations of hernieneutics to this critical pro- ^**^- 7r^
cess. The transition from philological to historical criti- '"* ^'^■
cism, and the specific aim of the latter, especially the
higher historical criticism. The former examines, makes
accessible and available, the sources with vvhich the latter
is to deal. >«^«-«>X >«*.-*- "*o AO^^Jky^j»S y^^itU- /^^>^^^*l^ t^*-^^ /^-^e>^ ""^v
What, then, /ire some /jf the recognized principles Mnd
/accredited methods />/ historical criticism f :
Three matters of chief concern suggest three lines
of inquiry, bearing on the authorship, the, form and the
substance of the historical material before us ; the wntness,
the form of his testimony, and its reliableness, sufficiency
and purport, /-^j^^^xjt^ a^^-a-^.^ ^\ ^^...^-^^ -^ ^j ^,«^, wn-^ <^<^x^ x .
^. 1. As to authorship ; the comparative value of an
anonymous,^nd an identified authorship or testimony.
3, 2. As to form ; the question as to the originality and
purity of the form before us ;^the extent and the occasion
of any suspected or apparent change, -w L .^^, 'u.jlXiu^J^ /y^^irUnfT »2,
*Aw'«-« ^^-^ /*-«»-A. ^ a ^■vu.^.M^ fi^ ^^rvX^A.
^ti^h^^^ ^ ^^»*-^ ^*-^'- - ^"^*
U>^- (*^ ^^^uu^^^cA ^4^uX^ ^-tvv^,^ ^ '^ ^-V
(4.) Whether incorrectness is unavoidable, in conse-
quence of the inadequacy of the means or opportunities
of observation and apprehension ?
The first two inquiries related to the subject matter ;
the last two to the observer or witness. Criticism, also,
looks after any possible general or individual coloring that
might result from characteristics of time, place, circum-
stance, or personal peculiarity.
,{d) A /o;?wrt/w>;s of authorship refer more or less of the
Pentateuch to Moses ; and that this result is not contra-
dicted, restricted or qualified by a single passage referriog
the authorship to any other person. While there is no
indisputable, explicit, affirmation that all came from the
hand of Moses, various forms of expression favor tbat
conception while none is inconsistent with it. The writ-
ten evidence must of course be thoroughly sifted to ascer-
tain not only its face value but its ultimate worth.
When we add the general faith of the Jews we have
at least a presumption established provisionally. We are
now in position to look for and estimate corroborations, amd
then to consider objections and difficulties, together with all
arguments that may be adduced in favor of any otber
theory affirmatively propounded. The hypothesis mast
be well founded and strongly buttressed, that shall main-
tain itself over against the the testimonies of the O. T.
and N. T. with their corroborations. Nor is the faith of
the Jews to be dismissed by a wave of the hand.
At this point we interpose three remarks :
R. 1. If criticism should establish the existence of
differences of style in various parts of the Pent., this would
not, in the face of adequate affirmations and corrobora-
tions, disprove Mosaic authorship. Moses being the author
need not personally have written the whole.
R. 2. Certain closing paragraphs must be from aii-
other hand ; and here and there in other instances by diae
authority, verbal explanations, etc., may have been intro-
duced.
R. 3. The Mosaic authorship of the Pent, is not in
the slightest degree inconsistent with the use by Moses of
15
documentary as well as traditional material in the prepa-
ration of Genesis. The length of life ascribed to the early
generation makes a living tradition of a very few links,
adequate for all its purposes.
II. Corroborations of the Mosaic Authorship of the
Pentateuch.
(a). The entire naturalness and antecedent probability of
such a record from the hand of Moses.
Critics have asserted the improbability that Moses
should have produced a work of such compass, of such
contents, under such conditions, with such variety in its
material and style, in fully developed perfection, etc., etc.
Such a priori considerations are to be set over against
other probabilities and positive evidences. The absence
of parallels in other literatures weighs but little. He who
admits the existence of Moses must concede to him ex-
traordinary capacity, a rare human training, an exceptional
Providential discipline, and a very special relation to the
resources of the divine wisdom and power. The occa-
sions for his acting, and acting in this way, were excep-
tional. The known characteristics of the people made it
more natural and essential that this law of God to Israel
should be written (Baumgarten) cf. Deut. xxix. 4, 13 ;
xxxi. 27-29 ; xxxii. 15 ; x. 16. The normative influence
of this literature should seem nothing remarkable.
(b). The perfect practicableness of such a record in those
times, under the existing conditions, and from the hand of Moses.
The objections urged a generation or two ago against
the existence of the art of writing, alphabetic writing,
among the Hebrews as early as the age of Moses, are ut-
terly abandoned. Cuneiform writing, it is claimed, was
invented by the Accadians 3,000 years B. C. Egyptian
hieroglyphic writing can be followed back to the 3d
dynasty. There is in Paris a papyrus from the 5th
dynasty, estimated by Lenormant to be 2,000 years old
at the time of Moses. The Hittites used alphabetic writ-
ing probably before the age of Moses. The Phoenician
16
claims are well known. It is a mere assumption that the
Hebrews were less civilized than the nations about them.
Moses was brought up in Egypt as the son of Pharaoh's
daughter. The officers set over the Israelites in Egypt,
and those set over divisions of the tribes organized for
their march through the wilderness, were Shoterlm,
writers.
(c). The general uniti/ and consistency of the narrative in
itself and its contents, a unity not superficial bid fundamental,
a unity such as is best explained on the supposition of unity of
authorship.
Of course, to prove oneness of authorship the unity
must be something more than that which characterizes
the (). T. as a whole, simple unity in the view taken of
God, His general relations to men. His special relations
to Israel, of the economy which He instituted, and the
work which He is carrying on in Israel, and through
Israel for the world. There appears to be a more specific
oneness of spirit, purpose and conception throughout the
Pentateuch.
Kaulen {IrUrod. to the Scriptures of the 0. T. and N. T.)
emphasises the argument from unity of plan, as indicated
especially by the central place which the law occupies
both in the history and in the record. The history is not
written merely for its own sake. The importance of the
law rests in part on the historical right connected with
its antiquity, and in part on its prophetic character. The
histoi'y, the law and institutions, and the record meet in
a remarkable unity. A simpler solution of the problem
is gained by making the great lawgiver one, and that law-
giver also the recorder of the legislation and the history,
than if we suppose a process extending over eight or ten
centuries in the development both of the facts and of the
record, — the actors working ignorantly, artificially and
often antagonistically one to another.
And so far as such evidences of unity appear, they
are in their measure inconsistent with the theory, that we
have wrought together in the Pent., the work of an annal-
istic, a theocratic, a prophetic narrator and a Deuterono-
17
mist, the proof of whose existeuce consists in part of their
marked diversities in style, and thought, and faith.
One of the strongest evidences, not merely of unity
of plan, but of unity of authorship, is found in the mutual
references which connect part with part, in a way and to
an extent that is characteristic and unique among the
books of the O. T. These are not only closer and more
frequent than are found elsewhere, but are perfectly
natural to one writing in the time and with the probable
aim of Moses, while many of them would be less natural
to a later writer, or to a composite work. Mr. Warring-
ton, e. ^., illustrates the habit of the Pent, especially in
its hortatory and prophetic parts, of referring to a personal
knowledge common to the writer and his readers ; a
knowledge of the events of the past in Egypt and the
wilderness — all very natural to Moses, but which would
be from a writer of Manasseh's time, " the most exquisite
of literary frauds." (Hengstenberg.)
(d). The constant and unstudied evidences of 'personal
participation on the ])art of the author, in the acts done and
the events recorded in the four later books.
It has long been recognized that the books are so
constructed as to convey this impression. The books were
naturally so produced, or other and later writers success-
fully produced this appearance.
In favor of the former position, attention has been
called to the minute recital of names, description of places,
specification of numbers, of the names of minor leaders
and their genealogy, of dimensions, materials, etc., all
important and natural for the time. Explanations and
minute directions abound that only embarrass the narrative,
and which a late writer would therefore avoid. Inter-
ruptions, irregularities, repetitions appear, appropriate to
one like Moses, but unlikely to be used or simulated by a
later writer.
In regard to the legislation, observe: (1) The large
proportion of laws given in a direct and somewhat bald
way, as received by Moses from God for direct transmis-
sion to the people ; while (2) In other cases the legislation
appears closely connected with conditions just then exist-
18
ing, and is sometimes changed as conditions change.
Observe especially the tone of the Deuteronomic laws.
The blending of these two methods was eminently natural
for Moses.
But critics object: —
(1), There are chronological contradictions within a
narrative professing to be chronological, and to put events
and facts in their causal relations. A personal parti-
cipant could and would avoid this.
In illustration cf. Num. i. 1, and ix. 1. But this
seeming return of the narrative upon itself is sufficiently
explained by ix. 6-14. Cf. Ex. xvi. 35, with Josh. v. 12 ;
Ex. xvi. 34 with chap, xxxvii; Num. i. with Ex. xxxviii. 26;
Ex. xix. 22, with chap, xxviii.
(2). There is serious incompleteness at various points
in the narrative. See especially Num. xx., where 38 years,
more or less, simply disappear from view. It is, besides,
utterly unlikely that all that was interesting or important
in incident, institution or legislation, should be crowded
into two years at the beginning and end of the wilderness
life. But according to the narrative these 38 years had
their function which was fulfilled, and this solemn silence
is one of the most eloquent portions of the narrative.
(3). There are many repetitions, mutual contradictions
and manifest errors of arrangement in the narrative.
