NOTES AND STUDIES                        467

From this it is clear that the arrangement of the sections marked

I to V is practically the same.

In section III the first two subsections are transposed in the Greek,

but that relating to the Anointing Oil and Incense is only a single verse

which might easily be displaced, and the Hebrew order is more natural.

The chief differences are with regard to sections (a), (b), and (c).¹

(a) The Vestments.

I. In the Hebrew these come quite at the end after all the details of

the Tabernacle, which is intelligible enough, and agrees with the order

of things to be made (cc. xxxi and xxxv): in the Greek they come at

the very beginning, as though these were the first to be taken in hand.

No doubt a great deal of the work would be carried on simultaneously

by different sets of workers, but each set of workers would have to

receive instructions from Moses, and he would probably first set to

work those who had to execute the heavier tasks of the structure and

furniture of the Sanctuary.

2. In the Hebrew the section begins with ‘And of the blue and

purple and scarlet, they made finely wrought garments’, following quite

naturally on the account of the metals: the Greek begins with Kai>

e]poih<se pa?j sofo>j e]n toi?j e]rgazome<noij [= Heb. xxxvi 8a] ta>j stola>j tw?n a[gi<wn, ai! ei]sin   ]Aarw>n t&? i[erei? [= Heb. xxxix 1b]. If the translators

had decided (for whatever reason) to place the Vestments first, it is

quite easy to see how this combination would be made: it is not easy

to see how the Hebrew would be derived from the Greek.

3. The section ends with ‘as the LORD commanded Moses’, which

fits very well with what follows in the Hebrew, ‘Thus was finished all

the work of the tabernacle of the. tent of meeting: and the children of

Israel did according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so did

they' (xxxix 32): according to the Greek, it only leads up to ‘And they

made for the tent ten curtains', the commencement of making the

Tabernacle.

4. In the Greek the declaration just quoted, that the children of

Israel did as the LORD commanded, is followed by a passage (not in the

Hebrew) containing a statement that out of the remaining blue and

purple and scarlet they made ministering garments for Aaron, which

resembles xxxix 1, the beginning of the Hebrew ‘Vestments’ section.

This looks very much as though the translators were conscious that

originally some account of the Vestments belonged hereabouts.

Thus in the Hebrew order the section connects naturally with what

precedes and with what follows: in the Greek it fits neither, and there

    ¹ The absence of the Altar of Incense from the Greek will be considered later on,

see pp. 475, 476.

468     THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

is an indication that there was some statement about the Vestments near

the very place where the Hebrew places this section.

(b) The Court--Summary.

Following on the account of the making of the Court, both Hebrew

and Greek have a short passage (xxxviii 21-23) which begins 'This is

the sum of the things for the tabernacle'. In the Hebrew this is quite

in place, for it comes at the very end of the things made for the

Tabernacle, and is only followed by the account of the quantity of

metals and the making of the priestly Vestments: in the Greek it

stands before the making of the Ark, Table, Candlestick, great Altar,

and Laver; clearly out of place. There could hardly be a plainer

indication that this passage and the Court section to which it is attached

have been removed from their true place at the end, where the Hebrew

has them.

(c) Metal-work.

After the account of making the Ark, Table, and Candlestick, but

before the Brazen Altar and Laver, the Greek has a passage containing

some miscellaneous details of metal work.

Its position is not very appropriate, as one would hardly expect such

minor matters as the rings, hooks, bases, and pins to intervene between

the furniture of the Tabernacle and the great Altar. Also, at first sight,

it seems as if there were no such passage in the Hebrew, but on closer

inspection it will be found that there are scattered fragments in other

parts of the Hebrew which do correspond.

The passage begins with a fairly close translation of xxxvi 34, and

a sentence founded on xxxvi 36 ; then follows a blending of xxxvi 13

and 18; then a version of xxxviii  17 re-arranged, and finally a version of

xxxviii 20.

