Late Dating Theory by Modern Criticism Fails on Several Points

A SURE landmark in the history of Israel is the erection and dedication of Solomon's Temple. A sure landmark, for whereas the historical existence of things such as the Ark of the Berith and the Tabernacle in the wilderness and of personages such as the Patriarchs and Aaron (in the so-called J. document) has been questioned or denied by some modern writers, no one, as far as I am aware, has as yet disputed the historical fact that towards the close of the eleventh or the opening of the tenth century B.C. a Temple was built at Jerusalem. This event, therefore, serves as a landmark recognized by all.

TEMPLE CONSTRUCTION

Now the construction of this national Temple, for such it was and not merely a local place of worship, was not an undertaking that aroused little attention. On the contrary, the whole nation was astir. The manhood of Israel was conscripted and sent in drafts of thousands some to fell and prepare timber, others to hew out stone from the quarries, others to effect the transport. The expenses were enormous. There was a determination that this Temple of Yahweh should "show greatness exceedingly of fame and glory throughout all lands" (1 Par 22:5).¹ If the figures in our present text are original, a sum exceeding £1,000,000,000 was devoted to the enterprise. Seven and a half years of activity were spent before the day of Dedication came and presented a magnificent spectacle before the eyes of the worshipers.

But the Temple was not built simply for display. Its main purpose was otherwise. It was the House of God, the Sanctuary where worship, liturgy, and sacrifice were to be performed to the honor of the one God of Israel. Incidentally, it was not a Pantheon.

TEMPLE DEVELOPMENT

Now the features of the Temple reveal that its project was not an altogether new venture or creation, but that it was the result of a development. Within the limits of this paper we can but touch a few of these features. We will notice, however, that the Temple was the Beth Yahweh, the House of the God of Israel; that it contained certain furniture; that it was served by an organized priesthood; that sacrifices were offered there.

All this indicates development. Thus Solomon's Temple was not the first Beth Yahweh. It took the place of the humbler Beth Yahweh on Sion where David worshiped (2 Kings 12:20), which, in its turn, had superseded the Beth Yahweh at Shilo (1 Kings 3:15, 1:7; Judges 18:31). Thus we are taken back to the time of the Conquest; and so are not surprised to find regulations concerning the Beth Yahweh in the earliest and latest parts of the Pentateuchal legislation (Exod. 23:19, 34:26; Deut. 23:18). The conclusion seems to be that the founder of the Beth Yahweh was Moses, who, by tradition, was the Father of Israel's nationality, its Apostle, and its Lawgiver. And this conclusion is confirmed by the fact that in plan the Beth Yahweh built by Solomon was a replica of the Tabernacle, which, even before it was set up at Shilo (Jos. 18:1; 1 Kings 2:22; the "mishkam" in 2 Kings 7:6; Ps. 77:60), had served as the place for public worship in the center of the camp when Israel was an army in the peninsula of Sinai.² (Exod. 26, 27, 30, 31, 35-40).

TEMPLE ACCOUTREMENTS

Among the furniture in Solomon's Temple were the ark of the Covenant, the "loaves of proposition," and the Altar of burnt-offering. None of these were really new. To discover their origins we have to examine the earlier history of Israel. The Ark has a prominent place in that history until we get back to the directions for its construction in the Mosaic Law. The "loaves of proposition" were in the Tabernacle during the reign of Saul. David came to Nob where there was a whole community of priests and a chief-priest serving the Tabernacle and observing liturgical regulations, and there he received the "loaves of proposition" as Our Lord recalled (1 Kings 21, 22; Matt. 12:3-4). If we look for the origin of these loaves and the Table on which they were kept we find it in the Mosaic Law (Exod. 25:23-30, 35:13, 39:35, etc.). The Altar of burnt-offering in Solomon's Temple was of brass (3 Kings 8:64; 2 Par. 7:7). It was not the first of its kind. It took the place of the horned altar at which both Adonias and Joab sought asylum (3 Kings 1:50, 2:28). Again we are taken back to the Law of Moses; for there is the first appearance of an altar of burnt-offering made from the acacia wood so common in the Sinai peninsula, and overlaid with brass, and with horns at its corners (Exod. 27, 38).

