THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT, INCLUDING THE QUESTION OF THE CENTRALIZATION OF WORSHIP

Our proposition is, that the history demonstrates that the Levitical and Deuteronomic laws were in operation long before the times in which, according to the analytic theories, the Pentateuchal books came into existence.

The opponents of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuchal laws and books claim the evidence of history to be in their favor. They contest every inch of ground in maintaining that according to biblical narratives the practices of the Israelites in general, even the best and most intelligent among them, on down to the time of King Josiah, were such as to indicate that they knew nothing of these books and laws. They reason as follows: If Joshua, Gideon, Manoah, Samuel, and David, and other good and intelligent Israelites who were their contemporaries, had known the Pentateuchal laws, they would have obeyed them. But they did not obey them; therefore, they did not know them. If the laws had been in existence, these men would have known them. Hence the laws were not in existence.

This argument, as employed by the analytic critics, contains two incorrect assumptions. Many good people remain ignorant of some laws all their lives, and some good people violate known laws all their lives. It is very unsafe to infer that because good people do certain things, therefore these things are lawful. Prevalent violations of a law do not prove its non-existence. Paul says, "Where no law is, there is no transgression." But it does not follow that where there is transgression there is no law. In order, then, to determine whether the practices of the Israelites at any time prove their ignorance of Pentateuchal laws, and whether this ignorance, if proved, would further prove the nonexistence of these laws, we must know thoroughly the facts in the case.

Many of the critics, in treating of these matters, commit the same error which so often appears in their argumentation elsewhere — that of taking silence for denial, and inferring that a law was not observed because in the history of particular times nothing is said about it. They do worse even than this in their presentation of the historical argument. They set aside the biblical history as untrue and set up a history of their own invention. When they speak of the biblical history, they mean the history as they think it ought to be, and as they manufacture it to support their theories. We intend to verify these charges as we proceed.

I. We begin with the unity of worship.

The fact that the Pentateuchal laws required the Israelites to offer sacrifices in one chosen place has already been mentioned.¹ A passage in Exodus has been construed as favoring a plurality of places of worship.² The traditionalists, however, maintain that the expression, " in all places where I record my name," in this passage does not mean several places at the same time, but many places in succession, the places at which the altar and the tabernacle were from time to time set up; and they point, in support of this construction, to the fact that but one altar is mentioned. How could there be more than one place of sacrifice, when there was but one altar?

It is maintained, however, that as a matter of fact there were many altars and many places of worship; that pious and law-abiding Israelites offered sacrifice on private altars; and that up to the later times of the monarchy there could have been no law requiring unity of worship, as otherwise the ignorance and disregard of it would be incredible. The analysts reason as follows: If there was a law requiring unity of worship, it was almost continually disobeyed by pious and law-abiding Israelites; but such disobedience is incredible; therefore, there was no such law down to the time of Josiah. The objectors in this case appeal to the history, that is, in spots. They take the history so far as it presents facts that seem favorable to their views. The rest of the history they either ignore or decry as untrustworthy.

Let us ascertain, then, what the facts are as brought to view in the history.

(1) The history shows that for about forty years at least, during the time of Moses, the law requiring unity of worship was fully obeyed. During the wandering in the wilderness there was but one altar, one tabernacle, and one central place of worship. Neither the pillar of cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, ever divided itself. This symbol of God's presence moved on from time to time, and from place to place, and wherever it rested, there the tabernacle and the altar were erected, and the tribes of God encamped around them. Thither Moses, and Aaron, and the godly Israelites came to sacrifice and to worship. During the entire wandering in the desert, the whole time covered by the historical parts of the last four books of the Pentateuch, there is not a single instance of sacrifice being offered elsewhere than at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. The Israelites repeatedly rebelled in the desert. Some of the laws were, in a certain sense, held in abeyance. Circumcision was neglected or withheld for forty years.³ The Passover during that time was probably not observed, at least generally, as circumcision was a prerequisite for the performance of that duty;⁴ but there is not a particle of evidence that there was, before the death of Moses, a single infraction of the law requiring all sacrifices to be offered at one divinely-chosen place.

(2) There is historical evidence that this law was operative after the death of Moses, and during the lifetime of Joshua.

After the crossing of the Jordan and the defeat at Ai, Joshua and the elders of Israel prostrated themselves before the ark of the Lord.⁵ The ark, of course, was in the tabernacle. After the destruction of Ai, Joshua built an altar to the Lord on Mount Ebal, "as it is written in the book of the law of Moses." On the stones of this altar a copy of the law of Moses was written. On this altar they sacrificed burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. Here all Israel, and their officers, elders, and judges, surrounded the ark, and, in the presence of the priests the Levites, listened to the reading of all the words of the law.⁶ Here, then, for the present was the central place of worship.