Now xxxvi 34 is part of the account of the Framework, otherwise

wholly absent from the Greek; and xxxvi 13, 18 belong to that larger

part of the Curtains section which is not in the Greek. It would seem

then that the considerable portion of c. xxxvi which is otherwise absent

from the Greek was not wholly unknown to the translators. On the

other hand, the verses from c. xxxviii are a repetition in a different

rendering of what has already (in the Greek order) appeared in the

Court section.

Further, the passage is marked by a curious change. The preceding

sections commence with ‘And Bezaleel made', or ‘and he made', the

subsequent details being only joined on by a simple kai>: here, each

fragment commences with Ou$toj (with different verbs). The fragmentary

nature of the section is clearly indicated.

There can hardly be room for doubt that odd verses relating to

the common subject of metal-work have been here grouped together, in

NOTES AND STUDIES                        469

which case the passage exhibits plain traces of omission, re-arrangement,

and varied translation, which must have been deliberately done.

Thus each of the three sections in cc. xxxvi-xxxix wherein the Greek

order differs from the Hebrew affords indications that in the Greek they

are misplaced. Their evidence goes to shew that the Hebrew has

preserved the true order of which the Greek is a dislocation.

Dr Swete (‘Introduction’ p. 235) notices that both the Greek and the

Massoretic version of these chapters ‘follow a system, i. e. that the

sequence is due to a deliberate re-arrangement of the groups’, and

suggests as a possibility that ‘the Alexandrian translator has purposely

changed their relative order, giving precedence to the ornaments of the

priesthood’. This would account for the Vestments section standing

first, but not for the position of sections (b) and (c).

System of a kind, however, is to be found in the Greek arrangement.

Supposing that the translator had some reason for placing the priestly

Vestments first,¹ he has grouped along with them the Curtains, the Veil

and Screen, and the Hangings of the Court. That is to say, all the parts

involving the use of textile materials are put together. Then come the

parts requiring the use of metals: the Ark, Table, and Candlestick; the

metal overlaying and casting; and the Bronze Altar and Laver. In this

connexion it is significant that the Greek omits all mention of ‘acacia

wood' in the construction of the Ark, the Table, and the great Altar, as

though these were wholly made of metal. In the same way, it omits the

whole section about the Boards and Bars, only preserving in another

part, section (c), the one verse which speaks of their being overlaid

with gold.

This grouping, according to material, may perhaps furnish a clue to

the arrangement of the Greek.

If it be asked why this Group of chapters (and indeed Group I also

in a lesser degree) should shew an amount of perturbation not found

elsewhere in the Pentateuch, the answer is simple.

It is precisely these chapters which contain an unusual amount of

repetition, peculiar technical terms, and complicated descriptions, and

that in matters which the translators might consider of no great interest

to those for whom the translation was being made.

The inference, then, that the translators of cc. xxxv-xl had before

them a text differing from the present Hebrew rests only on a portion

of the evidence. It is based upon the disorder of one particular set of

chapters: it disregards the evidence of all the other variations in both

Groups, and the special evidence of the three passages which constitute

    ¹ Can this have had reference to some Egyptian practice or prejudice?

470     THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

the chief difference between the Greek and the Hebrew in the

disordered chapters.

The evidence taken as a whole rather points to the conclusion that

the variations in both Groups are due to the translators; and that in

cc. xxxvi-xxxix the Hebrew has preserved the true order, from which

the Greek has been derived by a process of re-arrangement.

(C) LATER ADDITIONS TO THE HEBREW TEXT.

The two inferences already considered (that the translators of

Group II were not the translators of Group I; and that their text

differed from the Massoretic) are only of any real importance in so far

as they would serve to confirm a third and graver inference, viz. that the

Massoretic text contains a large amount of matter which does not

belong to the original book but was added subsequently.

It is held that there are strong reasons for considering that cc. xxx,

xxxi are a later addition to Group I; and that the whole of Group II is.

a still later addition (see Driver ‘Exodus’ pp. 328 and 378).