PRIESTS

An organized priesthood served the Temple of Solomon. If the Hebrew text is reliable in 3 Kings 8:4, both priests and Levites took part in the Dedication ceremony, as is stated also in 2 Par. 5. Now no one supposes that Solomon founded the Hebrew priesthood. During his father David's reign Sadoc and Abiathar are priests; and "all the Levites" are mentioned in 2 Kings 15:24. Above we referred to the community of priests at Nob during the days of Saul. Earlier still the Levites are seen attending the Ark (i Kings vi. 15); and a priesthood was officiating at Shilo before the birth of Samuel (i Kings i.). At that time the priesthood was corrupt. Now a priesthood is not corrupted in its infancy. When, then, was the Hebrew priesthood instituted? In Patriarchal times it did not exist; at the time of the Judges it had lost its sense of responsibility. There seems but one solution the Hebrew priesthood was established by Moses. That is also the answer from the records and tradition. Those that reject it naturally find, with M. Loisy, that "the origins of the Levitical priesthood are not wanting in obscurity."³

SACRIFICES

Finally, what were the sacrifices offered in Solomon's Temple? Now instead of answering this question from the sacred records for the critical school labels "Interpolation," "addition," "redaction," "gloss," passages therein that do not fit hypotheses we will answer it from an extraneous source. The Elephantine Papyri, brought to light 1898-1908, have shown that a Jewish colony in Egypt had built there before 525 B.C. a Temple for the worship of Yahweh (Yaho). This Temple was evidently built in order that the cult practiced at the Temple of Solomon might be reproduced in the Jewish colony. How long these Jews had settled in Egypt before they began to build their Temple cannot be determined exactly; but we are safe in saying that the colony already existed in 586 B.C. The sacrificial worship, then, established at Elephantine would be modeled on that which the first colonists had witnessed at the Temple of Solomon before their emigration. What, then, was the sacrificial worship at Elephantine? It was that of the Mosaic Law and that part of the Law to which criticism has given the name of "Priests Code." There is not space here to illustrate this point, but neither is there need to do so, since the fact has been demonstrated sufficiently by Canon A. van Hoonacker, of the University of Louvain.⁴

MODERN CRITICISM VS. MOSAIC LAW

Just, then, as all roads lead to Rome, so all things connected with Solomon's Temple point back to the Mosaic Law. Take away the Law, and the raison d'être of these institutions is lost.

But this is where the difficulty arises, for modern criticism does take away the Law. It teaches that when the great Temple was dedicated with glory and solemnity, what certainly did not then exist, what those priests did not yet possess, were the sacred rolls of the Mosaic Law. Briefly, the Pentateuch was not yet written. The portion of the Law that treats of what we have considered above Tabernacle, Ark, Loaves of Proposition, Altar of burnt-offering, priesthood, sacrificial worship such as at Elephantine and much more besides, was not composed until some four or five centuries after the Dedication of Solomon's Temple. Its author was a priest (or priests), who wrote at the close of or after the Babylonian Exile. Much that he describes is the product of religious idealism that developed during that Exile, and never had real existence. Thus the elaborate Tabernacle in the midst of the camp is the creation of imagination: the description of the making of the Ark at least is invention: the Aaronic hierarchy was first conceived at Babylon--before the Exile it never existed: the liturgy attributed to Moses was really composed for the Second Temple and so on.

