EVIDENCE FROM ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS.

It is constantly alleged by the advocates of the late date of Deuteronomy that there are contradictions between it and the three middle books of the Pentateuch which are inconsistent with the supposition that all came from the same writer, and which demand both a later author than Moses for Deuteronomy, and a still later date for the other books. A portion of the evidence from this source has been considered already in Section 3, and now we take up the rest.

1. Contradictions as to the Financial Condition of the Levites. This contradiction is compactly stated by Driver in these words:

Deut. xviii. 6 is inconsistent with the institution of Levitical cities prescribed in Num. xxxv. It implies that the Levite has no settled residence, but is a "sojourner" in one or other of the cities ("gates") of Israel. The terms of the verse are indeed entirely compatible with the institution of Levitical cities, supposing it to have been imperfectly put in force; but they fall strangely from one who, ex hypothese, had only six months previously assigned to the Levites permanent dwelling-places. The same representation recurs in other parts of Deuteronomy: the Levites are frequently alluded to as scattered about the land, and are earnestly commended to the Israelites' charity-Chaps. xii. 12; xviii. 19; xiv. 27, 29; xvi. 11, 14; xxvi. 11-13 (Int., 83).

Andrew Harper's presentation of the case is quite similar:

The same conclusions present themselves if we look more closely into the curious fact that Deuteronomy always speaks of the Levites as poor. . . . But this poverty is not consistent with their whole position as sketched in the Levitical legislation. There we have the Levites launched as a regularly organized priestly corporation, endowed with ample revenues, and ruled and represented by a high priest of the family of Aaron, clothed with powers almost royal, surrounded by a priestly nobility of his own family, and by a bodyguard of his tribesmen entirely at his disposal. Such a body never has remained chronically and notoriously poor (Com. on Deut., 25, 26).

In these last remarks, Harper must have had in mind the established clergy of England, whose revenues are collected, like those of the civil government, by compulsion; and yet, even the English clergy of the lower orders remain "chronically and notoriously poor." Only the bishops and higher orders of clergy are "chronically and notoriously" rich. But the financial condition of the levites, as provided for in the "levitical legislation," is very imperfectly understood by both of these scholars. True, according to the law respecting levitical cities, every family of the tribe was to be provided with a home in such a city, but it is notorious that a house to live in brings a man no income for the support of his family. True, a strip of pasture land a thousand yards in width was to be left around every city; but this would barely support the goats which were needed for milk, and could bring no income. True, also, that a tithe of the increase from the fields and the flocks and herds of the other tribes, was to be given to the levites; and this would have been an ample provision for their support if as in England, an armed and ample police force had been provided for its prompt collection and delivery; but there was no provision for the forcible collection of the tithe, and therefore this was left to the good will of the people at large. The support of the Levites was analogous, not to that of the clergy of an established church in modern times, but to that of the dissenting clergy in Great Britain and the Protestant ministry in America. It is a well-known fact that this ministry is, with rare exceptions, "chronically and notoriously poor". The income for its support is meager, and it varies with what the people call "good times" and "hard times." When "hard times" set in, one of the first moves in economy is a reduction in the income of preachers. As a result, thousands of them are often compelled to resort to secular labor for the means of livelihood. The same is true when waves of immorality sweep over the land, or seasons of lethargy benumb the souls of religious people.

On account of these considerations, the legislation for the support of the levites, instead of securing them against want, was a deliberate consignment of the whole tribe to such a dependence on the liberality of the other tribes as to insure to them frequent periods of great destitution. Professor Driver, as quoted above, shows that he recognizes this fact, when he says that the terms in which the Levite is spoken of in Deuteronomy are "entirely compatible with the institution of Levitical cities, supposing it to have been imperfectly put in force." But what provision of the kind, in the history of any nation, ever was perfectly put in force when none but moral force was to be applied? If all these provisions were made by Moses in the wilderness, as they claim to have been, every thoughtful Levite must have seen in advance, if he judged the future faithfulness of the other tribes by what he had known of it in the past, that his tribe was doomed to such uncertainty of support as would insure frequent periods of destitution. And Moses, above all others, must have foreseen this contingency. Yet Professor Driver says that his remarks about the future poverty of the levites, and especially what he says of the Levite being at times a sojourner in some city of the other tribes, "falls strangely from one who, ex hypothese, had only six months previously assigned to the levites permanent dwelling-places." It would have sounded much more strange if a man of the experience and foresight possessed by Moses, had spoken confidently of the future prosperity of the Levites under the working of such a system as he provided.

This view of the subject is confirmed by the facts of history. For if we concede that Moses gave the levitical legislation, and that the historical books of the Old Testament give real history, we find the experiences of the Levites to have actually been what sound judgment should have anticipated in advance. The Levite who officiated as a priest before Micah's silver image lived in a time of lawlessness., when "there was no king in Israel;" and this fully accounts for his wandering and poverty.

When Nehemiah made his second visit to Jerusalem he says: "I perceived that the portion of the Levites had not been given them, so that the Levites and the singers that did the work were fled every one to his field." This neglect followed close upon a solemn covenant of the people made after hearing read the law of Moses, in which the faithful payment of the tithes was one of the neglected duties to which they pledged themselves (Neh. xiii. 10; x. 37-39, 28, 29). If such neglect of the Levites, compelling them to resort to the fields for a livelihood, occurred during the ministry of Nehemiah, how much more certainly must it have occurred during the idolatrous reigns of such kings as Ahaz, Manasseh and Amon, to say nothing of Ahaziah and Athaliab.

Finally, it is only by denying the truth of history for the sake of a theory, that the testimony of Chronicles with reference to the Levitical cities in the days of Jeroboam can be set aside. It is declared by the author of this book that when Jeroboam set up his idolatrous worship at Bethel, and forbade his subjects to go to Jerusalem to worship God, the Levites in all Israel resorted to Rehoboam. "They left their suburbs and their possessions, and came to Judah and Jerusalem" (II. Chron. xi. 13, 14). We thus see that when, in Deuteronomy, the Levites were spoken of as if they would be a poor tribe, needing the religious benevolence of their brethren, this is not contradictory to the appointment of certain cities for them to dwell in, but was an unavoidable consequence of the very means of support which is provided in the levitical legislation. Its bearing as evidence is against the "critics."

It is notoriously easy, in the ardor of debate, to overstate the facts in a case. This has been done by both of the writers quoted above in reference to the poverty of the Levites. We are told by Professor Driver that in Deuteronomy "the levites are frequently spoken of as scattered about the land, and are earnestly commended to the Israelites' charity;" and by Mr. Sharpe, that "Deuteronomy always speaks of the levite as poor." We have thus far argued as if these statements were correct; we now propose to state the case as it is. The name "Levite," in the singular or the plural number, occurs nineteen times in Deuteronomy. Twice they are mentioned as guardians of the book of the law (xvii. 18); once in connection with the curses to be pronounced at Mount Ebal (xxvii. 14); once as speaking with Moses certain commands of God (xxvii. 9); once in their capacity as teachers (xxiv. 8); once as constituting a part of the court of final appeals (xvii. 9); four times in connection with the common rejoicings before Jehovah on festal occasions (xii. 18; xvi. 11, 14; xxvi. 11); twice when the people are directed to give the tithes to them (xxvi. 12, 13); three times with reference to their being without landed inheritance (xii. 12; xiv. 29; xviii. 1); twice in exhortations to the people not to forsake them (xii. 19; xiv. 27); and twice in the directions concerning a homeless levite who may come to the central sanctuary to serve among his brethren.

Strictly speaking, in only five of these passages is the poverty of the levites spoken of at all, and in only two are the people of the other tribes exhorted not to forsake them. This falls very far short of what one would suspect from the strong language of Driver and Harper. And if, as we have argued before, the whole of the legislation contained in Leviticus and Numbers had been already enacted, this was no worse than a fair amount of good sense on the part of Moses, without the aid of inspiration, would have enabled him to anticipate.

Much has been said in this connection about the supposed case of a Levite mentioned in Deut. xviii. 6-8. The text says

And if a Levite come from any of thy gates out of all Israel, where he sojourneth, and come with all the desire of his soul unto the place which Jehovah shall choose; then he shall minister in the name of Jehovah his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, which stand there before Jehovah. They shall have like portion to eat, besides that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony.

It has been held that the condition of this Levite was that of all the tribe But he is clearly distinguished from the rest by the fact implied in the last clause, that he had sold his patrimony. His condition is explained and accounted for by the law in reference to Levitical cities, and it can be explained in no other way. According to the statute governing the sale and redemption of real estate, if the house of a Levite was sold, he could redeem it at any time; and if it was redeemed by another Levite, it went out of the latter's possession and into that of the original owner in the jubile (lev. xxv. 32, 33). The Levite's patrimony was his dwelling-house in the levitical city, which he had received by inheritance from his forefathers back to the beginning. This he might sell; and if he should not be able to redeem it, he was deprived of it till the next jubile. In the interval, if the proceeds of the sale were not sufficient to supply his wants, this law in Deuteronomy gave him the privilege of coming to the central sanctuary and partaking with the levites doing service there of the food provided for them. This, together with what he had left from the sale of his patrimony, would keep him from suffering. This provision, then, instead of being contradictory to the previous existence of Levitical cities, demands these and the law regulating property in them as its explanation.

I have said that this is the only explanation of the case. I am justified in this assertion by the failure of most of the critics to suggest any other, and by the absurdity of the explanations offered by some. The most elaborate attempt at explanation which has come under my eye is that offered by Driver in the following paragraph:

Besides his selling according to the fathers. The words are veryobscure: they are usually understood to mean "apart from what he has realized by selling the possessions belonging to him in virtue of his family descent" (paraphrased in R. V. by "beside that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony")—possessions which, it is supposed, he would part with at the time of leaving the country for the central sanctuary. Dillman (after J. D. Michaelis, Schultz) explains, "Beside what he has realized by selling the dues (tithe, etc.) rendered to him at his home by particular families." Either explanation is questionable: all that can be said is that the words describe some private source of income possessed by the Levite, distinct from what he receives as a priest officiating at the central sanctuary (Com., 217 f.).

When scholarly men turn away from plain facts supplied in the text itself, which perfectly explain and account for a provision of the law, and resort to conjectures so unfounded and so conflicting, it is a sure sign that their minds have been warped by a theory which is untenable, but which they think themselves bound to uphold.

In regard to the law respecting Levitical cities, Addis, following Wellhausen, takes extreme ground, and his remarks on the subject will lead us to another view of the arguments which we have just considered. He says:

There is no reason to think that the "priestly" rules on the income of the priests and Levltes existed before the exile. Ezeklel is silent about the offering of tithes and the firstborn of beasts to the priests and Levltes. Plainly he had never before heard of priestly and Levitical cities. For he makes a provision in lands for the priests and Levites, without alluding to any previous arrangement. Ezekiel's plan is clear and practicable; the Levitical cities, on the contrary, were never, and never could have been, more than a theocratic dream. In such a country as Palestine, which consists mostly of hills pressed together and separated by narrow ravines, no mortal power could set apart forty-eight cities surrounded by a pasture land of two thousand ells square (D. of H., I. xxxviii.).