There are repetitions, it is said, in the legislation. E. g.,
in Ex. xxxiv., legislation is repeated which has just been
recorded in chap, xxi.-xxiii, ; and in Lev. xx., legislation
that has already been recorded in chap, xviii. It is im-
probable that Moses should have thus given to the people
twice at God's command within so short a time the same
precepts, or should have thought it needful to record
them twice. But if anything so momentous as a renewal
of the covenant occurred at the time referred to in chap,
xxxiv., why should not requirements made at its first
institution be repeated ? And while Lev. xviii. reprobates
certain offences, chap. xx. emphasises the punishments to
be visited upon them ; and why should not some of the
details be repeated ?
There are historical repetitions^ it is said. Compare
Num. xi. with Ex. xvi. 12 sq. ; Num. xx. 1-12 with Ex.
xvii. 1-7 ; Num. ix. 15-23 with Ex. xl. 34-38. This is
19
the kind of objection that is frequently urged against
narratives in the Gospels, wherever two miracles, or any
other two historical narratives, exhibit marked resem-
blances, whatever the points of difference, and however
clear the proofs of a recurrence of somewhat similar
events.
There are historical inconsisteHcies, it is said. Compare
Ex. iii. 11 and vi. 30 with Num. xii. 8 and Ex. xi. 3; Num.
xiii. 1, 2withDeut. i. 20-22; Deut. i. 37 and iii. 26 with
Num. XX, 12 and xxvii. 14, Examination shows that
there is here no real inconsistency.
Material is introduced, it is said, in inap'propriaie con-
nections; e. g., the genealogy of Moses and Aaron in Ex.
vi. ; compare Num. xxvi. 59 ; the visit of Jethro to Moses
"at Sinai" in Ex. xviii., before Sinai has been reached,
and " before God " when the tabernacle had not been
erected. Moreover, a tabernacle is called for in Ex. xxv.-
xxxi., while its erection is called for only in xxxiii. 7-11.
and its completion must have required time; and the
ordinances concerning the shewbread in Lev. xxiv. 5-9
are .presupposed in Ex. xl., and should be connected with
the legislation of Ex. xxv.
The question of the genealogy is discussed hereafter in
another connection. The visit of Jethro was at least sub-
stantially at Sinai, and the succession of events is but
slightly modified to avoid breaking the narrative of
Israel's dealings with God. It is commonly assumed that
temporary arrangements for the tabernacle anticipated the
final structure. Dillmann regards the shewbread legisla-
tion of Leviticus as designed for a different time from
that implied in Exodus.
(4). In respect to strange omissions in the narrative
(strange if it be Mosaic), it is said that we are told very
little about men as prominent as Jethro and Hur; to which
it may be replied that we are hardly in position to dictate
how much Moses should say. He fails to identify for us
the several Pharaohs. But it is the official position and
i;ot the personality of the king that is important to the
narrative. Moses must have known what districts, cities,
etc., were the scene of the Egyptian story ; but of all these
we learn nothing;— perhaps for the very reason that
those for whom the narrative was first shaped knew them
so well.
20
(e). There are ample and varied evidences of minute and
special familiarity with the lands and times covered by the
history.
See Hengstenberg, Ebers, Palmer, Vigouroux, Raw-
linson and other authorities.
Von Bohleii (1835) and Tuch (1838) asserted the
inaccuracy of many of the Egyptian representations of
Genesis; but the discoveries and interpretations of the
last 50 years have signally vindicated the narrative. It
is exceedingly difficult to credit all the writers required
by the document hypothesis with this exact knowledge
and correct representation ; and all the more, if some of
the documents took their form as late as some critics
assume, and their material had passed through so many
redactions. Just so far as this intimate familiarity with
Egypt and the wilderness is an allpervading presence, it
becomes a welcome suggestion that one Moses may have
been the author of the narrative.
Observe, also, the free way in which words of Egyp-
tian origin are introduced without explanation or comment,
as if by an author who knew that his first readers would
be as familiar with them as himself.
Vigouroux devotes 170 pages to the examination of
the story of Joseph in its minutest details, as illustrated
by monuments and documents. Ex. i.-xv. may be tested
in the same way. Palmer bears witness to a like accuracy
in the details of the narrative of the wilderness life.
We may consider together—
(f). Evidences of the controlling or modifying influence
of conditions, such as were peculiar to the age of Moses ; and
(g). Evidences that when the books of the Pentateuch were
written the occupation of Canaan was yet future, and that ynany
of the provisions of the legislation were anticipative.
There are characteristics of the time of the Exodus
and the wandering in the wilderness, which correspond
remarkably with the history anVl with the form and sub-
stance of the leaislation set forth in the Pent. ; and these
21
are reproduced at no subsequent period ; moreover, in
many of these provisions the residence in Canaan is dis-
tinctly contemplated as future.
Salvador contrasts the conditions of the Mosaic leg-
islation with those of the legislation of Lycurgus, Draco,
Solon, Numa, Confucius, Mahomet, etc.
There are certain exigencies in the condition of Israel
in Egypt which are met in characteristic and effective
ways in the facts of the history and the legislation.
(1). In the social and political condition of the people
the slight and inadequate organization.
(2). In the temper and spirit, the moral tone and ten-
dencies of the people, the conspicuous characteristics are
such as might be expected of such a people, living in such
conditions in such a land ; effeminacy, self-indulgence,
self-distrust, an aversion to self-denial, hardship, disci-
pline, etc.
(3). In their religious life a fading away of the old
faith, and a serious complication with positive idolatries.
See Josh xxiv. 14 ; Lev. xvii. 7 ; Ezek. xx. and xxiii. ;
Ex. xxxii. ; Lev. xviii. 21 ; xx. 2; Deut. iv. 15-19.
(4) These faults are dealt with and these wants met
in the theocratic system, which is not a product of the
tendencies and necessities of the time, but comes to meet
them from without and from above. It implied (Heng-
stenberg) that law in all its details was direct from God ;
that God was the basis as well as the source of right ; that
all power was an efflux from the divine supremacy; that
God will reward and punish ; that He supplies means of
knowing His will; that He dwelt among His people.
The singular intermingling of laws on all subjects is a
reminder that God claimed and exercised the right to reg-
ulate life in all its spheres. The ceremonial law had
manifold moral and disciplinary uses.
(5j. Whether the Pentateuchal legislation is provis-
ional or most permanent in its character, the frequent
assertion and constant implication is, that the occupation
of Canaan is yet future. And the probability is very
great, that these laws which so reflect and provide for the
minute and peculiar conditions of that wilderness life,
must have been put on record there. It is difficult to
account otherwise for the accuracy with which they have
been preserved.
22
But it is objected, that all through the Pent, we find
incidental phrases and forms of expression, archteological
explanations and the like, which imply a later authorship
and a residence within the Promised Land.
Conservative commentators admit that now and then
an authorized prophetic hand may have introduced some
of these expressions — the only diflerence being with ref-
erence to the number of these later modifications. This
is a matter of detail and need not be inconsistent with a
high doctrine of inspiration, nor with a firm maintenance
of the Mosaic authorship of the Pent, as a whole.
A later time is said to be implied in passages like Gen.
xii. 6; xiii. 7; xl. 15; so with the phrase, " unto this day,"
in Gen. xix. 37; xxii. 14; xxvi. 33; Deut. iii. 14 (cf. Num.
xxxii. 41 ; Jud. x. 3, 4), etc. See, also, Gen. xxxvi. 31;
Num. XV. 32 sq. ; Lev. xviii. 28; the Song of Moses in Ex.
XV. ; Deut. iii. 11 ; the designation of Abraham, Aaron and
Moses as " prophet," in Gen. xx. 7 ; Ex. vii. 1 ; Num. xi.
29 ; xii. 6, in apparent contradiction to I. Sam. ix. 9. See,
also, the citation in Num. xxi. 14 from " the book of the
wars of Jehovah."
Other passages presuppose a writer and a people
already established in Canaan ; e. g., passages employing
the phrase " beyond Jordan," of the East side of Jordan,
Deut. i. 1,5, etc. ; the designation of the West by yam,
especially while the people were at Sinai, Ex. xxvi., xxvii.,
xxxvii., xxxviii. ; Num. ii. and iii. The ;vhole style of Lev.
xxvi. presupposes long residence in Canaan, and much ex-
perience there of idolatry and judgment. See, also, Num.
XV. 22 sq. ; Deut. xix. 14 ; Deut. xx. (the laws of war).
See the implication of the laws of Lev. xiv. 33 sq. ; xxv.
29 sq. ; xvi. 21 ; xxvi. 31 sq. ; Deut. xi. 20.
(h). Characteristics of language jmnting to a relatively
archaic time like that of Moses.
Bleek maintains that we find the Hebrew purest just
in the oldest writings preserved to us ; and that the later
writings are distinguished by a depraving of the language,
an intermixture with other Semitic tongues ; and that in
the oldest literature there is such development as implies
a not inconsiderable previous literary activity.
23
Style corroborates the asserted Mosaic authorship only
so far forth as linguistic and rhetorical evidences point to
an ancient authorship, and unity of authorship. In recog-
nizable particulars the Pentateuch has a diction some-
what its own, with some characteristic grammatical forms.
(Keil's Introduction, sec. 14.)
The Dean of Canterbury maintains that, as compared,
e. g., with Isaiah, both forms and words in the Pentateuch
are easily distinguished; and as an Aramaic scholar asserts
that the Pentateuch often uses one equivalent, where later
books use another, for Syriac words.