Now the fundamental difference between the critical and traditional schools seems to be on the question of development. If with the critics one supposes that Israel coming out of Egypt was an illiterate horde with primitive and savage ideas, it will follow that the Mosaic Law must have been written centuries after the Exodus. But all turns on whether this supposition is correct. It seems to be far from the truth. The facts are as follows: The rock out of which Israel was hewn was Babylon. From there came Abram, the ancestor of the Tribes. At that time the Babylonians were far from being a primitive people; on the contrary, their civilization was much developed. It was the age when the Code of Hammurabi (to which the earlier part of the Mosaic legislation bears striking resemblance) was promulgated. Now the grandson of Abram and his sons eventually settled in Egypt. There they mixed, not with a primitive tribe, but with a people highly educated. For some years the Hebrews were a privileged class in this civilization. True it is that, later, fortune turned against them and they were employed as slaves; but this could not reduce them to primitive status. Round them in Egypt they saw an elaborate religion with an organized and hereditary priesthood and sacred books; they would notice the regulations connected with this priesthood linen garments, abstinence from wine, shaving of the hair (cp. Exod. 28:39-42; Lev. 10:9; Num. 8:7, etc.), etc.; they could learn the weaving of fine cloths and the making of dyes; on every side they saw the lavish use of gold.⁵ The ritual could not fail to strike them because of its prominence. No wonder that "the method of killing and offering animals, the burning of incense (upon bronze censers of ladle form), the ablutions, and many other ritualistic details (among the Egyptians) were similar to those practiced among the Israelites" (W. Max Miiller in Encycl. Biblica, col. 1219. Italics mine). Now to all this must be added the education of Moses in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. This would include a knowledge of Babylonian. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets show that cuneiform was learned by Egyptian scribes before the Exodus. Philo tells us that Moses studied the learning of the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Nothing is more likely than that a man of Babylonian stock should study the culture of his race when opportunity was given. We may include in Moses education a knowledge of the legal systems of Babylonia and Egypt. In the latter country even from 2000 B.C. there existed the institution of a jury appointed from among the priests and officers to sit in judgment daily.

All this goes to prove that at the time of the Exodus the Israelites were not barbarians, but had reached a high stage of development. It also becomes a priori highly improbable that when he became leader of his nation, Moses did not draw up laws founded on Babylonian and Egyptian models.

There is something more. The legal portions of the Pentateuch are--as we should expect--stamped indelibly with the impression of the desert. Often they treat of the "camp" or "tents." The Ark and Tabernacle form a portable, not a fixed sanctuary. The office of Levite is especially with regard to the transport of the sacred furniture. Further, it is this "Priests Code" that promulgates regulations for the sanitation of the army on the march (Lev. 1:16, 4:12, 11:32, 33, 39, xhi. 46; Num. 19:14, 15, 31:19, etc.). It becomes almost impossible even to imagine that a priest in the seclusion of exile should have made these enactments. It is almost as difficult to suppose that the leader of the army in the peninsula of Sinai did not make so necessary regulations. I know that, especially since the discovery of the Elephantine Papyri, it is becoming the fashion to say that the Priests Code may contain some traditional matter. But if concession along this line is to continue, the Development or Evolutionary Hypothesis will soon lose its meaning.

There are other parts of the Priests Code which seem to defy an Exilic or post-Exilic date, e.g., the catalogs of names (Gen. 46, Exod. 6, Num. 2), the details connected with the Manna (Exod. 16:14), or the second pasch (Num. 9:6), or the case of the daughters of Salphaad (Num. 27, 36). This last supposes a differentiation of the twelve tribes. Where was this after the Exile?

Space forbids us further consideration of the "Priests Code." Grant its date from modern critics, and besides other inconveniences, the institutional religion of Israel seems to be without basis and inexplicable. Its traditional date explains these institutions, explains Solomon's Temple and the cult at Elephantine, explains its Babylonian-Egyptian elements. Further, this traditional date sweeps away a whole army of redactors who otherwise invade the Old Testament, heals numerous passages mutilated by criticism, restores some of the Psalms to their normal pre-exilic position, makes no demand for mental strain in the interpretation of such passages as, for example, Amos 4:4-5; 5:21-23, and finally places Deuteronomy which in parts supposes the so-called P in its natural position.