One would think from this last remark, that Mr. Addis supposes all of the cities and villages of Palestine to be situated in the bottoms or on the edges of deep ravines. He certainly has never visited Palestine, or read attentively what has been written of it; for even now it has not forty-eight, but nearer 408 towns, with twice two thousand cubits around them, well suited for pasturage. Is he ignorant of the fact that much more than half the surface is as smooth and level as a Western prairie? Again, if the Levitical cities "never were, and never could have been, more than a theocratic dream," how could the writers of Joshua and Numbers have been believed when they wrote about them? And as to Ezekiel, if his silence about them shows that he knew nothing of them, why does not his silence about the offering of tithes and the firstborn of beasts, which are mentioned in Deuteronomy, prove that he knew nothing about them? It is acknowledged that Deuteronomy was Ezekiel's law-book; and if he is silent about laws contained in it, why may he not have been equally silent in regard to other laws, and especially about Levitical cities which had confessedly ceased to be such when Ezekiel wrote? All these assertions are boldly uttered by Mr Addis, but in uttering them he is whistling against the wind.

The facts in the case suggest still another consideration, which we will mention before we dismiss this argument. If it is incredible, or inconsistent with Deuteronomy, that Levitical cities existed before the exile, what about the possibility of their existence, as described in Numbers and Joshua, after the exile? After the exile, and previous to the close of the Old Testament history, the Jews occupied scarcely more than the territory once belonging to Judah, and this very sparsely. How, at that period, could the supposed writer of the Book of Numbers palm off upon the people a law which required forty-eight Levitical cities, and how could the writer of Joshua name these cities and give their locations in the various tribes, when everybody knew that both the law and the pretended compliance with it had no existence? And again, what motive could have actuated the two falsehoods, and how could their author have acquired the ingenuity in lying necessary to their invention? He was a greater genius than the author of "Utopia," with less conscience than the author of "Sindbad the Sailor." When men make such characters out of the writers of the Bible, and ask us to accept them, we decline.

Before we finally dismiss this subject, we invite attention to another statement in Deuteronomy which can be accounted for only on the supposition that the levitical legislation preceded that in Deuteronomy. It is found in the following words, addressed by Moses to the Israelites with reference to the transactions at Mount Sinai: "At that time Jehovah separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, to stand before Jehovah to minister unto him, to bless in his name, unto this day. Wherefore Levi hath no portion nor inheritance with his brethren: Jehovah is his inheritance, according as Jehovah thy God spake to him" (x. 8, 9).

This last clause, "according as Jehovah thy God spake to him." cannot refer to anything said in Deuteronomy; for this is the first mention of the subject in this book. It must then, refer to something said previously. If Moses spoke the words, it must refer to what is written in Num. xviii. 21-24, where the statute referred to is recorded; and it proves that the transaction in Numbers preceded those in Deuteronomy. It proves particularly that the Levitical legislation, instead of being enacted one thousand years after Moses, as our critics allege, was enacted by Moses himself. The only attempt that I have seen to evade the force of this argument is made by Andrew Harper, who, in explaining the words, "as he hath spoken to them," says: "The only place in Scripture in which such a promise is given is Num. xviii 20-24; so that these passages, if not referred to by the author of Deuteronomy, must be founded on a tradition already old in his time" (Com., 314). If we accept this as the alternative, it follows either that the Book of Numbers was written before Deuteronomy, which refutes the critical theory, or at least that this part of the Levitical legislation was already in existence. But this is not the whole story. The supposed writer of Deuteronomy put these words in the mouth of Moses, and by doing so he testifies that the Levitical legislation preceded the date at which Moses spoke. He fails, then, to serve the purpose of those who invented him, and they may as well set him aside as a useless device.

2. Contradiction as to Tithes. All the destructive critics unite in claiming that there is such a contradiction between Deuteronomy and Numbers in regard to tithes as to prove that the two books were written by different authors and far apart in point of time.

Professor Driver, after setting forth the law of tithes as he finds it in Deuteronomy, states the position of his class of critics in these words:

‘The Deuteronomic law of tithes is, however, in serious, and indeed irreconcilable, conflict with the law of P on the same subject’ (Com. Dent., 169).

By "the law of P" he means the law formally prescribed in Num. xviii. 21-32, and alluded to in Lev. xxvii. 30-33. Whether this proposition can be maintained or not is to be determined by a careful consideration of the provisions in the two laws. We shall first follow Driver in his representation of the law in Deuteronomy. He begins his exposition by stating the general law in these terms:

Israel is to show its devotion to Jehovah by rendering him a tithe of all the produce of the soil, to be eaten by the offerer, with his household, at the central sanctuary, at a sacred feast, to which the Levite is to be invited as a guest: those resident at a distance may take with them the value of the tithe in money, and expend it at the sanctuary in such food as they desire, to be consumed similarly at a sacred feast. Every third year, however, the tithe is not to be consumed at the central sanctuary, but to be stored up in the Israelite's native place, as a charitable fund for the relief of the landless and the destitute.

This representation is near enough to the truth to plausibly represent the text, and far enough from it to establish the appearance of a contradiction. The text certainly does say: "Thou shalt surely tithe all the increase of thy seed, that which cometh forth of the field year by year. And thou shalt eat before Jehovah thy God, in the place which he shall choose to cause his name to dwell there, the tithe of thy Com, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herd and thy flock; that thou mayest learn to fear Jehovah thy God always" (Deut. xiv. 22, 23). But it does not say, as Professor Driver's statement implies, that they were to eat all of the tithe of these various articles. It is not guilty of this absurdity. That it is an absurdity is evident the very moment we consider what the amount of the tithe would be. If the man's little farm yielded barely enough to feed his family, this interpretation of the law would require him to eat up at one feast what would keep his family for five weeks. Or, to put the case in another form, if his farm yielded annually 100 bushels of wheat, 100 gallons of wine and 100 gallons of oil, and if his firstlings should be only one lamb, one kid and one calf, he would be required at this "sacred feast" to eat up ten bushels of wheat, ten gallons of wine, ten gallons of oil, a lamb, a kid and a calf. Big feasting for a poor man! And then, if he were a rich man, with a larger body of land, he might have to eat at one feast 100 bushels of wheat, 100 gallons of wine, 100 gallons of oil, ten lambs, ten kids and ten calves.

Now, the only way to relieve the law of this absurdity is to suppose that it provided only for a single meal out of the tithe before it was left for the Lord, that is, for the support of the Lord's ministry - the priests and Levites. If this law in Deuteronomy was the beginning of legislation on the subject, we admit that there would be no room for this interpretation of it, seeing that it makes no provision for the priests and Levites beyond the single feast. But if, as the Book of Numbers represents, the law that a tithe of all products of the soil cultivated by eleven tribes was to be given annually for the support of the tribe of Levi, this Deuteronomic law would have been readily understood when given, and would be as readily understood now, as simply providing that, when the farmer came up annually with his tithe and his firstlings, he should unite with the beneficiaries of it in a feast of part of it ere he left the remainder to its appointed purpose. It was a very wise provision; because it had the tendency to make the giver part from his gift more cheerfully.

There is still another reason, and a very imperative one, for thus understanding the law. If the whole tithe were to be eaten at one feast, the Levite would certainly be well stuffed at the time, but what provision would this be for the rest of the year? He would have nothing to eat except when he could find some farmer coming up with his tithe, and there would be intervals of feasting and longer ones of fasting throughout the year - a mode of living not conducive to good health or long life.

Our professor and his company are equally wide of the mark in reference to the tithe of the third year. The law says: "At the end of every three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase in the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: and the Levite, because he hath no portion nor inheritance with thee, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that Jehovah thy God may bless thee in all the work of thy hands which thou doest" (28, 29). In this instance, as in the other, it would be impossible to eat all the tithe at one feast; and if it were thus eaten, the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless and the widow would alternate between enormous feasts and excruciating fasts. The meaning evidently is that out of the supply laid up and kept on hand the Levites were to be provided for, and the poor were to be kept from suffering. But here, again, the law in Numbers is presupposed. It had already provided for the support of the Levites out of the tithe, and this law simply adds the provision that the poor of the cities in which the tithe was stored should also be fed from it.

We are now to see in what way Professor Driver makes out his case of an irreconcilable conflict between this law of Deuteronomy and the law in Leviticus and Numbers. He says:

In Num. xviii. 21-28 the tithe is appropriated entirely to the maintenance of the priestly tribe, being paid in the first instance to the Levites, who in their turn pay a tenth of what they receive to the priests; in Deuteronomy it is spent partly at sacred feasts (partaken in by the offerer and his household), partly in the relief of the poor, in both cases the Levite (by which in Deuteronomy are meant the members of the tribe generally, including priests) sharing only in company with others, as the recipient of the Israelite's benevolence (p. 169).

This is all substantially true, but where is the irreconcilable conflict? If God through Moses gave the first law, why should he be charged with contradicting himself by afterward providing that the contributor of the tithe might enjoy one feast on it in company with the levites, and that while it was kept in store for the Levites, any suffering poor in the store city should be relieved from it? If this later provision had been made after the first had gone into operation, the Levites would have been deprived of a small part of that which had previously been their own; but if we accept the Scriptures for it, both laws were given before either went into effect. It is like the provisions of a man's will in which by an early clause he bequeaths certain property to one of his children, and in a later clause directs that this child shall give an annual feast to his brothers and sisters, and keep from suffering any of them who might become very poor. Who, in this case, would proclaim that the two clauses of the will are in irreconcilable conflict, and that therefore both could not have been written by the same testator? Certainly no sane man, unless he was so determined to make a point against the will as to lose for the moment his sanity.

The second point of irreconcilability is stated by Driver in these words:

‘Further, in Deuteronomy the tithe is exacted only on the vegetable produce; in Num. xviii., though it is not exactly so stated, the impression produced by the terms employed (note the similes in verses 27-30) is that here also only a vegetable tithe is intended. If, however, Lev. xvii. 32 f. be rightly regarded as an original part of the legislation of P, so that it may be legitimately used in the interpretation of Num. xviii., the tithe levied on the annual increase of cattle will be included as well. But, in either case, a large proportion of what in Numbers is devoted exclusively to the support of the priestly tribe, remains in Deuteronomy the property of the lay Israelite’ (169, 170).

How could the learned author designate as "a large proportion" that which was only a single meal eaten out of the tenth of all of the farmer's increase for a year? And how could he say that a large proportion '~remains the property of the lay Israelite," 'when none of it remained with him except what he carried away in his stomach? Such exaggerated statements are not made by thoughtful men except when they are hard pressed in making out a case.