(i). Incidental evidences, scattered in a continuous series of
references through the succeeding books, showing that the records
of the Pentateuch had bee)) previously produced.
These are all the more significant when derived from
the history of the divided and frequently hostile kingdoms
of Judah and Israel. When the reference to facts, laws,
predictions contained in the Pentateuch is minute, and
forms of expression are identical, " tradition " does not
furnish an adequate explanation.
Joshua is so full of recognition of the Pentateuch that
for this, among other reasons, it is claimed that we should
speak rather of a Ilexateuch. The very confusions and
disorders of the time of the Judges are constantly measured
in the narrative itself by the standard which the Penta-
teuch supplies. Hiivernick argues : The deterioration
of the people must have been quite different from what
we find in the time of the Judges, if we give up the as-
sumption of a time like the Mosaic, and a fixed standard
transmitted from it. So likewise many things in the
books of Samuel and the early part of Kings, are less
intelligible if we sever them from the Pentateucli. Even
some of the assumptions and seeming usurpations of
Samuel indicate a wish to comply with the spirit of the
Pentateuch, where the observance of its forms was not
possible.
Many details of David's life are hard to be under-
stood except on the supposition of the settled authority of
the Mosaic economy. His parting charge to Solomon is
full of the spirit of the Pentateuch legislation. The course
24
of the early Kings of Israel, even in many of their irregu-
larities, shows that they were in some things consciously
at a disadvantage as compared with the Kings of Judah ;
and sometimes they seem to be counterfeiting compliance
with the requirements of the Pentateuch, or devising
plausible substitutes. The older Prophets, both of Judah
and Israel, are full of the spirit of the Pentateuch.
///. Objections and Difficulties urged against the
claim of Mosaic Authorship for the Pentateuch.
Such objections and difficulties as have been thus
far incidentally suggested, if allowed any force, go to
show the inconclusiveness of the arguments by which the
claim of Mosaic authorship is supported. Prof. Strack
says of the reasons adduced against the Mosaic authorship:
"It is not to be denied that if each of them be considered
separately, very different judgments can be formed in
regard to them, partly according to the critical, partly
according to the theological point of view, occupied by
him who is judging them." But the attempt is made to
show by evidence of many kinds, (1) That the Pentateuch
in its present form cannot be from the age, and of course
not from the hand of Moses ; (2) That it^is not an original
unit from any age or baud ; and (3) That the order of the
composition of its important sections, the time of that
composition (at least approximately), and the kind of in-
fluence that was dominant over the several parts, can be
measurably determined.
Certain characteristics and tendencies of the critical
spirit and method attract attention.
1. Its professed philosophical and historical impar-
tiality, and its contempt for all that is not critical. Of
course all prepossessions are professedly set aside. Some
lines of evidence are ruled out, on which " traditional "
views in part rest. Authority is repudiated. The legi-
timacy of the use of N. T. citations is often denied. Fre-
quently a doctrine of nature and its laws is assumed which
excludes the supernatural. A corresponding doctrine is
often maintained in regard to historical development and
the laws of human progress. We are cautioned against
the attitude taken by the historians of Israel, as though
the critics never took an attitude.
25
2. The measure and quality of the respect shown by
the critical theory and method for the historical reliable-
ness of the O. T. records. The records are good author-
ity so far as they support, utterly bad when they conflict
with, or fail to support, the theory.
3. We are constantly forced to observe the amount
of support which the theory derives from things that are
negative, from what does not appear, from what is not
said and what is not known, from the seeming non-
observance of laws, and the like. Kuenen vindicates this
mode of procedure, provided (a) The persons in question
were pious Isrrelites and sincere friends of the theocracy ;
and (b) Their mode of acting, far from being an isolated
fact, is common to a multitude of their contemporaries.
He adds (c) That acts apparently in accord with more or
less of the prescriptions of the law do not prove the
existence and validity of the law at the time ; because the
acts may be due to a popular custom, possibly later
embodied in a law.
4. The theory continually assumes the existence of
the most absolute and open antagonism between the
prophetic and the priestly institutions, orders and func-
tions. Books from prophetic hands alone reliably describe
the times. We are often misled by our wrong application
of the word Torah, which frequently means only instruc-
tion, not the law. " Prophetism and the authority of the
later Torah are profoundly incompatible " (Kuenen).
" They (the spiritual prophets) deny that these things
(sacrifice and ritual) are of positive divine institution, or
have any part in the scheme on which Jehovah's grace is
administered in Israel " (Robertson Smith). How. then,
would the prophets stand in the light of the N. T.?
5. It is the delight of the Theory (if not a necessity
to it) to magnify discrepancies, to create inconsistencies
and positive contradictions where none exist. Volumes
of meaning are extorted from phrases or incidents that
can be made to appear favorable to the theory, while
every thing on the other side is reduced to a minimum.
6. It is difficult to decide whether the theory and its
results are in a larger degree the consequence, or the
fruitful source, of low views in regard to the nature,
authority and value of the 0. T. Scriptures. The intrusion
•26
of any dogmatic principles or considerations is strenuously
objected to, except the dogmatism of science. Many up-
holders of the theory will allow no inspiration except
such as may be affirmed of numbers of men, a people, a
class, a train of influences, a course of events. It is dif-
ficult to form a clear conception of the inspiration that
was engaged so many centuries in fashioning the com-
posite Pentateuch, rejecting, remodelling, creating false
appearances, producing studiously false impression's — the
crowning result being that the nature and scope of the
Pentateuch and its legislation have remained hidden until
within this generation.
HISTORICAL SURVEY.
"We have to assume that this view (Mosaic author-
ship of the entire Pentateuch) was the general view at the
time of Christ and the apostles; we find it expressly in
Philo and Josephus " (Blcek). In the first Christian
centuries there were individual dissenting opinions,
especially among the Gnostics. So with two or three
Jewish scholars iii the middle ages ; so with Carlstadt,
Hobbes, Spinoza, R. Simon and others in the 16th and
17th centuries.
In 1753 Astruc,in hh Co}]jectHres,ete., cdWed attention
to the changing use of the names of God in Genesis, in-
ferred the existence of older documents, and laid the
foundations of the Docianent hypothesis. This was extended
by Eichhorn, De Wette, Bleek and Ewald to other books,
reinforced by other tests, and supplies a fundamental
element to the modern critical position.
In 1805 Vater brought forward definitely the Frag-
ment hypothesis, previously suggested by Peyrere, Spinoza
and Geddes, which insists that much of the material, both
historical and legal, especially the latter, consists of small
fragments, often showing no clear connection, and no
palpable order.
Passing from the literary form, criticism began now
to deal also with the contents of the Pent., c. g., the liter-
ally historical character of the events, and the relative
age of the laws recorded there. DeWette, Augusti,
Vatke and George are the leaders.
27
A third theory, the Supplement hi/pothesis, assumes an
original document to which later and successive additions
were made. Tuch, Stahelin, De Wette, Von Lengerke
and others its advocates ; Schrader almost its only i-ecent
adherent.
Further study led to the abandonment or serious
modification of the theory of a single fundamental docu-
ment, and introduced the Modified Documod hypothesis
which is now current in one form or another with the
critical school. Ewald, Knobel, Hupfeld (1853), Boehmer
(1862), and others suggested and described several more
or less independent documents, later wrought together.
Hupfeld claimed to identify a second Elohist, whose age,
as compared with the Jehovist, is differently interpreted.
Riehm (1854) more clearly distinguished the Deutero-
nomist.
Strack gives these as four points in which critics are
substantially agreed, (a) There are four main docu-
mentary sources of the Pent, E, E^, J, and D. (6) Several
sections of the Pent., although preserved to us only within
these four, are considerably older, {c) The Elohistic are
older than the Jehovistic portions (disputed by many),
(r/) E, E^ and J had been wrought together before D
was produced (also disputed).
Critics differ widely as to the designation and mutual
relations of these documents, the time of their combina-
tion, etc.
Another school, working partly within the same
lines, partly after methods of their own, has lately come
to the front. While accepting the general results of the
literarj' examination which has been zealously prosecuted
since the days of Astruc, and professing that these are in
many ways and in many points confirmed by new methods
of investigation, it regards literary tests as not fully
decisive. It therefore depends mainly on the legislative
and historical material, tried by the methods of the
Higher criticism,. Reuss claims to be its founder; Vatke
and George (1835), Graf, Kayser, Wellhausen, Stade,
Kuenen and others, its chief advocates. For various
reasons at difterent times, they have pronounced the
legislation of the middle books in its present form, mainly
postexilian. Graf at first separated the Elohistic historical
28
material from the Elohistic legislation by an interval of
centuries, but changed his ground. The oldest documents,
it is claimed, know no enjoined worship at one central
sanctuary, hold worship at high places entirely legitimate,
know no detailed law of sacrifices, no exclusively theo-
cratic explanation of the feasts, no distinction between
priests and Levites.and in general no hierarchy (Kautzsch).
Three strata in our historical books therefore correspond
with the three strata of the Pentateuch. Other more pro-
gressive critics would however make these strata all post-
exilian, and deny the chronological distinction maintained
by their predecessors.
Delitzsch claims that the question must be left to
experts, the church as a whole having no interest in it,
and needing to have none ; — from which latter view we
entirely dissent. The reliableness or unreliableness of the
O. T. Scriptures, the real nature and meaning of the 0.
T. economy, God's relation to it and its relation to His
plans for saving men, the meaning and value of N. T.
comments on O. T. laws and facts, are too deeply impli-
cated. The theory is admitted to be revolutionary. Many
phases of the development of the theory, as well as its
characteristic spirit and methods, suggest caution and
inspire distrust, in spite of the fact that its advocacy is so
brilliant, and that it is so much the mode.
EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL METHOD.
There are two lines of investigation of which the
critical method makes chief use, separately or in combina-
tion. Their conclusiveness separately, and their significant
coincidence in their main results, are much insisted on.
I. The method of literarj^ analysis.
II. The method of " realistic " analysis (Merx) ; the
examination of the substance, structure and contents of
the Pentateuch, studied by itself and in its historical, its
legislative, and its few poetical portions, — and also in
relation to the data supplied by the other books of the O.
T., historical, prophetical and poetical.
Historically the literary examination broke ground,
and prepared the way for historical criticism. Many of
the more recent discussions simply assume the results of
the literary analysis to be incontrovertibly settled, and
29
give the literary part of the proof, if at all, only for the
sake of symmetry and completeness.
Kuenen, looking for fixed starting points, finds them
in the threefold grouping of the Pentateuch laws, which
is self-evident, and the peculiar use of the divine names
in Genesis and the opening of Exodus, which is equally
indisputable. Prof Strack admits, "In general, there
prevails too great confidence in the reliableness of the
literary analysis."
/. The aim and method of the literary analysis.
This method aims to trace out documentary sources
and incorporated fragments, the plan, the unity, the proofs
of an editing to which all has been subjected, and to effect
an approximate identification of the editors, by its careful
and discriminating dealing with lexical peculiarities, char-
acteristics of thought and style, of doctrinal conception
and purpose, with any seeming preference for favorite
material.
We are asked to consider —
A. The use of the names of God in the Pentateuch.
Kuenen's argument, e. g.., is : —
1. The names Elohim and Jahve are by no means
simple synonyms. Jahve is the proper name of the God
of Israel ; Elohim is always an appellative, which, how-
ever, frequently in the 0. T. acquires the character of a
proper name.
2. The original distinction between the two names is
often the reason for the use of onie or the other, but not
always.
3. While elsewhere the motive is only matter of infer-
ence, the reasons are for Genesis and Ex. i.-vi., given by
the authors themselves in Ex. vi. 2, 3, with which Ex. iii.
13-15 (from another hand) corresponds. Inferences to be
drawn in regard to Jahve when it occurs in earlier passages.
4. It is obvious that the exclusive use of Elohim is
limited to a portion of Genesis, while in another portion
the name Jahve is presupposed as known, and unhesitat-
ingly used.
5. Although these parallel records in Exodus must
have led at once to the conjecture that more than one
30
narrator in Gen. intentionally avoided the use of Jahve,
yet at first all Elohim passages were referred to one and
the same author.
6. The authors of these remote narratives would prob-
ably treat of the continuations of the history, and their re-
ports be transmitted to us as in the Hexateuch. This
seems to have been the case.
Remarks: —
(1). We cannot accept the interpretation which Kue-
nen and his entire school give to Ex. vi. and Ex. iii. With
them these passages are conclusive as to the impossibility
that the name Jahve could have been used by God or of
God before the time of Moses.
(a). This interpretation involves a very inadequate
conception of the meaning and use of the word s/iem as
employed in these passages and in the O. T. generally.
The names of God are peculiarly significant and repre-
sentative. God's glorious memorial name is not given
merely to distinguish Him from the gods of Egypt. See
Is. ix. 6 ; Ivi. 7 ; Ex. xxiii. 21. When Dillmann says that
Ex. vi, 3 asks for the name, and not the import of the
name, etc., we reply that Moses was intent on something
infinitely more important than a mere appellation for his
God. He asks for something that will justify all that he
is to do, and summon the people to do. See Ex. xxxiii.
19 ; xxxiv. 6, for the progressive revelation to Moses him-
self. " The proton pseudos of all document and fragment
hypotheses lies in this, that the inner connection of the
names of God with the revelations of God is mistaken,
etc." (Keil).
(b). This interpretation involves a no less inadequate
conception of the meaning of nodha. See Ps. ix. 10 ; xci.
14. Baumgarten calls attention to the fact that a revela-
tion of M Shaddai is to be made to the great heathen
nation, while Jahve is making Himself known to Israel.
(c). It greatly weakens the force of Ex. vi. 3, as a
whole, to suppose that the stress of the verse is laid on
God's taking a new name, disclosing one not in any sense
previously known. The first clause refers to something
substantial and essential ; the second can hardly fall off to
the mere giving of a title. " As to the import of my
name, Jehovah, I was not known to them," alone does
31
justice to the deep significance of this series of com-
munications and dealings. So Jewish commentators un-
derstand the passage.
[d). If the critical interpretation of Ex. vi. and Ex.
iii. is not warranted, it becomes of course far more difficult
to rule out the 160 instances in Gen. in which Jehovah
occurs, as belonging all of them to post Mosaic docu-
ments, and introduced inadvertently or by some intention
into their pre-Mosaic parts. The expedients to which the
theory is obliged to resort inspire distrust.
(2). This particular criterion, whatever may be true
of the others, is of very little use for the chapters and
books following Ex. vi. Kuenen admits its use to be very
infrequent after this point. Dr. Stebbins shows that in
28 chapters called Elohistic Elohim occurs but 7 times,
while Jehovah occurs 237 times.
(3). On the supposition that the critical interpreta-
tion of Ex. vi. and iii. is unwarranted, whatever perplexi-
ties exist in regard to the peculiar use of the divine names
in Genesis, will remain to be solved in some other way.
No hypothesis is wholly free from difficulties.
(4). Unless the name of Jochebed, Moses' mother,
given in Ex. vi. 20, and Num. xxvi. 59, is a fabrication or
an afterthought, Jahve appears to have been one of the
elements of which it was composed. Dillmann suggests its
pointing possibly to the use of the divine name, Jahve, in
this family. But why here ?
B. With this discriminating use of the names of God we
fiiid, it is said, other lexical peculiarities associated.
Schrader (DeWette's Introd., viii. ed., §186), gives 14
words or phrases as characteristic of the 1st Elohist, 13 as
characteristic of the 2d Elohist, 30 as common to the 2d
Elohist and the Jehovist, while 11 are said to be peculiar
to the Jehovist. Other critics add to this list. Prof.
Harper enumerates 56 which are fairly characteristic of
the Priestly document and 104 as used by J alone, and as
characteristic. The discussion is important, chiefly in its
bearing upon the chapters following Ex. vi. Whatever
evidence may appear that Genesis" is composite, do the
same lines of division run through from Ex. vii. to the
82
end of Joshua, as is claimed ? Just in proportion as the
divine names fail to furnish a clear line of demarcation,
the other criteria should be clear, and their application
decisive.
Conservative scholars do not accept, as one of the
axioms, the doctrine that these lexical discriminations
were triumphantly established forty years ago. Of course,
as Keil and others have long admitted, if the different
names of God embody different conceptions of His rela-
tions to the world and to His people, the style of repre-
sentation will in other respects conform. Some words and
turns of thought and expression will be natural, pertinent
and necessary, in one class of passages, that will not be in
the other. The same remark will hold good with respect
to favorite material. The genealogical, legislative and
other clearly defined portions of the books will naturally
have their own technical terms and usus loquendi. This
does not, however, necessarily establish diversity in the
authorship and age of the documents, the religious views
which they represent, the attitude of the writers, the clas-
ses to which they belong, and the interests which they
are seeking to promote.
The invention of the 2d Elohist and the necessity of
combining in him Elohistic with Jehovistic peculiarities,
suggests the question : If in him, why not in others ?
Why might they not meet in Moses ?
If critics differ by 1,000 years in the period to which
they assign certain portions of the Pentateuch, we con-
clude that the criteria cannot be very clear and decisive.
Careful examination fails to establish the claims of most
of the words said to be distinctively Elohistic or Jehovistic.
Dr. Harper makes the admission : The argument from
language, while at one time supposed to be the most im-
portant, is now regarded by critics as of least value, com-
pared with other arguments. (See Vos's 3Iosaic Origin
Pent. Codes, and especially Dr. Green's discussion with
Prof. Harper in Hchraica)
The next three points we treat in combination. It
is said
c. Marked rhetorical i)eculiarities of thought and style are
associated luith this characteristic use of words ; also,
33
D. Distinctions in the selection and use of favorite material;
and
E. Characteristic doctrinal conceptions and aims.
Taking Prof. Harper's account of the two main docu-
ments, P and J, we tind the style and choice and use of
material thus described: P is characterized by a systematic
perhaps artificial arrangement of material ; — chronological,
statistical, perhaps mechanical ; — minute, precise, scien-
tific ; — rigid, stereotyped, condensed ; — verbose and repe-
titious; generic. J is free and flowing; — abundance of
s'tories and traditions ; — picturesque, poetical ; — highly
anthropomorphic ; — prophetic, 1. 1., predictive and didac-
tic ; — individual ; — with certain peculiar marks beside.
In theology, we find P. distinguished by a rigidly
monotheistic spirit ; — a lofty, dignified conception of God ;
a magnifying and dignifying of the supernatural ; — man
so far beneath his Creator as to give no occasion for
jealousy or alarm ; — strict adherence to the idea of pro-
gressive revelation ; — conscientious avoidance of any refer-
ence to God as the Covenant God, to sacrifice, altars,
clean and unclean, or ceremonial institutions. In J we
find a spirit scarcely strictly monotheistic; — a representa-
tion of God as a supernatural being whose rights are
threatened by man's presumption ; — a dispensing as far
as possible with divine aid ; — men sustaining free and
confidential relations with Jehovah ; — an utter indifier-
ence to the historical development of religious ideas ; the
existence from the beginning of a definite ceremonial
system, with altars, sacrifices, etc.