Concerning the date of Deuteronomy, or the so-called D, we will say a word later. Here a passing reference may be made to two other documents demanded by modern criticism the so-called J and E. Which of these has priority, and when exactly they were written, are questions which are not answered with unanimity. The terminus ad quem is generally c. 750 B.C., and the terminus a quo is later than the building of Solomon's Temple.⁶ The chief criterium for distinguishing between the two documents is the use of the divine Names. J employs the Name Yahweh (or Jahweh) hence he is the Jehovist writer; E uses 'Elohim hence he is the Elohist. Now take away this criterium and I venture to say that scholars, as e.g. the late Professor Driver, would not cling with any tenacity to the separation of these two documents; for the other criteria are too weak and subjective to endure alone. Can, therefore, the criterium of divine Names be allowed to stand? It cannot. An examination of other parts of the Old Testament, especially the Psalter, shows that the distribution of these Names is editorial not original. This is very clear in the case of the duplicate psalms. Thus Pss. 13 (14), 52 (53) had one author, but two editors; and the second editor changed the divine Name through out the Psalm. Professor Driver states: "For such a variation (of divine Name in Genesis) no plausible explanation can be assigned except diversity of authorship."⁷ But if this reasoning was correct it would follow a pari that Pss. 13, 52 had two authors which no one can admit. Notice, also, how the Name Yahweh is excluded from the speech of the unworthy. Thus in Ps. 3 Yahweh occurs throughout,⁸ except on the lips of the Psalmist's wicked enemies (v. 2). We see the same exclusion in the conversation between Joseph while in disguise and his brethren, and in the speech of the Egyptians (Gen. 40-44). But the most interesting example is in Gen. 3. In the conversation between Eve and the Serpent only the one Name Elohim is used; yet in the whole context we have a combination, Yahweh-'Elohim. Now one of the Names in this combination is an addition of an editor, as critics rightly declare. Which is the addition? Evidently "Yahweh" which the editor refrained from putting in the conversation (Gen. 3:2-7). Indeed, it would seem that this editorial manipulation of the Names was not completed before the Septuagint was written. At any rate the Septuagintal text has often the one Name Elohim, where the Massoretic text has the combination. Thus internal and external evidence points to " Yahweh" as an addition in the early chapters of Genesis. Yet the critics insist on retaining this Name as original, and rejecting Elohim. The only possible explanation for their obstinacy on this point would seem to be prejudice in favor of Astruc's "clue," which was adopted by the "pioneers of criticism." In brief, however, the distribution of the Names is editorial--Rabbinical, if you wish--but not original. It is time we heard no more of "Jehovist" and "Elohist."

From all this it does not follow that the Pentateuch is altogether the work of Moses, much less that the whole Law was published on one day. On the contrary, at least six sets of laws can be found in the legislation which extended through the life-time of Moses. Outside the legal sections other documents can be recognized. Thus not much scholarship is required to detect that the hand that wrote the Prologue to Genesis (i.-ii. 3) is the hand of the jurist who wrote the Pentateuchal law. After the Prologue the author begins his chapter I. with a document distinctly Babylonian, and not in his style. Who wrote this Babylonian document (Gen. ii. 4-iii.)? In Gen. xiii. 10 some one describes the Jordan basin known as the Kikkar before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha; it was "watered throughout like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt as one comes to Soar." This writer knew the description of the Garden of Eden (Gen. ii. 10-14); he knew also the Kikkar before the catastrophe there; and he had been down to Egypt. It would seem that this person was no other than the Babylonian Abram. To him we would attribute Gen. ii. 4-iii., and much of the matter contained in the so-called J and E sections in the first half of Genesis.

Perhaps enough has now been said to show how wisely the Church acted, when through the Biblical Commission (27th June, 1906) she warned her children that the critical arguments for a post-Mosaic date of the Pentateuch did not outweigh the traditional teaching.⁹

Before we consider the teaching of the Law, a word may be said concerning its operation after the Conquest. Students sometimes feel a difficulty in the fact that the history of Israel after the settlement in Canaan is not as colored by the Mosaic Law as one would expect. We will therefore enumerate some of the circumstances that told against the operation of the Law.

