19. Legislation and the Age

The exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt, and the activity of Moses, are usually referred to the time of the eighteenth or nineteenth dynasty of Egypt, thirteen or fourteen or fifteen centuries be fore Christ. The age was one of culture. Evolution in government and religion had been going on for hundreds of years. Society had become highly organized and regulated by law. Sacred architecture had reached an excellence that for its purpose has never been surpassed. Religious symbolism and ritual had advanced to a stage of development, probably the highest they have ever attained. The primitive, crude, and simple had long since become the complex and refined. The imperfect had become the perfect.

Moses and his contemporaries were born to this civilization, as children today are born into the civilization of the twentieth century. Men do not start de novo; they build on the achievements of the past. So did Moses. When he began his work, the organized state was already a definite conception before the minds of men, its conditions were understood, and a standard of attainment had been set. The institutions of which the origin is ascribed to Moses represent this civilization. (1) The book of the covenant contains a body of laws of which the form of statement, the organization into a code, the rights guarded, and the developed sense of justice, are an inheritance from a Semitic an tiquity already hoary in the days of Moses. These facts have been completely established by the dis.

270

covery of the code of Hammumbi. (2) The tabernacle in its general plan conforms to a type of temple much favored by the Egyptians in the time of Moses: an open space or court where the people assembled; a gate where the worshiper with an offering met the priest and which admitted to the priestly precincts; then directly beyond and in line with the gate, the house of the deity and abode of the ark. The view from the assembly place in Israel was likewise directly through the gate, across the priests' court, through the door of the great tent, when opened, into the holy place with its lamp and table and incense altar to the curtain that screened-the shrine where the ark stood. In many instances there is also a correspondence in shape and proportions between the ground plan of the Egyptian temple and that of the tabernacle of Israel. (3) This tabernacle and the ordinances of worship and the laws of the priests, in their character, elaborateness, and complexity, reflect the Mosaic age. From Babylon on the east to Egypt in the west the temple was the chief building in the community in point of nobility and richness. By the dignity of its architecture it impressed the beholder with religious awe. The encompassing court, the sacred house or pyramid, and the adytum of the deity were on a scale of beauty and grandeur commensurate with the opportunities of the worshiping people. Curtains within the chamber of the god, and sheathings of gold and silver and symbolical figures added to the splendor and impressiveness and significance of the place. The priesthood was a numerous body, and was accorded high social rank. At its head, to speak more particularly of the Egyptian priesthood, stood the high priest, the embodiment of the order, and officially distinguished by gorgeous attire. Under him were orders of priests and inferior temple servants. The respective duties and prerogatives of these various classes of sacred ministers were carefully defined. The prospective priests passed through an elaborate preliminary training in order to be fitted for the performance of pontificial functions, and when graduated and on duty purified themselves by ablutions and were arrayed in white raiment of linen or cotton. Besides the minute regulations to govern the conduct of the ministering priests, an elaborate ritual was drawn up. Among the Semites the offerings consisted of animals for sacrifice and vegetable products. Beasts were distinguished as clean and unclean. To be fit for use upon the altar the animal must be not only clean, but without blemish in the eyes of the priest. A ceremony was performed of such perfection that by action and dress it told its meaning to the worshiper. Festivals were celebrated in honor of the deity, and annual pilgrimages were made to the shrine by the populace. Moses did not borrow bodily. He did not take over as a whole. But the expression of esthetic feeling and religious thought in the forms of architecture and ritual had become a fine art. The symbols used may be likened to words. Moses took these words and by means of them told to men -not to the Hebrews only, but to strangers who might visit Israel-the character of Yahweh, the way to approach him, the obligations of his wor-

shipers. The tabernacle and the priestly ritual, elaborate and complex. though they were, were yet no novelty, no innovation. It is not surprising that at the. founding of the nation, politically and religiously, the book of the covenant; which in modern parlance would be called the constitution and statutes, should be immediately followed by the plan and specifications for a national sanctuary and by a manual for the priests containing minute instructions for their guidance in the performance of a symbolic service. The ideals of the age demanded these things; and Moses under the direction of God gave to Israel a code of laws, a sanctuary, and a service devised primarily to meet the needs of the nation, but intended to command the respect of cultured gentiles as well.