I. Cc. xxx, xxxi an 'Appendix' to Group I.

The reasons given for believing that these chapters are a later

addition to the Instructions relate to two matters; the Altar of Incense,

and the anointing of priests. The latter subject will be considered first.

(a) The anointing of the priests.

It is held that originally only the High Priest was anointed because

(1) the anointing is confined to Aaron in Exod. xxix 7 (and his

successors, v. 29) and in Lev. viii 12; (2) in various passages the High

Priest is called the anointed Priest, which would be no distinction if all

the priests were anointed. Therefore it is held that Exod. xxx 30 and

other passages which extend the anointing to Aaron's sons must belong

to a later period (see Driver `Exodus' pp. 329 and 337).

Exod. xxix 7 directs that Aaron is to be anointed by the pouring of

the anointing oil on his head, and in the verses that follow nothing

is said about anointing his sons: Lev. viii 12 records that Aaron was

so anointed, and v. 13 does not mention any anointing of his sons. In

neither passage is there any express exclusion of the sons: it is not said

that only Aaron was anointed. That the sons were not anointed is at

best only an inference from the silence of these passages.

On the other hand, besides the direction of xxx 30, an earlier passage

(xxviii 41) includes the sons the anointing, and xl 15 is very explicit;

'thou shalt bring his sons . and thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst

anoint their father . and their anointing shall be to them for an ever-

lasting priesthood'. Also the anointing of the sons as well as of Aaron

is mentioned in Lev. vii 35, 36, and allusions to it are found in

Lev. x 7, Num. iii 3.

NOTES AND STUDIES                        471

It comes to this, then, that because two passages speak of Aaron

being anointed without mentioning his sons, the express testimony of

six passages to the anointing of the sons is to be discredited as

belonging to later interpolations.

This is surely an unusual way of estimating evidence. If two

witnesses testify that a famous personage was knighted without saying

anything at all about others, while six witnesses testify that others less

famous received that honour at the same time, should we be justified

in concluding that only one person was knighted, and that the others

were only included by an after-invention? One would think that, by

the ordinary rules of evidence, the positive statement of the six would

far outweigh the merely negative silence of the two.

Is it not possible, and even in accordance with Hebrew tradition,

that there was some anointing of the sons (whether the sprinkling with

blood and oil specified in Exod. xxix 21, Lev. viii 30, or not) which was

not the solemn anointing by pouring the sacred oil on the head (cf. Ps.

cxxxiii 2)? If there was this special anointing of the High Priest, and

only a subsidiary anointing of the sons, this would at once account for

the latter not being mentioned in Exod. xxix 7, Lev. viii 12 (both

referring to the pouring on the head), and also for the High Priest being

styled ‘the anointed priest’ par excellence.

Whereas, on the later addition theory, we should be required to

believe in an interpolator who has been careful to include the sons

in Exod. xxviii 41, but failed to mention them in xxix 8, ten verses later ;

and in the same way has included them in Lev. vii 35, 36, and left

viii 13 (fifteen verses further on) without them. He has also inserted

precise directions in Exod. xxx 30, x1 15, and allusions in Lev. x 7,

Num. iii 3, but left the mentions of ‘the anointed priest' untouched.

He must have been very careless.

The one view is simple and supported by the weight of evidence

the other involves some considerable improbability. It can hardly be

said that this argument for the late origin of cc. xxx, xxxi is very

convincing.

(b) The Altar of Incense.

The arguments for considering the golden Altar of Incense a later

addition, are drawn from (i) the position of the Instruction for making

it; (ii) the annual rite of atonement; (iii) the Altar of Burnt Offering

called ‘the’ altar; (iv) the use of censers (see Driver ‘Exodus’ p. 328).

(i) The position of the Instruction.