The first blow was the collapse of the central authority. Even when Israel was a unit in the peninsula of Sinai, and under the control of an efficient leader, there were repeated relapses from the standard of the Law; but when that leader was dead and the unit split up--each tribe fighting for its separate settlement then that happened which has so often happened in history when there has been a break from central authority--the operation of the law weakened. So the period of the "Judges" is well summed up by the remark of its historian: "In those days there was not a king in Israel: each man did what was right in his own eyes" (xvii. 6, cp. xviii. 31). When at last some authority was re-established we find a return to order and the project of the Temple. Unfortunately, however, it was not long before the question of Church and State arose. Solomon began his reign with an attack on the priesthood (3 Kings ii. 26, seq.), and he closed it as supreme head on earth of the religion of Israel. For the future in Judah up to the time of the Exile, the execution of the Law was at the whim of the reigning monarch. And, unfortunately, most of the kings preferred pagan licentiousness to Mosaic severity. In Israel, after the schism, solely for a political reason, viz., to prevent reunion of north and south, Jeroboam forbade his subjects to go to the central sanctuary; set up golden calves for adoration and sacrifice; instituted a priesthood unconnected with the sons of Levi; established festivals distinct from those in Judah, and had his own altar of incense (3 Kings xii. 25-33). On the other hand virtuous kings like Josaphat, Ezechias, and Josias made attempts to restore the Law of Moses. And here we may say our promised word on the so-called D document. The first draft, or kernel of the book of Deuteronomy was, say the critics, the book of the Law discovered during the repairs of the Temple in 621 B.C. (4 Kings xxii; 2 Par. xxxiv.). But this book had no connection with Moses; in fact it was written shortly before its "discovery." Why this? Briefly, because the regulations of D were unknown before the time of Josias, and his reformation first introduced them. Now is this true? Josias himself says that the regulations were known to "our fathers," but were not enforced. Now leaving aside the much abused Chronicler, let us look at the reformation in 4 Kings 23. We read that Josias destroyed the vessels used in idolatrous worship, abolished the high- places and the burning of incense there, ground to powder the Ashera, broke down the obelisks, etc. Now if we go back a hundred years we find that Ezechias also reformed religion. He abolished the high-places, broke down the obelisks, cut down the Ashera, and stopped the idolatrous burning of incense. In other words, "he kept the commandments which Yahweh had commanded Moses" (4 Kings xviii. 4, 7). Surely if Josias reformation was based on Deuteronomy, so was that of Ezechias.¹⁰

To return. The chief obstacle against the operation of the Mosaic Law was the disappearance, for some two centuries, of central authority; which, when restored, was religious or irreligious according to the personal character of the ruler of the State.

The second adverse circumstance was the milieu in which the separated tribes found themselves after the Conquest. No longer were they nomads, but dwellers in walled cities. About them stood pagan altars associated with attractive immorality. Moses had foreseen this, and, that monotheism might be preserved, had commanded the extermination of the Canaanite tribes: "lest they teach you to do all the abominations which they have done to their gods, and you should sin against Yahweh your God" (Deut. 20:18). But this extermination was not so easy as might have been thought, and, as the history records, the injunction full often became a dead letter (Josue 15:63, 16:10, 17:13, etc.). It was not long, therefore, before Mosaic ordinances were unpopular, and idolatrous cult in vogue.¹¹ A third extrinsic cause that told against the operation of the Law was human nature. It is hard enough for many persons nowadays to keep the ten commandments; it was harder for Israel to observe not only the Decalogue but much more besides in the polytheistic world of that time. Critical arguments are often made from the non- observance of the Law in the post-Conquest history to its non-existence at the time of Moses. This is as precarious as the argumentum e silentio. A study of Canon Law makes one cautious on this line of argument.¹²

Finally, there were intrinsic difficulties. Many of the statutes dealt with camp or nomadic life, and became unreal once the wanderings came to an end. Some of the enactments had been revised or modified, and existed in more than one form in the Tora. The slave-laws in part had regarded Hebrews serving for debt; after the Conquest Canaanite slaves took their place. The porterage of the sacred furniture was no longer required; and the Levites found themselves without a well-defined status. These were only some of the intrinsic difficulties.

Yet in spite of all obstacles the Law was not altogether forgotten. Apart from relapses, the religion of the Hebrews between the Conquest and the Exile was not the religion of the Patriarchs (cp. Deut. 5:3); it was not the religion of Egypt; it was not the religion of the Canaanites; it was the religion of the Mosaic Law especially that of the so-called "Priests Code." If the operation was weak, there were exceptional circumstances to make it so; and its subjects were those to whom Our Lord had to say: "Did not Moses give you the Law? And yet none of you keep the Law" (John 7:19).

RELIGION OF THE LAW

We come now to the last part of this paper the Religion of the Law. Space allows a consideration only of its salient features; the most outstanding of which was sublime monotheism.

Above all the corruption of a world sunk into idolatry, there sounded forth from Israel: Credo in unum Deum. "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is One God" (Deut. 6:4). And this creed was from the first guarded by the death penalty: " He that sacrificeth to any god, save the Lord only, shall be devoted " (Exod. 22:20).