On the priority of the priestly legislation to Deuteronomy consult the works of the school of Ewald, those, for example, by Dillmann ut sup., glostermane, Strack ut sup.; further, E. C. Bissell, The Pentateuch, its Origin and Structure, New York, 1885. For evidence that the narrative portion of P is pre-exilic, cf. Boyd, Eaekiel and so. Litera- the Modern Dating of the Pentateuch,

tune on in Princeton Theological Review, 1908, §~:a-r9. 29 sqq. On the origin and sequence of the legislation, and on the congruity between the pentateuehal law and the history of the people, Green's works ut sup. and his article on Critical Views respecting the Mosaic Tabernacle, in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1894, pp. 69 sqq. On the national sanctuary, and on the early distinction between priest and Levite, Green ut sup.; A. van Hoonacker, Le Lieu du culte (Ghent, 1894); idem, Le Sacerdoce Uvitique, Louvain, 1899. On monotheism among the early Hebrews, J. Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, Edinburgh, 1892; A. Dillmaan, Alttestamentliche Theologies Leipsic, 1895; B,. Baentach, Altorwentalischen u. isrnelitischen Monotheismus, Tübingen, 1908. On the stage of religious development during the early monarchy, J. Robertson, Poetry and Religion of the Psalms, Edinburgh, 1898. On the incompatibility between the prophetic teaching and the newer theories concerning the origin and growth of the religion of Israel, G. Vos, Recent Criticism of the Early Prophets, in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1898 and 1899. A survey and estimate of the entire argument is found in J. Orr, Problem of the Old Teatament, London, 1906; and a lawyer's study of the legislation and its criticism is contained in two articles by Wiener in the Princeton Tluologicad Reviews, 1907, pp. 188, 605.

JOHN D. DAvis.

B-LIOGSAPH7: For a review of the criticism consult J. Kley. Die PeatateurAfraw, Are Gesdhiehte and Okra Sw tmne, Münster, 1903: H. L. Strack, Einleitung in daaAlte Testament I§ 4-15, 8th ed., Munich, 1908, and for lit~ature, §t 95-98. For English students if not for Ali, the best presentation of the evidence for the documentary hypothesis is J. E. Carpenter and (3. HarfordBattereby, The Haxateurh according to as R. V., arranged in its Constituent Documents wroth Introduction, Notes, Marginal References and Synoptioal Tables, 2 vols., London. 1900. The literature is immense, and the following is a selection including the most notable and influential works: A. Kuenen, Historiadaritiaa ondsraoek naar hat ontstaan en de veraamelinp roan de boeken dss ouden veH bonds, 3 vols., Leyden, 1881-85, Eng. trend.. Hiworioa.

