THE LEGISLATION

The analysts maintain that the Pentateuchal laws give evidence of a post-Mosaic origin. Kuenen declares that these laws differ so much that they "must, in all probability, be separated from each other by a space, not of years, but of centuries."¹

1. Among the laws claimed to be contradictory are those which relate to the place of worship. Kuenen claims that Exodus 20:24 authorizes the offering of sacrifices at different places, and that therefore it conflicts with many passages in Deuteronomy and also with Leviticus 17:1-9 and Exodus 25 sqq.

In regard to this passage,² it is to be observed:

(1) That if it does authorize a plurality of sanctuaries, it contradicts all the succeeding parts of the Pentateuch. Kuenen sets against it not only Deuteronomy,³ but also Leviticus 17:1-9 and Exodus 25 sqq. He might have added that the Book of Numbers knows but one altar and one place of worship. If the claim of Kuenen and other analysts is well founded, what a blunder was committed by the writer of Exodus in placing contradictory laws in the same book! Even the supposed redactor, who so often comes to the help of these critics, is to be blamed for not removing the contradiction, as he might have done by the alteration of a word.

(2) The hypothesis of the analysts is that the middle books of the Pentateuch were gotten up during the exile or after it, with a special view to the establishment of the priestly code. It is admitted that Leviticus and Numbers harmonize with Deuteronomy in regard to the unity of worship. Is it not strange that these exilic writers should have- allowed Exodus to contradict the other books and also itself on this vital point?

(3) But the conclusive answer to the arguments and assumptions of the analytics on this subject is this, that Exodus 20:24 does not authorize a plurality of sanctuaries. Though the passage does, indeed, speak (in the English version) of a plurality of places in which God would "record his name," and at which sacrifice was to be offered, yet it does not say that God would record his name in different places at the same time, nor that there should be an altar in more places than one at the same time. As the Israelites went from place to place during the forty years' wandering, God indicated, by the manifestation of his presence, the spot where he was to be worshiped. A more literal rendering of the passage would be, "in every place [בְּכָל־הַמָּקוֹם] where I record my name." God recorded his name in many places during the wandering in the desert, but never in two places at the same time.

(4) The regulations concerning unity of worship are more definite and emphatic in Deuteronomy than in Exodus and the other middle books, and this fact harmonizes with the traditional theory; for when the Israelites were encamped together, within a short distance of the altar and the tabernacle, and within sight of the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night, it was sufficient to tell them to offer sacrifices only in the places where God manifested his presence. But when they were about to enter Canaan, where they would no longer behold either the cloud or the fire, and where they would live, many of them, at a distance from the altar, the ark, and the sanctuary, the great law-giver recognized the propriety of expressing more clearly and urgently the duty of worshiping God at the one place which he himself should choose.

2. Kuenen (also Wellhausen and others) claims that Exodus and Deuteronomy conflict with Leviticus and Numbers, inasmuch as the former two books mention but three yearly feasts,⁴ while the latter two mention seven.⁵

But is this a contradiction? The negative view is favored by the following considerations:

(1) It is very improbable that the men who are supposed to have made the Pentateuch what it is, and who are anxious about the establishment of ritual services, would either insert contradictions, or allow contradictions to remain, in regulations which they claimed Moses had enacted concerning religious festivals. These authors, revisers, and redactors must have regarded the Pentateuchal books and laws as harmonious.

(2) Exodus and Deuteronomy are merely silent in regard to four of the feasts. Silence is not contradiction. The silence in this case is satisfactorily accounted for by the fact that Exodus⁶ and Deuteronomy⁷ mention only the feasts at which all the males were required to be present.

3. Kuenen further maintains that Deuteronomy contradicts Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers in regard to the Levites.⁸ His contention is, that according to Deuteronomy all the Levites were priests, while according to the middle books only Aaron and his sons were priests.

But, as has frequently been pointed out, in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers the Levites are appointed and set apart to the service of the sanctuary,⁹ and thus are really made priests. In this way is conferred on the Levites as extensive a grant of priestly rights and prerogatives as is found in Deuteronomy. There is, however, this difference, that in the middle books the preëminence of Aaron and his sons among the priests is distinctly brought to view, while Deuteronomy on this point is silent. Here again the analysts construe silence as contradiction.

4. Another divergence is claimed in the tithe laws as contained in Leviticus 27:32, Numbers 18:21-32, and those contained in Deuteronomy 14:22; 26:12-15.