It was this belief that again and again saved Israel during the course of her backsliding progress, which is spoken of as "evolution."

And the Credo continued: Patrem Omnipotentum, factor em coeli et terrae, visibilium et invisibilium. Because He was the Creator of everything, everything belonged to Him--the fruits of the earth, of the flocks and herds nay, even man. "They are all Mine" summed it up (Exod. 13:2). And man should recognize that they all were His. How could this be shown? By offering to Him the first-fruits of the ground, the first-born of beasts and of men. But the first male could be bought back or redeemed. How? By the offering of a substitute or victim. Offerings to God were "sacrifices," which, when performed as public acts, demanded ritual, liturgy, and a priesthood. Even one day of the week belonged especially, and was consecrated to Him.¹³ One day in the year was to be a Fast-day that the soul that had sinned against Him might be "afflicted" and "cleansed from sins" (Lev. 16:29-31, 23:27-32; Num. 29:7). What we should call "Holidays of Obligation" were also commanded. These were especially in connection with the three great annual Festivals, to which all male Israelites were summoned, First-fruits, Tabernacles, and Passover. To the last mentioned was united the observance of Unleavened Bread.¹⁴ This Feast was first instituted as a domestic celebration (Exod. 12), but in the legislation that considered the settlement in Canaan it was forbidden to be celebrated except "at the place which Yahweh shall choose" (Deut. 16:1-8). Hence the abuse prevalent among the priests of the high-places, and the reform by Josias (4 Kings 23:9, 21-23). Hence also the disfavor of Jerusalem towards Elephantine--for there, on pagan soil, was celebrated the Passover (Sachau, p. 36).

But besides its Dogma and Liturgy, the Law had its moral theology. God was to be served and feared--not with dread, but with reverence and love. In the earliest teaching (Exod. 20:6) He is represented as "showing mercy ... to them that love Me and keep My commandments"; and in the final legislation is the precept: "thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength."¹⁵ After this follows the command in Lev. 19:18: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self." Thus the two greatest precepts of both Old and New Testament are written in the Law. There we first find the vinculum perfectionis. Nay, there was the further command that one must do good to one's private enemies, and seek no revenge (Exod. xxiii. 4, 5; Lev. xix. 17, 18). Finally there was the Decalogue, which, in spite of all the supposed evolution of the human mind, remains even to this day the basis of morality, and challenges any substitute.

But Israel was not solely a religious community; it was also a civil society. Its political nature, however, was peculiar, for it was a Theocracy. Hence not only its religious, but also its civil enactments were referred to God. Distinct therefore from its religious teaching was its penal legislation dealing with human nature offending against civil law and order. Hence the so-called lex talionis (Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21) which remained a theocratic law, until Christ said: "My kingdom is not of this world." This civil law also protected the rights of private ownership; but not in the sense that some modern economists understand proprietorship (Deut. 23:24-25). Unlike the Babylonian criminal code, there was in the Mosaic legislation but one law for both rich and poor alike.

BLOOD PROHIBITION

So much by way of summary. There is, however, one other enactment in Hebrew Law which does not seem to have been given the attention it deserves. We refer to the Blood Prohibition. A short consideration of it will close our paper. We all know that the pious Jew to-day will eat only kosher meat--meat from which the blood has been completely drained. In other words it is forbidden to "eat blood." There was trouble in the early Church with the Jewish converts over this matter (cp. Acts 15:20). Back in the time of Saul, the people "sinned against the Lord" in that they ate the blood of beasts after the defeat of the Philistines (1 Kings 14:32-34).

We cannot here inquire into the full reason of this prohibition. Originally it seems to have been directed against manslaughter. Adam's first-born was a murderer, and he was cursed. The few survivors from the Flood, who were to re-people the earth, were blessed; but at the same time the prohibition was formulated:

"Flesh with (its soul )its blood, you shall not eat,¹⁶
And indeed, I will require your blood of your souls:
From the hand of every beast will I require it,¹⁷
And from the hand of man.
From the hand of each man's brother
I will require the soul of man.
Whosoever shall shed man's blood,
By man his blood shall be shed:
For in the image of God, I made (LXX) man."
--GENESIS 9:4-6

With the blood was associated the life (or soul). As a man lost blood, so his life oozed out. But as the life even of a beast--belonged to God, so the blood of every animal slaughtered whether in sacrifice or not, was to be poured out. Hence the law (Lev. 7:26-27):

"You shall eat no blood whatsoever
Any soul that eateth any blood, that soul shall be cut off from the people."