271

critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch, London, 1886; J. W. Colenso, The Pentateuch and . . . . . Joshua critically Examined, 7 parts, London, 1862-79; L. Horst, Leviticus ssii-xai. . uwd Hemkiel, Colmar, 1881; E. C. Bissell, The Pentateuch, its origin and Structure, New York, 1885 (conservative); W. H. Green, Moses and the Prophets, New York, 1883; idem, The Hebrew Feasts in their Relation to Recent Critical Hypotheses, ib. 1885; idem, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, ib. 1895; Unity of Genesis, 1895. (Professor Green was the representative exponent in America of the defense of Mosaic authorship); A. Weill, Le Pentatsuque salon Man et Is Pentateuque selon Berri, Paris, 1885; J. P. P. Martin, Introduction h la a-itique pinhole de Z'A. T., 3 vols., Paris, 1887-89 (only the Pentateuch); A. Westphal, Les Sources du Pentateaque, nude de critique et d'histoire, 3 viola, Paris, 1888-92; J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, Berlin, 1889; Prokpomena, Berlin, 1899, Eng. transl. of early ed., Edinburgh, 1885; E. Albers, Die Quellenberidts in Josua i.-zii., Bonn, 1890; E. Kautssch and A. Socin. Die Genesis mit dussaw Unteracheidung den Quellanschriften fihersetd, Freiburg, 1891; H. E. Ryle, Early Narratives of G, London, 1892 (illuminating); W. E. Addis, The Documents of the Hexateuch, 2 vols., London, 1892-98 (exhibits the documents reunited); B. Babatsob, Das Bundesbuch, Halle, 1892; idem, Das Heilipkeiteposets, Lev. xcii-=vi., Erfurt, 1893; B. W. Bacon, The Genesis of Genesis, Hartford, 1892; idem, The Triple Traditiowof Exodus, ib. 1894; Lox Mosaica: Moses and the Higher Criticism, London, 1895 (a composite volume of anticritical essays); F. Montet, La Composition do 1'Hezateaque, Geneva, 1895; S. C. Bartlett, Veracity of the Hsxateuch: a Defence, New York, 1897; C. A. Briggs, The Higher Criticism of the HerateucA, New York, 1897; idem and F. von HOgel, The Papal Commission and the Pentateuck, London, 1906 (Dr. Briggs summarises the evidence against Mosaic authorship; Von Htigel speaks for the Roman Catholic position); B. Stade, Akademische Reden and Abhandlungen, Giessen, 1899; C. F. Kent, Student's O. T., viol. i., New York, 1904 (a useful volume); R. H. McKim, The Problem of the PentatswA* an Examination of the Results of the Higher Criticism, ib. 1906; A. Gordon, Die Bezeichnungen. den pentateuchischen Gesetskdaesen des Mosaismus, Frankfort, 1906; O. Proekeh, Das nordhebraische Sagenbuch: die Elohimqualls. Leipsic. 1906; A. Klostermann, Der Pentateuch . . . Verstandnise and Entetehunpageschichte, ib. 1907; J. Krautlein, Die spradlichen Verschiedenheiten in den Hexateuehquellen, Leipsic, 1908: B. D. Eerdmans, Die Komposiaon den Genesis, Giessen, 1908; DB, ii. 363-376, and EB, ii. 2046-58 (neither is to be overlooked as convenient summaries of the critical position); JR, ix. fi89-592; Smith, OTJC; a series of articles constituting a defense of the conservative view of the Pentateuch, by H. M. Wiener, in Bibliothsoa sacra, 1908-1909; and the treatises on the Introduction to the Old Testament, such as Driver, and W. H. Bennett, London, 1899.

Commentaries on the Pentateuch which are important for the history of the subject are J. S. Voter, 3 viols., Halle, 180.3-05; M. Baumgarten, viol. i., Kiel, 1843-44; C. F. Keil, 3 viols., Leipsic, 1870-78; A. Dillman, 3 vols., ib. 1880-97, Eng. transl. of Genesis, 2 viola., Edinburgh, 1897; Kurzpefaester Kommewtar, Gen.-Numbers, by H. L. Struck, Munich, 1894, Genesis, 2d ed., 1905, DeuteronomyJby S. Oettli, ib. 1893; Handkommentar, Genesis, by H. Gunkel, Göttingen, 1902, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers by B. Baentach, ib. 1903, Deuteronomy and Joshua by C. Steuernagel, ib. 1900; Kuraer HandCommentar_ Genes. Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua by H. Holsinger, 4 vols Tübingen, 1898-1903, Leviticus and Deuteronomy by A. Bertholet, ib. 1899-1901 . International Critical Commentary, Numbers by G. B. Gray, New York, 1903, Deuteronomy by S. R. Driver, ib. 1895. on the Roman Catholic side: Curse acr%pturas sacra!, Genede-Deuteronomy by F. de Hummelauer, 4 vols., Paris, 1895-1901. On the Jewish side: M. M. Kafisoh, Genesis-Leviticus, 3 vols., London, 1855-M; S. R. Hirsoh, 5 vols., Frankfort, 1893-1895. Commentaries on individual books are: F. Tuch, on Genesis, ed. Arnold and Mom, Halle, 1871 (on the supplementary hypothesis); F. Delitssch, on Genesis, Leipsic. 1887; Genesis by S. R. Driver, London, 1904; D. Hoffmann, Das Buch Levi(- ieue, 2 parts, Berlin, 1905-08; Joshua by F. W. Spurling, London, 1901; A. R. Gordon, The Early Traditions of Genesis, Edinburgh, 1907 (masterly., though covering only part of the book); . Exodus; by A. H. McNeile. London, 1908. SBOT should also be consulted, of which Genesis by C. J. Ball, Leviticus by S. R. Driver and H. A. . White, Numbers by J. A. Paterson, and Joshua by W. H. Bennett have been published.