The critics differ decidedly among themselves in re-
gard to the possibility of separating fu'lly the 2d Elohistic
document, — and also in regard to the characteristics which
they emphasize.
The bounds and characteristics of the work of the
Deuteronomist within the Pentateuch are less debatable,
and it would be strange if critics did not agree substan-
tially in their descriptions.
Remarks : —
(1). There is a measure of truth in some of these
discriminations, so far forth as God's manifestation of
Himself, now in a more general way as Elohim or El
34
Shaddai, and again in a more special way as Jehovah,
would naturally involve diversities of conception and
representation, with a corresponding style of phraseology.
Keil clearly recognizes the (( priori reasons for anticipating
these varieties. Hiivernick urges that the more clearly
we recognize the divine presence in the history and the
record of it, as an early and constant reality and power,
the more impossible will it be to maintain all the critical
results of this literary analysis.
And all the more when we observe : —
(2). The very minuteness of many of these discrimina-
tions, and the overweening confidence, and overawing
positiveness with which they are set forth, creates distrust
of them ; so also the magnitude of the conclusions drawn
from very small premises, " the want of an objectively
fixed foundation being supplied by so much greater sub-
jective certainty " (Bredenkamp).
(3). Just in proportion as the lexical tests fail to
establish the discriminations that are asserted, and to
identity and define the documents, we are thrown back on
the subjective judgments and estimates of the critics, a
most uncertain and fiuctuating reliance, leaving us in con-
stant doubt at which end of the theory the facts stand.
(4). While critics point triumphantly to the nund^er
of particulars in which they are agreed, it is no less obvious
that in other particulars they are in the sharpest antagon-
ism to each other. See Watson's Hulsean Lectures for
1882, for a telling exhibition of ditierences of judgment in
regard to the style and spirit of the same documents. We
are left to woncler how the same conclusion was reached
from these contrasting premises ; how the documents were
identified as the same when their peculiarities are so dif-
ferently estimated. And the outlines are very shadowy,
and the fragments in which we are to find these clear dis-
criminations often very small.
(5). That there are such difierent conceptions of God
characterizing difterent portions of the Pentateuch, and
such different theological conceptions generally, conserva-
tive scholars see no reason to believe. To their view
seeming diversities connect themselves for the most part
with the place assigned to God, now as God of Nature and
Providence and again as God of the covenant and redemp-
tion. (See especially Dr. Green, Hebraira, V. 182 sq.)
35
Moreover some of the alleged doctrinal diversities are
a gross aud extravagant deduction from the anthropomor-
phisms of this ancient narrative. And still further the
critics are far from being agreed in regard to the relative
age of these supposed documents, and consequently in
regard to the order of this theological development.
Some will prefer to believe that there is no intrinsic and
essential ditiiculty in God's employing various modes of
self-disclosure and communication in dealing with the
same age, or even the same man, as Moses, so far as yet
appears, believed and reported, both in his own case aud
that of others.
II. The realistic analysis, or the historicnl criticism of the
Pentateuch.
1. The fields of investigation to be searched by this
historical method are: (a) The legislative portions of
the Pentateuch ; (b) The historical portions both of the
Pentateuch aud of the following books ; (c) The pro-
phetical and poetical literature of the 0. T.
'L The chief points to be investigated are: (a) The
mutual relations of the main legislative codes; (b) The
mutual consistency of the details of this legislation ; (c)
The mutual consistency of different parts of the history ;
(d) The relations of the Mosaic history to the legislation
which is referred to that time; (e) Evidence furnished in
the subsequent history of the apparent existence or non-
existence, observance or non-observance of the laws, etc. ;
(f) Evidence from the prophetical and poetical literature
of the existence or non-existence, observance or non-
observance of the laws. etc. ; (g) Evidence from the his-
torical, prophetical and poetical books of the actual ex-
istence of a difi'erent order of things, out of which the
legislation may more probably have grown.
3. The alleged result reached by the investigation of
these points.
(a). It is said to be in all respects unfavorable to the
claim of Mosaic authorship either for the whole, or for
any considerable part of the legislation, or for the record
of it.
(b). It is said to be in all respects favorable to the
theory that the legislation now recorded in the Pentateuch
owes its origin chiefly to three quite different periods and
trains of influence; and that the authorship of the record
is in like manner to be extended over several centuries,
and to be assigned to several different hands, which can
be in a broad and general way identified, and their mutual
relations determined.
Vernes gives this statement {Ey\cycl. des Sciences rel.,
X.) : The first partial edition of the Hexateuch, amount-
ing to about 80 chapters, was composed in the prophetic
spirit by the Jehovist early in the 8tli century B. C. The
Deuteronomist, at the end of the same century, contributes
material amounting to about 40 chapters, exhibiting a
combination of the prophetic spirit with priestly inclina-
tions. A few years after the reforms of Josiah the
Deuteronomist combines this new material with the work
of the Jehovist in a second edition of the Hexateuch,
The Elohist, after the exile, writes a new history of
Israel, including numerous and detailed legislative pro-
visions, conceived under an entirely sacerdotal or clerical
inspiration, etc., etc. Within the century between N'ehe-
miah and Alexander the Great, the second edition of the
Hexateuch was brought by unknown hands into combi-
nation with the Elohist-Ezraic code in our present
Hexateuch.
We are then to study first : —
(a). The mutual relations of the main legislative codes of
the Pentateuch.
The codes, so called, of the Pentateuch are three :
(1) The book of the covenant, mentioned in Ex. xxiv. 7.
(2) The laws of Deuteronomy, including in general Deut.
iv. 44-xxvi. (3) All the other laws in Ex., Lev. and Num.,
commonly called the priestly (or priests') code.
In respect to the first Kuenen says : The sequence is by
no means always clear and regular ; some items break the
succession; the preceding verse (xx. 22), which lacks con-
firmation, connects these laws with the words which
Jehovah spoke to Israel from Heaven. There is one
allusion to an earlier commandment (xxiii. 15), and no
announcement of laws to be subsequently promulgated.
37
In regard to Deut.,he says, there are these questions
only : Where the collection begins and ends, (whether iv.
44-xxvi. or xii.-xxvi.) and, whether the collection has
come to us in the original form. It is in general homo-
geneous, and sharply distinguished from both the other
codes.
With the exception of two or three fragments in Ex.
xii., xiii. and xxxiv. the third collection includes all the
remaining laws of the middle books — very miscellaneous,
ill arranged ; much might be omitted without loss. Some
have the character of novels ; they are also sometimes
mutually inconsistent. They relate mainly to the cultus,
the sanctuary and its servants, sacrifices, festivals, purity
and purification, vows; other things are touched in a
priestly sense.
R. 1. While there are facts lying on the very surface
of the narrative and the legislation which justify a certain
discrimination between these various parts of the Pent.,
the difi*erences both in substance and form are greatly
exaggerated.
R. 2. The want of orderly arrangement within the
several parts is rather in favor of an ancient and Mosaic
authorship (Dean Payne Smith). "In Palestine the national
code would have been digested and made uniform.'' The
laws as they stand appear to be recorded as they purport
to have been given, at intervals, and in a fragmentary
way.
R. 3. The fundamental assumption of the critical
theory, constantly reiterated, that each code and each law
must be the product and exponent of its own times; and
that, therefore, from the subject and form of each law we
may infer the conditions out of which it grew, and which
made it seasonable and necessary, is in most absolute
opposition to the whole scheme • and conception of the
Mosaic economy. This assumes that God is the guard
and guide, the lawgiver and ruler of Israel, It is con-
tinually asserted that the great part of the economic laws
of the Pent, deal with the life of a sedentary and agricul-
tural people, and would not have originated among, or
been given to, nomads in the wilderness, etc. But this
nomad life was transitional and was expected to be brief,
and is adequately provided for. The long life of the
38
future in Canaan was that which had been for centuries
promised, that toward which God had been leading the
people and for which he had been disciplining them, for
which he had brought them out of Egypt, and in which
he was now to establish them. That so little was done
for political and social organization, favors the idea that
God being always ruler over all, might put them at one
time under one human guidance, again under another.
What would occupy a foremost place in any humanly
devised codes is here left out of the account as a matter
of legislation. The enforcement of all laws rests on the
basis of God's relations, and will in experience be propor-
tionate to the reality and vigor of the people's recognition
of God.
R. 4. In respect to the mutual relation of the codes
the one thing that v/e can discuss as a settled thing is the
supposed discovery, that the Deuteronomic code as a pub-
lished code is the product of Josiah's time. " This book
must serve as the basis for critical research, because the
date of its publication can be accurately enough deter-
mined " (Reuss). See II. K. xxii., xxiii. ; II. Chr. xxxiv.,
XXXV. See Ewald's description of the way in which Deut.
is put into the mouth of Moses, and of the substance and
scope of the book (Hist, of Isr., iv. 220 sq.); and Dean
Stanley's sketch of the peculiarities of Deut. (Jewish
Church, II. Lect. xxxix.)
(1). As the record stands before us it is according to
II. K. xxii. 8, " the book of the law " that Ililkiah reports
to Shaphan as found in the house of the Lord. Pre-
sumptively this form of expression points to something
previously known.