The account given of the Gibeonites plainly implies that there was but one altar and one place of assembling for worship. Joshua declared to them, "There shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God." It is accordingly declared that Joshua "made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord."⁷ Here we have one house of God and one altar of God spoken of, which certainly implies one place of worship for all Israel.

After the conquest, the whole congregation of Israel assembled at Shiloh and set up the tabernacle of the congregation (or tent of meeting). Shiloh was thus recognized as the place of God's presence and the place of sacrifice and worship.⁸ Men went to Shiloh to appear before the Lord.⁹

We do, indeed, read of the erection of a second altar in the time of Joshua. The two and a half tribes beyond Jordan built an altar, "a great altar to see to." But this alarmed their brethren in western Canaan, who assembled for war, and sent messengers to remonstrate with the supposed transgressors. The builders of this second altar informed the messengers that it was intended, not for sacrifice or worship, but merely as a witness that the inhabitants of eastern Canaan had a right to worship the God of Israel. The answer was satisfactory.¹⁰ The negotiations clearly reveal the fact that the law of the unity of worship was fully recognized by both parties.¹¹ The remonstrants said, "Notwithstanding, if the land of your possession be unclean, then pass ye over unto the land of the possession of the Lord, wherein the Lord's tabernacle dwelleth, and take possession among us; but rebel not against the Lord, nor rebel against us, in building you an altar besides the altar of the Lord our God." The builders of the second altar replied, "God forbid that we should rebel against the Lord, and turn this day from following the Lord, to build an altar for burnt-offerings, for meat-offerings, or for sacrifices, besides the altar of the Lord our God that is before his tabernacle."¹² These facts make it evident that in Joshua's time the Israelites fully recognized the unlawfulness and sinfulness of offering sacrifices elsewhere than at the one tabernacle and on the one altar of the Lord.

It is thus shown that according to the history the Israelites understood and obeyed this law for about forty years during the time of Moses, and for about a quarter of a century during the leadership of Joshua. So far, the testimony of the history clearly points to the existence of the law of centralized worship; and we might here rest our case. For since the law existed as a matter of history in the times of Moses and Joshua, it must have existed in subsequent times, however much it may have been ignored and disobeyed, unless, indeed, it was repealed. But of this there is no evidence; and, besides, repeal would be the very reverse of the analytic hypothesis; it would be evolution going backwards.

(3) Antecedently, we should expect to find this law, to some extent, ignored and disobeyed in the time of the judges; for during this time religion and morality were often at a low ebb, and anarchy and lawlessness prevailed. The people were obedient as long as Joshua lived, and for a short time after his death. "And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua."¹³ But declension and idolatry had partially begun even during the last days of Joshua. He referred to this fact in his final address: "Put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt." And again: "Now therefore put away. . . the strange gods which are among you."¹⁴ After his death apostasy soon set in. "And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers. And there arose another generation after them, which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim: and they forsook the Lord God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them."¹⁵ The Israelites "knew not the Lord" at this time. Of course they knew not his laws. The record further relates that the Lord raised up judges, and that the people "would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods"; and that, though "the Lord was with the judge," yet, when the judge was dead, "they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way."¹⁶ In such times of apostasy, rebellion, and disobedience, of course the law requiring sacrifices to be offered to the God of Israel at his one tabernacle and one altar was forgotten or disregarded.

Our critics ignore these facts. They ignore also the fact that the Israelites were in a chronic state of alienation and rebellion during almost their entire history from the exodus to the exile — that the commonwealth established by the Lord and Moses was a failure almost from the beginning and was displaced by the monarchy; that the chosen people were a failure, proving to be stiff-necked and rebellious, and had to be cast off, scattered, and riddled, in order that, as after the exile, a new start might be made with the better and chosen few; and that previous to this second experiment many of the laws were inoperative through the weakness and perverseness of the people and their rulers. We speak of failure, but really it was neither of God, nor of his law. It was through no failure of God or Christianity that the only copy of the Bible to which Luther had access was locked up and chained in a convent. It was through no failure of God and Christianity that the Christians engaged in the business of man-stealing and the slave trade. It is through no fault of the ten commandments that "every mere man doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed." The golden rule of Christ is no failure, though everybody fails to obey it. These failures and all this disobedience do not prove the moral law of God either to be entirely unknown, or to be an absolute nullity. Nor does disobedience to any particular law among the Israelites, whether that disobedience was conscious or unconscious, whether through ignorance or perverseness, prove that the law was either unknown or non-existent.

Antecedently, then, we would expect the law in regard to the centralization of worship to be ignored and disobeyed, like many other laws in the time of the judges, a time in which idolatry, violence, and other forms of sin and immorality frequently prevailed, and in which frequently there was no central or settled government to repress lawlessness and transgression — a state of things brought to view in the history by the repeated use of the formula, "In those days there was no king in Israel."¹⁷ It is evident that this state existed only at particular times during the period of the judges.