In order to make out this divergence, the critic is under the necessity of putting an interpretation on these laws which was rejected by the Jews, as is shown by Tobit,¹⁰ and Josephus.¹¹ But it is an easy thing for Kuenen to say that Tobit, Josephus, and all the Jews, including Solomon and Daniel, misunderstood their tithe law.

5. It is claimed that the laws in regard to firstlings of cattle conflict with one another.⁸ This claim, however, is only another example of silence treated as contradiction.

(a) Exodus 13:12, 13 and 34:19, 20 set apart the male firstlings of beasts to the Lord, the firstling of an ass to be redeemed, or to have its neck broken.

(b) Exodus 22:30 requires the firstlings of oxen and of sheep to be given to the Lord on the eighth day.

(c) Deuteronomy 15:19-23 demands that all the firstling males of the herd and flock (except the defective and the deformed) be sanctified unto the Lord, and be eaten at the sanctuary.

(d) Numbers 18:15-18 provides that all firstlings, both of men and beasts, brought unto the Lord shall belong to Aaron; the unclean firstlings to be redeemed; the firstlings of cows, sheep, and goats not to be redeemed, but their blood to be sprinkled on the altar, their fat to be burned, the wave breast and right shoulder to be given to the priests.

On the above passages we remark:

(1) That what is prescribed in one is not forbidden or repealed in any of the others. The only way to prove inconsistency between them is to construe silence as contradiction, the kind of reasoning to which the analysts so frequently resort.

(2) Why the firstlings, though mainly eaten as food by the people, were regarded as belonging to the Lord and also to the priests, is of easy explanation. These firstlings belonged to the Lord as sacrificial victims, their blood and their fat being offered on the altar. They belonged also as sacrificial victims to the priests, who offered them, and to whom were given the wave breast and right shoulder. The remaining portions were devoted to the Lord's feast, of which all classes partook. There is no contradiction here, except to those who are anxious to find it.

6. It is further claimed that there is divergence among the regulations in regard to the maintenance of the Levites. Numbers 35:1-8 provides that forty-eight cities should be assigned them, and Joshua 21:1-42 relates how this was done. Kuenen does not find any contradictory regulation, but he refers to passages which speak of the Levites as sojourning in other cities, and which commend them, along with widows and orphans, as objects of charity; and then he challenges any one to explain "how the law-giver, after having made, in the fortieth year, such ample provision for the support of the priests and Levites, could assume a few days later that his injunctions would not be carried out, and that the Levites would wander about in destitution."¹²

We reply: (1) That not all the forty-eight Levitical cities were situated in one tribe or region, but thirteen cities were assigned out of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin; ten out of Ephraim, Dan, and Manasseh; thirteen out of Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali, and the half tribe of Manasseh; and twelve out of Reuben, Gad, and Zebulon.¹³ The Levites — twenty-three thousand males a month old and upward,¹⁴ forty-six thousand all told — were not confined to these forty-eight cities, but were scattered everywhere as priests, scribes, teachers, and in other capacities.

(2) Only cities, not farms, were assigned to the Levites. A family that owned only a town-lot and a house, or only a town-lot without a house, might be very destitute. "Ample provision," says Kuenen. One wonders where he got his ideas on this subject. He seems to forget that men, women, and children need food and clothing.

7. Contradiction is claimed in regard to the age at which the Levites entered on their priestly duties. Numbers 4:3 fixes the age at thirty years; Numbers 8:24, at twenty-five. Between these passages, as we have them, there is a discrepancy. This discrepancy is cited by Kuenen to disprove Mosaic authorship.¹⁵

But, (1) it is possible that the discrepancy arose from an error in transcription. The Septuagint has the number twenty-five in both passages. In such a case many of the analysts, if they thought it would advance their case, would assume that the authors of that version followed a better text than that contained in our Hebrew Bibles of the present day. And perhaps they did.

(2) After all, the difference in the numbers is probably not the result of a various reading, or of any kind of error, but of the thoughtful precaution of the law-giver. The fourth chapter has reference to the duties of the Levites in taking care of the tabernacle on the march; the eighth, to the ordinary service of the tabernacle. The minimum age for the former might be thirty years, and for the latter twenty-five. After the tabernacle was fixed permanently at Jerusalem, the minimum age was reduced to twenty.¹⁶

(3) But the alleged discrepancy is not between different authors and different books. According to the showing of the analytic critics, the discrepancy, whether real or only apparent, is between the statements of the author whom they call P.¹⁷ They virtually say that since the statements conflict, therefore not Moses, but P, wrote them. The argument is worthless, except on the ground that Moses was plenarily inspired and infallible. The analyst, of course, says that though both passages were written by P, the number in the one or the other has been altered by a later hand. But here is involved the groundless assumption that if Moses were the original author that later hand could not have done its work.

