01.12. Lecture 12.

Lecture 12.
The Last Stage in Messianic Prophecy; John the Baptist; His Character and Preaching. The Fulfilment in Christ. And thou, child, shall be caned the prophet of the Highest: for thou shall go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways. Luke 1:76. THE more we succeed in transporting ourselves into those times, the less shall we wonder that multitudes flocked to the preaching of the Baptist, from ‘Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan.’ It was, indeed, in more than the barely literal sense, ‘A Voice crying in the wilderness.’ Never before in the history of Israel had there been such absence of every prospect of a new life. If, on the eve of the rising of the Maccabees, heathen opposition had been more systematic and cruel, imperilling the very existence of Judaism, there was at least a reaction in Israel, a conflict, and the possibility, if not the prospect, of national deliverance. But only wild fanatics could, unless maddened by despair, have hoped to shake off the rule of Rome, represented by the insolence and tyranny of a Pilate. With such a governor in place of the Son of David, with the High Priesthood almost hereditary in the proverbially corrupt and avaricious family of Annas, the condition of things seemed hopeless; while within Israel itself the life-blood of the Old Testament could scarcely pulsate any longer through the ossified arteries of Traditionalism and Rabbinism. The self-righteousness and externalism of the Pharisees, the indifference and pride of the Sadducees, the semi-heathen mysticism of the Essenes, the wild extravagance into which Nationalism was running, — all this was, indeed, making the once pleasant land a moral wilderness. And now, of a sudden, ‘the Voice’ was heard in the wilderness! It was not that of Pharisee, Sadducee, Essene, or Nationalist — and yet the Baptist combined the best elements of all these directions. He insisted on righteousness, though not in the sense of the Pharisees; nay, his teaching was a protest against their externalism, since it set aside the ordinances of Traditionalism, though not after the manner of the Sadducees. John also practised asceticism and withdrew from the world, though not in the spirit of the Essenes; and as regarded Nationalism, none so zealous as the Baptist for the Kingship of Jehovah and the rule of heaven, though not as the Nationalists understood it. The Baptist was an altogether unique personality in that corrupt age. Even a Herod Antipas heard him; even a Josephus recorded his life and work; even the Pharisees and priests from Jerusalem sent a deputation to inquire — nay, to ask him (so truthful was he, and so little suspected of mere fanaticism) — whether he was ‘the coming One,’ or Elijah, or one of the prophets. Let us see what light his history and preaching reflect on the great Messianic hope of old, and on its fulfilment in the New Testament.

[1]. The character and life of the Baptist prove him to have been sent of God. It is not easy to speak of him in moderate language. Assuredly, among those born of women there was none greater than he. We can picture to ourselves his child-life: how, specially God-given, he was trained in the home of those parents whom Holy Scripture describes as ‘righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless.’ When he had attained the legal age, he would (or might) take part in the services of the Temple as a priest; and he must have witnessed them, long before that period. In Jerusalem he must have been brought into contact with the world of Jewish thought and religious life. But neither of these could hold, nor yet turn him aside from that calling for which at his Annunciation the Angelic message had designated him.

What the years of solitude and meditation in the wilderness, that followed, were to him, we can only infer from his after-life and preaching. That they were years of self- discipline, we learn from his self-abnegation, which rises to the sublimity of entire self-forgetfulness. That they did not issue in mental and moral hardening, to which such ascetic life might naturally lead, we infer even from his openness to doubt, and from the intense sensitiveness of his conscience, which appears in that sublimely heroic and most deeply touching incident of his closing life — the embassy of inquiry which he sent to Christ from his dungeon. And that he was most true and most truthful, who can doubt that considers what it must have cost such a man at the close, nay, near the martyrdom, of such a life, openly to have stated his difficulties, and to have publicly sent such a message. That he was simple, absolutely self- surrendering, and trustful, almost as a child, every act of his life testifies. That he feared not the face of man, nor yet courted his favour, but implicitly acted under a constraining sense of duty as in the sight of God, his bearing alike towards the Pharisees and before Herod amply proves. But above all, it is his generosity, and his unselfishness, and absolute self-abnegation, which impress us. In a generation pre- eminently self-righteous, vain-glorious, and self-seeking, when even on the last journey to Jerusalem the two disciples nearest to Christ could only think of pre- eminence of place in the kingdom, and when, in the near prospect of suffering to the Master, a Peter could ask: What shall we have? when, even at the last meal, the disciples marred the solemn music of this farewell by the discord of their wrangle about the order of rank in which they were to be seated at the Supper — the Baptist stands alone in his life and in his death: absolutely self-forgetful. Here we would specially remind ourselves of the two high-points in the personal history of John. The first of these is marked by the events recorded in John 3:25-30. Nay, the ascent to it had begun even before that. It was on the very first Sabbath of John’s emphatic testimony to Jesus as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, that the two who stood beside him, his most intimate and close disciples — shall we not also call them his friends — John and Andrew, following the heavenly impulse that drew their souls, forsook their master for the yet silent Christ. It was only the beginning of a far wider defection. Not long afterwards his remaining disciples — and we almost love them for this generosity of their wrongful zeal of affectionate attachment — came to him with these, to them, so distressing tidings: ‘Master, He who was with Thee beyond Jordan to Whom thou bearest witness, behold, the same baptiseth, and all men come to Him.’ So then it seemed as if every tangible token of success in a life of such self-denial and labour were to be utterly taken away! The multitude had turned from him to another, to Whom he had borne witness; and even the one solitary badge of” his distinctive mission — baptism — was no longer solely his. But immediately we have the sublime answer which the Baptist made to his disciples: ‘Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before Him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease.’ Not to murmur, but even to rejoice in his seeming failure of success, so that his preparatory work merged in the greater Mission of the Christ; and — not in the hour of exaltation, when most of us feel as if we could find room for nobler sentiments, but in the hour of failure, when we, mostly all, become intensely self-conscious in our disappointments — to express it, not in the resignation of humility, but with the calm of joyous conviction of its rightness and meetness: that he was not worthy to loose the latchet of His sandal this implies a purity, simplicity and grandeur of purpose, and a strength of conviction, unsurpassed among men. And, to me at least, the moral sublimity of this testimony of John seems among the strongest evidences in confirmation of the Divine claims and the Mission of Christ.