After all, there is satisfactory evidence that the law requiring unity of worship was not unknown, nor altogether a dead letter, during the period of the judges, notwithstanding the degeneracy and perverseness of the times. Shiloh was recognized still as the place of God's presence and worship. It is expressly declared that "the house of God was in Shiloh."¹⁸ This, of course, refers to the tabernacle as God's dwelling-place, which had been set up in Shiloh, in the time of Joshua.¹⁹ Here was an annual feast of the Lord — whether the feast of unleavened bread or of tabernacles matters not, so far as the present argument is concerned.²⁰ Let it be observed that but one house of the Lord is mentioned, not the houses, nor a house, but the house of the Lord. While Micah's graven image was worshiped by the Danites, the house of God was in Shiloh. Though they had a descendant of Moses for their priest, their place of worship was neither the house nor a house of God.²¹ The Levite whose wife's shocking death led to a destructive civil war, said in Gibeah, "I am now going to the house of the Lord."²² The reference was doubtless to the tabernacle at Shiloh, which lay in the direction in which he was going.²³ At this time the Israelites went repeatedly to the house of God (or to Bethel, as in the Revised Version) to ask counsel in regard to the war against Benjamin.²⁴ They went for divine counsel to the place (whether Bethel or Shiloh) where the ark of the covenant of God was, and where Phinehas, a descendant of Aaron, was the ministering priest.²⁵ The building of an altar on the morrow after the defeat of the Benjamites seems to indicate that the tabernacle and the ark had been brought from Shiloh to be near the battlefield (perhaps to Bethel), and that hence an altar was needed.

(4) Shiloh appears still as the central place of worship in the time of Samuel, Samuel's pious father and mother went " yearly to worship and sacrifice unto the Lord of hosts" in Shiloh. Here were the tabernacle, and the ark of God, and an Aaronic priesthood, as in the time of Joshua. The people of Israel came here to sacrifice and worship. A law of sacrifice was recognized, which the sons of Eli, the high priest, violated. The right of the priests to certain parts of the sacrifice was admitted. The wicked sons of Eli gave offense to the pious worshipers by unlawful proceedings in taking their lawful perquisites.²⁶ It thus appears that Shiloh continued to be the home of the tabernacle, and the ark, and the altar, and the place of sacrifice and worship for all Israel, from Joshua to Samuel. We do not say that the tabernacle and the ark were never absent during all this time from Shiloh. The tabernacle, with its sacred furniture, was removed from place to place in the wilderness, and it may not have been entirely stationary after the conquest. We think, indeed, that it was not. But the history shows that Shiloh became the abiding-place of the tabernacle and the ark, and the place of sacrifice and worship, soon after the death of Moses, and continued such until, in the time of Samuel, the Lord forsook the place, and laid it waste because of the wickedness of Eli's house and of the people of Israel.²⁷ Thus Shiloh, chosen to be the place for recording God's name at the first, continued century after century to be honored as the place of his presence and the place of sacrifice and worship. Such is the testimony of the history — the history as presented in the Bible, and not mutilated and mangled to suit the theories of the analysts. These facts alone are sufficient to show that there was a restriction of sacrifices in general to the one tabernacle and one altar. There were exceptions, doubtless, but these serve to show that the law was generally obeyed.

(5) Moses erected an altar immediately after the defeat of the Amalekites. But this was a memorial altar — not for sacrifice. No sacrifice was offered upon it.²⁸ So, too, as we have shown, the altar erected by the two and a half tribes east of the Jordan was merely monumental in design, and was not intended for sacrifice. All parties united in declaring the erection of an altar for sacrifice besides the altar before the tabernacle to be rebellion against God and a grievous sin. The account of these exceptional altars confirms the existence of the law against a plurality of altars for sacrifice and worship.

Another exceptional case is presented, at least apparently, in the fact that the children of Israel sacrificed to the Lord in Bochim.²⁹ We speak of this as an apparent exception; for the tabernacle and the ark may have been brought to Bochim, and the place may thus have become, for the time, the central place of worship, or Bochim may have been Shiloh. But an angel of the Lord appeared at Bochim, and this angel, as his words show, was Jehovah himself. Thus the place, at least temporarily, came within the law. God had chosen it for the time to put his name there;³⁰ hence, it became the duty of the Israelites to erect an altar there (if the tabernacle and altar were not there already), and to offer sacrifices upon it. But Jehovah's appearing at Bochim, if it was not Shiloh, was temporary. He put or recorded his name there but once, and then withdrew. Accordingly, the history records but the one sacrifice at Bochim, and while sacrificing there the Israelites, so far as the history relates, sacrificed nowhere else. This, then, is only an apparent exception, and does not indicate a plurality of altars.

