unable to occupy them at all.* It is equally a mistake to suppose that the prospective or actual gift of these cities confined the Levites entirely to them, either at the beginning or at any other time. Their chief business was at the sanctuary; but they had other occupations, as teachers, as assistants in the local courts, and the like. This would call them to a partially wandering life, especially as compared with the other tribes with their compact organization and fixed boundaries. There is no impropriety, therefore, in the language used in the book of Deuteronomy. On the other hand, how much out of place the legislation of the book of Numbers would be as having its origin at the time of the exile can be seen at a glance. At that time the priests greatly outnumbered the Levites, while in the apportionment of the cities only thirteen of the forty-eight were assigned to them.

A further fact cited to show the diverse origin of the Pentateuch laws has to do with the age at which it is said the Levites entered upon their duties. In this case it is not argued that one code is opposed to another, but that a single code is divided against itself. It is one statement in the book of Numbers against another in the same book. According to the earlier, the Levite was to enter on his service at the sanctuary at thirty years of age; according to the later, at twentyfive. But, suppose it was a slip of the pen of a scribe in the one passage, it would not be unex* With Josh. xxi: 21, 24 cf. Judges i: 35.

+ See Numbers iv : 3, 23, 30, 35, 39, 43, 47; viti: 24.

ampled. The Septuagint seems to have thought So. It has altered the text in Numbers viii: 24 in order to bring that passage into harmony with the others, unless, indeed, as our critics are accustomed to say in some similar cases, it had a better text than that represented in our Hebrew Bibles. Or we might say that, the matter not being one of supreme importance, this is but another way of saying that the service was to begin between the years of twenty-five and thirty, according to circumstances. Or we might be even permitted to suppose, if necessary, that the lawgiver purposely changed the law, finding that a larger number of persons was really required than would be supplied by the first arrangement. David is represented as numbering the Levites, as being fit for service, from twenty years of age.* In any case, it is too small a matter to be the basis of such important conclusions. It comes far short of having the significance of other matters bearing on the unity of the Pentateuch to which attention has never been called. For example, in one passage only is "strong drink" permitted to be used, in place of wine, with the daily burnt offering. It is found in the document assigned by our critics to a period not earlier than the Exile. What is the meaning of the singular exception? It is probably but one of many places where the Pentateuch laws carry upon them the stamp of the period to which they belong; and it is all the more important that it is beyond the

* I Chronicles xxiii: 27. Numbers xxviii : 7.

suspicion of being designed. It appears to mark a period when “strong drink" made from dates, or in some other way, was more convenient than wine-perhaps was the only available material for the drink offering apart from water-that is, the period of the exodus.

Finally, the laws concerning the manumission of Hebrew servants is adduced as an illustration of the conflict existing among the Pentateuch codes.* It does, in fact, illustrate considerable diversity in outward form, but also, and to quite a marked degree, true inward harmony. The statement which the Bible makes concerning the origin of the codes is sufficient to explain perfectly their outward diversity. And if they were not meant to supplement one another, and together present a complete rule, their contradictions are certainly of the baldest character. We should not only be unable to interpret them in harmony with one another as originating in the period of the exodus, but in any other period of Israelitish history. The law of Deuteronomy is naturally fuller than that of the Book of the Covenant, and its amplifications perfectly accord with the representation of its rise in the border lands of Canaan. In ordinary circumstances, a Hebrew servant was to be dismissed after six years. If he elected to remain longer, he could do so during the term of his natural life. In either case, however, the year of jubilee put an absolute limit to involuntary servitude.

* With Ex. xxi: 1-6, Lev. xxv: 39-43, cf. Deut. xv: 12-18.

If this is not the meaning of the laws, but they are to be looked upon as antagonistic to one another, then the latest form, which requires service, however trifling the original offense, and the servant willing or nilling, in all cases until death, or the year of jubilee, shows a development in barbarism and denationalization in the direction of Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus-that is to say, in the estimation of our critics, between the time of Moses and Ezra-that neither they nor any one else would be inclined to admit.

SUMMARY.

The investigation necessarily minute. Critical symbols. The burden of proof on the critics. A sense not to be imposed on isolated paragraphs at variance with their context. Evasions by means

of the Redactor and by minute subdivisions of the text.

The portion to be discussed. Section first. Exodus 3 and 6:2ff. not duplicate narratives of the same event. The argument thence drawn for the divisive hypothesis illusive. Gaps and omissions in P's narrative. The argument from diction. Perplexity in separating J and E.

Section second. Alleged criteria. The resulting division. Its bearing on the historical truth of the events. The criteria fallacious. Various length of the accounts of the plagues. Diction. The plague of blood. Progress not intermittent when the true scheme of the plagues is seen. The critical hypothesis beset by insuperable difficulties.