Abbildungen der Seite

to the resting-place of a saint, however holy. There is some truth in this opinion; for although the graves of Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, etc., were well known, there is no intimation that the Israelites made them the scene of superstition. It has been thought probable, that although Moses's body was buried, it was exempted from corruption. He passed immediately into the same state of existence with Elias, but not in the same manner.

The burial of Moses is viewed by Kurtz in connexion with a remarkable passage in Jude's epistle, ninth verse, where Michael the archangel and the devil are represented as disputing about the body of the Jewish legislator. The writer follows a Jewish tradition, which is also in the Apocryphal book called the “ Ascension of Moses ;" a work known to Clement, Origen, and Didymus, and probably of Alexandrian origin. We cannot see, however, that the introduction of this tradition into a canonical epistle attests its truth or authority. It is simply a Rabbinical story which must be judged by its intrinsic merits. The fact that Jude refers to it does not sanction its credibility. V. SECOND TITHE. — In Deut. xiv. 28, 29, xxvi. 12-15, it.

would appear that a second tithe is brought forward. From the way in which the subject is introduced, it may be inferred that the practice was already in use or well known. In xiv. 22-27, a yearly tithe is first spoken of, which was to be taken to the sanctuary and eaten before the Lord. But at the twenty-eighth verse, the writer mentions another tithe of which he says—“At the end of three years thou shalt bring all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates (xiv. 28). The most probable interpretation of the clause seems to be, that on every third year the second tithe was to be consumed at home, instead of being carried to Jerusalem. Such is the view of Selden, preferable as appears to us to that of Michaelis who



year an accurate reckoning of the unoffered tithes was made, and what was then found to be due remained for appropriation at home. But the so-called second tithe should not be severed from the first or Levitical one.

There was properly but one whole tithe. And it is evident that the Deuteronomist regarded the triennial one as the chief, because he calls it all the tithes, and the third year the year of tithing. The regulations in Deuteronomy are indeed different from those in Leviticus and Numbers, but they concern the same tithe. An extension is given to it in the fifth book. It is enjoined not only that the Israelites should apply the tenth of the produce of their fields, vineyards, and herds, or its equiva

[ocr errors]

i Works, vol. ïïi. Part II. pp. 1083, 1084. London 1726.

[ocr errors]

lent in money, in preparing yearly a feast at the sanctuary, in which slaves and the Levites should participate ; but that every third year a tithe-feast should be held in the city of each Israelite, to which the Levites, strangers, widows, and orphans should be invited. Thus tithe-feasts of a social character are enjoined ; not interfering with the original tithes, but accompanying the tithe-offerings and additional to them. They were offering and social feasts, liberally supplementing the proper tithe-offerings. Had they been substituted in place of the original Levitical tithes, the priesthood would not have had sufficient maintenance. They did not however interfere with, but enlarged the latter with a benevolent intent. The mention of firstling animals in connexion with the tithe-feasts is so cursory, that it may suggest a variety of interpretations. The first-born of animals belonged to the priest as a part of his proper revenue. Perhaps Deut. xii. 6, xiv. 23, xv. 19-23, refers to a second sort of firstlings which were to be employed for feast-offerings, and therefore to be consumed by the offerer himself and his guests. The name denotes the animals next in age to those belonging to the sacerdotal salary. Hence the firstlings referred to were additional to such as appear in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.

VI. NATURE OF THE DEUTERONOMIC LEGISLATION. The second legislation in the plains of Moab is so different from the Sinaitic contained in the three preceding books as to shew another time of origination. It contains deviations from the older, as well as additions and discrepancies, shewing another author. It is possible indeed to conceive of Moses, provided he wrote the preceding books of the Pentateuch, giving a survey of the historical circumstances through which he had passed at the head of the Israelites, and modifying or abrogating such enactments as would be unsuitable to the people when they had obtained possession of the promised land. But though the

. case is possible, abundant evidences justify the conclusion that it is highly improbable, if not absolutely erroneous. The book of Deuteronomy as a whole could not have proceeded from any one who may be assumed as the writer of the preceding four books.