There was yet another high-point in the life of the Baptist — though in a very different direction. Here evidence comes to us from the opposite pole in his inner life: not from the strength, but from the trial of his faith. Months had passed since his dreary imprisonment at Macchærus and yet not one step would, or perhaps could, the Christ take on behalf, or for the vindication, of him who had announced Him as the coming King. And the tidings which reached the Baptist in his lonely dungeon about the new Christ, as One Who ate and drank with publicans and sinners, were seemingly the opposite of what he had announced, when he had proclaimed Him as the Judge Whose axe would cut down the barren tree, and Whose fan would throughly sift His floor. Or — oh, thought too terrible for utterance! — might it all have been on a dream, an illusion? In that dreadful inward conflict the Baptist overcame, when he sent his disciples with the question straight to Christ Himself. For such a question, as addressed to a possibly false Messiah, could have had no meaning. John must have still believed in Him when he sent to Christ with the inquiry — reported both by Matthew (Matthew 11:2-6), and Luke (Luke 7:18-23): ‘Art Thou He that should come, or do we look for another?’ But at what cost of suffering must it have been that the Baptist did overcome, and what evidence of truthfulness, earnestness, and nobility of heart and-purpose does it reveal! And there is yet another aspect of it. Assuredly, a man so entirely disillusioned as the Baptist must have been in that hour, could not have been an impostor, nor yet his testimony to Christ a falsehood. Nor yet could the record which shows to us such seeming weakness in the strong man, and such doubts in the great testimony-bearer, be a cunningly devised fable. I repeat, that here also the evidential force of the narrative seems irresistible, and the light most bright which the character and history of the Baptist shed on the Mission of Christ.

[2]. In what has been said we have already in part anticipated the next point in our argument. And yet something remains here to be added. For the character and life of the Baptist cannot be viewed as isolated from his preaching. On the contrary, they reflect the strongest light on it, even as, conversely, his preaching reflects light on his character and life. One who was, and lived, as the Baptist must also have been true in his preaching; one who believed, and therefore preached, as the Baptist must have been true in his life. And both his preaching and his life shed light on the great Old Testament hope, and on its realisation in Christ. When we ask ourselves what had determined the Baptist, after so many years of solitude in the wilderness, to come forth into such blazing light of publicity, to which his eyes had been so unaccustomed, and to face those multitudes, to whom he had so long been a stranger, with a message so novel and startling, his own account of it leaves us not in doubt of the motive for a change so complete, and, as we view it, so uncongenial to him. Unhesitatingly, to every kind of audience and inquiry, and with unwavering assurance, he tells it — yet not in fanatical language — that a direct call had come to him from God; a direct mission and definite message had been entrusted to him from heaven. It was to announce the Christ, and to prepare for Him. His public appearance, his call to repentance, his proclamation, his warnings, his baptism, his instruction to his converts — all imply, that in his inmost soul he felt, and that he acted, as sent directly from God. And not only so, but he also expressly tells us that he had a sign Divinely given him, by which actually to recognise Him, Whose near Advent was to be the burden of his preaching. ‘And I knew Him not; but He that sent me to baptise with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptiseth with the Holy Ghost.’ From this it at least follows, that the Baptist himself entertained no doubt of his Divine commission to his special work.

One theory in explanation of his assertion we shall, I think, all dismiss almost instinctively. Certainly the Baptist did not speak conscious falsehood; certainly, he was not an impostor. Of the other alternative remaining we may, with almost equal confidence, put aside the supposition that his had been the dream of a fanatic. This is contradicted by all the facts of his life. There is not anything connected with it which we could designate as fanatical. And there is much to be urged in the opposite direction. To begin with: it were difficult to understand how fanaticism could at once attach itself to One Whom, as he tells us, he had not even known before He came to him for baptism, and Whose life had hitherto been one of the utmost privacy, and under so unpromising circumstances as a carpenter’s home in the far-off Nazareth of that Galilee, which the Judæans held in such supreme contempt.

Other considerations also are opposed to the theory of fanaticism. A fanatic would, in the circumstances, have at once identified himself with, and attached himself to Him, Whom he proclaimed as the Messiah; and he would have appeared prominent in His following. John remained alone, content to do his humble work, and willing to retire from the scene when he had done it. Again, a fanatic would have been alienated by the loss of his own adherents, and disappointed when he had to retire into obscurity and forsakenness. John accepted it, and rejoiced in it, as the goal of his mission. A fanatic would, in the peculiar circumstances, have been thoroughly, and also irretrievably, disillusioned by imprisonment and the prospect of martyrdom. And the Baptist was disillusioned of many of the expectations which he had apparently connected with the kingdom, when he had announced that the axe was already laid to the root of the tree. He was disillusioned of these, and therefore he sent his final inquiry to Christ; but he was not disillusioned of the Christ, and therefore he sent his disciples to Him. But why should we hesitate to believe what so naturally suggests itself in view of the character and life of the Baptist: that this good, true, unselfish, strong man, spoke what was real, and therefore acted what was true, when he declared himself to have been Divinely commissioned to announce, and to prepare for, the coming Saviour?

And, as we further look at it, is it not quite opposed to the theory of fanaticism, and quite accordant with belief in his true Divine commission, that what the Baptist enjoined as preparation” for the kingdom was so simple and unfanatical. He preached not asceticism, nor long days of fasting and devotion; not enforced poverty, nor prescribed sacrifices, but repentance, and then a return into ordinary life, — only with a new moral purpose, and a new resolve to sanctify every occupation, however lowly or full of temptation, by a simple and earnest walk with God. It is not thus that a Jewish fanatic of those days would have spoken to the soldiers of Herod, nor to the publicans of Rome, nor to sinners, nor even to the self- righteous who gathered to his baptism, and asked his direction. Nor is it in such manner that a Jewish fanatic of those days would have spoken — nor yet even the most advanced in what represents the extreme opposite, or Hellenist, direction — when he addressed the Jewish people as a ‘generation of vipers,’ or referred to them as a tree to the root of which the axe was laid. We cannot find anything elsewhere, in any sense, parallel or even analogous to it. For such language we must go back to an Isaiah or a Jeremiah. Nor yet would a Jewish fanatic of those days have said to the Jewish people: ‘Begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.’ From all that we have learned of the history of Israel; from all that we have gathered of its literature, whether in the Apocrypha or the Pseudepigrapha, we can at least draw this one unassailable conclusion — that anything more un-Jewish than what John preached, or more unlike his times, could not be imagined. Assuredly, it must have come to him as a new fact, and a new message, directly from heaven.

