different phases in the forty years' wandering in the desert, they consider it as agreeing with three histor- ical stages in the national history. As stated above, the mam objects of this triple legislation are the sanc- tuary, the feasts, and the priesthood.
(a) The Sancluarij. —At first, so the critics say, sacri- fices were allowed to be offered in any place where the Lord had manifested his name (Ex., xx, 24-6); then the sanctuary was limited to the one place chosen by God (Deut., xii, 5); thirdly, the Priestly Code sup- pose.s the unity of sanctuary, and prescribes the proper religious rites to be observed. Moreover, the critics point out historical incidents showing that before the enforcement of the Deuteronomic law sacrifices were offered in various places quite distinct from the resting place of the ark. What do the defenders of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch answer? First, as to the triple law, it points to three different stages in Israel's desert life: before the erection of the tabernacle at the foot of Mt. Sinai, the people were allowed to erect altars and to offer sacrifices everywhere provided the name of the Lord had been manifested; next, after the people had adored the golden calf, and the tabernacle had been erected, sacrifice could be offered only before the tabernacle, and even the cattle killed for consump- tion had to be slaughtered in the same place, in order to prevent a relapse into idolatry; finally, when the people were about to enter the promised land, the last law was abolished, being then quite impossible, but the unity of sanctuary was kept in the place which God would choose. Secondly, as to the historical facts urged by the critics, some of them are caused by direct Divine intervention, miracle or prophetic inspiration, an(l as such are fully legitimate; others are evidently violations of the law, and are not sanctioned by the mspired writers; a third class of facts may be ex- plained in one of three ways: (a') Poels ("Le sanctu- aire de Kirjath Jeraim", Louvain, 1894; "Examen critique de I'histoire du sanctuaire de I'arche", Lou- vain, 1897) endeavours to prove that Gabaon, Mas- phath, and Kiriath-Jarim denote the same place, so that the multiplicity of sanctuaries is only apparent, not real. (^') Van Hoonacker (" Le lieu du culte dans la legislation ntuelle des H^breux" in "Museeon" April-Oot., 1894, XIII, 195-204, 299-320, 533-41; XIV, 17-38) distinguishes between private and public altars; the public and national worship is legally cen- tralized in one sanctuary and around one altar, while private altars may be had for domestic worship. (7') But more commonly it is admitted that before God had chosen the site of national sanctuary, it was not forbidtlen by law to sacrifice anywhere, even away from the place of the ?,rk. After the building of the temple the law was not considered so stringent as to bind under all circumstances. Thus far then the argu- ment of the critics is not conclusive.
(β) The Sacrifices. — According to the critics, the Book of the Covenant enjoined only the offering of the finst-fruits and the first-born of animals, the redemp- tion of the first-born of men, and a free-will offering on visiting the sanctuary (Ex., xxii, 28-9; x.xiii, 15, [Heb., xxiii, 19]); Deuteronomy more clearly defines some of these laws (xv, 19-23; xxvi, 1-11), and imposes the law of tithes for the benefit of the poor, the widows the orphans, and the Levites (xxvi, 12-5) ; the Priestly Code distinguishes different kinds of sacrifices, deter- mines their rites, and introduces also incense offering. But history hardly bears out this view: as there ex- isted a permanent priesthood in Silo, and later on in Jerusalem, we may safely infer that there existed a permanent sacrifice. The earliest prophets are ac- quainted with an excess of care bestowed on the sacri- ficial rites (cf. Amos, iv, 4, 5; v, 21-2, 25; Osee passim). The expressions of Jeremias (vii, 21-3) may be explained in the same sense. Sin offering was known long before the critics introduce their Priestly Code (Osee, iv, 8; Mich., vi, 7; Ps., xxxix [xl], 7; I Kings iii, 14). Trespass offering is formally distinguished from sin offering in IV Kings, xiii, 16 (cf. I Kings, vi, 3-15; Is., liii, 10). Hence the distinction between the different kinds of sacrifice is due neither to Ezech., xlv, 22-5, nor to the Priestly Code.