There is a custom in modern times, though not known in the established churches of the Old World, which illustrates the sacred feasts of Deuteronomy. The members of a congregation often gather at the house of the minister, bringing with them various articles of food to supply his storeroom for months to come; yet the whole company remains to have a feast with the family out of what has been brought. The feast adds a charm to the occasion, and increases the good will of both the givers and the receiver. Such was the evident intention of the feast given on the occasion of delivering the tithe to the levites.

3. As to the Priest's Portion of the Peace offerings. The law in Deuteronomy is this: "And this shall be the priest's due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw" (xviii. 3). Driver says:

This is In direct contradiction to Lev. vii. 32-34 (P), which prescribes the breast and the right thigh as the priest's due of the peace-offerings (Com., 215).

Should this be granted, what would it prove? Would it prove that both laws were not given by Moses? Or would it prove that, having given the one in Leviticus nearly forty years previously, he now gives this as an addition? Suppose Professor Driver to be a priest, and there comes a man with a fat ox to make a peace offering. He offers Driver the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw. Driver answers, "No, sir; the law gives me the breast and the right thigh. I will not accept the shoulder in place of the thigh, nor the cheeks and maw in place of the breast" What would the offerer say? According to Driver the critic, he would say, "There is another law contradictory to this, which says you must be content with the shoulder, the cheeks and the maw, and this being the later law, it abolishes the former." I think that Driver the priest would see a point that Driver the critic overlooks. He would reply, "No, sir; the two laws do not contradict each other. One gives me the breast and the right thigh; the other gives me the right shoulder, the cheeks and the maw; and I will have all that both laws give me." The priest, looking at his own interest, would not fail to be a better interpreter than the critic, whose chief interest is to find contradictions. He would see that the later law, instead of contradicting or repealing the former, only added to the portion to be given to the priest. No reason is given for the addition; for it is not the custom of the Lawgiver to assign reasons for all of his enactments; but we can easily discover one arising out of changing conditions. During the forty years in the wilderness, the priests were few in number, and the flocks and herds of the people were few also; but after crossing the Jordan, which was soon to take place, this would be reversed - the priests would become a numerous family, the people would be in possession of abundance of cattle taken as spoil from the Canaanites, and a more liberal provision for the priests was but just. Even at the time when Moses was delivering this law, the latter part of the change had set in by means of the immense herds of animals recently taken as spoil from the Midianites (Num. xxxi. 25-47). Had the critics taken a commonsense view of the subject, and taken into consideration the attending circumstances, they would never have conceived this argument against the Mosaic origin of the law.

4. The Sacrifices of the Passover. This alleged discrepancy is thus presented by Driver:

Dent. xvi. 2: "Thou shalt sacrifice the passover unto Jehovah thy God, (even) sheep and oxen." In P (Ex. xii. 3-6) the paschal sacrifice is a lamb. The two laws, it is evident, represent the usage of two different stages in the history of the feast; when Deuteronomy was written, the victim might be either a bullock or a sheep; when P was written, the choice was limited to a lamb (Com., 191).

This is another instance of begging the question. Only by assuming that the laws in Deuteronomy preceded those in Exodus and Leviticus, and then ignoring a large part of the latter, can this charge of contradiction be made plausible. Fully and fairly stated, the latter provides, first, that the victim consumed on the first night of the passover week must be a lamb of the first year (Ex. xii. 18); and, second, that after this they should "offer an offering made by fire unto Jehovah seven days" (Lev. xxiii. 8). Whether the victims of these "offerings made by fire," which means burnt offerings, were to be of the flock or the herd is not specified. Now, if we let this law stand where God placed it, as part of the legislation given at Mt Sinai, we shall find no difficulty in understanding the later provision in Deuteronomy, and not a shadow of contradiction will appear. Moses will then be understood in the latter passage as meaning by sacrifice of sheep and oxen the burnt offerings which followed the eating of the paschal lamb, and by the word "passover," not the paschal supper, but the sacrificial service of the seven days. So any Jew in the audience who heard Moses would instinctively and necessarily understand him, and so would any modern reader who had read the previous law and remembered it. Even Kuenen so understands it (ii. 30). Thus another alleged discrepancy vanishes, and that which was to prove that Moses did not write Deuteronomy is no mean proof that he did.

5. Eating that which Dies of Itself, or is Torn by a Beast. The statutes on this subject, taken in the order which they have in the Scriptures, are these:

"And ye shall be holy men unto me; therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs" (Ex. xxii. 31). This is the first mention of the subject, and the only specification is flesh torn by a beast. The persons prohibited from eating it are the Jews.

"And every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself, or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be homeborn or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh, then shall he bear his iniquity" (Lev. xvii. 15, 16). Here the specification of flesh that dieth of itself is added, and the penalty of eating it is prescribed. It simply made the person unclean with that particular kind of uncleanness which was removed the same day by washing the clothes and bathing the flesh. Clearly this is an addition to the original law, not a contradiction of it

"Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou mayest give it to the stranger that is within thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it to a foreigner: for thou art a holy people in Jehovah thy God" (Deut. xiv. 21).

Taking the three statutes together, the matter stands thus: The Hebrew is forbidden in all three to eat of the flesh referred to. He is told to throw it to the dogs or he may give it or sell it to strangers. The reason for the prohibition is, not that the flesh was unhealthy, but that eating it, like eating any of the unclean animals mentioned in the preceding verses of the passage in Deuteronomy, made the person legally unclean. The "stranger" or the "foreigner" is not in either passage forbidden to eat it; but if he does, he, like the Jew, must bathe his flesh and wash his clothes.

An unsophisticated mind would not dream of a conflict between any of the provisions of this law, but not so with our critics. Professor Driver, who fairly though very briefly represents them , says of the passage in Deuteronomy:

‘It is in conflict with the law of Leviticus; for in Deuteronomy what is prohibited to the Israelite is allowed to be given to the "stranger" or "foreigner" resident in Israel, whereas in Leviticus it is forbidden to both alike (except under the condition of a subsequent purification). The Israelite and the stranger are thus placed on different footings in Deuteronomy; they are placed on the same footing in Leviticus (Com., 165).’

The conflict here so positively asserted does not exist. The reader can see, by a glance at the passage quoted above from Leviticus, that the eating in question is not "forbidden to both alike," neither is it formally forbidden to either. It is simply ordered that if either eat the flesh that dieth of itself, or is torn by beasts, he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water. The two are treated alike only in that which follows the eating, not in the prohibition of the latter. And in Deuteronomy there is nothing to relieve from this washing and bathing the stranger to whom the flesh may be given by a Jew. It was not required of strangers and foreigners that they should be "holy unto Jehovah," and consequently some things forbidden the Jews, in order to their ceremonial holiness, were permitted to the foreigner who might reside among them. The Jew was forbidden to eat the flesh of any quadruped that did not chew the cud and part the hoof; but the stranger might freely eat of any forbidden flesh, and the Jew might sell it to him if he had it for sale.

This privilege of selling to strangers flesh that died of itself has been criticised on moral grounds. It has been compared to the act of offering such flesh in our markets - a practice forbidden by law. But it is not implied in the law of Moses that the seller of such flesh might lie to his foreign customer by telling him that the animal had been slaughtered in the usual way; it is clearly implied that it was to be sold for what it was. The fact that the heathen had no scruples about eating such flesh, as many heathen have none at the present day, removes from the transaction the thought of deception and the temptation to it.

6. As to Hebrew Bondservants. Our destructive critics affect to find several contradictions in the laws regulating the bondage to which Hebrew men and women were liable. In both Exodus and Deuteronomy it is provided that a Hebrew sold to one of his brethren shall serve him only six years; but if, at the end of that time, he prefers to remain in bondage, the master may bore a hole in his ear with an awl and he shall remain a bondman for life. In Exodus it is provided that this boring should be done before the judges (rendered "God" in RV), evidently to guard against fraud; for the judges would be disinterested witnesses that the bondman had given his free consent. In Deuteronomy Moses omits this provision, and simply says, "Thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant forever" (xv. 17). The door would be a firm substance against which to press the ear before piercing it, thus lessening the pain and preventing laceration. It is on this omission in Deuteronomy that a charge of contradiction is based. Robertson Smith (Prophets, 100), Driver and Addis (D. of H.) xlviii.), for instance, following their German leaders,(1) claim that because the law in Exodus says that the bondservant must be brought to God (the judges) for the ceremony of boring, he must be brought to a sanctuary. Smith and Driver say to "the sanctuary," while Addis says to "a local sanctuary." But, inasmuch as this requirement is omitted in Deuteronomy, it is inferred that in the latter we have a different law. Driver states the inference thus:

‘In Exodus the ceremony is a public and official one; in Deuteronomy it is of a purely domestic character, being transacted entirely at the master's own house’ (Com., 184).

This inference is very disparaging to the good sense of the "Deuteronomist;" for if he was a man of the least reflection, he would see that to give the owner of a bondservant the right to bore the ear of the latter as a purely domestic ceremony, without the presence and cognizance of disinterested witnesses, would place the perpetual bondage of the servant entirely in the hands of an unscrupulous owner, and would thus practically nullify the law of release at the end of six years. The hole in the ear was the mark of perpetual bondage voluntarily assumed; and if the boring was done in private, though done without the bondman's consent, his subsequent denial that he had given his consent would be of no avail against the testimony of his master and members of his family whom he might suborn as witnesses. The Deuteronomist, whoever he was, was a friend of his people, and especially of the poor; and he was incapable of inventing such a law. The inference is equally disparaging to the piety of the Deuteronomist; for it is admitted by the three gentlemen quoted above, and by all who style themselves "evangelical critics," that the law in Exodus was actually one of those given by Moses; and it is held that the Deuteronomist framed his laws after the model of those given by Moses: how, then, could he have deliberately deprived the Hebrew bondman of the safeguard prescribed by Moses, which protected him from being kept in perpetual bondage by an unscrupulous master? And even if the Deuteronomist was base enough to devise such a law, how can these critics account for the fact that it was accepted by the people in opposition to the law of Moses ~ These questions they have not attempted to answer, neither do they seem to have sufficiently reflected on their scheme to see that they could be propounded. The little boy who builds his first cob house seldom sees how easily it can be toppled over until some other boy tries it. "Modern scientific critics" ought to have more foresight.

The common-sense view of the omission in Deuteronomy is this: that Moses, having already given, for an obvious reason, the requirement that the bondman's free consent must be expressed in the presence of the judges, and that in their presence the hole should be bored in his ear as further proof that consent had been given, in repeating the law left out a part which no man who had once heard it, or heard of it, could ever forget. It looks like malice to claim here a contradiction between the two laws. It is a simple case of omission. The idea of going to a sanctuary is invented by these critics. If going to God, as they themselves testify, means going to the judges who execute God's law, then wherever the judges were they might go. But the law required that judges be appointed in every city (Deut. xvi. 18-20), and the judges in the master’s own city would in this case be preferred as the most convenient witnesses in case of subsequent dispute. In actual experience bondmen were sometimes held unlawfully (Jer. xxxiv. 8-22). In passing, we may remark that Driver forgets himself while speaking on this subject, and styles the ceremony as "nailing his ear to the door of his master's house" (184).