And, lastly, as we compare the descriptions in the Pseudepigrapha, the utterances of the Rabbis, and the well-known expectations entertained by the people, with what John the Baptist announced concerning the coming kingdom, as one not of outward domination and material bliss, but of inward righteousness and acknowledgment of God — even the most prejudiced must admit, that if he were a Jewish fanatic, it was at least not in the language of Jewish fanaticism that he spoke by the banks of Jordan. A similar conclusion is reached when we approach the subject from the opposite direction, and ask ourselves what light the preaching of the Baptist reflects on his character and life. Here the one clear outstanding fact is, that the burden of John’s preaching was the announcement of the Advent of the kingdom and of its King. And this, not as something new, nor yet, on the other hand, as answering to the expectations of his contemporaries, but solely as the fulfilment of the Old Testament promise. All else in his work and preaching was either preparation for, or the sequence from, this announcement. At the very outset of his mission this is placed in the forefront: ‘As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.’ And this key-note of his preaching is heard in almost every recorded utterance of his. It would be difficult, without a detailed examination, to convey how constantly the Baptist recurs to Old Testament prophecy, and how full his language and its imagery are of it. His mind seems saturated with the Old Testament Messianic hope, especially as presented in the prophecies of Isaiah, and we cannot but conclude that, during those many years of his solitary life in the wilderness, this had been the very food and drink of his soul. If with reverence be it said — the Mission of Jesus Christ might be summed up in the words: ‘Our Father which art in heaven,’ that of His forerunner is contained in these: Lo, the kingdom of God, promised of old to our fathers To make this statement more clear, let us think of the Old Testament sources of the few recorded sentences in the Baptist’s preaching. For such expressions of his as: ‘generation of vipers,’ we refer to Isaiah 59:5; for the ‘planting of the Lord,’ of which he speaks, to Isaiah 5:7; the reference to these ‘trees’ recalls Isaiah 6:13; Isaiah 10:15; Isaiah 10:18; Isaiah 10:33; Isaiah 40:24; that to the ‘fire’ reminds us of Isaiah 1:31; Isaiah 9:18; Isaiah 10:17; Isaiah 5:24; Isaiah 47:14; the ‘floor’ and the ‘fan’ are those of Isaiah 21:10; Isaiah 28:27, &c.; Isaiah 30:24; Isaiah 40:24; Isaiah 41:15, &c.; the duty of the penitent to give ‘bread and raiment to the poor’ is that enjoined in Isaiah 58:7; while ‘the garner’ of which John speaks is that of Isaiah 21:10. Besides these we mark the Isaiah reference in his baptism (Isaiah 52:15; Isaiah 1:16), and especially that to ‘the Lamb of God’ (Isaiah 53:1-12); while, lastly, in reply to his final inquiry through his disciples, Christ points to a solution of his doubts, in accordance with the prophecies of Isaiah 35:5-6; Isaiah 61:1; Isaiah 8:14-15. And — to sum up in one sentence this part of our argument — if what has been stated in detail is incompatible with the theory that John spoke and acted as a Jewish fanatic, it is, on the other hand, the fact, that his character, life, and history, as set before us in the Gospels, are absolutely consistent with the declaration which he so solemnly made, and upon which he died, — that he had been directly sent of God to announce the near fulfilment in Christ Jesus of that great Messianic hope of the Old Testament which had set his own soul on fire.

One step in the argument still remains — although I almost shrink from taking it. I have in the preceding course of Lectures endeavoured to show how the great hope of the Old Testament gradually unfolded; I have followed its progression through the long ages to the period when the last prophet came, who summed up all Old Testament prophecy, concentrated and reflected its light, and pointed to Him in Whom was the fulfilment. If I were to attempt describing how completely the Reality answers to the portraiture by the Prophets, I would have to pass in review the entire history of ‘the Man of Sorrows’ the Sacrifice of the Great High Priest, the teaching of the Prophet of the New Covenant, the spiritual glory of the King in His beauty, and the provision which He has made, to which not they of that generation, but all the faithful and true-hearted, from East and West, and North and South, are bidden welcome, together with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Here we must pause — since any attempt at comparison between our Lord and even those who stood closest to Him, and were most transformed into His likeness, seems almost irreverence. This only

I say, that if we think of the Baptist, or of his utterances, by the side of those of Christ, we feel that, however pure and elevated, they still occupy merely Old Testament ground. Christ stands alone in His Kingdom. John is within the porch; Christ has stepped forth into the free air, into the new light and the heavenly life. And He has brought it to us and to all men. In conclusion, I desire simply to indicate three great points which seem to mark the fulfilment of all in Christ. They are: — First, the finality of the New Testament. We are no longer in presence of preparatory institutions, nor do we expect any further religious development in the future. All is now completed and perfected. Secondly, we mark the universality of the New Testament dispensation and Church, as no longer hemmed in by national boundaries, or narrowed by national privileges, nor yet hindered by any limitation, intellectual or spiritual. It is a universal Church: for all men, for all times, for all circumstances. Thirdly, we are in view of this great characteristic — spirituality. To every one of us the Kingdom of God, with its blessings, comes directly from God; everyone is to be taught from above, and taught by the Holy Spirit; and .to each the teaching is in its principle, perfect; in its character, heavenly; and in its nature, a spiritual life planted within the heart, unfolding and developing even to the completeness of the better state, and the ‘many mansions’ of the Father’s house. If Christ had taught mankind no more than this, ‘Our Father, which art in heaven,’ — if He had opened no other vision, given no other hope than that of the ‘many mansions,’ — He would have reflected the light of heaven upon earth, removed its woes, lightened its burdens, sweetened its sorrows, and smoothed its cares. Even so would He have been to mankind the fulfilment of the great Messianic hope of a universal brotherhood of peace and of holiness. But He has been more than this. He hath done what He hath said; He hath given what He hath promised. In Him is the Reality of all, and to all ages. In the fullest meaning of it, He is ‘the Light to lighten the Gentiles, and the Glory of His people Israel.’ APPENDICES.