8. Kuenen claims that the laws in Exodus 21:1-6 and Deuteronomy 15:12-18 in regard to the manumission of Hebrew servants are opposed to Leviticus 25:39-43.¹⁸ He declares that the former passages limit the term of service of the Hebrew servant to six years, and that the latter extends it to the year of jubilee.

But the former passages do not limit the term of service to six years. They expressly provide that the service might continue after the six years indefinitely, or, as our English version has it, forever. Leviticus 25:39-43 fixes the utmost limit at the year of jubilee. Should a man emphasize the English auxiliary shall in the clause, "Shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee " (fortieth verse), he will get a meaning that is not in the original Hebrew. In this case, as in many others, the contradiction is found only by those who desire to find it.

Having thus disposed of the main arguments drawn from the Pentateuchal laws to disprove their Mosaic origin, we proceed to take up the arguments drawn from the same source in favor of the other side of the question.

1. One important consideration is, that all these laws purport to come, in the phraseology of Kuenen, "from Moses and the desert." In the legislative portions of the Pentateuch we have the ever-recurring formula, "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying." A very large portion of the Pentateuch, especially of Deuteronomy, claims to have been actually delivered by Moses in oral discourse to the Israelites. This is true especially of the legal enactments.

These facts force upon us one of two conclusions: either Moses is the author of the legislation attributed to him and the analytic hypothesis must be abandoned, or the Pentateuch contains a vast amount of falsehood. It is of little avail to attempt to disguise the latter alternative under the euphemism of legal fiction or pious fraud. These phrases exclude the idea of mere mistake. They mean, not that somebody blundered, but that somebody lied. Besides the charge of falsehood in putting words into the mouth of Moses which he never uttered, and in attributing to him laws which he never enacted, there is the further charge of falsehood in the ascription of these words and laws to the Almighty. The formula so often employed, "The Lord spake unto Moses, saying," means that God in some supernatural, or at least special, way, communicated his will to Moses, and that the laws which Moses enacted came from God. The denial of the Mosaic authorship of these laws is a denial of their divine authorship as well. In every case, then, in which the analytic critic charges falsehood on the record in ascribing a law to Moses, he must charge further falsehood on the record in its representing the law as coming from God. In other words, the charge involved in the analytic hypothesis against the legislative portions of the Pentateuch is that of wholesale lying. Over and over again — times, indeed, too numerous to be counted, the declaration is made that God, through Moses, gave to the chosen people laws which the critics claim had no existence till many centuries after Mosaic times. According, then, to the analytic view, every such declaration is false. Such views, of course, prepare the way for and involve far-reaching skepticism. Accordingly we find the leaders of the analytic school — Wellhausen, Kuenen, Reuss, Graf— maintaining that the whole account of the tabernacle is untrue, the exodus largely a sham, and the decalogue a purely human invention of post-Mosaic origin. The only way logically to avoid these destructive conclusions is to accept the record that the Pentateuchal laws came from Moses and from God.

2. The literary presentment of these laws indicates that they originated in the wilderness, and therefore in the time of Moses.

It is indeed claimed by the analysts that these laws, including the decalogue, presuppose the settlement in Canaan and a population engaged in agricultural pursuits. The expression, "within thy gates," in the fourth commandment,¹⁹ and the regulations in regard to leprous houses,²⁰ are claimed as showing that the Israelites at the time of enactment were dwelling in houses and towns. It is freely admitted that the ten commandments and the Pentateuchal laws in general were intended for people living on farms, in houses, and in towns and cities. The Israelites had been living in houses up to within a short time before the decalogue and the most of the laws were given them. They had houses in Egypt, and dwelt in towns and villages, and on farms and pasture lands. Their law-giver in the wilderness did not forget, nor allow them to forget, that they were to be permanently settled in Canaan, and that their sojourning in the wilderness was to be comparatively brief. This is brought to view in the regulations concerning leprous houses. The preamble is as follows: "When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession."²¹ Here it appears on the face of the law that the Israelites at the time of its enactment were not yet settled in Canaan, and were living in tents — at least were not living in houses. Yet this very law has been adduced to show that the Israelites were already settled in Canaan.²² There are also some other laws that could not be applied in the wilderness, and were not intended to come into operation until after the settlement in Canaan, such as the laws in regard to lands, landmarks, first-fruits, newly-built houses, houses in walled cities and houses in villages, newly-planted vineyards, and the seventh-year rest for the land. All such laws and regulations were intended to be operative among the Israelites, not in the wilderness, but when settled in the land of promise. The prospective aim of such laws is often expressly pointed out, as, for example, the law in regard to landmarks: "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it."²³ After all that the critics have said about this passage, the fact remains that the phraseology employed in it implies that the Israelites were not living on separated lands, but expected soon to be.²⁴ Thus the laws scattered through the Pentateuch, though in many cases plainly intended to be operative only in the future and among an agricultural people, unmistakably point to the nomadic condition of the Israelites in the wilderness as existent at the time of enactment.