Another apparently exceptional case is found in the present offered by Gideon to the angel of the Lord. But so far as Gideon was concerned this present was not a sacrifice at all. It consisted of the flesh of a kid, unleavened cakes, and a pot of broth, which were intended as food for the man whom Gideon thought the angel to be. The angel burned these articles of food and disappeared. It appears that in this case the angel was Jehovah.³¹ But, at all events, Gideon did not offer sacrifice on this occasion. However, immediately after this Gideon built an altar in Ophrah to the Lord. In regard to this altar several things are to be observed. (1) There is no account of any sacrifice being offered upon it. (2) It appears to have been a memorial altar, like to the one erected by Moses to commemorate the victory over the Amalekites,³² and the one erected by the two and a half tribes be3'ond Jordan.³³ (3) The altar for sacrifice was the one built at God's command on the top of the rock or stronghold.³⁴

The offering of sacrifice on this second altar was not in violation of the law which forbade separate and private altars and sacrifices, for the Lord had made himself known at this place — had "recorded his name" there. So, too, when Manoah offered his sacrifice upon a rock, the Lord was visibly present; for though the heavenly visitant is called an angel of the Lord, yet when he ascended in the flame of the sacrifice Manoah recognized him as God. God appeared to Manoah no more, and he offered not another sacrifice.³⁵ There are, indeed, some other cases of irregular sacrifices mentioned in the Book of Judges, but they are condemned as unlawful and idolatrous. During forty years spent in the desert, and the quarter of a century of Joshua's leadership, and the whole time of the judges, four hundred years or more, there are recorded only three instances of lawful and acceptable sacrifice offered elsewhere than at the central place of worship; and at all these three places, Bochim, Ophrah, and Manoah's field, where the irregular sacrifice was offered, the Lord himself was present, "recording his name" there.

In the time of Samuel the circumstances were peculiar. The priesthood was corrupt; the people were in a state of rebellion and alienation. For the prevalent wickedness the Lord slew the priests, delivered the ark and the people into the hands of the Philistines, forsook the tabernacle, and laid Shiloh waste. The ark was brought back to Israel, but it was now an object of fear, and it was placed in the house of Abinadab, where it remained twenty years. The ark and the tabernacle were separated, and the central altar seems to have gone out of sight, if not out of mind. Israel was in a state of apostasy. Samuel called on the people to repent. " Put away [said he] the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the Lord."³⁶ His exhortations had temporary effect, but the reformation was not effectual, and the alienation between God and Israel continued, the ark and the tabernacle remained apart, and the services of the sanctuary were not restored. There was altogether an anomalous state of things when the priests had been slain or set aside for their wickedness, and the sanctuary was broken up and suspended. There was no recognized place of central worship, because there was no place where God "recorded his name" by special manifestation of his presence. In these circumstances Samuel and other pious Israelites doubtless did many things which they would not have done, had the regular services of the sanctuary not been interrupted.

The desire of David to have the ark in Jerusalem, his building a tabernacle for it, the account of the removal of it from the house of Abinadab, and David's offering burnt-offerings and peace-offerings before the Lord at the time of his placing it in the tabernacle, all indicate that the neglect of the ark for twenty years was not in accordance with the law and former custom. The death of Uzzah, in consequence of his having touched the ark of God, points to a law that must be rigidly observed, and even the unconscious violation of which must be punished.³⁷ "When David fled from Jerusalem because of Absalom, Zadok and the Levites accompanied him, "bearing the ark of the covenant of God." Though David directed them to return with it to Jerusalem, the facts show that where the ark was, God's habitation was.³⁸ The hallowed bread at Nob suggests that the tabernacle and its service had been established at that place, only to be abolished by King Saul's slaughter of the priests and the destruction of the city.³⁹

From this time on to the erection of the temple on the spot where the angel of the Lord had stood in the time of David, God had no chosen place in Israel. Indeed, from the time that God forsook Shiloh and laid it waste, because of the sins of Israel, until the building of the temple, there was no place in all the land which could be regarded by the intelligent and pious Jews as possessing the grand characteristic of the central place of worship, according to the Pentateuchal formula, "The place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there."⁴⁰

In this anomalous state of things, resulting from the apostasy of the chosen people and God's withdrawal from them as a community, the law of the unity of worship was necessarily held in abeyance, like circumcision and the Passover in the wilderness, while God was waiting until the rebellious generation should pass away. The appeal of the analysts to the history of these anomalous times and to the examples of irregular sacrifices which it furnishes, in order to prove that as yet there was no legal requirement for the centralization of worship, involves a discreditable ignoring of historical facts and an audacious disregard of logical consistency. Wellhausen says, "Desgleichen wird durch I. Reg. 3:2 die Vorstellung eines vorsalomonischen Centralheiligtums ausgeschlossen"⁴¹ ("The representation of a pre-Solomonic central sanctuary is precluded by I. Kings 3:2").