1. EICHHORN’S ARRANGEMENT OF GENESIS.

Genesis 33:31 Genesis 35:1-29, Genesis 36:1-36, Genesis 40:1-23, Genesis 41:1-57, Genesis 42:1-38, Genesis 43:1-34, Genesis 44:1-34, Genesis 45:1-28, Genesis 46:1-34, Genesis 47:1-27, Genesis 48:1-22, Genesis 49:29-33, Genesis 1:12, Genesis 1:15, Genesis 50:15-26 Perhaps (Genesis 33:18-20, Genesis 34:1-31

Genesis 36:1-43 Perhaps Genesis 49:1-27 Genesis 38:1-30 Genesis 39:1-23 Genesis 47:28-31 Genesis 49:1-28 Genesis 50:1-12 Genesis 50:14 2. ANALYSIS OF THE PENTATEUCH AND OF ITS CRITICISM. A GENERAL sketch, by way of analysis of the Pentateuch and of its criticism, may be helpful, if not to the student, yet to the general reader. For the materials of it I am indebted to Kleinert, ‘Abriss der Einleitung zum Alten Testament.’ To this analysis I propose to add an enumeration of the passages, which Wellhausen designates as composing QP; and, lastly, a brief notice of some of the Laws — especially in the

‘Priest-Code’ — which the Rabbis found necessary to modify, for the purpose of adapting them to the later circumstances of the people. I. Analysis of the Pentateuch-Legislation (according to Bertheau and others). The Pentateuch-Legislation forms one connected whole, which consists of these three parts: —

[1]. The fundamental Institutions of civil and religious life: Exodus 20:1-26, Exodus 21:1-36, Exodus 22:1-31, Exodus 23:1-33; and Leviticus 18:1-30, Leviticus 19:1-37, Leviticus 20:1-27. Closely connected with these are the sections: Exodus 34:11-26; Exodus 13:2-16; Numbers 33:51, &c. The (first) Exodus group of Laws (Exodus 20:1-26, Exodus 21:1-36, Exodus 22:1-31, Exodus 23:1-33) is based on the manifestation of Jehovah, as the Deliverer from Egyptian bondage; the Leviticus-group on that of Jehovah as the Holy One.

[2]. The Laws relating to Worship (the Sanctuary, priesthood, sacred observances and seasons), which constitute the main portion of the legislation between Exodus 25:1-40 : And Numbers 19:1-22 : They involve a detailed system of symbolism as regards objects, measurements, and numbers. Such notices as Leviticus 7:37-38; Leviticus 11:46-47; Leviticus 13:59; Leviticus 14:54-55; Leviticus 15:32-33, show, that the groups of Laws to which they are attached must have circulated as rubrics among the priesthood.

[3]. The Deuteronomic Laws, Deuteronomy 5:1-33, Deuteronomy 6:1-25, Deuteronomy 7:1-26, Deuteronomy 8:1-20, Deuteronomy 9:1-29, Deuteronomy 10:1-22, Deuteronomy 11:1-32, Deuteronomy 12:1-32, Deuteronomy 13:1-18, Deuteronomy 14:1-29, Deuteronomy 15:1-23, Deuteronomy 16:1-22, Deuteronomy 17:1-20, Deuteronomy 18:1-22, Deuteronomy 19:1-21, Deuteronomy 20:1-20, Deuteronomy 21:1-23, Deuteronomy 22:1-30, Deuteronomy 23:1-25, Deuteronomy 24:1-22, Deuteronomy 25:1-19, Deuteronomy 26:1-19, referring to the civic relations of the people. In part they reproduce the legislation of the middle books of the Pentateuch but with the special object of making religion more matter of the heart, and of softening manners; while, in part, they are intended to adapt the former legislation to the settlement.of the people in Canaan. This part of the Pentateuch was intended for popular instruction; it contains a sort of popular ‘constitution;’ and lays special stress on one central sanctuary. The legislation of the middle books is arranged in sections, grouped, especially, around Numbers 7:1-89, Numbers 10:1-36; and, whereas in Deuteronomy it is generally Moses who is introduced as the speaker, in the middle books it is almost always God Who speaks. II. Testimony of the Pentateuch itself as to its Authorship. The Pentateuch ascribes its authorship to Moses. Here we note the following, as expressly attributed to him: —

[1]. The Book of ‘The Covenant’ (Exodus 34:10-26), in Exodus 24:4; Exodus 24:7; comp. Exodus 20:1.

[2]. ‘The Covenant’ (Exodus 20:2 to Exodus 23:33), in Exodus 34:27.

[3]. The account of ‘the Journeys’ (Numbers 33:3-49), in Numbers 33:2.

[4]. The ‘Book’ concerning Amalek [248] in Exodus 17:14.

[5]. ‘The Book of the Law’ in Deuteronomy 31:9-11; Deuteronomy 24:1-22, Deuteronomy 25:1-19, Deuteronomy 26:1-19.

[6]. ‘The Song’ of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1-52) in Deuteronomy 21:22. All these notices apply to particular sections of the Pentateuch, except Deuteronomy 31:9-11; Deuteronomy 24:1-22, Deuteronomy 25:1-19, Deuteronomy 26:1-19, which may refer to the whole Law.

III. References to the Pentateuch in other parts of the Old Testament.

[1]. The Law [Thorah] of the Lord is referred to as in actual existence, and as well known: Psalms 12:6; Psalms 17:4; Psalms 18:22; Psalms 19:7; Psalms 37:31; and in Psalms 119:1-176; Amos 2:4; Hosea 4:6; Hosea 6:7; Hosea 8:1; Jeremiah 9:12; Jeremiah 11:2; Jeremiah 16:11; Jeremiah 18:18; Jeremiah 31:32; Jeremiah 44:10; Jeremiah 44:23; Zephaniah 3:4; and in the following passages in the historical books: 2 Samuel 22:23; 1 Kings 6:12 &c.; 1 Kings 9:4; 1 Kings 11:33; 2 Kings 10:31; 1 Chronicles 22:12; 2 Chronicles 15:3; 2 Chronicles 19:10; Ezra 7:10.

(The above are irrespective of verbal references, and allusions to notices and events in the Pentateuch.)

2ndly. There are references to the Pentateuch as written or a ‘book,’ in Psalms 40:7-8; Hosea 8:12; Jeremiah 8:8; comp. Jeremiah 31:33. And in the historical books: Joshua 1:8; Joshua 8:31; Joshua 24:26; 2 Kings 11:12; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Kings 22:8; 2 Kings 23:3; 2 Kings 23:21; 2 Kings 23:24; 2 Chronicles 17:9; Nehemiah 9:3.

3rdly. There are references to the Law as specifically that of Moses in Malachi 4:4; Daniel 9:11; Daniel 9:13; and in the historical books: Joshua 1:7; Joshua 8:3 l; Joshua 22:5; Joshua 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Kings 18:6; 2 Kings 18:12; 2 Chronicles 23:18; 2 Chronicles 25:4; 2 Chronicles 34:14; 2 Chronicles 35:12; Ezra 3:2; Ezra 6:18; Ezra 7:6; Nehemiah 8:1; Nehemiah 8:14.

(The Commandments, as commanded by the Prophets — Ezra 9:11 — are distinguished from the Law of Moses in 2 Kings 17:13; Zechariah 7:12; comp. Daniel 9:10-11; that of the Pentateuch being specifically designated as ‘the Law,’ Nehemiah 10:34.) IV. Testimony of Tradition concerning the Pentateuch.