(2). Whatever difficulties there may be in accounting
for the surprise and consternation of the king, and his
apparent ignorance of the law, its demands and its threat-
enings, with all his zeal for reforms apparently already
initiated and in progress for some years, it is more difficult
to account for the facility with which the high priest, the
scribe, the king, the prophetess and the people, receive as
the law of the Lord and the law of Moses (xxiii. 25), a
book which none of them had ever seen before, a book to
all intents and purposes just produced, yet purporting
beyond any other book of the O. T. to be from Moses
himself
39
(3). Whatever features may or may not be peculiar
to Deut., we cannot but regard these as singular products
of Josiah's time ; the definition of the duties of the pro-
phetic order, when since Samuel prophets had been com-
ing and going 500 years ; the definition of the duties of
kings, when from the time of Saul there had been kings
for 450 years ; the inculcation of the necessit}' of political
unity now, rather than when the tribes were first coming
out of Egypt and the wilderness into Canaan. The perils
connected with high places were moreover no new perils
(see the account of Balak and Balaam, 800 years before);
while the blessings and curses might as well be con-
nected with a law promulgated by the real Moses, as by a
fictitious Moses,
(4). The national relations made prominent in Deut.
are peculiar for so late a day as that of Manasseh and
Josiah ; relations to Canaanites, Amalekites, Ammonites,
Midianites and Moabites; relations to Egypt suggested by
the recent bondage, rather than by the complications of
the monardiical period; and no allusion to Syrians and
Assj'rians.
(5). Some of the most characteristic elements of Deut.
seem to have been known before Josiah's time. Hosea
and Amos appear to refer repeatedly to things mentioned
in Deut. alone of the books of the Pent. Cf. Hos. v. 10,
with Deut. xix. 14 ; IIos. iv. 4, with Deut. xvii. 12 ; Hos.
iv. 13, and viii. 11 with Deut. xxiii, 18 ; xii. 2, 4 sq. ; Amos
iv. 4, with Deut. xiv. 28 ; Am. viii. 5, with Deut. xxv.
14 sq.
Zahn says : Every literary untruthfulness brought
forward with the purpose to deceive, passed in the first
centuries of the church with all the teachers of the church
whose writings have come down to us, as an abominable
sin. And Bredenkamp urges that it is a sheer iKtUio
principii to suppose that it had been otherwise with the
Jewish sacred literature,
(b). T/ic mutual consistency of the Pentateuch legislation.
The general argument of Kuenen, etc., is, that the
first and second codes purport to have been recorded by
40
Moses, while in the third, the laws purport to have been
revealed to Moses and put in force by him, but may have
been recorded by others. In Deut. no other previous
legislation is presupposed, except the Decalogue of Deut.
v.6-18. Other laws were revealed at Sinai; but these
laws of Deut., designed for a people dwelling in Canaan,
are now first communicated to the people (v. 28 ; vi. 1).
The w^riter does not presuppose the knowledge by the
people of any earlier laws, like those of the book of the
covenant. Even in chap. ix. and x. no mention is made
of such a book and the people's acceptance of it. The
laws of the priests' code were also designed for the people
in Canaan ; these codes may therefore be fairly compared.
We discover essential diflerences and even contradictions
that cannot be removed.
To illustrate these diiferences Kuenen selects eight
particulars : —
(1). Place of worship : See Ex. xx. 24 ; Deut. xii. and
par. ; Lev. xvii and par. By the law in Ex. many places
are allowed ; in Deut. one is insisted on ; in *Lev. one is
presupposed.
But the capricious selection by men of places for
worship is surely cut off" by the phrase in Ex. : Where I
record my name. Divine sanction is essential ; and the
form of expression points quite as naturally to change of
place in the course of history ; especially when an author-
ized contemporaneous plurality of places finds no support
elsewhere in the law.
(2). The religious festivals: See Ex. xxiii. 14-17 and
par.; Deut. xvi. 1-17; Lev. xxiii. and par. The two
popular codes agree (cf. also Ex. xxxiv. 18, 22-24, and
xiii. 3-10) in recognizing three yearly feasts ; in the
priests' code, however (see Lev. xxiii. 2X/6.s/>/? ; Num.
xxviii. 18, 25, 26; xxix. 1, 7, 12; Ex. xii. 16), there are
seven, distinguished by holy convocations, abstinence
from labor and sacrifices.
Dillmann says: "The point of view (of Lev.) is
broader, and that there is a contradiction between this
and the other legal documents cannot be fairly asserted."
Things that ditfe'r are confounded in the haggini and the
moadhim, and so Sabbath and new moon are put on the
same footing as Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles.
41
(3V Priests and Levites : See Ex. xxviii. and par. ;
NuDi. iii. and par.; Deut. xviii. 1-8 and par. Accordiui^ to
the priests' code Aaron and his descendants are the only
lawful priests ; all oilier Levites are set apart for service
at the sanctuary, but excluded from the priesthood (see
Num. xvi. 9, 10; xxii. 5; xviii. 1—3). According to Deut.,
however (x. 8-9), the tribe of Levi is set apart " to bear
the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the
Lord to minister unto him, and to bless in His name,"
i. e., to the priesthood. All have the right to become
priests. So in regard to blessing; Num. vi. 23-27; Deut.
X. 8, 9; xxi. 5.
The concise answer is, that in some portions and
passages of the O. T. the distinction between priests and
Levites is sharply drawn, elsewhere not. See Malachi,
when according to the theory the priests' code had been
in existence many years; yet in i. 6 ; ii. 1-8 ; iii. 3, 4, the
phrase " sons of Levi " is used of those who are perform-
ing the most strictly priestly functions.
(4). Tithes of the fruits of the tield and of the Hock :
See Num. xviii. 21-32; Lev. xxvii. 32 sq.; Deut. xiv. 22-
29; xxvi. 12-15. The tithe of Lev. and Num. is undoubt-
edly ditlerent from that of Deut. The author of Deut.
must have alluded to a second tithe if he had known of
one, and offered some justification. In xviii. 3, 4 he names
no tithes among the sources of the priests' income. Cf.
Num. xviii. 21. If two tithes were assessed while it is
pretended that only one is demanded, " the one legislator
can be maintained only at the expense of his moral
character." (Kuenen.)
On the subject of tithes see Dr. Ginsburg in Kitto's
Cyclop., and McClintock & Strong's Cyclop.
To assume that a full statement in regard to tithes
must be made wherever tithes are mentioned is wholly
unwarranted. Deut. may be silent in regard to one tithe,
and Num. in regard to another, without justifying a slur
on the character of the one legislator. It is a sheer as-
sumption that Deut. xviii. 3, 4 professes to give all the
sources of the priests' income. And the precepts of Deut.
necessarily presuppose other ordinances. (Bredenkamp).
(5). The firstlings of the fiock : See Ex. xxii. 30; xiii.
12, 13; xxxiv. 19, 20 ; Deut. xv. 19-23; Num. xviii. 15-18.
42
As compared with Ex. the law in Xum. [•rotects the
priests from certain possibilities of loss ; while between
Num. and Dent, there is more positive contradiction.
That which in Deut. is expressly awarded to the offerer
and his household, to be eaten by them before the Lord,
is in Num. wholly given to the priests. See the views of
Riehm and Robertson Smith.
The difficulty has been met by two lines of suggestion ;
that these laws relate to tirstlings belonging to different
tithes, which under Jehovah's direction are disposed of in
different ways ; and that the phrases " give to Jehovah "
(Ex. xxii. 30) and "sanctify unto the Loi'd" (Deut. xv. 19),
are sometimes misapp^rehended. If that was duly given
or sanctified which in specified proportions was given to
the priests and used by the worshipers, the essential
requirement of the two laws is met.
(6). The dwelling places of the priests and Levites in
the land of Canaan : See Deut. xviii. 6 and par. ; Num.
XXXV. 1-8 and par.; Josh. xxi. 1-40. While according to
Num. and Josh, the Levites receive their cities with the
respective suburbs in absolute possession, according to
Deut. they reside as guests in the cities of the Israelites
(xii. 12, 18 ; xiv. 27, 29; xvi. 11, 14), and are with widows,
orphans and strangers commended to the benevolence of
the people (xii. 19; xxvi. 11 sq., etc.)
Neither does Deut. imply that the Levites had no such
assignment of cities as that declared in Num. (See xviii.
8, where their patrimony is recognized, although not de-
scribed), nor does it, in making them objects of generous
benevolence, imply that apart ti-ora that they were entirely
destitute.
(7). The beginning of the Levites' term of service :
See Num. iv. 3", 23, 30, 35, 39, 43, 47; Num. viii. 24.
According to Num. iv. they serve from their 30th to their
50th vear ; according to Num. viii. from the 25th to the
50th. "^
The ordinary explanation is, that the first regulation
has reference to the heavy service of the wilderness period,
the second to the subsequent, more settled life in Canaan,
or the lighter duties of their office even in the wilderness,
" in the tent of meeting."
43
(8). The emancipation of Israelitisb slaves : See Ex.
xxi. 1-6 ; Deut. xv. 12-18 ; Lev. xxv. 39-43. The laws of
Ex. and Deut. ordain emancipation after six years of ser-
vice; that of Lev. in the year of jubilee.
Dillmaun holds these directions not inconsistent. The
permanent bondage of an Israelite or his family was not
allowed. Lev. deals with the case of those who, on account
of poverty, had sold themselves. To release them in the
7th year might only return them to the wretchedness of
their old condition ; yet even they might not ])e held be-
yond the year of jubilee.
•
(c). The tnulual consistency of dif event parts of the Penta-
teuch, history.