The Altar of Incense has long been regarded as almost of supreme

importance, next indeed to the Ark of the Covenant, and according

to Exod. xxx 6 was to be set in the Holy Place with the Table of

Shewbread and the golden Candlestick. Yet the Instruction for making

472     THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

it is not found in c. xxv with the Instructions for making the Table and

Candlestick: it is only first mentioned in xxx 1-10, ‘when the directions

respecting the Tabernacle seem to be complete, and brought to a solemn

close by the promise in xxix 43-46 that Jehovah will take up His abode

in the sanctuary so constructed’: and is not even mentioned in xxvi 34,

35 ‘where the position of the vessels in the Tabernacle is defined'

(Driver ‘Exodus’ p. 328).

No doubt, if these chapters were (as is alleged) an ‘ideal’ scheme

drawn up by a systematic writer ‘as the embodiment of certain spiritual

ideas' (Driver ‘Exodus’ p. 428), it would be very surprising to find this

Altar so far removed from the other furniture of the Holy Place. But

if these chapters are, as they profess to be, Divine Instructions, then,

except so far as they may guide us, we are not qualified to judge what

reasons may have determined this particular order, or what was the

precise importance of this Altar in the Divine scheme. Now, however

important the Altar may have come to be considered in after ages, in

these Instructions it appears to be treated rather as an accessory to the

golden Candlestick, the burning of incense being directly associated

with the preparation and lighting of the lamps (xxx 7, 8).

This view is the more probable because there is a similar instance in

this same chapter. The Instruction for making the Bronze Laver is

found here, and not along with the Instruction for making the Altar of

Burnt Offering in c. xxvii. As regards the Court, there can be no

question that the Altar was the main feature, and the Laver subordinate.

It is therefore not impossible that, as regards the Holy Place, the

Candlestick and Table were the matters of primary importance, and the

Altar of Incense only secondary.

Further, between the Incense Altar and the Laver comes the

Instruction that every man was to give a half shekel as ‘a ransom for

his soul’. Why is it placed here? The ransom money was to be

applied to ‘the service of the tent of meeting’ (xxx 16), and in xxxv 24,

xxxvi I ‘the service' undoubtedly refers to the construction of the

Tabernacle. The obvious conclusion is that the ransom money pro-

vided the silver which was needed, and this is distinctly stated in the

Account of Metals (xxxviii 24-31) where this provision of silver (placed

between the freewill offerings of gold and bronze) is recorded to have

been used for the casting of sockets, hooks, and the like. The silver,

then, was for the construction and ornamentation of subordinate

parts.

If, then, the Altar of Incense was of secondary importance, the whole

of c. xxx is occupied with accessories; and the placing of the Ransom

money between the Golden Altar and the Bronze Laver (preserving the

order ‘gold, silver, bronze’ of xxv 3, xxxv 5) indicates that the chapter

NOTES AND STUDIES                        473

is a deliberate and orderly arrangement, and not a miscellaneous collec-

tion of after-thoughts.

But does not all this follow after the ‘solemn close’ of xxix 43-46?

and does not that shew that these were no part of the original Instruc-

tions?

Most of the Instructions in cc. xxv-xxxi end with a passage defining

the position or use of the articles which were to be made. c. xxviii

gives the instructions for making the priestly vestments: c. xxix con-

tinues with the ceremonies to be observed at the investiture of the

priests, and the sacrifices to be then offered, leading on naturally to

the daily sacrifices (vv. 38-42). The chapter, then, is something of

a digression from the making of the vestments to the consecration and

duties of the priests who were to wear them; and it is this digression,

not ‘the directions respecting the Tabernacle’, which is brought to

a close by the promise of vv. 43-46.

xxvi 34, 35 defines the position of the Mercy-seat, Candlestick, and

Table, for the making of which directions had already been given: it

could hardy include the position of that which had not yet been ordered

to be made.

(ii) The annual rite of atonement.

In xxx 10 an ‘annual rite of atonement' is prescribed to be performed

upon the Altar of Incense: there is no notice of this in Lev. xvi, ‘where

the ceremonial of the day of atonement is described in detail’; and in

that chapter ‘only one altar, the altar of Burnt-offering’ is mentioned

(Driver ‘Exodus’ p. 328).