It has been already shewn, that the other portions of the Pentateuch proceed from various writers, whose documents were put together in their present form by a later hand. It is most natural therefore to look for the same writers in the present book. Are they here also ? A cursory perusal of Deuteronomy is sufficient to shew, that by far the greater part

of it proceeded from one person. Who was he? Was he the Elohist, older or younger, or the Jehovist? The two former are out of the question, as the genius of the work proves. The Jehovist is the only one that has any claim to the authorship. And to him it has been assigned by Stähelin, whom Schultz appears to follow, on the ground that the legislation, theology, manner of writing, and historical accounts, are similar. But though he has ingeniously defended this view by a minute investigation of the phenomena, we do not think he has been successful in maintaining it. Granting that there is much relationship between the Jehovist and Deuteronomist, in all the leading particulars of their composition, so much diversity will be found as to disprove identity of authorship. The similarity in diction between them occurs for the most part in places where the latter repeats or alludes to older pieces; and, as the former was much nearer to him in time and characteristics than the Elohist, it is but natural that he should influence the Deuteronomist to some extent. The shorter interval of time between the two also leads to similarity between the laws. But if the Jehovist and Deuteronomist had been identical, it is very improbable that he should first enumerate laws, differing in various respects from the Elohist, and then present a second legislation containing alterations in his own laws.

With regard to diction, the following dissimilarities appear : "p37 to cleave to Jehovah iv. 4, x. 20, xi. 22, xiii. 5, xxx. 20. Stähelin vainly endeavours to account for the absence of this phrase in the Jehovist by the assumed fact that he had no occasion for expressing the idea connected with such an expression. yn wy to put away the evil, xii. 6, xvii. 7, and elsewhere, which Stähelin fails to explain on the hypothesis that the

to keep שָׁמַר לַעֲשׂוֹת .Jehovist and Deuteronomist are identical

to do, v. 1, 29; vi. 3, 12, 25; viii. 1; xi. 32; xii. 1; xii. 1; xv. 5; xvii. 19; xix. 9; xxiv. 8; xxviii. 1, 15, 58. Hivyo

. ; , DIT work of the hands, ii. 7; xiv. 29; xvi. 15; xxiv. 19; xxviii. 12 ; xxx. 9; Exod. xxii. 16, with which Stähelin directs us to compare the phrase, is not identical. 7. Abwin what the hand is put to, xii. 7; xv. 10; xxiii. 21 ; xxviii. 8, 20. nyany illis flocks of sheep, vii. 13; xxviii. 4, 18, 51. to set before or give up, i. 8, 21; ii. 31, 33, 36; vii. 2, 23; xxiii. 15; xxxi. 5. 977 to cast out, vi. 19; ix. 4. OP 173797 D'Opvan) the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, v. 28; vi. 1, 17, 20; vii. 11; viii. 11; xi. 1 ; xxvi. 17; xxx. 16.


נָתָן לִפְנים


Kritische Untersuchungen ueber den Pentateuch, u. s. w. p. 72 et seqq. 2 Ibid, p. 82.

בַּיוֹם הזֶּה -infinitive ab היטב



Gen. xxvi. 5, and Lev. xxvi. 15 are not the same, and are therefore wrongly adduced by Keil. 17:17 619) as this day,

" ii. 30; iv. 20; viii. 18; x. 15; xxix. 27. solute in the sense of utterly, ix. 21; xiii. 15 ; xvii. 4; xix. 18; xxvii. 8. Gen. xxxii. 13 is not the same, and should not therefore be adduced by Keil to neutralise the example. Soosa xiii. 14 ; xv. 9—a word frequent in Samuel and Kings. 1977 to forsake with the object of the verb, iv. 31 ; xxxi. 6, 8. Comp. Cant. iii. 4; Job. vii. 19. 7any to engage or encounter, ii. 5,

. 9, 19, 25. My in Hiphil xiï. 6, 11, 14; in Niphal iv. 19; xix. 5; xxx. 17. The much more frequent use of feminine infinitive forms, as 1277 xi. 22; xxx. 20; oppe i. 27; ix. 28. The poetical expressions God of gods, heaven of heavens, comp. 1 Kings viii. 27; 2 Chron. ii. 5. To these may, be added the