The passage which Wellhausen thus imperiously claims settles the question in regard to the existence of the Mosaic tabernacle is as follows:" Only the people sacrificed in high places, because there was no house built unto the name of the Lord, until those days." This is a favorite text with our critic; he refers to it again and again. But his reliance on it is, on his part, a self-contradiction; for he denounces the Book of Kings as untrustworthy and false in its every statement that contravenes his views. We refer, as a specimen, to his declaration that "the thirteenth chapter of I. Kings is one of the coarsest examples of historical worthlessness, comparable with Judges 19-21, or I. Samuel 7 sqq., or occupying a still lower grade."⁴² But now, when he finds a passage that seems helpful to his argument, he quotes it as trustworthy and conclusive.

But the critic injects into the passage his notion that there never was a Mosaic tabernacle or tabernacle service. He ignores the fact that it refers to the time in which the Israelites were in an abnormal state. From the time that God forsook and destroyed Shiloh on account of prevailing wickedness, until the building of the temple, there was no centralized worship, and could be none, because no place was divinely chosen for it; but by the building of the temple in the place chosen of God, and by the bringing of the ark, and the tabernacle, and the holy vessels into it,⁴³ the central worship was restored as in the days of Moses, Joshua, and the judges.

The analytic critics, some of them at least, rely confidently on II. Samuel 8:18, last clause, "David's sons were chief rulers," as proving that the law of the Levitical priesthood was not in force in David's time. The word in the original (cohenim) here rendered " chief rulers " or "princes," generally means priests. If David's sons were priests, the Levitical law must have been disregarded, or was not in force. The argument depends on the translation of the word cohenim. May it be translated here "chief rulers" or "princes," as in our Authorized Version? Wellhausen, of course, is quite certain that the passage means that the sons of David were literal priests, and is more than willing to accept the statement on the authority of an author whose historical veracity he repeatedly impugns. His declaration is, "So durfen diese Worte nicht dem Pentateuch zu liebe anders gedreht werden als wie sie lauten"⁴⁴ ("These words must not, out of love for the Pentateuch, be twisted out of their proper meaning"). Wellhausen's faithful follower, Professor W. R. Smith, affirms that "the Hebrew word means priests, and can mean nothing else."⁴⁵

Notwithstanding the dogmatical assumption of these critics, there is something to be said on the other side.

(a) The author of the Book of Kings includes priests (cohenim) among the princes and officers of Solomon. His words are, "And these were the princes which he had," and among these he classes Zadok and Abiathar.⁴⁶ Aside from the question of divine inspiration and also the question of historical accuracy, the author of Kings undoubtedly knew the meaning of the Hebrew word cohen, and here we find him calling priests princes, classing them with civil and military officers.

(b) The chronicler also evidently understood the word in the same way. He interprets this very passage as follows: "And the sons of David were chief about the king."⁴⁷ The analytic leaders impeach the historical character of the chronicler; but he at least understood the Hebrew language.

(c) The Septuagint Version translates thus: "The sons of David were aularchai'' (chamberlains or rulers of the palace).

(d) Gesenius says that it is the opinion of the Hebrew interpreters that cohen signifies prince as well as priest, and that the Chaldee translators have rendered it in several places by the former word.⁴⁸

Other authorities might be given, but we deem the above a sufficient, and more than a sufficient, answer to the unsupported assertions of our analytic critics.

There is no necessity, then, for understanding that King David made his sons priests in the common acceptation of that word.

We conclude that the history, on the whole, is favorable to the centralization of worship in Mosaic times. When the history is taken in its entirety; when it is recollected that in the whole Pentateuchal history and during the times of Moses and Joshua there is not mentioned a single instance of sacrifice offered elsewhere than at the altar before the tabernacle; when it is further recollected that all the irregular sacrifices during the time of the judges are condemned as idolatrous and sinful except in three cases, and that in these three cases the sacrifices were offered where Jehovah was visibly present; and when it is still further recollected that the instances of irregular sacrifice on which the critics mainly rely occurred at a time when the sanctuary services had been interrupted, and there was no place where God was "recording his name," and hence there could be no place of central worship, — when these and all the other facts are taken into consideration, it must be seen that the history, instead of militating against the traditional view, in reality confirms and vindicates it.