Lev. xvi 12-16a describes in full detail what Aaron was to do ‘within

the veil', i. e. in the Holy of Holies: v. 16b adds ‘and so shall he do for

the tent of meeting', i. e. the Holy Place, but here no details are given.

We have no right to assume that this did not include the rite prescribed

in Exod. xxx  10.

‘The altar' in vv. 18-20 is outside the Tent and he shall go out

unto the altar', v. 18), and there, of course, there was but the one altar.

vv. 20 and 33 distinctly mark three stages in the ceremonies: (i) the

holy place; (2) the tent of meeting; (3) the altar.

(iii) ‘The’ Altar.

In a number of passages (e. g. Exod. xxvii-xxix; Lev. 1-iii, v-vi, viii,

ix, xvi) ‘the altar of Burnt-offering is referred to as “the altar”, implying

apparently that there was no other’ (Driver ‘Exodus’ p. 328).

Exod. xxvii-xxix comes before the Instruction to make the Altar of

Incense, so there was only one altar to refer to: in Lev. 1-iii, v-ix the

connexion with sacrifice is so close that only the sacrificial altar could

be meant: in Lev. xvi the altar is outside: but in Lev. iv ‘the altar of

sweet incense' is distinguished from ‘the altar of burnt offering’ (vv. 7,

474     THE, JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

10, 18, 25, 30, 34). Where there is no possibility of mistake, the Bronze

Altar is simply styled `the altar' : elsewhere it is distinguished.

More than that, there were reasons for styling the sacrificial Altar pre-

eminently ‘the altar’: (i) the Hebrew word for ‘altar’ is derived from

the root meaning to kill or slaughter, and therefore intimately connected

with animal sacrifice; (2) there is reason for thinking the Incense Altar

subordinate, while the Altar of Sacrifice was of primary importance;

(3) the Incense Altar was secluded from view and small (cubits 1 x 1 x 2);

the Bronze Altar was conspicuous in the open court and of great size

(cubits 5 x 5 x 3, more than thirty-five times as large).

The use of the term ‘the altar’, therefore, no more implies that

‘there was no other' than the mention of ‘the chair’ at a public meeting

implies the absence of all other chairs. In a description of St Peter's at

Rome, ‘the altar’ would be readily understood to mean the High Altar

without any suggestion that there are no others.

(iv) The use of ‘censers'.

Lev. x i, xvi 12, Num. xvi 6, 7 mention `incense being offered on

pans or censers' (Driver ‘Exodus’ p. 328) : hence it is inferred that

incense was originally offered in this way, and the incense altar was

a later developement.

Lev. x has to do with the irregular offering of Nadab and Abihu

Lev. xvi directs the High Priest to take the censer into the Holy of

Holies, where there was no altar: Num. xvi deals with the test of the

claim of Korah and his company which took place 'at the door of the

tent of meeting' (v. 18).

All of these are clearly exceptional, and therefore no possible proof

that there was not an Altar in the Holy Place for the ordinary daily

burning of incense.

None of the four reasons for considering the Altar of Incense a later

innovation is really convincing when closely examined, and the most

plausible (No. i, the position of the Instruction) may fairly be taken to

tell the other way.

We are asked to believe that originally there was no mention of any

Altar of Incense, and that the Instruction to make one (Exod. xxx 1-10)

was added by some one at a later time. Does it not stand to reason

that such an one, if he had any sense, would be careful to put his

insertion in the most appropriate place? Why should he put it ‘after

the directions respecting the Tabernacle seem to be complete and brought

to a solemn close’? It would have been just as easy for him to insert

it in c. xxv with the directions for the Table and the Candlestick.

It is possible (as shewn above) to see a reason for this Altar occupy-

ing a subordinate position in the original Instructions: it is not possible

NOTES AND STUDIES                                  475

to imagine any reason for an interpolator inserting this direction any-

where but in the obviously natural place.