The style and terms of the laws indicate the Israelites, at the time of enactment, to be on the way from Egypt to Canaan.

(1) Israel is in the wilderness: Leviticus 16:10, 21, 22.

(2) Israel is in camp: Leviticus 4:12, 21; 6:11; 8:17; 9:11; 10:4, 5; 13- 46; 14:3. 8; 16:26, 27, 28; 17:3; 24:10, 14, 23. The burnt-offering was to be carried without the camp; the sin-offering also was to be carried and burned without the camp; the ashes from the altar were to be carried without the camp; the leper was to stay without the camp; the priest was to visit him without the camp; and thus throughout the Levitical legislation the Israelites are contemplated as occupying a camp.

(3) The Pentateuchal laws contemplate the settlement in Canaan as being, at the time of their enactment, a future event. "When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession."²⁵ "And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food."²⁶ "When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the Lord."²⁷ "When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it."²⁸ See also Deuteronomy 15:4, 7; 12:9; Leviticus 18:3; Deuteronomy 19:I.

(4) At the time of the enactment of these laws, the tabernacle and God's presence and worship had no fixed abiding-place. "In all places [in every place] where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee."²⁹ The Levitical law required sacrifices to be brought to the tabernacle, wherever it might be, and this requisition was declared to be a statute forever unto the Israelites throughout their generations.³⁰ Again and again is it indicated in Deuteronomy that God had not yet chosen the one place of central worship. "But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come."³¹ See also Deuteronomy 12:11, 14, 18, 26; 14:23; 15:20; 16:2; 17:8; 18:6; 23:16; 26:2; 31:11.

(5) The regulations in Exodus concerning the consecration of priests mention by name Aaron, which shows that these regulations were established before Aaron's death.³² Also in Numbers, in connection with the regulations concerning the lighting of the lamps in the tabernacle, the consecration of the Levites, and other matters, the name of Aaron is expressly mentioned.

Thus the style and terms of the laws and regulations contained in these last four books of the Pentateuch indicate that they were enacted and published when the Israelites were in the wilderness, unless the suggestive marks above pointed out were placed upon them with the intention of deceiving.

3. Many of the Pentateuchal laws were suited only to Mosaic times.

We have shown above that these laws were just such as might be expected from Moses in the wilderness. Laws are made for the present and the future, and the laws of the Pentateuch were adapted to the circumstances of the Israelites in the desert, and also to their future condition in Canaan. The point we now make is, that if these laws originated in the times, or near the times, claimed by the analysts, then whoever got them up must have framed laws neither for the present nor for the future, but for the past, — an absurdity which no statesman, nor perhaps anybody else, ever committed.

(1) The law of the king is, according to the analytic theories, precisely of this character, and carries a lie on its face besides.

(a) It claims to have been enacted by Moses before the entrance into Canaan. "When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it."³³ This preamble is a lie, if the law which follows is not of Mosaic origin.

(b) The provision that the Israelites should appoint as king only the one whom God should choose, and one of their own nation,³⁴ is out of place and absurd if enacted in the time of Josiah, or near that time. For long before that time David had been made king by divine appointment and popular choice, and his descendants, by the same right, had long reigned in Jerusalem.

(c) That the king should not lead the people back into Egypt³⁵ is another useless and absurd law, if not enacted till near the close of the monarchy; for all danger of a return to Egypt had ceased many centuries before.

(d) The provision against the multiplication of horses and wives by the prospective king³⁶ was entirely in place, if enacted by Moses; for he had seen the abuses and evils of monarchy in the land of Egypt.