2. Another point at which the analytic criticism comes into conflict with the history is the existence of the Mosaic tabernacle. Some of the analysts, yes, many of them, admit its existence, but they do so at the expense of logical consistency. The analytic hypothesis of the origin of the Pentateuchal books and of the Levitical code in post-Mosaic times logically necessitates the rejection of the account of the tabernacle in the wilderness as fictitious and false. With it are connected the ark and the altar. Where it stood was the place of sacrifice. Admit the tabernacle in the wilderness, and you are forced to admit the centralization of worship. The idea of one tabernacle, one holy ark, and one altar, and many places of worship, is absurd. Besides, minute directions were given to Moses concerning the construction of the tabernacle and all its furniture. All the instruments, even the tongs and the snuff-dishes, were made according to the pattern shown to Moses in the mount.⁴⁹ Of course, then, divine directions were given to Moses concerning the tabernacle service. It is absurd to suppose that God would give minute prescriptions in regard to the material structure and its furniture, and yet establish no code for sacrifice and worship for priests and priestly service. It is unreasonable to suppose that Moses, even without divine guidance, would pursue such a course. If he constructed the tabernacle, with its sacrificial altar and altar of incense, its lamps, and lights, and show-bread, and all its instruments of service, then also is he the author of its code and ritual. Those, therefore, who deny the Mosaic origin of the Levitical code and service must deny the reality of the Mosaic tabernacle. No doubt Voltaire, with his quick vision, recognized this truth when, anticipating the leaders of the modern analytic school, he declared the Mosaic tabernacle to be a fiction. Those leaders, Reuss, Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen, knew what they were about when, in rounding out and completing the analytic system, they took up and carried out Voltaire's idea by maintaining that the tabernacle in the wilderness is but Solomon's temple in miniature projected, by the Jewish imagination, back into the past.

Perhaps there are some analytic critics who repudiate the opinions of these leaders on this subject, and accept the account of the Mosaic tabernacle as entirely true. We impeach neither the truthfulness nor the honesty of such men, but suggest that they must and will either recede or advance from their present position; for, according to the history as given in Exodus, Moses, in accordance with the divine command, gave minute directions not only in regard to the construction of the tabernacle, the altar, and the ark, in regard to the altar of incense, the table, the candlestick, and oil for the light, but also in regard to the consecration of Aaron and his sons, their regalia for the tabernacle, — breastplate, ephod, robe, broidered coat, miter, and girdle; gold, blue, purple, scarlet, and fine linen, — and in regard to the daily service, — a bullock for a sin-offering every day, two lambs of the first year day by day continually. Even the very day in which the tabernacle was to be set up and Aaron and his sons were to be consecrated, was specified. And, according to the history, the tabernacle and all its vessels and furniture were constructed precisely as Moses directed, and were consecrated on the day appointed. Aaron was set apart to the office of chief priest, with his sons as assistants, and the daily service of the sanctuary according to the prescribed ritual was inaugurated. All this and much more is related in the history, and related as history.⁵⁰ Now, if all this be true, we have a Levitical priesthood, Levitical ritual, and Levitical code established and inaugurated by Moses in the wilderness. But in case a man will not accept this Leviticism and ritualism as inaugurated by Moses, he must join the more advanced analytic critics in declaring the history to be false. Nor is the history thus set aside confined to one book. The Mosaic tabernacle figures largely in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers; it is mentioned in Deuteronomy;⁵¹ it is mentioned also in Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Thus the analysts are under the necessity of contradicting nearly every historical book of the Old Testament; and yet they try to array the biblical history against traditional views.

3. The analytic critics reject also the historical account of the Passover. Reuss claims that it was instituted in the time of King Josiah.⁵² Graf maintains that it belongs to the time of the exile.⁵³ Wellhausen, of course, maintains its evolutionary and post-Mosaic origin,⁵⁴ This position is taken in accordance with the logical requirements of the analytic theories. The passover lamb was to be killed at the door of the tabernacle. If the Passover originated in Mosaic times, then must the tabernacle also date back to Mosaic times. But priests and a priestly ritual are connected with the tabernacle. Hence the priestly ritual would be shown to be Mosaic. But this is contrary to the anal3-tic theories. Hence the analysts, who have thoroughly thought out their hypothesis to its necessary conclusions, maintain the post-Mosaic origin of the Passover. They take this position, however, in defiance of the history. They virtually give the lie to the twelfth chapter of Exodus, which records the origin and first celebration of the Passover under Moses in Egypt. They disregard the references to it in Leviticus.⁵⁵ They reject and trample under foot the account of the second observance of it by Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness, as given in Numbers.⁵⁶ They account the record concerning it in Deuteronomy worthless.⁵⁷ They in some way get rid of the account of the keeping of the Passover by the Israelites after crossing the Jordan, as given in Joshua.⁵⁸ The chronicler's account of the celebration of this feast in the time of King Hezekiah gives them but little trouble, since they decry the historical veracity of that writer even more than that of most of the other sacred narrators.