Then, again, there are the other contents of the two chapters, xxx, xxxi,

to be taken into consideration.

The Instructions about the Altar of Incense and the anointing of

priests only occupy 11 verses (xxx 1-10, 30) out of 56. What of the

other 45? Were these also part of the later addition?

Dr Driver seems to think so for he marks both chapters P₂, and sum-

marily dismisses four-fifths of the contents with the remark (p. 329),

‘The other subjects treated in chs. xxx-xxxi are such as would naturally

find place in an Appendix'.

What are these other subjects? (1) ‘The ransom of souls at a census’;

(2) the construction of the Laver; (3) the composition and use of the

Anointing Oil; (4) the composition of the Incense; (5) the nomination

of Bezaleel and Oholiab; (6) the summary of things to be made; (7)

injunction to keep the Sabbath.

Was there really nothing of all this in the original Instructions? Was

the Laver also an afterthought? The Anointing Oil is referred to in

xxix 7, 21: was there no direction about this originally? Incense was

‘offered on pans or censers'; was there no hint as to its composition?

Did the original account make no mention of the principal workers, and

contain no summary of the things to be made?

It is difficult to believe that all these ‘other subjects’ were absent

from the original: it is equally difficult to guess why, if they were absent,

an interpolator should have thought it necessary to insert some of them.

He might be tempted to bring in an altar for burning the incense, and

a laver for the priests' washing mentioned in xxix 4; but why should he

invent an imaginary census tax? or imaginary workers? or add a seem-

ingly irrelevant injunction to keep the Sabbath? Yet if there was in

the original document an ‘Appendix’ containing some of these things,

the insertion of the Altar of Incense among these instead of in the

earlier instructions becomes more unaccountable than ever.

The Septuagint furnishes some further evidence.

It is remarkable that in Group II (the carrying out of the Instructions)

the passage which narrates the making of the Altar of Incense, xxxvii

25-28, and the mentions of it in xxxv 15, xxxix 8 are not found in the

Greek. So also the notices of the Laver in xxxv 16, xxxix 39, xl 7, 11,

30 are not represented.

At first sight this looks like a confirmation of the view that both

Altar and Laver were later additions which had not yet found their way

into the text used by the translators of xxxv-xl.

But then, while the Altar is not mentioned anywhere in cc. xxxv-xxxix,

476     THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

in c. xl there are two passages (vv. 5, 6, and 26-28) which recognize

both this Altar and the distinctive title of the Altar of sacrifice. Was

this one chapter translated at a different time from the preceding five,

and after the additions of cc. xxx, xxxi had been introduced into the

Hebrew?

Again, while the Greek of c. xl has no mention of the Laver, xxxviii 8,

which narrates the making of the Laver, is not only found in the cor-

responding Greek, but is there actually emphasized by the addition

(borrowed from xl 31) about the washing. Are we to suppose that

the translators of c. xxxvii had not the passage about the Altar but had

the passage about the Laver in c. xxxviii, while the translators of c. xl

knew about the Altar, but not about the Laver? If not, then the

absence of the Altar from some parts, and of the Laver from others,

can only be instances of omission on the part of the translators.

Then, too, all the other subjects in xxx, xxxi--the Census money,

Anointing Oil, Incense, chosen workers, summary of things to be made,

injunction to keep the Sabbath--are all fully recognized in the Greek

of xxxv-xl. If, then, cc. xxx, xxxi are (as marked by Dr Driver) an

integral whole, the translators of Group II must have had the whole

of these chapters (including the Incense Altar and the Laver) before

them, in which case the absence of the Altar section from the Greek

is a marked instance of omission.