In the second place, it is affirmed that these two laws contradict each other in reference to the term of service of a Hebrew bondwoman. In Exodus it is said, "If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do" (xxi. 7). In Deuteronomy, after the direction about boring the ear of the manservant with an awl, it is said, "And also unto thy maidservant shalt thou do likewise" (xv. 17).

Driver comments on the apparent conflict as follows:

No doubt the true explanation of the variation is that the law of Deuteronomy springs from a more advanced stage of society than the law of Exodus; it thus regulated usage for an age in which the power of the father over his daughter was no longer so absolute as it had been in more primitive times, and places the two sexes on a position of equality (Com., 182 f.).

It is quite certain that the law in Deuteronomy does put the man and the woman spoken of in a position of equality; but whether this conflicts with the law in Exodus depends entirely upon whether the same bondwoman is meant in both places. Undoubtedly the woman in Deuteronomy is one who, like the manservant mentioned in the same law, has the right to go out of bondage at the end of six years, but voluntarily consents to remain in possession of her master. As evidence of her consent, her ear is to be bored "likewise." But in Exodus a particular case is specified, that of a daughter sold by her father; and the context shows plainly that, (whether originally intended or not) the daughter became the concubine of her master or his son. The statute on the subject, when quoted as Driver quotes it, is really misquoted, because only a small part is quoted, and a part which does not fairly represent the whole. It reads thus:

"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who has espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he espouse her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money" (xxi. 7-11)

There are at least two very obvious reasons for these regulations respecting this kind of a bondwoman. First, the fact that the daughter would not go free at the end of six years would discourage the sale of daughters, and prompt a poor man, if he was compelled to part with one of his children, to sell a son instead of a daughter. Second, after she had lived with her master or one of his sons as a concubine for six years, it would be a hardship for her, whether with children or without children, to go out free and struggle for her own support. She would be in the condition of a divorced wife without alimony. While concubinage was tolerated, it would be almost inevitable that a young woman, living in a family for six years, and being of the same people, and perhaps more attractive than her master's wife or daughters, would be used as a concubine by some male member of the family; and consequently when her father sold her, he must have done so with this expectation in view, whether it was specified in the contract or not. The law recognized this fact, and treated the case accordingly. The law is so understood by Andrew Harper.(2)

If, now, we suppose, as the record represents, that this law was made at Mount Sinai, and that Moses, at the end of the forty years, delivered the speeches in Deuteronomy, that which he says about a bondwoman going out at the end of six years would necessarily be understood by his hearers as including only those bondwomen who had come into bondage in some other way than by being sold by their fathers. They would be already familiar with the fact that the latter class were to be bondwomen for life. It is true that if the latter was the only way in which a woman could be reduced to bondage, the later law would have to be understood as repealing the former; but the natural probability is that the sale of a daughter was a rarely exceptional case, and that the great majority of bond-women were the wives of men who sold themselves and their families. In this case, he and his went out free at the beginning of the seventh year.

We may remark before leaving this subject, that the case of a wife given to a bondman in the time of his service, mentioned in the law of Exodus (xxi. 4), is undoubtedly one in which the woman given was a heathen bondwoman, who, with her children, was held in perpetual bondage, and was not released even in the jubile (lev. xxv. 44-46). No other bond-woman was so under her master's control that he could thus give her to a bondman. This Hebrew neighbor's daughter, if he held one, could be given as a wife or concubine only to his own son, as we have just seen above.

The third provision of the law of bondage in which a conflict is claimed, is that concerning release in the year of jubile. Driver puts the charge of discrepancy in these words:

There is a third law of slavery In Lev. xxv. 39-46 (H and P). By this law (1) only foreigners are to be held by Israelites as slaves for life; (2) Hebrew slaves are to receive their liberty, not, as in Exodus and Deuteronomy, in the seventh year of servitude, but in the year of jubile (Com., 185).

This is not a fair statement of the case; for if the law of release in the seventh year had been given already, as it claims to have been, the law that all in bondage when the year of jubile arrives must be released, would necessarily mean that all not previously released under the operation of the older law must then be released; and it is unfair to say that "Hebrew slaves are to receive their liberty, not as in Exodus and Deuteronomy, in the seventh year." They were to receive their liberty in the seventh year, as a general rule; but, if any did not, they were to receive it in the jubile.

Driver further says:

The usual mode of harmonizing these discrepant provisions is by the assumption that the law in Leviticus is intended to provide that, if the jubile year arrives before a Hebrew slave's seventh year or service, he is to receive his liberty in it. But if this had been the true explanation of the discrepancy, a law so circumstantial as that in Leviticus would surely have contained some explicit reference to the earlier law, and the case in which it was intended to supersede it would have been distinctly stated (185).

If Professor Driver had written the law, perhaps it would have contained such a reference; but the method of Hebrew writers was less artificial than that of modern writers, and many things were left, as in the natural world, for discovery by the reader. But even if Driver had been the writer, he could not have made the reference on the ground on which he claims that the author of Leviticus should have made it - that the present law was "intended to supersede" the one in Exodus. According to the explanation which he combats, the law was intended, so far as six-year Hebrew bondmen were concerned, only to release those whom the previous law had failed to release. His only reply to the explanation would be a denial that any would thus fail to be released by the previous law. But this he could not say; for it is as plain as day that a law which released bondmen only after six years of service, would fail to release before the jubile all who had been reduced to bondage within less than five years previous. The jubile came every fiftieth year; so if a Hebrew was sold in the forty-fifth, or in any later up to the forty-ninth, he would have one or more years longer to serve when the fiftieth year began. That which Driver treats as an assumption, then, was an inevitable fact, and nothing but the blinding effect of a theory to be supported can account for his failure to see it.

But this usual explanation, though good so far as it goes, does not bring out all the truth. The jubile would find other Hebrews in bondage besides those who had not served out their six years. The man and the woman whose ears had been bored, if still alive, would be released, and, whether they were alive or dead, their children would be released. So also would all thieves who had not served out the time for which they had been sold; for if a thief, being unable to make the restitution required by the law, was sold for four years' service at a time less than four years before the jubile, the jubile would release him for the remnant of his time; for the force of the law of jubile was to release every bondman and bondwoman of Hebrew blood, for whatever cause they had been reduced to bondage, and to restore every one to the landed inheritance of their fathers. If rightly understood then there was only this difference between this law and the others, that the jubile released every one who had not been released by the force of the other two laws.

7. As to the Decalogue. That the Ten Commandments originated with Moses is firmly held by the conservative critics, though denied by the radicals.(3) The reader may find in Andrew Harper's Commentary an eloquent and conclusive argument on this question, and also, in opposition to Wellhausen and Kuenen, a demonstrative proof that the religion of Israel in the beginning was not polytheistic, as they and other infidels affirm. But that these Ten Commandments were all given by Moses in the form which they now bear, is denied by even the conservatives; and the merits of this denial we are now to consider.

The controversy turns chiefly upon the reasons appended to the Fourth and Fifth Commandments, and upon certain variations of expression in the Tenth. It is held that in their original form all of them were without any reasons attached - that they read thus:

"Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image"

"Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy."

"Honour thy father and thy mother."

All the other words now connected with these are said to be later additions, some made by the author of Deuteronomy, and others by the supposed redactors of Exodus. The differences between the two forms of the Fourth, Fifth and Tenth, Driver presents by printing these three in parallel columns, which we here reproduce. The italics in teh right-hand column show additions and changes made by the Deuteronomist:

On this exhibit Driver remarks: "The principal variations are in agreement with the style of Deuteronomy, and the author's hand is recognizable in them." Let this be granted, and what does it prove? If Moses was the author of both books, it proves only that his style in Deuteronomy is different from that in Exodus. In other words, it shows that in delivering an oration on laws that he had given, he adopted a style different from that in which he wrote the laws. And what writer of statute laws that ever lived would not do the same? Let a lawyer, in commenting on a deed written for his client, speak in the style in which deeds to real estate are commonly written, and how long would a jury listen to him? Or let a political orator, advocating a tariff bill, speak in the style of the bill, and how long would his party keep him on the stump? If another than Moses wrote Deuteronomy, he, of course, wrote naturally in a style different from that of Exodus; and if Moses wrote it, he, as a matter of course, purposely did the same. It is nonsense, then, to argue from the difference of style that the two forms of these commandments were written by different authors.

As to the origin of the supposed additions to the original form of these three commandments, various conjectures have been advanced by critics, which would be worthy of consideration if there was any proof that additions have been made. Labor spent in the effort is like that of the French savants who labored hard to answer Ben Franklin's question, why a vessel entirely filled with water would not run over if a ten-pound fish were put into it. Driver, after mentioning some of these, decides that the more probable view is that "these clauses are in their original place in Exodus," and that the additions in Deuteronomy are "of the nature of further comments upon the text of Exodus." If he had added to this remark the supposition that those in Exodus were not additions at all, but that Moses wrote them, he would have displayed still better judgment. To justify the keeping of the sabbath, it was a reason applicable to all men.

If we examine more closely the added words and clauses in Deuteronomy, we shall find that they are such as would most naturally be made by Moses in repeating oratorically to the people laws which he had previously given, expanding some of them for the sake of making them more explicit, and adding here and there a motive to obedience. For instance, in the Fourth Commandment, where Exodus has "nor thy cattle," Deuteronomy has "nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle" - naming the ox and the ass, lest some one might suppose that they were not included in "cattle," and also putting emphasis on the sabbath rest for the two classes of animals which were most given to work.

The motive presented for keeping the sabbath, that Jehovah had delivered them from servitude in Egypt, was an appeal to their sense of gratitude. It was not given as the reason why God had sanctified the seventh day, but as a reason why Israel should observe it. "therefore Jehovah thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day." The reason why God had hallowed the seventh day, because in creation he had rested on the seventh day, had been given in Exodus; and so far as it furnished a reason for keeping the sabbath, it was a reason applicable to all men.. Moses, without repeating that, gives Israel a special reason. why they should keep it, whether others did or not; and the reason is, gratitude to God for giving them rest from the servitude in Egypt. It was easy for every one who heard him, and who had ever heard or read the original commandment, to see that at this point he was not quoting the commandment, but adding a motive for its observance.

The addition in the Fifth Commandment, "that it may be well with thee," is but an expansion of the preceding clause, "that thy days may be long." A man's days may be long, and yet full of misfortunes. They were to understand that on condition of keeping this commandment they would have length of days without misfortunes.

The variations in the Tenth Commandment are only a reversal of the order in which the neighbor's wife and his house are mentioned, which is insignificant, and the addition of "his field," which is included in the expression, "any thing which is thy neighbor's."