[1]. The earliest testimony of the Synagogue and the Church is to the effect, that Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch, with the exception of the last eight verses, which were added by Joshua. So in Babha B.14b. According to Josephus [249] and Philo, [250] the last eight verses are also Mosaic. According to Ber. 12b; Meg. 22a; Taan. 27a, the division into Parashahs and verses is also due to Moses.

[2]. The later Judæo-Christian tradition is thus expressed by Tertullian: [251]

‘Hierosolymis Babylonica expugnatione deletis omne instrumentum Judaicæ literaturæ per Esdram constat restauratum esse.’ [252] V. Modern Orthodox View. The whole Pentateuch, with the exception of the closing section, was written by Moses. This closing section is variously defined as commencing at Deuteronomy 31:1; Deuteronomy 31:24; Deuteronomy 32:44; Deuteronomy 32:48; and Deuteronomy 33:1. The view just described is supported by the following arguments: —

[1]. That it is that of the Synagogue and of the New Testament.

[2]. That it is borne out by the references in the Old Testament which we have already quoted.

[3]. That the Pentateuch has a unique literary character of its own, differing from that of the other books in the Old Testament.

[4]. That the historical notices, as also the subsequent books, of the Old Testament necessarily presuppose the existence of the Pentateuch.

[5]. That the account in the four last books of the Pentateuch gives the impression of having been written by an eye-witness, and that Genesis could not have been composed posterior to these books.

[6]. That the theory which treats the Pentateuch as consisting of different documents, dating from different periods, is unproved, unsatisfactory, and open to many objections, and leaves room for every variety of differing opinions, thus showing its unreliableness.

(The difference in the use of the Names of God, and other supposed marks of different authorship are explained as intentional. At the same time, many writers on the orthodox side have admitted the existence of later glosses in the Pentateuch.) VI. General Objections of Negative Criticism to the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch.

[1]. Moses appears in the Pentateuch as belonging to a period of history that is past; his character is discussed, and his death related. (Comp. here Exodus 6:26-27; Exodus 11:3; Deuteronomy 33:4; Numbers 12:3; Numbers 12:6; Deuteronomy 34:1-12)

[2]. Not only the pre-Mosaic, but the Mosaic history is told not in a regular manner, but incompletely, and not always clearly, while large periods of it are altogether omitted.

[3]. There are in the Pentateuch twofold relations of the same events, contradictions, and also narratives which expressly refer to other sources.

[4]. From the geographical point of view, the notices are such as to show that the Pentateuch dates after the settlement in Canaan; while, from the historic point of view, there are references to the time of Moses as one already past, and to events and names which imply a later date.

[5]. The legislation of the Pentateuch is not only exclusively adapted to the settlement in Canaan, but seems to imply a lengthened development following upon the latter.

These and similar objections have, it is hoped, been sufficiently met in Lectures VII. and VIII., or, at least, principles have been laid down which are of easy application to such objections; while reasons have been adduced which render the theory of a late composition of the Pentateuch untenable.

VII. Analysis of the supposed Structure of the Pentateuch. The modem (more or less negative) School of Critics, to which frequent reference has been made, supposes the Pentateuch to embody, besides certain ancient pieces, three great, and some subsidiary, documents — the whole having been afterwards ‘redacted’ into one work.

A. The supposed very ancient (partly Mosaic) pieces and fragments in the Pentateuch are stated to be the following: —

[1]. The Decalogue, Exodus 20:1-17.

[2]. The substance of the song, Exodus 15:1-27 [3]. A number of legislative and dogmatic utterances, and remains of ancient popular poems.

[4]. The main body of ritual laws: Leviticus 11:1-47, Leviticus 12:1-8, Leviticus 13:1-59, Leviticus 14:1-57, Leviticus 15:1-33, Leviticus 16:1-34, Leviticus 17:1-16; Numbers 19:1-22

[5]. The sketch of the tabernacle, Exodus 25:1-40, Exodus 26:1-37, Exodus 27:1-21, Exodus 28:1-43, Exodus 29:1-46, Exodus 30:1-38, Exodus 31:1-18.

[6]. Diverse fragments of popular books, chiefly biographical.

[7]. The ‘Book of the Covenant,’ Exodus 21:1-36, Exodus 22:1-31, Exodus 23:1-33.

[8]. The .law about the Amalekites in Deuteronomy 25:17-19.

[9]. The main body of the Laws in Leviticus 18:1-30, Leviticus 19:1-37, Leviticus 20:1-27.

[10]. The basis of Deuteronomy 33:1-29 :

B. But the main body of the Pentateuch is supposed to consist of the following three documents: —

[1]. The work of the Elohist, also called the ‘1st Elohist,’ ‘the original document,’ ‘the Book of the Origins,’ ‘the Annalist,’ &c. This document is supposed to embrace the main body of ritual laws (all Leviticus), and a continuous historical narrative, from Genesis 1 to Deuteronomy 34 :, although scanty in extent and details. The historical narrative marks three stages. In the first, God is designated as Elohim; in the second, as E1 Shaddai; and only from the Exodus onwards as Jahveh. Corresponding to these are three stages of the Covenant: that of peace with the world; of promise to the fathers; and of the Law with Israel. No ritual observances appear enjoined previously to the Legislation on Mount Sinai, although the principal epochs are marked by theocratic institutions. The style and conception of the work are easily distinguishable: in older times, simple and reverent; in Mosaic times, priestly. The legislation is carried out almost upon a system — hence, frequently of an abstract character. The genealogies are marked by a regard for special numbers.

(The widest differences prevail as to the date of the historical and the ritual portions of this work, and whether they are due to one or two authors; as also which of the two is the older. On these points details would be here out of place. We only remark that opinions differ as to the date of the composition of one or another part of the work, the differences being so great as to vary from the time of Saul to that after the Exile.)

[2]. The work of ‘the Jehovist;’ or the ‘Supplementer;’ the ‘fourth’ or else ‘fifth narrator;’ the ‘prophetic narrator,’ &c. In this document the name Jahveh appears from the first. An observance of Theocratic ordinances is said to be assumed in it as from the first; the style is vivid; the views expressed concerning the nature of man and revelation are of a developed character — m short, the book is declared to bear the prophetic impress. According to some, these Jehovist portions do not form part of an independent work, but are only intended to supplement the work of the Elohist; while, according to others, the work of the Jehovist was an independent and original composition. Some also hold that the work was mainly a compilation from materials already existing. The work is described as mainly historical, and containing the oldest civil laws and old national hymns. It was composed after the separation of Judah and Israel (between 975 and 775 B.C.), and by a Judæan.