; 36 .xxxii אָזְלַת ;21 .xxxiii וַיֹּאתְה for וַיֵתָא Chaldaising forms תָּשִׁי ; 36 ,21 .xxvii יוֹלֵק יִדְבֵק ; 57 .xxvii הַיּוֹצֵאת for חַיּוֹצֵת

fut. Hiphil from 109 xxxii. 18. These Chaldaising are later forms, whatever Keil may assert to the contrary. But there is no need of proving the diversity of the Jehovist and Deuteronomist, after the convincing arguments of Knobel.? We remark

1. That the legislation contained in Deuteronomy is of a later character than that of the preceding books. (a) There was a marked distinction between the priests and Levites in position, revenues, and habitations. In Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers the priests are carefully distinguished from the Levites. The duties of the latter were subordinate; such as setting up and taking down the tabernacle, carrying it and its furniture, and attending upon the priests. They were forbidden to approach the vessels of the sanctuary and the altar, under pain of death. Accordingly the Levites are never said to “stand before" Jehovah, as the priests are; but always to “stand before" the priests or the people. The duties of the two classes are clearly and broadly separated. In respect of income, the priests were allowed certain parts of sacrificial victims, first fruits, and firstlings; whereas the Levites had only a tenth, of which they were to give the tenth to the priests. In like manner, the priests in encampment were nearer the tabernacle than the Levites. Thus they had in all respects a higher position and better maintenance than the ordinary sons of Levi. "They stood nearer to Jehovah himself. But in Deuteronomy we observe a different representa

· Einleitung, p. 99, second edition.
2 Exeget. Handbuch, xiii. pp. 589, 590.


tion. There the sharp distinction between the two classes almost disappears. The Levites have a much higher position than they had in the old legislation, as appears from the language applied to them in Deut. x. 8, 9: “At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord, to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day. Wherefore Levi hath no part nor inheritance with his brethren: the Lord is his inheritance," etc. Here, expressions characteristic of the priests alone in the old legislation, are applied to the Levites, shewing that the latter no longer occupied that very subordinate position before assigned them; but that the sphere of their duties was enlarged and heightened. The same thing is observable in Deut. xviii. 6-8, where the service of the Levites is described in terms applied exclusively to the priests in the old legislation ; such as minister in the name of the Lord, stand before the Lord. It is also said of the priests that they bare the ark of the covenant af the Lord (Deut. xxxi. 9), which is uniformly attributed to the Levites in the earlier books. The very name applied to the priests in Deuteronomy is different from the old one, the sons of Aaron; for they are commonly termed the priests the Levites, the priests the sons of Levi, etc., shewing that the writer laid no stress on the descent from Aaron, but merely on that from Levi. Such appellations for the priests occur only in later books, in Jer. xxxiii. 18; Ezek. xliii. 19, xliv. 15; the deutero-Isaiah lxvi. 21; and 2 Chron. xxx. 27, xxiii. 18. And in noticing the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, where the distinction between the priests and Levites is strictly observed in the book of Numbers, it is worthy of remark that the Deuteronomist passes over the Levite Korah because, in his eyes, there was nothing improper in aspiring to the priesthood.

(6) In respect of income, according to the old law the tithe of the land and of the flock or herd belonged to the Levites, of which they were to give a tenth to the priests. The priests had also the first-fruits of the earth and the first-born of animals. Of the former it is said that only the clean in the priests' house were to eat. As to the latter, the first-born of animals fit for sacrifice were offered up to the Lord; the blood was sprinkled upon the altar, the fat was burned, and all the flesh fell to the priests. The firstlings of unclean animals were to be redeemed according to a valuation increased by a fifth, or, if not redeemed, to be sold; and the first-born of men were to be redeemed for five shekels, all which purchase-money belonged to the priests. But in the second legislation these revenues are very different. The tithes do not belong to the Levites, and therefore the tenth of them belonging to the priests is omitted. In like manner

« ZurückWeiter »