There is another consideration connected with these changes which has been entirely overlooked by our critics. Their seventh-century author of Deuteronomy did not, according to their own hypothesis, write in his own name, but in the name of Moses. He wrote what he supposed Moses would have said if he had really delivered the discourses which are ascribed to him. Evidently, then, he thought that it would have been proper for Moses to have spoken these additional. words and clauses. In this he showed his good sense, and condemns the critics who created him.

There is another speculation of the critics which here deserves a passing notice. It has reference to the oxen and asses and fields mentioned in the Fourth and Tenth Commandments. It is stated by Andrew Harper in these words:

“If the original form of these commandments was what we have indicated, they correspond entirely to the circumstances of the wilderness. There is no reference in them which presupposes any other social background than that of a people dwelling together according to families, possessing property, and worshipping Yahweh. None of the commandments involves a social state different from that. But when Israel had entered upon its heritage, and had become possessed of the oxen and asses which were needed in agricultural labor and in settled life, this stage of their progress was reflected in the reasons and inducements which were added to the original commands. In the Fourth and Tenth Commandments in Exodus, we have, consequently, the essential commandments of the earlier day adapted to a new state of things; i.e., to a settled agricultural life” (Com., 96).

It is difficult to treat such talk as this with seriousness. Mr. Harper knows very well that desert tribes, such as he supposes Israel to have been, are always owners of oxen and asses, except where they are extremely poor. It is notoriously true of the Bedawin tribes, who occupy the same wilderness at the present time. Indeed, their chief industry is the rearing of herds of cattle, asses and camels. Furthermore, how ridiculous it is to suppose that, even if Israel had not a hoof of such animals in the wilderness, Moses, in giving them laws for their future guidance, must omit the mention of animals which he knew they would have in the time for which he was legislating. If one of these critics should read the will of a rich man, in which he gives advice to his children with reference to the proper use of the possessions which he bequeaths to them, he would sagely conclude that the will must have been written after the children came into possession of the property. They certainly would if they had a theory to be upheld by "scientific criticism." Here, again, their supposed Deuteronomist shows better judgment than theirs; for he thought there was no incongruity in putting these words in the mouth of Moses in the wilderness.

Seeing now that all the added words and clauses of the Decalogue found in Deuteronomy are just such as Moses, repeating the commandments oratorically, could most properly employ, and seeing that, even if these speeches were composed in the seventh century, the author of them himself thought they were appropriate in the lips of Moses, the adverse critics are estopped by the judgment of their own Deuteronomist, as well as by the maxims of common sense, from urging that Moses could not have been the author of both forms.

8. As To Certain Acts of Moses At Mount Sinai. There are several alleged contradictions between the accounts in Exodus and Deuteronomy of certain acts of Moses while the camp was still at the foot of Mount Sinai. The first we shall mention has reference to his appointment of judges of tens, hundreds, thousands, to assist him in administering justice. The case is presented by Driver in these words:

In i. 9-13 the plan of appointing judges to assist Moses is represented as originating with Moses himself, complaining to the people of the difficulty that he found in dealing personally with the number of cases that arose; the people assent to the proposal, and Moses selects the judges accordingly. In Ex. xviii. 13-26 the plan is referred entirely to the advice of Jethro; no allusion is made to the difficulty felt by Moses; and Moses takes action without at all consulting the people (Com., xxxv.).(4)

This passage opens with a misstatement It is not said in i. 9-13 that the plan originated with Moses. If this had been said, there would have been a contradiction. The passage reads thus: "And I spake to you at that time, saying, I am not able to bear you myself alone; Jehovah your God hath multiplied you, and, behold, ye are this day like the stars of heaven for multitude. Jehovah, the God of your fathers, make you a thousand times so many as ye are, as he hath promised you. How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife?" - then comes the command to select the judges. Does this conflict with the statement in Exodus that Jethro had first suggested the plan to Moses before he submitted it to the people? If it does, then, should the President of the United States submit a measure to Congress, and should it afterward be discovered that it was suggested to him by one of his secretaries, our modern scientific critics would find here an irreconcilable inconsistency! The President, as everybody knows, is not bound to tell whether the measures which he proposes originated with himself or with some of his advisers; neither was Moses obliged to tell the people that his judiciary scheme originated with Jethro. As Jethro was not an Israelite, there may have been prudence in withholding from them this information until they themselves expressed approval of the measure.

The second conflict has reference to the number of times that Moses ascended the mount, and fasted:

According to Lx. xxxii. 34, Moses was three times in the mount (xxxii. 1 if.; xxxii. 31; xxxiv. 4); but it is only on the third occasion that he is recorded to have fasted (xxxiv. 28). Deuteronomy (ix. 9), in the very words of Exodus, describes him as doing so on the first occasion (ib., xxxvi.).

This is an incorrect representation; for the ascent described in Deuteronomy is the one on the return from which he broke the tables of stone (ix. 17); and this was the second ascent described in Exodus. The first was when he was called up before the Ten Commandments were spoken, and was sent down to warn the people not to draw near the mount (Ex. xix. 20-25). The second ascent described in Deuteronomy is the one his descent from which is described in Ex. xxxii. 7-9, almost in the words of Deuteronomy. The only difference as respects fasting is that it is mentioned in the one account and omitted in the other. It is absurd to call this a contradiction. Driver himself does not commit this absurdity; for he closes the paragraph just quoted in part, with the remark, "Obviously Deuteronomy may relate what is passed by in silence in Exodus; but the variation is remarkable." It is not at all remarkable, for if, when Moses delivered the speeches in Deuteronomy, Exodus had already been written. and the fact made known to the people that he fasted during the last forty days in the mount, there was great propriety in now telling them, what they had not learned before, that he also fasted during the first forty days. In reality, he was compelled to fast or be fed miraculously; for there was no food to be found on the naked rock of which Mount Sinai is composed. To charge contradiction here is to betray a careless. study of the facts, mingled with a determined purpose to make out a case.

The third specification has reference to the point of time at which Moses made his intercession for the people:

Chap. ix. 25-29. This, it is plain, must refer either to Ex. xxxii. 31ff. (Moses' second visit to the mountain), or (more probably) to Ex. xxxiv. 9, 28 (his third visit to it). It is singular, now that the terms of Moses' own intercession, as here reproduced, are borrowed, not from either of these passages, but from xxxii. 11-la, at the close of his first forty days upon the mountain (ib. xxxvi.).

Here, again, the learned author treats Ex. xxxii. 31 ff. as an account of Moses' second visit to the mountain, whereas it is an account of his intercession for the people between his second and his third visit. The words, "And Moses returned unto Jehovah, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold" (31), seem to have misled him to the thought that the return was to the mountain-top. But the context shows plainly that this intercession was conducted in the tent of Moses (c£ vii. 11), and the account of it is immediately followed by the statement that "Jehovah said to Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon the tables the words which I wrote on the first tables, which thou brakest. And be ready by the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me on the top of the mount" (xxxiv. 1, 2). The account of the intercession given in Exodus follows immediately upon his return from the mount when he broke the tables of stone (xxxii. 19 if.), and so it does in Deuteronomy (ix. 17 if.). There is perfect agreement as to the occasion of it, and the objectors are again convicted of inventing the charge of contradiction, and misconstruing the text to sustain it.

The fourth and last specification we shall notice has reference to the time at which the ark was made for the reception of the two tables of stone. It is claimed that in Deuteronomy the ark was made by Moses just preceding his return to the mount with the two new tables of stone, whereas in Exodus it is made by Bezaleel after Moses returned from that visit. The author places the two passages side by side, and then remarks:

There is only one material difference between the two accounts but it is an important one. In Ex. xxxiv. 1-4 there is no mention of the ark, which, according to Deuteronomy, Moses made at this time for the reception of the two tables, and in which (verse 5) he placed them after coming down from the mount. This difference between Exodus and Deuteronomy does not admit of explanation. In Exodus instructions respecting the ark are given in xxv. 10-21; and Bezaleel, having been commissioned to execute the work of the sanctuary (xxxi. 1 if.; xxxv. 30 to xxxvi. 1), makes the ark (xxxvii. 1-9). There is, of course, no difficulty in supposing that Moses may have been described as making himself what was in fact made, under his direction, by Bezaleel; but in Deuteronomy Moses is instructed to make, and actually does make, the ark of acacia wood before ascending the mount for the second time to receive the tables of stone; whereas in Exodus the command to make the ark is both given to Bezaleel and executed by him after Moses' return from the mountain (xxxv. 30 if.; xxxvi. 2; xxxvii. 1).

We shall be helped to understand this matter by first drawing out in detail, and with careful reference to chronology, the account in Exodus. Observe, then, that the first command to make the ark was given to Moses during his first forty days in the mount, and he was told, "In the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee" (xxiv. 18; xxv. 10, 21). This was before the first tables were given to him. At the end of that forty days he received the tables, started down the mountain, and, seeing the idolatry in the camp, threw them down and broke them (xxxi. 18; xxxii. 15-19). Then comes his intercession for the people in his own tent which he pitched outside the camp and called the "tent of meeting," and at the close of it he is commanded to hew two new tables of stone, and return into the mount, which he does (xxxiii. 7-23; xxxiv. 1-4). At the close of the second forty days he receives the new tables of stone, and brings them down in safety (xxxiv. 28, 29). Then, after calling upon the people for contributions of material and labor for the construction of the tabernacle, and receiving an abundance (xxxv. 1-29), he appoints Bezaleel and Aholiab chief constructors (30-35). and commands the former to make, among other articles, the ark of acacia wood (xxxvii. 1). On the first day of the second year after leaving Egypt., everything was completed, the tabernacle was created, the tables were put into the ark, and the latter put in its place (xl. 17-21). This last act of putting the tables of stone into the ark occurred about seven months after the last descent of Moses from the mount, and this descent occurred not less than fifty or sixty days after the first command to make the ark. Approximately, nine months passed between the first command to make the ark, and the final deposit of the tables within it: and the account of all runs through sixteen chapters of Exodus, here a little and there a little.

Now, the whole of this story is summarized in Deuteronomy in the space of five verses, and it reads as follows: "At that time Jehovah said to me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood. And I will write on the tables the words that were on the first tables which thou brakest., and thou shalt put them in the ark. So I made an ark of acacia wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in mine hand. And he wrote on the two tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which Jehovah spake to you out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and Jehovah gave them to me. And I turned and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; And there they be, as Jehovah commanded me" (x. 1-5).