[3]. The work of the Deuteronomist, variously dated from the time of the Judges to that of Manasseh or of Josiah. The writer is supposed to have known the work of the Jehovist. To these three must be added: —

C. Certain subsidiary documents in the Pentateuch: —

[1]. ‘The Book of the Wars of Jehovah’ (Numbers 21:14). According to some this was a very ancient collection of war- and popular poems; according to others, a larger historical work which the Jehovist incorporated into his own book.

[2]. ‘The Younger Elohist,’ or the ‘third,’ or else the ‘theocratic narrator,’ whose work is supposed to comprise those parts of Genesis which accord with the original Elohist in the use of the name Elohim, but have not any of the other peculiarities of this writer, as well as some other portions in the other books of the Pentateuch. According to some, the author was an Ephraimite. Certain critics place its composition in the time of Hezekiah, and suppose that it formed a kind of basis for the labours of the Jehovist.

[3]. According to some critics, the ritual portions in the book of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 40:1-49, Ezekiel 41:1-26, Ezekiel 42:1-20, Ezekiel 43:1-27, Ezekiel 44:1-31, Ezekiel 45:1-25, Ezekiel 46:1-24, Ezekiel 47:1-23, Ezekiel 48:1-35) form the basis of the ritual legislation in the work of the Elohist, especially in that part of it beginning with Leviticus 17:1-16

[4]. Some critics speak of a Deuteronomer (in distinction to the Deuteronomist), who completed the work in the spirit and style of the Deuteronomist, but at a later time and under different circumstances, adding Deuteronomy 34:10-12; Deuteronomy 29:21-27; Deuteronomy 30:1-10; Deuteronomy 31:24-29; perhaps also Deuteronomy 28:28-37 and Deuteronomy 28:49-57, as well as the address, Deuteronomy 1:1-46, Deuteronomy 2:1-37, Deuteronomy 3:1-29, Deuteronomy 4:1-49.

D. Finally we have the Redaction of the whole work. — There had been a preliminary redaction by the Jehovist. According to some, the final redaction of the Pentateuch was made by the Deuteronomist, while others regard it as posterior to Deuteronomy, and variously place it in the time of Josiah (Ewald); shortly before the Exile (Kuenen); under Ezra (Bertheau); or after Ezra (Graf, Kayser). In this redaction the plan of the Elohist is supposed to have been followed, and extended to the whole Pentateuch.

VIII. The Document QP according to Wellhausen. This document is said to consist of the following sections and verses in the Pentateuch: [253] — Genesis 1:1-31, Genesis 2:1-5: (omitting Genesis 1:29); Genesis 6:9-22; Genesis 7:11-24, Genesis 8:1-5 (omitting Genesis 7:12, Genesis 7:16-17, Genesis 7:22-23, Genesis 8:2); Genesis 8:13-19; Genesis 9:1-17, Genesis 9:28-29; Genesis 10:1-7, Genesis 10:20, Genesis 10:22-23, Genesis 10:31-32; Genesis 11:10-32 (omitting Genesis 11:29); Genesis 12:4-5; Genesis 13:6, Genesis 13:11-12; Genesis 19:29; Genesis 11:30; Genesis 16:3, Genesis 16:15-17; Genesis 21:2-5; Genesis 21:23; Genesis 25:7-17 (omitting Genesis 25:11 a), Genesis 25:19-20, Genesis 25:26; Genesis 26:34-35; Genesis 27:46, Genesis 28:1-9; Genesis 29:24, Genesis 29:29 (??); Genesis 31:18 (beginning with ‘and all his goods’); Genesis 35:9-15 (omitting the word ‘again’ in Genesis 35:9), Genesis 35:22-29; Genesis 36:6-8; Genesis 36:40 to the words ‘these are the generations of Jacob’ in Genesis 37:2, Genesis 46:6-7 (probably also Genesis 46:8-27); Genesis 47:5-11 (omitting Genesis 47:6), Genesis 47:27-28; Genesis 48:3-6 (perhaps Genesis 48:7); Genesis 49:1-33; (ver. Genesis 49:28?) Genesis 49:29-33; Genesis 50:12-13. Exodus 1:1-5; Exodus 1:7 (omitting the words ‘multiplied and waxed’), Exodus 1:13-14, and the first half of Exodus 1:14 a; Genesis 2:23-25 (beginning at ‘the children of Israel sighed’); Exodus 6:2-30, Exodus 7:1-13, Exodus 7:19-23; Exodus 8:1-3, Exodus 8:11-15; Exodus 9:8-12; Exodus 12:1-20, Exodus 12:28, Exodus 12:37 a, Exodus 12:40-41; Exodus 12:43-51, Exodus 13:1-2, Exodus 13:20; Exodus 14:1-2 and in 4 the words ‘and they did so,’ Exodus 14:8-9 (omitting the word ‘all ‘before ‘the horses,’ and ending with ‘and his army’), Exodus 14:10 (containing, however, only the words ‘and the children of Israel cried out unto the Lord’), Exodus 14:15 (omitting the words ‘Wherefore criest thou unto me?’), Exodus 14:28 (??); Exodus 16:1-3, Exodus 16:9-13 a, Exodus 16:16-18 a, Exodus 16:22-26, Exodus 16:31, Exodus 16:35 a; Exodus 17:1 (omitting the words ‘there was no water for the people to drink’); Exodus 19:1 (a supplementation), Exodus 19:2 a; Exodus 24:15, from ‘and a cloud covered the mount’ to the words ‘Moses went into the midst of the cloud’ in Exodus 24:18; Exodus 25:1-40, Exodus 26:1-37, Exodus 27:1-21, Exodus 28:1-43, Exodus 29:1-46, Exodus 30:1-38, Exodus 31:1-18 (?); Exodus 34:29-32, Exodus 34:33-35 (?); Exodus 34:35-40. Leviticus 1:1-17, Leviticus 2:1-16, Leviticus 3:1-17, Leviticus 4:1-35, Leviticus 5:1-19, Leviticus 6:1-30, Leviticus 7:1-38, Leviticus 8:1-36, Leviticus 9:1-24, Leviticus 10:1-20, Leviticus 11:1-47, Leviticus 12:1-8, Leviticus 13:1-59, Leviticus 14:1-57, Leviticus 15:1-33, Leviticus 16:1-34, Leviticus 17:1-16, Leviticus 18:1-30, Leviticus 19:1-37, Leviticus 20:1-27, Leviticus 21:1-24, Leviticus 22:1-33, Leviticus 23:1-44, Leviticus 24:1-23, Leviticus 25:1-55, Leviticus 26:1-46, Leviticus 27:1-34. Numbers 1:1-8; Numbers 13:1-17 a, Numbers 13:21, Numbers 13:25-26 a and first half of b, Numbers 13:32 to ‘and all the people that we saw in it,’ &c.; Numbers 14:1-2, Numbers 14:5-7, Numbers 14:10, Numbers 14:26-29 (?), Numbers 14:34-36; Numbers 15:1-41; Numbers 16:1-2 (in part), Numbers 16:8-11, Numbers 16:16-22, Numbers 16:35; Numbers 17:1-13; Numbers 18:11 a, Numbers 18:2, Numbers 18:31 b, Numbers 19:6, Numbers 19:12 (probably), Numbers 19:22-29; Numbers 21:4 (the beginning), Numbers 21:10-11(?); Numbers 25:6-31; Numbers 32:16-19 (leaving out the word ‘ready-armed’ in Numbers 32:17), Numbers 32:24, Numbers 32:28-36. Deuteronomy 32:48-52; Deuteronomy 34:1 a, Deuteronomy 34:7 a(?), Deuteronomy 34:8-9. Joshua 4:19; Joshua 5:10-12; Joshua 9:17-21; Joshua 9:15 b; Joshua 13:15-33 (secondarily); Joshua 18:1 (inserted here); Joshua 14:1-5 (3 secondarily); Joshua 14:15; (excepting Joshua 14:13-19 and some other things); Joshua 16:4-8; Joshua 17:1-4; Joshua 17:7; Joshua 17:9 (leaving out the words ‘these cities of Ephraim are among the cities of Manasseh’); Joshua 18:11-25; Joshua 19:1-51 : (leaving out Joshua 19:47, Joshua 19:49-50, also the enumeration of the names of cities and perhaps other parts); Joshua 20:1-9 : (the Deuteronomic additions to it are very late); Joshua 21:1-42; Joshua 22:9-34.