But later the people offered idolatrous sacrifices and disregarded the blood prohibition. This led to the stringent law (Lev. 17:3 sqq.):

"Any man whosoever of the house of Israel that killeth an ox, or a lamb, or a goat, in the camp, or without the camp, and bringeth it not unto the door of the Tent--shall be guilty of blood. He hath shed blood: and that man shall be cut off from the midst of the people--And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar And they shall no more sacrifice their victims to demons, with whom they have committed fornication--If any man whosoever of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eat any blood, I will set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from the midst of the people. For the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the soul. Therefore--no soul of you shall eat blood; and the stranger that sojourneth among you shall not eat blood. If any man whosoever--hunting or fowling--let him pour out its blood, and cover it with dust," etc.¹⁸

The law, therefore, enacted that all slaughter except that occasioned by hunting or fowling should be done at the central sanctuary. But this would be impossible when the tribes were settled in Canaan. Foreseeing the difficulty Moses allows the slaughter of animals in any town; but the blood prohibition is again insisted upon. Deut. 12 gives this final legislation:

"These are the statutes and the judgments which you shall observe to do in the land.--Unto the place which Yahweh your God shall choose thou shalt come; and thither shall you bring your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices--Beware lest thou offer thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest--Nevertheless at any inclination of thine appetite thou mayest kill, and eat flesh (according to the blessing of Yahweh the God which he hath given thee) within all thy gates.--Only you shall not eat the blood: thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water--Only be firm not to eat the blood: for the blood is the soul; and thou mayest not eat the soul with the flesh. Thou shalt not eat it: thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water. Thou shalt not eat it, that it may be well with thee The blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of Yahweh thy God; and the flesh thou shalt eat."¹⁹

Again the law is insisted upon (Deut. xv. 23):

"Only thou shalt not eat its blood: thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water."

Because the soul was connected with the blood, the blood was not to be eaten. But for the same reason blood could expiate from sin.²⁰ For sin a man deserved death. To atone he ought to give his life. But as this was not allowed, he gave instead a "victim"--a substitute for his life, viz., the life, i.e. the blood of an animal.

The importance of the teaching of the Law on Blood can hardly be exaggerated; for it is here precisely where the New Law brought the Old to fulfillment. Christ becoming "sin for us" made atonement by giving His life in bloody sacrifice on the Cross. Indeed, without this shedding of blood the expiation would not have been obtained (2 Cor. 5:15-21; Heb. 9:22). But once this Sacrifice was made on Calvary, the sacrifices of the Old Law--Shadows of the good things to come"--ceased to have effect (Heb. 10:1-20).

There was another change--the Blood Prohibition was reversed. The life is in the blood: hence to have the life of Christ within us it is necessary to drink His sacred Blood:

"Amen, amen, I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent Me and I live by the Father; so he that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me" (John 6:54-58).

No wonder the Jews with the blood prohibition among their deepest convictions "strove one with another, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (John 6:53). No wonder many, even of the disciples, said: "This is a hard saying; and who can hear it" (6:61). We can even understand how after the further explanation that it was not a dead body that they would eat, but the living Christ ascended to the Father, still "many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him" (6:67). But the twelve that remained were privileged to witness the abolition of the blood prohibition and the institution of the great Sacrament: "Drink ye all of this: for this is My blood of the (New) Testament."

BY THE Rev. T. E. BIRD, D.D.
Professor of Holy Scripture at Oscott College, Birmingham.

__________
1 I. and II. Paralipomenon of the Vulgate and Douay Versions are named I. and II. Chronicles in the Anglican Versions. So our I. and II. Kings are I. and II. Samuel in the Authorized and Revised Versions.

2 This Tabernacle or sacred Tent is not to be confused with the Tent which Moses "used to take and pitch for himself out side the camp," and which had Josue for its attendant (Exod. 33:7-11). This latter tent was Moses own private oratory, where also he heard cases of dispute.