Here it is very obvious that the order of time in which the various steps were taken, and which is so distinctly stated in Exodus; is not observed. The differences are correctly stated by Driver. Moreover, it must be admitted that if the two accounts were written independently of each other, and by different authors, there is a contradiction with reference to the time at which the ark was made. But how is it, if, instead of adopting this theory to start with, we start with the representation which Deuteronomy makes of itself? That is, that Moses, having proceeded, in ascending the mountain and afterward in making the ark as described in Exodus, and having written that book, he is now addressing an oration to the people who knew from memory what be had done, and had also read or heard the account of that doing? They would, of course, see, even more readily than we do, that he now mentions some of the facts in the reverse order without meaning that they occurred in that order, but because it suited his purpose, and he could do so without misleading a single one of his hearers. It should be observed, too, that in his present statements of the steps taken he uses no adverb of time to show that they were taken in the order in which he mentions them. The passage, then, is perfectly free from contradictions, and was perfectly understood to be so by those who heard Moses. It is only when the critic has separated Moses from Deuteronomy that he can use this passage to justify the separation. In other words, he cuts the cord which binds the book to its author, and then proves that the author did not write the book by the fact that the cord has been cut. Again and again is this fallacy perpetrated.

9. As to the Mission of the Spies. It is persistently asserted by destructive critics that there are several contradictions in the accounts of this incident. Robertson Smith undertakes to show that the account in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Numbers is made up of two contradictory stories blended together so awkwardly that they can be separated. He accordingly prints them in parallel columns, placing xiii. 21, 25, 26, 32, and xiv. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 26-35, 36-38, on the left hand, and xiii. 20, 22, 26, 27-29, 30, 31-33, and xiv. 1, 4, 11-25, 39-45, on the right But neither column makes a complete story; and of that on the right he is constrained to admit, "It has lost its beginning and a few links at other points" (O. T., 400 f.). This admission is strikingly true. The column is like a snake that has lost its head and a few sections of its body, and it has the appearance of the disjointed parts of an india-rubber snake made to frighten children. Later writers, such as Driver and Addis, though they follow Smith and his predecessors in asserting that there are contradictions, are not so incautious as to copy these disjointed fragments.

The alleged contradictions are three in number: First, that while in Numbers (xii. 1) God issues the command to send the spies, in Deuteronomy (i. 22, 23) the request to send them comes from the people, and Moses consents to it, but nothing is said about God's command. Second, in Numbers (verse 21) the spies go as far north as "the entering in of Hamath," while in Deuteronomy (1.23-25) they go only as far as Hebron. Third, when they return, one of the stories in Numbers represents Caleb alone as contending that Israel can take the land, and as being exempt from the sentence of death in the wilderness, while the other represents Joshua as taking part with Caleb.

To take the last of these allegations first, we remark that only after Robertson Smith has split up the narrative in Numbers into two disjointed pieces, and thrown what is said of Caleb into one and what is said of Joshua into the other, is the slightest shadow of a contradiction apparent It is a contradiction of his own creation. The text of Numbers as it stands, while it speaks of Caleb alone at first as remonstrating with the people (xiii. 30), includes Joshua with him toward the close of the account (xiv. 6), and the same precisely is true of the account in Deuteronomy (i. 36, 38). So plain is this made in both accounts, that readers of the Bible the world over have understood that both of these men gave a true account of the land, and were both exempted from the sentence which was passed upon the rest of the people.

The first and second of these so called contradictions are nothing more than cases of omission in the briefer of the two accounts. Nothing in the experience of the people addressed by Moses could have been more familiar than this piece of history; for it furnished the reason why, instead of entering the promised land within less than two years after they left Egypt they had been kept out of it for more than thirty-eight years longer. It explained the deplorable fact that all the fathers and mothers of the persons addressed, to the number of more than a million, had perished in the wilderness. In referring to it, therefore, as a warning, Moses could with perfect propriety mention such parts of the story as suited his hortatory purpose, and omit all others, without the slightest appearance of ignoring them, much less of denying their existence. He accordingly treats of the whole subject in the space of twenty-four verses (i. 22-46), whereas the original account in Numbers contains seventy-eight he abbreviates by omitting many well-remembered incidents. He omits the names of the twelve spies and those of the tribes which they respectively represented (4-16); he omits the whole of the long list of directions which he gave them (17-20); he omits the season of the year in which they were sent (21); he omits the names of the giants whose people were found at Hebron (21, 22); he omits the number of days that were occupied in the journey (25); he omits the detailed account the spies gave of the location of the different tribes in the land (29); he omits the thrilling incidents of himself and Aaron falling on their faces before the people, of the urgent pleadings made by Caleb and Joshua, and the proposal of the people to stone. these four men (xiv. 5-10); he omits his own long and earnest pleading with God against the latter's proposal to slay the whole multitude and raise up a people from Moses to inherit the land (11-21); he omits the greater part of the final sentence upon the rebels (28-35); and he omits the fact that the ten false spies died of a plague (36, 37). In the midst of such a multitude of omissions, why should it be thought strange that he omitted to state the whole distance that the spies journeyed, and the fact that God directed him to send them? To look the facts in the face is all that is necessary to see the impertinence and absurdity of the charge of contradiction. Driver himself, in the very act of presenting the first of these three charges, furnishes a satisfactory answer to it. He says:

Here (Deut. i. 22, 23) the mission of the spies is represented as due entirely to a suggestion made by the people; in Num. xiii. 1 it is referred to as a command received directly by Moses from Jehovah. No doubt the two representations are capable, in the abstract, of being harmonized: Moses, it might be supposed, approving personally of the purpose (Deut. i. 23), desired to know if it had Jehovah's sanction; and the command in Numbers (xiii. 1-3) is really the answer to his inquiry.

What could be more reasonable than this, especially as Moses was not in the habit of adopting measures that might involve the lives of a dozen eminent men without God's approval? Seeing, then, that this obvious explanation is right at hand, so close that, had it been a serpent., it would have bitten Robertson Smith and his imitators, why did these ingenious men make out of it a contradiction? Why, unless they were on the search for contradictions when they should have been searching for the truth? They were fighting, not to defend the Bible, but to bring it into disrepute. So we are compelled to judge them in much of their work.

10. As to the Time spent at Kadesh. It is universally assumed by destructive critics that the stay of Israel at Kadesh-Barnea is represented in Numbers as lasting thirty-eight years; while in Deuteronomy, contrary to this, they spent the thirty eight years circling Mount Seir. Driver, in his Commentary (31-33), treats the subject elaborately; but the discrepancy as he understands it is sufficiently presented in the following sentence:

If the present narrative in Numbers be complete, the thirty-eight years in the wilderness will have been spent at Kadesh: nothing is said of the Israelites moving elsewhere; and the circuit round Edom (Num. xxi. 4) will have taken place at the close of this period, merely in order to enable the Israelites to reach the east side of Jordan. In this case the representation in Deut. ii. 1, 14, according to which the thirty-eight years of the wanderings are occupied entirely with circling about Mount Seir, will be irreconcilable with JE (that is, with Numbers).(5)

The only way to determine the reality of this alleged contradiction is to trace carefully the representations in the two books separately, and then compare them to see their differences, if any appear. We begin with that in Numbers. In xiv. 25, after the sentence has been pronounced on the men of that generation, God issues the command, "Tomorrow turn ye, and get you into the wilderness by the way to the Red Sea." Driver says of this, "Whether they did this, is not stated;" and it is true that it is not stated; but the command was given, and Moses, who was the leader and commander of the host, always moved at God's command; and the pillar of cloud, which guided every movement, undoubtedly did the same. It is not necessary, then, that the text should say they did move. On the contrary, it would require a statement of the text that they did not move, to justify us in supposing that they did not. But this inference, plain as it is, is not our only ground for concluding that they obeyed the command. In later verses of the same chapter (32, 33) God says to the people: "Your carcasses shall fall in the wilderness. And your children shall be wanderers in the wilderness forty years, and shall bear your whoredoms, until your carcasses he consumed in the wilderness." How could they be "wanderers in the wilderness forty years" if they remained thirty-eight years at Kadesh? It is necessarily implied that they were to leave Kadesh and wander about.

The narrative next proceeds through chapters xv.-xx. of Numbers, with a group of new statutes (xv. 1-41); the account of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram (xvi. 40) the punishment of those who murmured over the fate of these men and their fellow conspirators (41-50); the confirmation of Aaron's priesthood (xvii. 1-13); some new statutes in reference to the priesthood and the Levites (xviii. 1-32); and the statute in reference to the ashes of the red heifer (xix. 1-22). Then comes the statement: "And the children of Israel, even the whole congregation, came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month; and the people abode in Kadesh; and Miriam died there, and was buried there" (xxi. 1). How could it be here said that after these intervening events "they came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month, and abode in Kadesh," if they had been in Kadesh during the whole intervening time? Undoubtedly this is a return to Kadesh; and the assertion that they "abode in Kadesh," grossly misinterpreted as referring to the whole thirty-eight years, clearly refers to the stay there after this return. The first month here mentioned, as all parties agree, is the first month of the fortieth year. We need not go outside the Book of Numbers, then, the very book which is charged with teaching that Israel abode at Kadesh thirty-eight years, to see that by necessary implications it shows that they left Kadesh after the affair of the spies, wandered in the wilderness until all but the last of the forty years had expired, and then returned again to Kadesh.

This conclusion, drawn from the course of the events, is sustained by the evidence of the itinerary of the wilderness wanderings, also recorded in Numbers. In this itinerary (Num. xxxiii.) Kadesh is mentioned only once, it being the intention of the writer to name the forty two places of formal encampment, without regard to the number of times that Israel may have encamped at any one place. When Kadesh is mentioned, it is, as we have seen, in connection with the arrival there in the first month of the fortieth year. But they reached that place, and sent forth the twelve spies at the time of the first ripe grapes in the second year out of Egypt (xiii. 20). Hazeroth is the last camping-place mentioned in the account of the journey before reaching Kadesh (xii. 16, cf. xiii. 26); but in the itinerary there are between Hazeroth and Kadesh nineteen encampments. This could not have been true of the first arrival in Kadesh; consequently we must conclude that these nineteen encampments were made between the first and the second arrival in that place, or during the wanderings of thirty-eight years, of which we know but little. Thus it appears, from every point of view furnished by the Book of Numbers, that this interval of thirty-eight years was not spent at Kadesh, but at encampments lying in between the first and the second visit to that place.

Now let us turn to Deuteronomy, and see if there is anything there to contradict this conclusion. There, in ii. 14, Moses says to the people: “And the days in which we came from Kadesh-Barnea, until we came over the brook Zeresh, were thirty and eight years; until all the generation of the men of war were consumed from the midst of the camp, as Jehovah sware unto them." The terms here employed show that he is counting from the time that Jehovah sware this; that is, from the first visit to Kadesh. This is made equally clear by the fact that the places of encampment since the last visit to that place are named in Num. xxxiiii. 38-44, and they are only five in number. The first of them, Mount Hor, was reached in the fifth month of the last year of the wanderings (xxxiii. 38), and the others were passed a little later in the same year. The "many days" that they spent in compassing Mount Seir (the land of Edom), which Driver understands as including the thirty-eight years, were spent after leaving Kadesh the last time; for Moses says: "So ye abode in Kadesh many days, according to the days that ye abode there. Then we turned, and took our journey into the wilderness by the way to the Red Sea, as Jehovah spake to me: and we compassed mount Seir many days" (Deut. i. 46-ii. 1). The circuit occupied many days compared with the small space around which they had to pass. The many days which they spent at Kadesh included the forty spent by the spies in their march through Canaan, together with some days previous, and some days after this march, and, during the last visit, the days of mourning for Miriam, probably thirty, and much the greater part of the time from the first month to the fifth, in which they reached Mount Hor (Num. xx. 1,'22).