(In this analysis no notice has been taken of R — i.e. the Redactor, to whom certain connecting words or verses are attributed — notably these five: in Genesis 35:9 the word ‘again’; Exodus 16:6-8; Exodus 16:36; Exodus 20:11; in Joshua 9:27 the words ‘for the congregation and’; and Joshua 16:9. The reader will now, in some measure, understand what was meant when, in the text of these Lectures, the Pentateuch, as reconstructed by Wellhausen, was described as the most curiously tesselated, or rather mosaic, piece of workmanship; and when it was asserted that there exists no parallel instance of any such composition; nay, that, from a literary point of view, such construction of it seems incredible.) IX. Later Rabbinic Modifications and Adaptations of specific Laws, especially in the ‘Priest-Code.’

These modifications and adaptations are (at least in part) here enumerated, chiefly because they afford presumptive evidence that what we know as the Mosaic Legislation could not have been of late date, since, in many points, it was so little adapted to the circumstances of later times, that the Rabbinic Law had to introduce modifications and additions to render the old Mosaic Law practicable. Generally, also, the reader may be interested in having placed before him some of these Rabbinic adaptations of the Mosaic Law. Not to speak of the original sources in the Talmud and Midrashim, as well as in dogmatic works, from which our knowledge must here be derived, even such literature of the subject as is generally accessible to the student is scattered over many tractates, brochures, and articles, or else incidentally treated in books on kindred subjects, so that a full apparatus criticus would be very difficult. But the following may be mentioned as most easily accessible: Saalschütz, d. Mos. Recht; Hamburger’s Real-Encyklopædie; and, in reference to certain points bearing on the criticism of the Pentateuch, the Articles by Hoffmann in the Magazin für d. Wissensch. d. Judenthums (as regards the Sacrificial Laws, vol. 4:, 1877, pp. 1-17; 62-76; 125-141; 210-218; as regards the Law of Witnesses, vol. 5: pp. 1-14; and as regards the theory of Wellhausen and of his school, vol. 6:, 1879, pp. 1-19; 90-114; 219-237; vol. 7:, 1880, pp. 137-156; 237-254); and especially D. Castelli, La Legge, 1884. To the latter I am here especially indebted, although my standpoint is the opposite of his; and I have followed the lead of Castelli in the brief and general review, which was all that could be attempted in this place.

[1]. The ‘Priest-Code.’ In the text of these Lectures the view has been expressed that the Mosaic arrangements must have been prospective, and that at the time of their introduction, the services of the Tabernacle could not have been regularly carried out. On the opposite theory of the introduction of the Priest-Code at the time of Ezra, and for the purposes of the priesthood, we would have expected detailed arrangements. But, as a matter of fact, such are not found in the Priest-Code, while they are supplemented at a later period. Thus, as regards the sacrificial function of the High-Priest, no distinction is apparently made between him and ordinary priests, and only the services of the Day of Atonement are assigned to him in Leviticus 16:2-3, whereas, in Rabbinic Law, he had, besides other functions, the precedence of officiating every other day in the Sanctuary (Yom. 14a). Similarly, the Pentateuch is silent about the order and succession of the various priestly families in the ministry of the Sanctuary. We remember that this was only fixed by the arrangement of the priesthood into twenty-four courses in the time of David, while tradition ascribes to Moses an arrangement into eight or else sixteen ‘courses,’ which relieved each other every week. But it seems incredible that, if the Priest-Code had dated from the time of Ezra, it would not have contained some such arrangement.