3 Religion of Israel, Eng. trans., p. 124.

4 Une Communauté Judéo-Aramíene. Schweich Lectures, 1914.

5 Rameses II. received from his mines gold and silver annually to the value of £80,000,000. One of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets (No. 8) gives a letter wherein it is said that in Egypt (circa. 1500 B.C.) "gold is as common as dust."

6 Recently, however, Konig has brought E into the time of the Judges.

7 Intro. to Literature cf Old Testament, edit. 9, p. 13.

8 In v. 7 Elohim is employed to make parallelism, and it is with a suffix.

9 The replies of the Biblical Commission are not acts of the Sovereign Pontiff, it is true. They are approved not "in forma specifica" but "in forma communi." They remain, therefore, acts of the Commission. Nevertheless, they call for loyal recep tion under penalty of disobedience and the note of temerity ("Praestantia Scripturae," 18th Nov., 1907). The history of the Biblical criticism of the last thirty years now shows that much of the "progress of modern thought" ended in blind alleys. Unfortunately, often before the cul-de-sac has come in sight, cast-off remnants of belief have been strewn on the road. The lessons from the past call for a disposition in Biblical study "sentiendi cum Ecclesia."

10 Hence this reformation under Ezechias is a sore point with the supporters of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, and leads them into statements that make bad criticism. Thus the Rev. F. H. Woods in his article on "Hexateuch" in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible (II. 368), tries to evade the difficulty by the remark: "It is clear that the attempt of Hezekiah, 2 Kings 18:4, to put down high-places was only partial or tentative." But this is by no means clear, in fact the text, read with the address of Rabsaces, 4 Kings 18:22, and the statement that Manasses "built again the high-places which Ezechias his father had destroyed," 4 Kings 21:3, rather indicates that the reverse is "clear." To an evasion of this kind we prefer the bold declaration of critics like Cheyne and Moore, who "cannot venture to take 4 Kings 18:4 as strictly historical." (See e.g. Enc. Biblica, col. 2058, 2068.) But of course, this is not the genuine historical method.

11 So the Psalmist sings sorrowfully:

"And He brought them to His holy border;
A mountain-land, that His right hand had acquired,
And he drove out nations before them.
But they tempted, yea, they provoked God Most High;
And kept not His testimonies;
But turned back, and were faithless like their fathers:
They recoiled like a treacherous bow.
And they roused Him to anger by their high-places
And provoked His jealousy by their images."
--Ps. Ixxvii. 54-58.

12 One quarter of the Codex Juris Canonici is concerned:
"De Processibus," a branch of Canon Law up to the present almost unknown among Catholics in some English-speaking countries.

13 To impress the Sabbath institution on the minds of the Israelites, the work of Creation was represented in an artificial framework of a week the seventh day of which was sancified (Gen. 1-2:3; Exod. 20:9-11; 23:12; 31:12-17; Deut. 5:12-15).

14 Exod. 12; 13:3-10; 23:15; 34:18; Lev. 23:4-14; Num. 9:1-14; 28:16-25.

15 See also Deut. 11:13; 10:12, etc.

16 The words in brackets are not in the Vulgate, and the text makes simpler reading without them. The Hebrew word may be an explanatory gloss. However, the Vugate alone omits.

17 Cp. Exodus 21:28.

18 See also Lev 19:26.

19 The critics, of course, date Deut. 12 before Lev. 17 (mainly H), and in both chapters they see propaganda for the centralization of the place of sacrifice, i.e. the abolition of "high-places" and the recognition of the Temple at Jerusalem as the one Sanctuary. But--especially in the case of Lev. 17.--Jewish propaganda was not presented under so thick a veil. Witness e.g. the Book of Jubilees. Surely, at least in Lev. 17 the place of slaughter is secondary to the prime object of the legislation, viz., the Blood Prohibition.

20 Lev. 16:15-16, 19; 17:11; Heb. 9, 10. Since the above, was written there has appeared in the current number of Biblica (Vol. II., pp. 141-169) a valuable article "Le Symbolisme du Sacrifice Expiatoire en Israel," by Dr. Mederbielle. It is to be concluded in the next number (July, 1921).