Our critics thus reject not only the testimony of the historical books, but also that of the authors who are supposed to have lived and written at different times. According to Kautzsch-Socin, the account of the institution of the Passover in Exodus 12:1-20 is by P, who is supposed to have lived and written about 450 B.C.; the reference to the Passover in Exodus 34:25, by J, about 800 B.C.; that in Deuteronomy 16:1-8, by D, 600 B.C.; that in Numbers 28:16, 17, by R, and that in Numbers 33: 3. by P (R).⁵⁹ Kautzsch-Socin mark Exodus 12:21-27 (which refers to the Passover) with an interrogation point (?), but Driver⁶⁰ ascribes the passage to JE, 800 to 750 B.C.

Some of these supposed authors, as J and E, are claimed to have lived and written many years before the time in which, according to our critics, the Passover became known. The absurdity and self-contradiction of ascribing statements concerning the Passover to such authors, and yet maintaining that that institution had no existence before the exile or the time of Josiah, is quite obvious. How illogical it is in these critics, after setting aside as untrustworthy the testimony of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Chronicles; of D, E, J, P, and R, who, perhaps, owe their entire existence to the critics who thus abuse them, then to turn round and argue that the biblical history is opposed to the traditional belief!

4. Logical and consistent analysts are under the necessity of referring the origin of the Sabbath to a comparatively late period. According to the analytic hypothesis the reference to the institution of the Sabbath in Genesis 2:2,3 originated with the supposed author P, 450 B.C., nearly a thousand years after the time of Moses. Driver ascribes the reference to the Sabbath in Exodus 16:22-30 partly to J, 900 B.C.,⁶¹ but Kautzsch-Socin refer no part of this passage to J, but divide it between P and R. The various references to the Sabbath elsewhere in the Pentateuch are ascribed to exilic or other late authors. The twentieth chapter of Exodus (1-21), which contains the decalogue, gives trouble to the analysts. Driver ascribes the passage to E, 750 B.C., many centuries after Moses, but he affirms that "the decalogue was of course derived by E from a preexisting source."⁶² This remark of Driver's indicates a desire to trace the ten commandments back to Moses. Kautzsch-Socin ascribe the passage to E in brackets, thus [E]⁶³ Reuss says the passage is "the result of a compilation much later than the time generally assigned to it."⁶⁴ Wellhausen denies the Mosaic origin of the decalogue. He even affirms that we have two decalogues and that we have no real or certain knowledge as to what the stone tables placed in the ark contained.⁶⁵ Kuenen declares that the decalogue has been redacted and interpolated, and that its original form is uncertain and its date doubtful. He refers it to 800 or 700 B.C.⁶⁶ Graf's views are about the same.

Thus these critics view the ten commandments. The fourth, of course, fares no better at their hands than any of the others. They nullify the divine authority for the Sabbath, as contained in the decalogue. Reasoning as they do about other matters, they must hold that the fourth commandment was ignored and disobeyed by the people of God in ancient times. There is no reference either to the law or to its observance from Adam to Moses. There is nothing to indicate that the ancient saints of God, Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, and their godly contemporaries, either obeyed the fourth commandment or knew anything about it. The Sabbath is not mentioned, nor even alluded to (unless in the references to the seven days in the account of the flood),⁶⁷ from the creation to the exodus. To use the current style of the analytic school, the Bible history knows nothing about Sabbath observance among the people of God from the creation on down to the giving of the manna — a period of more than two thousand six hundred years. Then, again, the Bible history knows nothing about obedience to the fourth commandment among the Israelites from Moses to Isaiah; and even in Isaiah's time Sabbath desecration was a prevalent sin.⁶⁸ Though the Sabbath is mentioned in the books of Kings and Chronicles, there is not a word about the observance of it as a day of rest.⁶⁹

Yet all this silence in regard to the Sabbath, silence lasting for centuries, and even for thousands of years, and this neglect of it, though general, persistent, and long-continued, do not prove that the law requiring men to rest one day in seven was not in force from the earliest times, or was at any period altogether unknown. The analytic critic, in drawing such conclusion, does it in defiance of the biblical history. That history states that God instituted the Sabbath at man's creation.⁷⁰ That history further states that the Israelites had a knowledge of this primitive institution and observed it when they came out of Egypt and before the giving of the decalogue at Sinai.⁷¹ Still further, the history states that at the giving of the law Jehovah issued no new command in regard to the Sabbath, but reminded the Israelites of the commandment already given, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." And still further, the history states that Moses incorporated this command among the civil laws of his people. The only way the analytic critics can, with any show of consistency or reason, maintain the non-primitive and non-Mosaic character of the fourth commandment and of the institution of the Sabbath, is to impeach and set aside the biblical history. This is what the most logical and boldest of the analysts have done.