Again, it militates against the supposed later origin of the Pentateuch, that whereas Leviticus 21:7 forbids the marriage of a priest, among others, with one who is generally designated as ‘profane,’ the Talmud explains this, quite in the spirit of the times of Ezra and later, as one who was the offspring of an unlawful marriage by a priest, adding prohibition of marriage with a proselyte, one who had been a slave, had previously contracted an unlawful marriage, or been divorced, according to the provisions of the law of Levitate. Of all this the Priest-Code says nothing, although we would certainly have expected it on the theory in controversy. In the opposite direction evidence of the older date of the Mosaic legislation comes to us from the later Rabbinic modification of the ancient law that ordered a sinning daughter of Aaron to be burned — and this, alike as regards the mode of her execution, and the cases to which the law applied. On the other hand, the same later spirit, as compared with the Priest-Code, appears in the permission of summary vengeance on priests who officiated in a state of Levitical defilement, [254] Similarly, the early Mosaic code, which fixed the commencement of the Levitical ministry at thirty, and its termination at fifty, years of age, (Numbers 4:3, Numbers 4:23, Numbers 4:30, — see, however, Numbers 8:24.) was already modified in 1 Chronicles 23:24; 1 Chronicles 23:27, (Comp. Ezra 3:8) while the Talmud adds that the limitation to fifty years of age applied only to the wilderness-period, when the severe work of the transport of the Tabernacle required full strength. [255] But these modifications seem utterly incompatible with the origination of the Priest-Code in the time of Ezra. Lastly, on this point, it is evident that if the Priest-Code had been of such late date — if, indeed, it had not been quite prospective — it would have provided for all those priestly officials whose services were afterwards found requisite, and who, according to Rabbinic Law, formed a staff of hierarchic officers attached to the Temple. [256] From the priesthood we naturally pass to the provision made for its support. Here also the details and provisions found necessary in later legislation prove the early date and prospective character of the Pentateuch-legislation. Thus, whereas Numbers 18:12 assigns to the priesthood the first-fruits of the wheat, the later Law extends this to seven kinds of grain, to dates, and fruits, and pomegranates, [257] Similarly, the general statement that the first of the dough was to be offered to the Lord, is interpreted in the Mishnah as meaning that it was to be given to the priests. [258] And from the direction in Numbers 15:19, together with that in Deuteronomy 18:4, it was further inferred that firstfruits of everything were to be given to the priest before any other offering, or before any use was made of the produce. Indeed, strictness in this respect was one of the distinctive marks of the Pharisee. This was called the Terumah gedolah, the proportion of which was not fixed, but supposed to amount to at least one-sixtieth. [259] On the other hand, the Talmud limits the provision of Leviticus 27:32, which seems to assign to the priesthood the tenth of the herds and flocks, by declaring that the proprietors were to make of these a sacrificial meal, in which the fat was to be burned on the altar, and the blood sprinkled, while only that part of them was to go to the priests which was theirs in votive offerings. [260] Moreover, the Rabbis fixed, in connection with Deuteronomy 14:22-29, what was called a second tithe, of which a festive meal was to be made in Jerusalem every year, while every third year it was to be given to the poor (the poor’s tithe), [261] And in connection with all this the Mishnah has those elaborate provisions collected in the tractate Demai, which fix the ordinances in reference to the produce, concerning which it is doubtful whether tithes had been given or not. A slight consideration will convince that, if the priest-arrangements had originated in later times, some provision would have been made to secure that the High-priests should possess revenues larger than those of the common priests. This, especially in the period after Ezra, when the civil government mainly devolved upon them. Accordingly we find that the Talmud directs that, if the High-priest had not property of his own, the other priests were to contribute so much, that his income should exceed that of any single common priest. Similarly, the High-priest was to have precedence over every other priest in regard to the sacrifices and gifts offered in the Sanctuary. On the other hand, the Pentateuch makes no difference between the High-priest and common priests as regards property or revenues.

If we were to read the Pentateuch without fully entering into the symbolic meaning of sacrificial worship, we could only wonder at the absence of any mention of public prayer in its services. We can understand it from the standpoint of the Pentateuch, as the original Mosaic legislation, but not from that of later times, especially those which witnessed the institution of Synagogue-worship. Accordingly, the Rabbinic law fixed, not only certain times for prayer, but also introduced prayer in the services of the Temple. A somewhat similar development appears in the Rabbinic enlargement of the prohibition in Leviticus 22:8 into special directions how animals were to be slaughtered for human food. [262] We mark similar enlargements, showing the alterations of later times as compared with the primitive arrangements of the Pentateuch, even in regard to the preparation of the incense, which, according to Exodus 30:34-38, was to consist of four ingredients, while the Talmud adds to these other seven perfumes, besides salt and other materials. [263] The preparation is said to have been a secret, hereditary in one family. The same inferences come to us when comparing the detailed rubrics concerning the mode of sacrificing, and the various rites at the festivals, with the very primitive and general directions of the Pentateuch. We mark in them what a later time required, when all these observances were carried into constant and universal practice. Even so simple an arrangement as that which regulated the annual Temple-tribute, had not been provided for, but was fixed by the Rabbinic law.

Evidence as to the later requirements of more detailed ordinances than those in the Pentateuch in regard to festive sacrifices — and especially what was known as the chagigah — multiplies upon us as we compare the directions of the Rabbis with the provisions of the Mosaic Law. They indicate further need, due to the circumstances of later times. In any case, some more detailed provisions must have been made, if the Priest-Code had been of late origin. And beyond all this we may here refer to the rites in the admission of proselytes, to the details about what rendered an animal fit or unfit for sacrifices, and to other ritual questions, the difficulties of which would occur in later practice. Even as regards the supposed new institution, or at least transformation, of the festivals of the first and fifteenth day of the seventh month, we mark how entirely different, or at least how largely elaborated, they appear in Rabbinic tradition — that is, as actually observed in later times. The same might be predicated of the observances of the Day of Atonement. Nor — to extend our view beyond the Priest-Code — do we here require to remind ourselves of the similar transformation in regard to the Sabbatic law, while we might almost ask ourselves why there should not have been in the Priest-Code, if it were of later date, some allusion to such a festival as that of Esther (Purim), or any, however disguised, reference to the taking of Jerusalem by the enemy, which might have been introduced in some connection with the Day of Atonement.

Evidence in the same direction comes to us as we compare the principles laid down in the Mosaic Legislation as to the dedication of animals, things, or persons to the Sanctuary, as also concerning vows, with those of later times, as explained in the traditional Law. The same remarks might be made in regard to the mode of trying a woman suspected of adultery; in regard to the directions given about phylacteries, and the fringes to be worn on the garments, the Sabbatic year, that of Jubilee, and other ordinances, in all of which the Rabbinic Law marks the practical requirements or questions arising in later times as compared with the simplicity of the earlier Mosaic Law.

[2]. Very partial as this review has necessarily been, it is hoped that it may effectually support the argument in favour of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch legislation. And it might have been extended, to show that other portions of the Pentateuch also must have been of earlier date than recent criticism has assigned to them. Even Castelli admits the existence of such a difference between the Pentateuch legislation generally and that of tradition, [264] and that the latter must, in many respects, be regarded as an adaptation of the ancient Law to later circumstances and to questions then arising. [265] But it may, I think, be most reasonably argued that such further development and conciliation would, in very many cases, not have been requisite — that the new wants would have been at least initially indicated-if the introduction and teaching of the Pentateuch had dated from the year 444, and if it had received so many further accretions after that period. [266]