This instance of alleged contradiction illustrates the ease with which an allegation of the kind can be made after a careless examination of the text in search of contradictions, and the success with which the charge can be refuted when the same text is examined with proper care.

11. As to the Time of Consecrating the Levites. The time of this event is stated in a general way in this passage: "And I turned and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as Jehovah commanded me. (And the children of Israel journeyed from Beeroth Bene-jaakan to Moserah: there Aaron died, and there he was buried; and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest's office in his stead. From thence they journeyed to Gudgodah; and from Gudgodah to Jotbathah, a land of brooks of water. At that time Jehovah separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, to stand before Jehovah to minister to him, to bless in his name, unto this day)" (x. 5-8).

If one should read this passage without observing the fact that a parenthesis begins with the words, "And the children of Israel journeyed," and that there is a total disconnection between this and the next preceding thought, he might suppose that Moses here fixes the consecration of the Levites at a time subsequent to the death of Aaron, and of certain journeys that followed his death. But the parenthetical nature of the intervening clauses, together with the change of address from the second person (verse 4) to the third ("the children of Israel journeyed"), show plainly that we have here an interpolation by another than the original speaker. The reference in the words, "At that time Jehovah separated the tribe of Levi," is unquestionably to the time when he came down from the mount and put the tables in the ark, mentioned before the parenthesis; and this agrees with the account in Exodus. On this passage Driver makes these remarks:

If x. 6, 7 be an integral part of Deuteronomy, "at that time" can in that case only refer to the period indicated in those verses, and verses 8 and 9 will assign the consecration of the tribe of Levi to a much later date than is done in Ex. xxviii. 29; Lev. viii.; Num. iii 5-10. If, however, verses 6 and 7 be not original in Deuteronomy, "at that time" will refer to the period of sojourn at Horeb (i. 5); in this case there ceases to be a contradiction with Exodus.

He might as well have saved himself the trouble of writing this, for he answers his own objection in the very act of presenting it. This "if" introduces the reality in the case.

12. As To The Sentence On Moses and Aaron. In connection with his recital of the sentence pronounced on the people of Israel after the report of the spies, Moses says: "Also Jehovah was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou shalt not go in thither. Joshua the son of Nun, who standeth before thee, he shall go in thither: encourage thou him; for he shall cause Israel to inherit it" (Deut. i. 37, 38). On these verses Driver makes the comment:

Neither the position of these two verses, nor their contents, can be properly explained unless they are held to refer to some incident which took place immediately after the return of the spies. If that be the case, they will present another (cf. verse 36) of the many examples which the Pentateuch contains of a double tradition: According to Deuteronomy, Moses was forbidden to enter Canaan in consequence of the people's disobedience at Kadesh in the second year of the Exodus, according to P (Num. xx. 12; xxvii. 13 f.; Deut. xxxii 50 f.), it was on account of his presumption at the same spot but on a different occasion, thirty-seven years afterward (Com., 26, 27).

There would be plausibility in this representation if nothing more were said on the subject in Deuteronomy, and if both accounts were derived, as Driver assumes, from oral tradition, one running for seven hundred years, and the other for one thousand. In that case neither would be worth the paper on which it is printed. But in the last passage which he himself cites parenthetically (Dent. xxxii. 50 f.), the same account of God's anger against Moses is given as in Numbers. There it is declared that God said to Moses, "Get thee up into this mountain of Abarim, unto mount Nebo... and die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered to thy people; as Aaron thy brother died at mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people; because ye transgressed against me in the midst of the children of Israel at the waters of Meribah of Kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin; because ye sanctified me not in the midst of the children of Israel" This is the testimony of Deuteronomy when, instead of a mere allusion, as in i. 36, 37, a full account is given. There is, then, not a shadow of inconsistency between the two books. But the destructive critics refuse to let the matter rest thus. In order to still make out a contradiction, which is impossible with the text as it is, they resort to the device of robbing the Deuteronomist of this latter passage, and assign it to P, the hypothetical author of the account in Numbers. This is their constant device when the text as it is cannot be harmonized with the theory to be sustained.

We must here insist again, as in all of these alleged contradictions, that the only way to ascertain whether they are real, is to try them on the ground on which they claim to stand. This portion of Deuteronomy claims to be a speech delivered by Moses to the Israelites near the close of their wanderings, when the last of the scenes at Kadesh was less than a year in the past, and the earliest of them a little over thirty-seven years, while both were as distinctly remembered by every middle aged man and woman in the audience as was the battle of Bunker Hill by the American people forty years after it was fought. To such an audience many allusions to those events which might be puzzling to one who was not familiar with details, would be perfectly intelligible. If, then, as Deuteronomy represents, and as Numbers represents, the anger of God against Moses and Aaron was because of the sin at Meribah, when he mentioned it in connection with the sin of the people after the report of the spies, they could not have thought that he meant to connect it in point of time with the latter event. They would know that he mentioned it in that connection because of the similarity of his fate with theirs - a most natural connection of thought. And when he said, "God was angry with me on your account," they could not think that he meant on account of their rebellion when the spies reported, because they well knew that Moses had done his very best to dissuade them from that sin, even risking his own life at their hands in the effort. They would remember that it was their murmuring for want of water which caused Moses to act as he did, and that thus indirectly God was angry with him on their account. How smoothly the stream of narration flows when it is thus permitted to follow its own channel; and how discordant when divided and led into ditches dug by its enemies.

13. As to the Asylum for the Manslayer. Driver says:

In Ex. xxi. 13 the asylum for manslaughter (as the connection with verse 14 seems to show) is Jehovah's altar (cf. I. Kings i. 50; ii. 28); in Deuteronomy (c.19) definite cities are set apart for the purpose (Com., 37).

To the same effect Robertson Smith says:

The asylum for the manslayer in Ex xxi. 12-14 is Jehovah's altar, and so, in fact, the altar was used in the time of David and Solomon. But under the law of Deuteronomy, there are to be three fixed cities of refuge -- Deut. xix. 1, seq. (O. T., 354).

The issue here turns on the correctness of the first assertion in these two statements. Is it true that the law in Exodus made the altar of Jehovah a sanctuary for the manslayer? It reads thus: "he that smiteth a man so that he die, he shall surely be put to death. And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. And if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die."

This law, instead of making the altar an asylum for the manslayer, positively forbids its use as such. It is to furnish no protection, not even temporary protection, from death. On the contrary, this statute contains the promise, "I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee." This promise was fulfilled in the appointment of the cities of refuge, and it was provided that every man who killed his neighbor might find asylum there until the time of his trial, and might remain there after his trial if he was found not worthy of death (Deut xix. 1-13). The cases referred to by both of these writers as occurring in the time of David and Solomon are those of Adonijah and Joab. But both of these, though they fled to the altar in the hope of being spared, were slain; and Joab was slain by the command of Solomon while clinging to the horns of the altar (I. Kings i. 50, 51; ii. 24, 25, 29-34). This is a unique way of proving that the altar was an asylum for the manslayer - instances in which it furnished no protection whatever! If it should be asked why Joab fled to the altar, if it was not an asylum, the answer must be, not that it was an asylum - for Solomon did not recognize it as such - but because he thought that possibly he might not be slain there, lest human blood might defile the altar.

In this instance a provision of the law has been misrepresented and its meaning reversed, in order to make out a contradiction with another arrangement which it actually provided for in promise. Scarcely anything could be more reprehensible.

But there is still another phase to this reprehensible use of Scripture. If God made a law by the hand of Moses, as these men would have us believe, that his altar should be an asylum for the wilful murderer; and if this law was recognized as this by such rulers as David and Solomon, how can it be accounted for that an unknown author in the days of Josiah deliberately legislated to the reverse of this law, and that the people of Judah accepted the innovation without a word? Again: If, down to the time of this new legislation, the altar of Jehovah had been the asylum for the manslayer, how is it that this new and unknown legislator made the people believe that in all their past history back to Moses there had been cities of refuge into which the murderer could flee for temporary asylum? Were the Israelites of Josiah's day, including Josiah himself a set of idiots, or have the critics who argue as Driver and Robertson Smith do lost their heads?

14. As to the Year of Release:

It is not claimed that there is a positive contradiction between Exodus and Deuteronomy on this subject, but doubt is thrown on the origin of the latter by the remark that "had both laws been framed by Moses, it is difficult not to think that in formulating Dent. xv. 1-6 he would have made some allusion to the law of Ex xxiii. 10 f., and mentioned that, in addition to the provisions there laid down, the sabbatical year was to receive this new application" (Com., 38, cf. 174 if.).

We can best judge of this by copying the two laws, and seeing them together. The law in Exodus is this: "And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the increase thereof; but the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave, the beasts of the field may eat. In like manner shalt thou deal with thy vineyard and thy oliveyard."

The law in Deuteronomy reads thus: "At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release that which he hath lent unto his neighbers; he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother; because Jehovah's release hath been proclaimed. Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it; but whatsoever of thine is with thy brother thine hand shall release."

It is true, as Driver observes, that in formulating this latter law there is no allusion made to the former; but why should there be? The two provisions are perfectly independent of each other, so that neither would necessarily suggest the other. And if as Driver affirms, it is difficult not to think that Moses, in formulating the latter, would have made some allusion to the former, why is it not equally difficult, and even more so, if some other man, seven hundred years later than Moses, had been the writer? If the former consideration argues that Moses was not the author, it argues with greater force that a man in the days of Josiah was not the author, and it is equally good to prove that nobody at all was the author.(6)

Finally, if Moses did not give this law of release from debt, but did give the law of rest for the land, and if the latter law had been the recognized law of the seventh year ever since the time of Moses, how could any man, in the seventh century after Moses, dare to write that Moses also gave the law of release from debt - a law of which no human being had heard until that day? Who could believe him? And who could be expected to obey this pretended law by releasing his creditors from paying just debts? The enactment would be too absurd for any but a lunatic.

15. As to Eating Firstling. One of the most plausible in the whole list of the alleged contradictions has reference to the eating of the firstlings of the flocks and herds, and of the tithe. The charge is compactly stated by Driver in these words:

In Deut. xii. 6, 17, the firstlings of oxen and sheep are to be eaten by the owner himself at a sacred feast to be held at the central sanctuary. In Num. xviii. 18, they are assigned absolutely and expressly to the priest (Com., xxxix.).