The first point insisted on by Reuss and others of his
school is the numberless repetitions of the history ; thus
the promise to Abraham ; the story of 'a patriarch's calling
his wife his sister ; Beersheba ; the sending away of Hagar
and Ishmael ; the name of Isaac; the name Israel ; Bethel ;
the genealogies of Moses and Aaron; the return to Moses
of his wife and children ; the water brought from the rock,
etc., etc., appear from two to six times each. In other
cases two accounts have been unskilfully combined ; as in
the story of the deluge, of Abraham's departure from Ur
and Haran, of Joseph, of the mission of Moses to Pharaoh,
of the passage of the Eed Sea, of the sending of the spies,
of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.
In all these cases exposition should be careful and
exact ; inferences should be cautiously drawn ; the critical
principle should guard alike against forced harmonizing
arid forced antagonizing ; the authors should be credited
with the belief that the}' were not bringing into their nar-
ratives insoluble contradictions. If there is real repetition
a reason should be sought; if only an apparent repetition,
the differences should have full weight.
Apply these principles to the cases above specified.
(d). Relcdions of the 31osaic history to the legistatim}
recorded in the Fentateuch ; or, the fitness of the historical
setting of the Pentateuch legislation.
44
The naturalistic doctrine would make the legislation
as a whole, and each item of it, the pure and simple
product of the natural conditions in which the legislator
found himself and people at the time when the laws took
their form. Others who admit supernatural elements,
nevertheless, argue that in the case of the legislation, as
in the case of prophecy and all kindred matters, the sub-
jects of which the legislation (or prophecy) treats, must be
within the natural "field of view^ of the legislator (or
prophet), and so must be not only supernaturally possible,
but natural under the historical conditions of the case.
No one should deny that in the case of very many
items of the legislation there may be found, and in the
case of many more may have existed, antecedent usages,
human deliberations, consultations and experiences, and
the like — all of which on the higher theory are in the
Mosaic system taken up to a higher plane, divinely sanc-
tioned for their present purpose, divinely adapted and
enjoined ; while all these are supplemented by provisions
and enactments coming more directly from the divine
wisdom and authority.
Can, then, the laws contained in the last four books
of the Pent, be held to date from an epoch when the
Israelites were only hordes of nomads, traversing with
their flocks tlie wilderness of Sinai, and the steppes East
of the Dead Sea ? Reuss lays stress on three points as
chiefly proving the unfitness of the historical setting of
this legislation : (1) The entire want of political organiza-
tion ; (2) The want of correspondence between the civil
legislation in many of its particulars, and the time when
it purports to have been given ; (3) A like want of corres-
pondence in the case of the ritual laws.
(1) No ties but blood, common language, religion and
barbarism, bound together these nomads. Yet an undis-
puted nationality is presupposed ; and this ungovernable
people could not dispense with a firm and permanent
control, if the laws were to have any chance of execution.
SoKuenen ;— maintaining that the legislation assumes
the existence of authorities who are nowhere instituted or
instructed. Much that is said needs fuller definition ; e. g.
Deut. xix. 12 ; Ex. xxi. 6 ; xxii. 8 ; Deut. xvii. 8 sq.
46
As for the nomad life, it was evidently incidental and
transitional. All that is said of their occupations, habits,
tastes, and their very faults, proves that they had been an
agricultural people, and this they expected to be. The
Egyptian life had also been for many of them a city life,
in the closest contact with the culture of Egypt. Much
that is described and prescribed implies proficiency in the
industries and arts of civilized life. As to political organ-
ization, it is a marked peculiarity of the legislation that it
makes little of that of which human codes ordinarily make
so much. Tribes, generations, houses, and individual
families had their organization : there were elders, etc.
The theocratic principle controls and explains all.
(2). Reuss argues that any law actually promulgated
must correspond with the actual condition of the people,
if it is to have any chance of being executed. Number-
less laws of the Pent, imply wholly different conditions
from those actually existing. The agriculture of Canaan
is very unlike that of Egypt. Manj* things imply a some-
what advanced civilization.
As for the ditferences between Egyptian agriculture
and that of Canaan the forefathers of the Israelites had
lived for generations in Canaan, and continual intercourse
between the two countries would keep the traditional
knowledge from dying out. It is plain that the Israelites
were not the barbarians whom the critics delight to depict.
(3). Of the ritual laws Reuss selects two for special
challenge ; the law of the Sabbath, and those which relate
to worship at one central sanctuary. Of the Sabbath law
there are two versions, one connecting the institution with
the mythical history of the creation, the other with deliver-
ance from the Egyptian bondage. And the labors from
which the people are enjoined to rest, are rural labors,
manual toils.
As for the new rea#3n given in Deut. for Sabbath
observance, it seems eminently natural that the universal
and essential reason first given should be supplemented
(not superseded) by the more national and temporal reason.
In regard to the central sanctuary, the required pil-
grimages, etc., it is said, the demands are impracticable.
Ex. xxiii. 17 does not, in form, make such a demand;
Lev. xvii. points to a different geographical and political
46
horizou for the legislation ; — to a time when all the terri-
tory to which the law could apply consisted of one city
and a few villao;es.
Ex. xxiii. i9 (if not 17), seems to point to one place.
And as for Lev. xvii -xxvii., Dillmann regards this whole
group of laws as pre-eminently the Sinaitic; — Sinai-laws.
No law-giver could have enacted these after the legislation
of Deut.^
(e). Evidence furnished in the subsequent history of the
apimrent existence or non-existence, the observance or non-
observance of the laws, and of the institutions to which the
laws relate.
In the view of the critics this is the most important.
and the most decisive evidence accessible to us.
Even Genesis, it is claimed, may be called to witness,
so far forth as it testifies to acts done by those who are
set forth as types of theocratic perfection, which are
recorded without censure, although in flagrant contradic-
tion to the letter of a law recognized as obligator}' for the
whole people. How could Moses» as author both of
Genesis and of the law, make such a record, without some
precaution taken as a safegard for the authority of the
law? Cf Lev. xviii. 9,20; xviii. 18; xiii. 12 with the
marriages of some of the patriarchs, and of Moses' parents;
and the laws of Ex. xxi. and Deut. xxi. with the sending
away of Hagar.
The history does not pretend that all was right which
it records; makes distinction of time in respect to the ful-
ness and precision of divine revelations; does not set forth
the patriarchs as models of theocratic perfection ; holds
up the law and not these examples as the standard of
duty ; abundantly warrants the condemnation of all that
is contrary to fundamental morality, and supplies proof
of the evil tendency of whatever is evil.
The examples of Abraham and Jacob were not to be
followed when groves and pillars had been forbidden on
account of their relations to idolatry, etc., etc.
Passing to the time of the Judges, criticism makes
much of the " theocratic heroes " of the period, and of
the lack of evidence that they or their historian knew
47
auythiDg of the kiw which Joshua had just established so
firmly. The four examples relied on as proving know-
ledge of the law mean uothiug of the sort; Gideon's refusal
to be king; Jephthah's vow; Samson's consecration, and
the marriage of Boaz (Reuss). The tabernacle is not
named in Judges, the men worshiped where they would.
Sacrifice is spoken of with satisfaction, ofiered at many
diflerent places. Laymen offer sacrifice ; the legal festivals
are not once mentioned.
" Israel's iron age " is far from satisfactory ; yet the
indirect witness borne by the book of Judges to the pre-
ceding books is most impressive by the ver}- way in which
the irregularities of the time are marked as abnormal.
In such an age only two kinds of power could secure the
observance of a law like that of the Pentateuch ; adequate
political power did not exist, and the existence of moral
power was to be tested. The wilderness life was not
promising. " Every man did that which was right in his
own eyes," by no means proves that each man's own in-
clination was the only standard of right.
The distribution of the land by Joshua was largely
ideal ; was to be made real ; " by little and little; " under
conditions explicitly laid down. The destruction of the
Canaanites was enjoined and justified, and the con-
sequences of failure to execute the divine bidding were
Cf. Ex. xxiii. 32, 33 ; xxxiv. 12-16 ; Num. xxxiii. 55, 56;
distinctly announced. Lev. xviii. 27-30 ; Deut. ix. 1 sq.
Josh, xxiii. 12, 13 ; Jud. ii. 2, 3.
The history recorded in this book is a wonderful wit-
ness to the law^ and institutions of Moses. So far forth as
the people did not aim at that for which the law was
given, and observe what it prescribed, they experienced
just what the law denounced. Such a book should not be
expected to bear much testimony in regard to the details
of a more normal life. The conditions of the country
often put many of the provisions of the lacv in abeyance.
And the law was never designed so to limit God, that he
could never allow or create an exception to what it
ordained.
Xo one claims that the law was, through this period,
both well known and strictly observed. Many of the
irregularities may be explained in a way quite consistent
48
with the previous enactment and knowledge of the Mosaic
law ; so of Gideon's refusal to be king. Jephthali's vow,
rash and cruel as it was, may have been suggested by it ;
so the ascetic practices of Manoah's wife, and the course
of Boaz.
But beyond these four instances, there are many
more in which, by fact or phrase, the book bears witness
to a knowledge of Pentateuchal requirements. There
was a " house of the Lord," and in Shiloh, where •' the
feast of the Lord " was also observed. " The ark of the
covenant " is in the custody of the priests. A grandson
of Aaron " stood before it." Numerous technical expres-
sions correspond with those of the Pent.
The abnormal condition of the land and the times ex-
plains some of the irregularities. God's own interven-
tion calls forth others. The four instances of irregular
sacrifice are all called forth by supernatural manifesta-
tions. No previously existing local sanctuaries are en-
dorsed by them. Shiloh is the place of the sanctuary at
the end of Joshua's time, in Micah's time, in Eli's time.