Yet, as the Altar of Incense is recognized in c. xl, the translators of

Group II could hardly have had any reason for deliberately omitting the

section about its being made. Now, just where this section occurs in

the Hebrew, the Greek has the section about Metal-work (see the

Comparative Table, p. 466) made up of miscellaneous fragments: and

this section is almost exactly the length of the Greek of xxx 1-5, which

corresponds to the Hebrew of xxxvii 25-28, which does not appear in

the Greek. Can it be that for some reason, such as the mutilation of

a page, the text used by the translators was here defective, and that

they therefore filled up the gap by stringing together the fragments

about the metal-work from other parts?

At any rate, the LXX version of cc. xxxv-xl does not confirm the

theory that cc. xxx, xxxi form a later ‘Appendix’ to the original

Instructions. That theory is only founded on a small part of the

chapters in question; the reasons drawn , from that small part are far

from strong; and the theory involves some serious improbabilities as to

the action of the supposed interpolator.

II. Group II later than cc. xx, xxxi.

The theory that cc. xxxv-xl are later than xxx, xxxi depends on the

difference in order between the two Groups of chapters, the ‘most

NOTES AND STUDIES                                  477

noticeable variation' being the difference in the position of the Altar

of Incense and the Bronze Laver, which in Group I are relegated to

the ‘Appendix’, and in Group II are ‘introduced in accordance

with the place' which ‘they would naturally hold’ (Driver ‘Exodus’

p. 378).

Of course on any theory cc. xxxv-xl were written after cc. xxv-xxxi,

and this rearrangement might have been made even if both Groups

were due to the same author.

The two Groups, however, differ in other respects besides the order.

Group II is by no means the replica, with trifling changes, of Group I

which it is sometimes represented to be, though both Dr Driver

('Exodus' p. 376) and Dr McNeile (`Exodus' p. 223) characterize

it as practically a verbatim repetition.

But cc. xxxv-xxxix are the record of the work of construction, and

therefore verses not enjoining constructive work (e. g. xxv 8, 9; 15, 16;

22; 37b; 40; xxvi 9b; 12, 13; 30; &c.) are not included in them. So

too directions as to the position or use of the furniture or hangings

(e. g. xxv 21; xxvi 33-35 ; xxx 19-21) are transferred to xl 17-33, the

setting up of the Tabernacle; and the whole of c. xxix (the Investiture

of the Priests) is found in Leviticus, not in this Group.

The omissions in these chapters are not casual but deliberate, to suit

the purpose of the account.

In like manner, in Group II there are considerable passages (xxxv

20-29, the offerings that were made; xxxvi 2-7, the delivery of the

materials to the workmen; xxxix 33-43, the delivery of the finished

work to Moses) narrating what was actually done, which therefore could

by no possibility be included in the Instructions.

Lesser instances also are not without significance.

The Instruction about the Oil for the Light (xxvii 20, 21), and that

about the Urim and Thummim (xxviii 30), do not appear in Group II.

These do not seem to have required any making, and therefore are not

included in the work done.

In the account of making the Ephod xxxix 3 has the addition, ‘they

did beat the gold into thin plates, and cut it into wires’: xxxix 28, 29 has

some added details about the priestly robes (the breeches ‘of fine twined

linen’, and the girdle ‘of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and

scarlet’). These are explanations of how the Instructions were actually

carried out.

Neither omissions nor additions are accidental or unmeaning: they

shew purpose, and are required by the essential character of the two

Groups.

What then of the difference in order? Does that shew any traces of

plan or purpose?

478     THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

The differences (by no means confined to the position of the Incense

Altar and Laver) will again be best seen in a Comparative Table.

             Group I.                                   Group II.

xxv.    see below, (I).                   xxxv. Observance of Sabbath.

          Materials to be offered.               Materials to be offered.

          see below, (f).                             Summary of things to be

                                                                made.

          -----                                            The offerings and offerers.

          see below, (e)                             The workers.

          -----                                            xxxvi. Delivery of materials to

                                                                      workers.

                                                            Superabundance of offerings.

Furniture:      Ark.                       xxxvii. Furniture: Ark.

                    Mercy-seat.                                Mercy-seat.

                    Table.                                         Table.