(e) The fact that Samuel did not refer to this law of the king in resisting the demands of the people does not prove that he was ignorant of it. The law did not suit his purpose. His effort was to prevent the appointment of a king altogether. The people, however, in urging this measure on Samuel, quoted this law as in their favor — "Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations."³⁷

(2) The laws of war, as contained in Deuteronomy,³⁸ are suited to the time of the conquest, but not to the later years of the monarchy.

(a) These laws speak of the conquest as future — the nations of Canaan as yet to be conquered and destroyed.³⁹ If this war code did not originate, as it purports, in Mosaic times, the law demanding the extermination of these nations must have been inserted for the purpose of deception.

(d) The distinction between cities distant and near, the regulations in regard to captives and tributaries, and the directions for the preservation of fruit-trees during sieges, are all unaccountable anachronisms, if either enacted or published after the time of Solomon.

(c) This code, however, furnishes evidence that it was enacted before the establishment of the monarchy. In it the idea of a king as commander of the army is utterly excluded. The priest is to address the soldiers on the eve of battle. The officers are to proclaim liberty to certain classes to withdraw from the army. Then leaders in battle are to be appointed. There is no chance here for the exercise of kingly power in the army. But the Hebrew idea of a king was that of a man to lead the army and fight the battles of Israel. Clearly this code was out of place after the appointment of Saul as king.

(3) The command to destroy the Amalekites would have been absurdly out of place after the time of David.⁴⁰

(a) This is declared to be one of Moses' commands to Israel shortly before his death.

(b) The Israelites were to execute this command after their settlement in Canaan, which is thus represented as not yet accomplished.

(c) This command was partially executed by Samuel and Saul,⁴¹ and more fully by David.⁴²

(d) In commissioning Saul to exterminate the Amalekites, Samuel evidently referred to what is recorded in this passage.⁴³

(4) The laws in regard to magistrates and the trial of cases plainly point to the times before the monarchy. These laws provide for government and trials by priests, elders, and judges. Kingly power is excluded by them. Thus provision is made for carrying cases by appeal from the court of the elders in the gate to the court in the place which God should choose — "unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment."⁴⁴ It is indeed true, as adverted to above, that the possibility or probability of the appointment of a king, at the demand of the people, is mentioned; but it is mentioned only as a future contingency. The laws provide for a commonwealth, are adapted to it, and are so framed that a king and kingly power could come in only as intruders. This is true of all the laws contained in the Pentateuch. Not one of them recognizes the monarchy as having been established, or gives the remotest hint of its existence, except as future.

(5) This consideration is strengthened by the fact that the books which contain these laws, and the whole history in which they are imbedded, observe the same absolute silence in regard to the monarchy, and in regard to the whole history of the nation after the time of Moses. There is not a word in all these laws and in all these law books that betrays knowledge of any event after his death and burial. We reserve this point for further treatment in the next chapter.

1) Hexateuch, p. 25.

2) Ex. 20:24.

3) Hexateuch, pp. 24, 25.

4) Ex. 23:14-17; 34:18-24; 13:3-10; Deut. 16:1-16.

5) Lev. 23:1-44; Num. 28:18, 25, 26; 29:1, 7, 9.

6) Ex. 23:17.

7) Deut. 16:16.

8) 8) Hexateuch, p. 25.

9) Num. 1:49, 50; 3:5, 6; 8:10-16.

10) 1; 6-8.

11) Antiquities, 4:8:8.

12) Hexateuch, p. 31.

13) Josh. 21:1-42.

14) Num. 26:62.

15) Hexateuch, pp. 25, 31, 308.

16) I. Chr. 23:27.

17) Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, Kautzsch-Socin.

18) Hexateuch, pp. 25, 31.

19) Ex. 20:10.

20) Lev. 14:33-53.

21) Lev. 14:34.

22) Kuenen, Hexateuch, p. 20.

23) Deut. 19:14.

24) See p. 56.

25) Lev. 14:34.

26) Lev. 19:23.

27) Lev. 25:2.

28) Deut. 17:14.

29) Ex. 20:24.

30) Lev. 17:3-9.

31) Deut. 12:5.

32) Ex. 40:13.

33) Deut. 17:14.

34) Deut. 17:15.

35) Deut. 17; 16.

36) Deut. 17:16, 17.

37) I. Sam. 8:19, 20; Deut. 17:14.

38) Deut. 20:1-20.

39) Deut. 20:16, 17.

40) Deut. 25:17-19.

41) I. Sam. 15:1-33.

42) I. Sam. 30:11-20.

43) I. Sam. 15:2, 3.

44) Deut. 17 5 1-13.