As for the books of Samuel, Reuss urges such points
as these : Samuel's tribe ; his irregular residence as a
child at Shiloh, — in the house of God, which cannot have
been the tabernacle. There were apparently other sanc-
tuaries — at Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, Ramah and Nob. The
ceremonies are peculiar (I. S. vii. 6) ; all Levites sacrifice
(ii. 28) ; even women serve (ii. 22.) Anybody could sacri-
fice, — the men of Bethshemesh (vi. 14); of Kirjath Jearim
(vii. 1) ; Saul (xiii. 9 ; xiv. 33 sq.) Samuel opposes the
setting up of the kingly ofiice (ch. viii, 8), in spite of
Deut. xvii., and Gen. xvii. 6. Moses is named only as
liberator (xii. 6), and his laws not at all.
But Samuel could be Levite and Ephraimite. No
ignorance or disregard of the law is shown in Hannah's
consecration ; none in Samuel's conduct in the tabernacle
at Shiloh (Jud. xviii. 3L) Shiloh lost its pre-eminence
(iv. 3 sq.), and all the approved sacrifices at Bethel, Gil-
gal, Mizpah and Ramah are connected with Samuel's
presence. Nob is a city of priests. For some unknown
reason the high priesthood seems to fluctuate between
Ithamar's and Eleazar's line. If ii. 28 is an interpolation
(Reuss), what does it prove in regard to the service of
49
women ? The seemingly irregular acts of sacrifice have
a clear justification or stand as irregular. Omission of
Moses' name, and of reference to his laws, is the most
negative of proofs. The way in which the people sought
a king is Samuel's justification.
As for David, Reuss objects to the non-Levitical mode
of bringing up the ark from Kirjath Jearim ; and claims
that Xathan's words to David (11. Sam. vii.) show that
nothing was known of the splendid tabernacle of the
wilderness. Men continued to go up to Gibeon even to
the beginning of Solomon's reign. David and his family
sacrificed at Bethlehem (I. S. xx. 6, 29) ; at Hebron (II.
S. V. 3 ; XV. 7) ; on the Mount of Olives (II. S. xv. 32) ;
and David built an altar on Araunah's threshing floor (II.
S. xxiv. 35). There were two priestly lines ; David's
own sons, a Jairite, and JS'athan's sons, were priests.
David sacrifices (as Solomon does afterward) II. S. vi. 17
sq. ; xxiv. 25 ; I. K. ix. 25), and even takes part in a human
sacrifice (II. S. xxi. 6.) Levites are mentioned only in
one doubtful passage (II. S. xv. 24). Oracles are often
mentioned, which any priest ma}- give — and usually
images are associated. There were teraphim in David's
house (I. S. xix. 13). Nabal's sheep shearing is the only
festival mentioned.
In the bringing up of the ark there are normal ele-
ments, as well as irregularities, and the vindication of its
sacredness by terrible judgments can hardly be connected
with an unknown law. Bearers of the ark are mentioned
in II. S., vi. 31, and Levites as bearers in xv. 24. The
ark and the tabernacle are separated ; the time for the
final establishment of the one central sanctuary had not
come ; that and the re-establishment of one priestly line
came in Solomon's reign. Abnormal worship is for the
present unavoidable. As to the "priesthood" of David's
sons, etc., the great majority of expositors agree in giving
kohcn here a political import. In the sacrificial acts
ascribed to David Levites may have really officiated. The
execution of Rizpah's sons is no act of worship. In con-
nection with Urim and Thummin God might be consulted
(saj-s Riehm) " anywhere where one has at his disposal
the ephod, and a priest competent and authorized to
inquire of God." There is no intimation that David had
any knowledge of Michal's teraphim.
50
(f), Eddenct from the prophetical and poetical literature
of the existence or non-existence, the observance or non-observ-
ance, of the laws ascribed to 3Ioses.
It is said to be claimed for the prophets that they
never cease to exhort the IsraeHtes to the obedience due
to the moral law ; and that there is no part of the Penta-
teuch which does not serve as a text for their discourses,
their commentaries and their appeals. Whereas, in fact,
before Jeremiah there is nothing that resembles a citation
from, or a commentary upon, an ancient and official text.
Neither are there indirect citations. T'orah means simply
instruction ; never legislation. The ancient prophets
never insist on ritual observance ; they speak more than ■
contemptuously of it. See Is. xxix. 13. The great festi-
vals are unknown ; priests are rarely mentioned, Levites
never.
Proverbs is the earliest of the poetical books that
bears the impress of the later Judaism. (So Reuss.)
R. 1. This representation fundamentally miscon-
ceives, and historically inverts the mutual relation of the
law and the prophets.
The holiness of God is the first principle of the 0. T.
religion, and the holiness of men its great practical aim.
This explains what is done both for the community and
for individual men. Inward holiness should show itself
in all the relations of life. The system is historically
progressive. Its earlier and more imperfect forms are
easily misapprehended ; and failing of their appropriate
effect need to be supplemented, on the one side by dis-
cipline, on the other by agencies like those of the pro-
phetic institution. The law entered upon its work with
an unspiritual people fresh from the bondage of Egypt
and the idolatries and judgments of the wilderness, and
to be established in a land full of peoples of a most
unspiritual type. Truth must be taught by forms and
symbols liable to constant misunderstanding and misuse.
The tendency was strong, Avhen the law was observed,
to rest in externals as sufficient and satisfactory.
The law was an ideal law; the people, their kings,
often their priests, were far from being ideal. The pro-
phetic institution had been set up in Moses, the law-giver.
51
and announced in the law itself. It was never, in its in-
tention, antagonistic to a true priesthood or a true observ-
ance of the law. The law and the true prophets stood as
might}' and harmonious witnesses for God, and agencies
working toward holiness. Their conception, their tend-
ency, their normal result were one. They agree in their
immediate aim, the development of personal hoHness,
and in their remoter aim, which was to prepare for Christ.
And in Prophecy itself there was development; compare
the earlier and the later. The common relation of law
and prophets to Christ seems utterly irreconcilable with
the critical doctrine of a deadly mutual antagonism. And
of the two the law must be the antecedent. It is wholly
inconceivable that the law should stand on the foundation
of prophecy. Where prophecy had failed there would
have been little promise or prospect of success from the
Levitical law.
R. 2. The critical conception demands of the prophets
a kind and amount of reference to the law, which should
not be at all expected, and because this kind of detailed
reference is wanting, declares theDeuteronomic law non-
existent before Josiah's time, and the law of the middle
books non-existent until the return from the exile.
If our conception of the relation of the prophets to
the law, as above given, is correct, they need not be con-
tinually, in the spirit and after the method of the later
scribes, referring to its minute specifications. It is enough
if they plainly have it in mind, are concerned alike for
the neglect and the misapprehension of it, and use all
their power to secure the holiness at which it aims. The
prophets' service will be rendered by broad and deep
denunciations of sin, and the declaration of the divine
purpose, on the one hand of judgment, on the other of
grace.
R. 3. This critical representation greatly understates
and misstates the amount of actual allusion in the books
of the prophets to the things that are central, essential,
fundamental in the law. After all the denials of the
critics, the more conservative and the more radical, it is
still maintained (see especially the thorough discussion of
Bredenkamp), that the psalms and the older prophets
obviously presuppose, and have their root in, such things
as these :
52
(1). The covenant set forth in its nature and con-
ditions in the Pent., with mention of Moses as the organ
•of the divine communication, and with undoubted recog-
nition otherwise of its substance. See passages like Amos
iii. 1; Hos. viii. 1: vi. 7; xiii. 4 sc|. ; Is. v.; and especially
Jeremiah. Sacrifice is from the first assumed to be at
least an accompaniment of the covenant. The rebuke of
iibused and perverted sacrifice shows how true sacrifice is
esteemed. See Ps. 1. The Torah, which this relation
implies, cannot be mere instruction, but a law. Torah
•denotes sometimes prophetic instruction, sometimes the
•entire revelation of divine counsel and direction, some-
times plainlv legislation. See Deut. xxxiii. ; Hos. iv. 6 ;
Tiii. 12 ; Mic. \u. 11; Jer. xviii. 18; Ez. vii. 26 ; xxii. 26;
.Zeph. iii. 4; Mai. ii. 7. Places, persons, otterings are
made holy by their relation to the holy God ; see Ex. xix.
-5, 6 ; Is. vi. 5 ; chap, xxvi., and other passages In respect
to idolatry prophetic teaching harmonizes with Ex. xx.
(2). As for the worship which the prophets contem-
plate, there is a normal worship which is never rejected
.as ungodly. The ritual law has a moral side, which it is
the great aim of the prophets to exalt to higher honor.
.See "Deut. vi. 5; xxx. 6; Lev. xix. 2 sq. ; Ps. xl., 1., li.,
«tc. ; Am.iv.4, 5; v. 4; v. 21-27; Hos. v.4;ix, 4, 5 ; Is. i. 10
:sq. ; xix. 19 sq. ; xxix. 1 ; xxx. 29. Mich. vi. 6-8 is not a
•denunciation of all ceremonial worship, but of the inad-
■equate and gross conceptions of the multitude. So Jer.
vi. 20 ; vii. 21 sq,, and kindred passages. Yoio- sacrifices,
aiot your sacrifices, the prophets condemn.
(3). As for the place of worship, see the implication
of Psalms like the iii., xv., xxiv., xxvil, 1., Ix., ex. ; and