                    Candlestick.                                Candlestick.

xxvi. Structure:  Curtains.                      Structure : Curtains.

                    Framework.                                Framework.

                    Veil.                                           Veil.

                    Screen.                                       Screen.

see below, (a).                            Altar of Incense.

see below, (d).                            Anointing Oil and Incense.

xxvii. Court: Bronze Altar.                    xxxviii. Court:  Bronze Altar.

                    see below, (c).                            Laver.

                    Hangings, &c.                            Hangings, &c.

          ------                                           Summary.    

          ------                                           Account of Metals: gold.

see below, (b).                                                          silver.

                                                                                          bronze.

Oil for Light.                                        -------

xxviii. Vestments: Ephod.           xxxix. Vestments: Ephod.

Breastplate.                                Breastplate.

Urim and Thummim.                   -------

Robe of Ephod.                           Robe of Ephod.

Gold Plate.                                 Gold Plate.

Other robes.                                Other robes.

xxix. Investiture.                                             -----

                NOTES AND STUDIES                                  479

                    Group I.                                      Group II.

xxx.    (a) Altar of Incense.                   

          (b) Census money.           

          (c) Laver.               

          (d) Anointing Oil and Incense.               see above    

xxxi.   (e) Workers.          

          ( f ) Summary of things to be made.                

          (g) Observance of Sabbath.                   

-----                                            Delivery of articles completed.

Here it will be noticed that, at the commencement of the work, the

Furniture and Structure sections have changed places in Group II.

Why?

The Instructions begin at once with the Ark (the most sacred of all),

the Table, and the Candlestick, the Structure that was to enshrine them

coming after: in the work, the external Structure is first put in hand,

and the more elaborate Furniture after. This is just what might be

expected; the one arrangement is in order of importance, the other

according to the order in which the work would naturally be under-

taken.

So in the Vestments section, the Instructions place the Gold Plate

before the other robes because of its importance: in the work, the other

robes follow the Robe of the Ephod, and the Gold Plate, differing in

material and workmanship, follows.

Once more the different character of the two Groups is traceable.

Next, it is to be observed that not only the Altar of Incense and the

Laver but all the contents of cc. xxx, xxxi are altogether differently

placed in Group II. The most remarkable variation of all is that the

Instructions of c. xxxi which end Group I are found at the beginning of

Group II, and in reverse order:--

End of Group I                  Workers : things to be made: Sabbath.

Beginning of Group II       Sabbath : things to be made: Workers.

Why is the injunction to keep the Sabbath inserted at all?

Surely to preclude the possibility of the people supposing that the

sanctity and urgency of the work might supersede the law of the Sabbath

rest. Not even for so sacred a work might that be broken.

Consider then the order of the Instructions.

A list of the materials needed naturally stands first. Next comes the

detailed description of the Sanctuary to be erected, beginning with its

most sacred part, the Ark of the Covenant and its Mercy-seat. Then

follow the Table and Candlestick of the Holy Place, and then the

480               THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

Curtains, Framework, Veil and Screen which were to enshrine all these

in an awe-inspiring seclusion. After these, the great Altar of the open

Court, and the Hangings, pillars, and Screen of the enclosure to guard it.

Then the holy Robes in which the priests might enter to minister, and

the ceremonies by which they were set apart for their sacred office.

After these again come the accessories: the secondary Altar of the Holy

Place; the provision of silver; the Laver for purifying ablutions before

ministering; the Consecrating Oil, and the Incense.

When the directions for the work to be performed are complete, then

the designation of the chief workers, and a short summary of the work

they were to do, follow most suitably. Is it not obvious that the

command to observe the sacred days of rest makes a most fitting,

almost inevitable, conclusion to all that has gone before?

When the whole group of chapters (xxv-xxxi) is regarded as contain-

ing the Divine Instructions, an admirable order and unity can be seen

to run through them. Could that have been produced by two sets of

writers, working independently, and separated by a considerable interval

of time?