In this case neither of the provisions is accredited by our critics to Moses. The one in Numbers is ascribed to P, who wrote, according to the theory, about two hundred years after Deuteronomy was published. But Deuteronomy, from the time of its publication, was acknowledged by the Jews as God's law given by Moses. If, then, during those two hundred years, it had been the practice in Israel, according to the express letter of God's supposed law, for every man to eat his own firstling oxen and sheep, how did P dare to publish a new law requiring the owner to give up his God-given right in this particular, and turn over his firstlings to the priest? Moreover, P wrote, not in his own name, but in the name of Moses, claiming, equally with the author of Deuteronomy, that his laws were given by Moses; how, then, could he dare to thus represent Moses as contradicting himself, and how could he hope that anybody would receive his new law ~ How, indeed, can the critic account for the fact that Israel did receive both of these contradictory laws as having been given by Jehovah through Moses ~ No answer has been given to these questions; and none can be given that will relieve the theory of practical ahsurdity.

On the other hand, if the law in Numbers was written by Moses, and not by the hypothetical P, and if it had been the law, from the days of Moses to the days of Josiah, that the priest should have the flesh of the firstlings, how could the writer of Deuteronomy dare to say that it had also been the law, ever since Moses lived, that the firstlings were to be eaten by the owner and his family? He would have betrayed himself and his book of law as a fraud, had he done so. These considerations necessarily raise a doubt whether the alleged contradiction really exists; and they force us to be very slow in admitting that it does. They suggest that possibly the exegesis which supports the charge of contradiction may be erroneous.

To test this suggestion, let us now examine the several passages with care. The one in Numbers is unambiguous, and it does, as Driver affirms, give the firstlings to the priest. Addressing Aaron, Jehovah says: "But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a sweet savour unto Jehovah. And the flesh of them shall he thine, as the wave breast and the right thigh; it shall be thine" (xviii. 17, 18).

The first of the three passages in Deuteronomy reads thus: "And thither shall ye bring your burnt offerings, and your tithes, and the heave-offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herd and your flock, and there shall ye eat before Jehovah your God, and ye shall rejoice in all that ye put your hand unto, ye and your households, wherein Jehovah thy God hath blessed thee" (xii. 6, 7). Here they are told to eat, but they are not told which they shall eat of the various offerings mentioned. We know, however, from other legislation, that they were not to eat of the burnt offerings, which were totally consumed on the altar. They were not to eat of the heave-offering, which was to be consumed by the priest and his family; and, if the law in Numbers had been already given, they were not to eat of the firstlings. But other legislation gave them the right to eat of the tithes, of the freewill offerings, and of the offerings in fulfillment of vows. When, then, they were told to bring all these offerings to the place that God would choose, and to eat there, they were necessarily restricted in their eating to these three classes of offerings, the others having been forbidden. There is no authority here for eating of the firstlings.

The second passage is the seventeenth verse of the same chapter. Having directed the people in the sixth verse to take all their offerings, of every kind, to the place which God would appoint, he here repeats, in reference to some of them, the same instruction in a negative form. He says: "Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy Com, or of thy vine, or of thine oil, or the firstlings of thy herd or thy flock, nor any of the vows which thou vowedst, nor thy freewill offerings, nor the heaveoffering of thy hand: but thou shalt eat them before Jehovah thy God in the place which Jehovah thy God shall choose," etc. These are the offerings which they would be most tempted to partake of at their homes; and this accounts for the repetition. It seems from this that, while not commanded to eat of the firstlings, they were permitted to do so. The case, then, is like that of the tithes, which though given to the Levites, the giver was permitted to have one feast from them with the Levites, at the time of delivering them to the latter. This provision is not contradictory to the one that gave the firstlings to the priests, but an addition to it by which the offerer was permitted to have one feast with the priests who received them. In this case also, as in that of the tithes, the firstlings would furnish a much greater quantity of flesh than the man and his family could consume if they alone ate of it. If the offerer, for instance, had one hundred sheep and twenty cows, he would he likely to have born every year twenty or more male lambs that would he the firstborn of their mothers, and a half-dozen calves that were the firstborn of his heifers. If his flocks and herds were numerous, he would be certain to have many more than that. His family and a half-dozen priests could make a bountiful repast on one lamb and one calf, and the rest would be a very liberal perquisite for the priests.

In the third passage cited (xv. 19) the firstlings are mentioned again for the special purpose of forbidding the owner to make any profit from them of any kind: "All the firstling males that are born of thy herd and of thy flock thou shalt sanctify unto Jehovah thy God: thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thine ox, nor shear the firstling of thy flock. Thou shalt eat it before Jehovah thy God year by year in the place which Jehovah shall choose, thou and thy household." Here the eating must be understood as in the passage last cited.

Before dismissing this objection, it may be well to remark that if a critic, before considering the passages involved, had already reached the settled conclusion that Deuteronomy was written first, and the Book of Numbers two centuries later, that both were written by uninspired men, and that the later writer was not at all concerned whether his record should agree or not with the older document, he would almost necessarily see a conflict between these provisions about the firstlings. On the other hand, if the critic accepts the account which these books give of their own origin and mutual relations, and therefore sees in Numbers the earlier legislation, and in Deuteronomy an oratorical representation of the same, he would need only to exercise a moderate degree of common sense to see that there is no contradiction between them. The destructive critics have been blinded to obvious truths by having first accepted a false and destructive theory as to the origin of the several books.

16. As to a Fragment of the Wilderness Itinerary. The last of the so-called contradictions between Deuteronomy and the middle books of the Pentateuch which appears worthy of notice is that between a fragment of itinerary in Deut. x. 6, 7, and the corresponding place in the full itinerary of Num. xxxiii. It is enough to say of this, that although Driver in his Commentary devotes two and a half pages to an attempt to make something out of it prejudicial to the history (118-121), he finally unites with Wellhausen, Reuss, Comill and Diliman in the conclusion that the passage in Deuteronomy on which the objection is based is an interpolation. He says: "All things considered, it seems, however, likely that x. 6, 7 is not a part of the original text of Deuteronomy. If this be the case, Deuteronomy will be relieved of the contradiction with Num. xxxiii. 31-33, though the contradiction will still attach to the source from which the notice is derived, and bear witness to the existence of divergent traditions in our present Pentateuch" (xxxvi.; p 118, 121). The correctness of this judgment can be verified by any intelligent reader if he will read verses 6-9, marked as a parenthesis in our English version, in connection with the verse preceding and that following. He will see that the parenthesis makes a break in the connection of thought and in the chronology, which renders it incredible that it was uttered by Moses. When such unbelievers as Wellhausen, Beuss and Comill had admitted this, it is very strange that Driver, who claims to be an evangelical critic, while also admitting it, should make a show of argument on the passage contrary to his own admission. And stranger still is his closing remark in the extract just made from him, that "the contradiction will still attach to the source from which the notice is derived, and bear witness to the existence of divergent traditions in our present Pentateuch" Suppose that the contradiction does attach to the source of the interpolated passage; does this have any bearing on the authorship of the book ~ Driver knows that it does not.. And why say that a false statement interpolated in the book "bears witness to the existence of divergent traditions in our present Pentateuch," when, according to his own admission, it bears witness only to the existence of one or more interpolations so bunglingly made as to be promptly recognized as such. It is difficult to believe that the remark has any other aim than to leave the mind of the reader impressed unfavorably toward the real Deuteronomy. It is a Parthian arrow, shot backward in the retreat from an attack which the warrior is not willing to acknowledge as a failure.

All the alleged contradictions on which the destructive theory of Deuteronomy is based, at least all on which a final decision depends, have now passed in review before the reader. All have been expressed in the words of one or more of the ablest advocates of that theory, and in not a single instance has the allegation been sustained. In every instance it has appeared that fair dealing with the text, competent knowledge of its details, and the exercise of sound common sense, relieve it from all inconsistency with the books which precede it in our printed Bibles, and which have always preceded it in the Hebrew manuscript copies. Nothing has been found to show that Moses could not have been the author of all of them. Such we believe will be the verdict of every person of unprejudiced mind, who will studiously read what has been said of these sixteen specifications.

1. They follow Kuenen, who says: "The Hebrew slave who voluntarily entered into servitude for life, had to make his declaration to that effect in the sanctuary, in order to add to the solemnity of his act--Cap. xxi. 6" (Rel of Israel II.83).

2. "The power which parents had over their children in Israel was extensive, though not much less so than that possessed, for example, by Roman parents. A father could sell his daughters to be espoused, as subordinate wives—Ex. xxi. 7" (Com., 83).

3. Kuenen says: "Some have gone so far as to throw douht on the very existence of Moses; others have denied that we are entitled anylonger to regard him as Israel's lawgiver. This latter assertion especially deserves serious consideration. It is quite certain that nearly all the laws of the Pentateuch date from much later times: if no difficulty was experienced in ascribing to him these more recent ordinances, what guarantee have we that he promulgated any one of the laws?" (Rel. of Israel, I. 272). "Even the 'ten words' have not come down to us unaltered, so that none of them can be attributed to Moseswithout further inquiry" (i'6., 139). "It need not be repeated here that Moses bequeathed no book of the law to the tribes of Israel. Certainly nothing more was committed to writing by him or in his time than the 'ten words' in their original form" (16., II. 7). Wellhausen says: "If the legislation of the Pentateuch ceases as a whole to be regarded as authentic for our Knowledge of what Mosaism was, it becomes a somewhat precarious matter to make any exception in favor of the Decalogue" (Art. "Israel,'' Encyc. Brit., Sec. 1).

4. Wellhausen, who denies that Moses made the stay at Mount Sinai described in Exodus, declares that Jethro's advice was given, not at Mount Sinai, but "at .the well of Kadesh" (Art. "Israel," Encyc. Brit., 407, col. 1; 408, col. 2). In saying this, he deliberately falsifies the history without the slightest provocation.

5. "In this he follows Wellhausen, who says: "After turning asida to Sinai as related in Exodus, the emigrants settled at Kadesh east-ward from Goshen, on the southern borders of Palestine, where they remained for many years" (Art. "Israel," Encyc. Brit., p. 407, col. 1).  

6. In regard to the year of rest for the land, Kuenen says: "The Pentateuch itself testifies that this precept was not observed before the exile" (Rel. of Israel, II. 36). He cites, in proof of the assertion, Lev. xxvi. 34, 35, 43; and compares II. Chron. xxxvi. 21. But the passage in Leviticus is a prediction that God will scatter Israel among the nations on account of their iniquities, and that then the land should enjoy its sabbaths which It had not enjoyed while they dwelt in it; and the one in II. Chronicles that the years of exile were fixed at seventy by Jeremiah, "Until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths, for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years." Now, the number of sabbatical years which had passed since the occupation of Canaan was about 120; from which It seems that fifty of the sabbatical years had been observed.