5. The argument from silence and neglect has been applied to the institution of the Day of Atonement. This institution is referred to in each of the three middle books, but is set forth most particularly in Leviticus.⁷² But what must be admitted as strange and scarcely accountable is, that outside of the Pentateuch there is no reference to the Day of Atonement in the Old Testament — at least no certain reference. But in this case the argument from silence cuts both ways. If the analytic critic should say that, as there is no mention of the observance of the law in regard to the Day of Atonement previous to the exile, there was no such observance, and hence there was no such law, the answer is easy and obvious; for there is no mention of the observance of the law even in post-exilic times. Indeed, there is no reference to the law at all after the exile until the first century. There is a supposed reference to it in Josephus⁷³ and another in the Acts of the Apostles,⁷⁴ and there is a clear reference to it in the Epistle to the Hebrews.⁷⁵ Hence, according to the argumentum e silentio, which our analytic critics are so fond of using, the law establishing the Day of Atonement and the books which refer to it had no existence until the first century of the Christian era. The argument which involves such a conclusion is worthless. Reuss makes an effort, though not a very vigorous one, to show from the silence of the record that the restored exiles did not observe the Day of Atonement until the arrival of Ezra among them.⁷⁶ The critic seems oblivious of the fact that his reasoning involves the absurd conclusion mentioned above.

Graf accepts the argument from silence as proving that the Day of Atonement was not observed until long after the exile. According to his view, the law was in the Pentateuchal books from the time of Ezra, but was neglected and disobeyed for hundreds of years. By parity of reasoning, the law may have been in the Pentateuchal books before the time of Ezra, though neglected and disobeyed.

We conclude, then, that the laws in regard to the Day of Atonement, the Sabbath, the Passover, and the unity of worship were in force in the time of Moses and afterward. This not only refutes the argument of the analysts drawn from the neglect and violation of these laws, but also constitutes presumptive proof that the books containing these laws were in existence in the time of Moses.

1) See Part III., ch. ix.

2) Ex. 20:24.

3) Josh. 5:2-9.

4) Josh. 5:10.

5) Josh. 7:6.

6) Josh. 8:31-35.

7) Josh. 9:23, 27.

8) Josh. 18:1.

9) Josh. 18:6, 8, 10; 19:51.

10) Josh. 22:9-34.

11) See p. 207.

12) Josh. 22:19, 29.

13) Josh. 24:31.

14) Josh. 24:14, 23.

15) Judg. 2:10-12.

16) Judg. 2:16-19.

17) Judg. 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25.

18) Judg. 18:31.

19) Josh. 18:1.

20) Judg. 21:19.

21) Judg. 18:31.

22) Judg. 19:18.

23) Judg. 19:1.

24) Judg. 20:18. 23, 26.

25) Judg. 20:27, 28.

26) I. Sam. 1:1-3; 2:12-17, 22-26:3:3.

27) Ps. 78:60; Jer. 7:12, 14, 15; 26:6, 9.

28) Ex. 17:15, 16.

29) Judg. 2:1-5.

30) Dent. 12:5.

31) Judg. 6:11-23.

32) Ex. 17:15, 16.

33) Josh. 22:21-29.

34) Judg. 6:25-32.

35) Judg. 13:1-23.

36) I. Sam. 7:3.

37) II. Sam. 6:1-18.

38) II. Sam. 15:24-29.

39) I. Sam. 21:1-6; 22:9-19.

40) Deut. 12:5.

41) Prolegomena, p. 292.

42) Idem, p. 297.

43) I. Kings 8:1-6.

44) Prolegomena, p. 133.

45) The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 265.

46) I. Kings 4:2-6.

47) I. Chr. 18:17.

48) Lexicon, p. 450.

49) Ex. 25:9, 40.

50) Ex. 40:17-38.

51) Deut. 31:14, 15.

52) L'Histoire Sainte, Int., pp. 148, 164.

53) Die Geschichtlichen Bucher des Alten Testaments, pp. 84, 72.

54) Prolegomena, p. 94.

55) Lev. 23:4-8.

56) Num. 9:1-14.

57) Deut. 16:1-8.

58) Josh. 5:10.

59) Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments.

60) Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. 25.

61) Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. 28.

62) Idem, p. 30.

63) Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments.

64) L'Histoire Sainte, Int., p. 66.

65) Prolegomena, p. 411.

66) Hexateuch, p. 244.

67) Gen. 7:4, 10; 8:10, 12.

68) Isa. 56:2; 58:13.

69) 11. Kings 4:23; 11:5; 7:9; 16:18; I. Chr. 9:32; 23:31; II. Chr. 2:4; 8:13; 23:4, 8; 31:3; 36:21.

70) Gen. 2:2, 3.

71) Ex. 16:22-30.

72) Ex. 30:10; Lev. 16:1-34; 23:26-32; Num. 29:7-11.

73) Antiquities, 14:16:4.

74) Acts 27:9.

75) Heb. 9:7.

76) L'Histoire Sainte, pp. 260, 261.