(γ) The Feasts.— The Book of the Covenant, so the critics tell us, knows only three feasts: the seven-days' feast of the azymes in memory of the exodus from Egypt, the feast of the harvest, and that of the end of the harvest (Ex., xxiii, 14-7); Deuteronomy ordains the keeping of the feasts at the central sanctuary, adds the Pasch to the feast of the azymes, places the second feast seven weeks after the first, and calls the third, ' feast of tabernacles", extending its duration to seven days (Deut., xvi, 1-17); the Priestly Code prescribes the exact ritual for five feasts, adding the feast of trumpets and of atonement, all of which must be kept at the central sanctuary. Moreover, history appears to endorse the contention of the critics: Judges, xxi 19 knows of only one annual feast in Silo ; I Kings, i, 3,' 7, 21 testifies that the parents of Samuel went every year to Silo to the sanctuary; Jeroboam I established in his kingdom one annual feast similar to that cele- brate_d m Jerusalem (III Kings, xii, 32-3); the eariiest Prophets do not mention the names of the religious feasts; the Pasch is celebrated for the first time after the discovery of Deuteronomy (IV Kings, xxiii, 21-3)- Ezechiel knows only three feasts and a sin offering on the first day of the first and the seventh month. But here again, the critics use the argument e silcntio which is not conclusive in this case. The feast of atonement for instance, is not mentioned in the Old Testament outb^ide the Pentateuch; only Josephus refers to its celebration in the time of John Hyrcanus or Herod Will the critics infer from this, that the feast was not kept throughout the Old Testament? History does not record facts generally known. As to the one an- nual feast mentioned in the eariy records, weighty commentators are of ojiinion that after the settlement of the people in the promised land, the custom was gradually introduced of going to the central sanctuary only once a year. This custom prevailed before the critics allow the existence of the Deuteronomic law (111 Kings, XII, 26-31), so that the latter cannot have mtrociuced it. Isaias (xxix, 1 ; xxx, 29) speaks of a cycle of feasts, but Osee, xii, 9 alludes already to the feast of tabernacles, so that its establishment cannot be due to the Priestly Code as the critics describe it Ezechiel (xlv, 18-25) speaks only of the three feasts which had to be kept at the central sanctuary
(δ) The Priesthood.~The critics contend that the Book of the Covenant knows nothing of an Aaronitio priesthood (Ex., xxiv, 5); that Deuteronomy men- tions priests and Levites without any hierarchical dis- tinction and without any high priest, determines their rights, and distinguishes only between the Levite liv- ing in the country and the Levite attached to the central sanctuary; finally, that the Priestly Code represents the priesthood as a social and hierarchical institution, with legally determined duties, rights and revenues. This theory is said to be borne out by the evidence of history. But the testimony of history points m the opposite direction. At the time of Josue and the early Judges, Eleazar and Phinees, the son and nephew of Aaron, were priests (Num., xxvi 1; Deut x, 6; Jos. xiv, 1 sqq.; xxii, 13, 21; xxiv, 33; Judges; XX, 28). From the end of the time of Judges to Solo- mon, the priesthood was in the hands of Heli and his descendants (livings, i, 3 sqq.; xiv, 3; x.xi, 1; x.xii 1) who sprang from Ithamar the younger son of Aaron (I Par., XXIV, 3; cf. I Kings, xxii, 29; xiv, 3; ii, 7 sqq ) bolomon raised Sadoc, the son of Achitob, to the dig- nity of the high priesthood, and his descendants held the office down to the time of the Babylonian Cap- tivity (II Kings, viii, 17' xv, 24 sqq.; xx, 25- III Kings 11, 26, 27, 35; Ezech., xliv, 15); that Sadoc too was of Aaronic descent is attested by I Par., vi 8.
