« ÎnapoiContinuați »
One other remark may be made. In speaking of eviorFós and similar words in "exclamatory doxologies" (see above, pp. 31-39), we must guard against a fallacy. “Exclamatory" as applied to sentences denotes a characteristic which exists in very different degrees in different cases; where one printer would use a mark of exclamation, another would often put a period. Because the placing of such a predicate as ejhoy, Fus first in the sentence gives or tends to give it an exclamatory character, we cannot straightway draw the inference that in all doxologies in which the verb is omitted suhorntós, if used, must have the first place. One may admit that in exclamatory doxologies worrtós always stands first, and deny that the doxology in Rom. ix. 5 is exclamatory. The elliptical word I suppose to be toti, as in most at least of the clauses immediately preceding.
The statement on p. 108 about the reading of the ancient versions in Gen. xxvi. 29 lacks precision. The versions made directly from the Hebrew, of course, do not come under consideration. Of those made from the Septuagint, the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Old Slavic (Cod. Ostrog.) support où elo7.; the Ethiopic, cukoy. cú; the Old Latin has perished; and the Coptic, as I am informed by Prof. T. 0. Paine, omits the last clause of the verse,
Examination of Exodus xxxij. 7-11.
BY PROF. C. M. MEAD, PH. D.
This passage has occasioned much perplexity and discussion. The difficulty is a very obvious one, when the passage is considered in connection with the context. In chh. xxiv.-xxxi. we have the account of Moses' being called up into the mount, and there receiving directions concerning the building of the tabernacle. In ch. xxxii. is narrated how the people, during Moses' long delay, had made them a golden calf, and how Moses, after administering reproof and chastisement, returned to Jehovah to intercede for the people. In ch. xxxiii. 1-3, Jehovah renews his promise that the people shall go to the land of Canaan, and says, “I will send an angel before thee and I will drive out the Canaanite," etc.
“for I will not go up in the midst of thee: for thou art a stiffnecked people; lest I consume thee in the way.” In consequence of this utterance, it is said (ver. 4) that "the people mourned, and no man did put on him his ornaments.” Then, in ver. 5, we have an apparent repetition of ver. 3, “And Jehovah said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked people; should I for one moment go up in the midst of thee, I should consume thee: and now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what I will do with thee." This command to put off the ornaments, coming after the statement that the people did not put them on, seems to be out of place. The A. V, accordingly renders, “For the Lord had said unto Moses," etc. We are not warranted in so translating, though often the Vav Consecutive introduces a verb which is not consecutive to the foregoing in a strictly chronological sense. But inasmuch as ver. 5 is a repetition and enlargement of ver. 3, and is followed (ver. 6) by the statement, "And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments from Mt. Horeb on,” we are compelled to hold that vers. 5 and 6 are a substantial repetition of the foregoing, with the addition that the laying off of the ornaments was in direct consequence of a divine command, even though we assume, with some, that we have here two distinct narratives loosely put together. But, at the worst, no serious difficulty need be found here. It is when we come to the following five verses that the real puzzle is presented. After this statement about Jehovah's threat and the people's humiliation, as indicated by their not wearing their ornaments from this time on, we.read (according to the usual rendering), “And Moses took the tent, and pitched it without the camp, and called it the Tent of Meeting. And it came to pass, when Moses went out unto the tent, that all the people rose up and stood, every man at his tent door, and looked after Moses until he was gone into the tent. And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tent, the pillar of cloud descended, and stood at the door of the tent; and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man at his tent door. And Jehovah spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant, Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tent."
The difficulties presented by this passage are two: (1) It speaks of the Tent of Meeting (A. V., "tabernacle of the congregation") as of a structure already erected, whereas, according to the rest of the book, it was as yet only projected, but not built; (2) the passage interrupts the narrative of ch. xxxiii. itself; for ver. 12 seqq. is a direct continuation of the communication between Jehovah and Moses; and vers. 7-11 have (as usually understood) no visible connection with it.
The first of these difficulties those who hold to the unity of authorship, or at least consistency of authorship, have attempted to solve in two ways: (a) Some have thought that the tent here spoken of was Moses' own tent, which he now set apart provisionally for sacred purposes until the permanent structure should be completed. But it is hard to see why, if Moses' private tent was intended, it should not have been called “his tent" instead of “the tent.” Moreover, the following verses represent Moses as being only occasionally in this tent, i. e. only for the purpose of special communication with Jehovah. Where was he to eat and sleep? What was to be his ordinary dwelling. place? This difficulty is evaded, not met, when Keil translates "a tent," and says that it was a tent of Moses which, on account of the divine revelations made in it, became a provisional tabernacle. If the meaning is that it was one of Moses' tents, then, to say nothing of the fact that it is a pure assumption to suppose that he had several tents of his own, the use of the definite article is unaccountable. If he had but one tent, the definite article would be less objectionable, though even then very strange; but if he had several, and this was only one, such a construction is quite inadmissible.
() The other explanation is that the tent here mentioned was a sanctuary which from the first had been used as a central place of worship, and is therefore familiarly called “the tent.” The obvious objection to this is, that there is no previous reference to any such structure, and it seems singular that in the first place where it is mentioned it should be called simply “the tent.” Moreover, the paragraph before us produces the impression that this was the beginning of the religious use made of this tent. It was now taken and pitched outside of the camp, and called the tent of meeting. It may, indeed, be urged that it is intrinsically probable that there had been some sanctuary from the first; but this narrative can be made to refer to such a sanctuary only by a very strained exegesis.
But these interpretations, while they, if otherwise admissible, remove the first difficulty—the absurdity of telling what was done with a building not yet erected—do not at all relieve the second one, the interruption of the account of Moses' conversation with Jehovah. When Moses says (ver. 12), “See, thou sayest unto me, Bring up this people; and thou hast not let me know whom thou wilt send with me," there is a manifest and direct reference to Jehovah's promise (ver. 2) that "an angel" should go before them. Moses is grieved because Jehovah himself refuses to go with them, and only sends an unknown angel; and he intercedes for a modification of the divine sentence. Now, in the midst of this negotiation is inserted the account of what Moses did with this unknown tent. No one can reasonably suppose that it describes what happened at this time; it is commonly understood to describe a customary use made of the tent; but there is obviously not only no reason for interjecting the account here, but the best of all reasons why it should not have been interjected, viz., that it has nothing to do with the things related in the context, and inexcusably interrupts the narrative. And these conjectures about what this tent was---conjectures at the best without any positive support, and such as would never have been thought of except for the anachronism respecting the real tabernacle-do not at all relieve us as regards the incongruity between this passage and the rest of the chapter. On any theory of the authorship of the Exodus, here is a very serious difficulty. Such a causeless breach of continuity is quite without parallel; and the least that can be said of the paragraph in question (as commonly understood) is that it is misplaced. And this brings us to a third theory respecting the difficulty in question.
(c) It is held that these five verses refer to the same tabernacle as the one elsewhere more largely described, but that they are by a different author, and are here inserted out of place. In confirmation of this view, we are pointed to discrepancies between this account of the tabernacle and the more detailed one, besides the one already noticed. Thus it is observed that, according to the passage before us, the only use made of the tabernacle was its occasional occupation by Moses in order to receive divine communications, whereas elsewhere little or nothing is said about Moses' being in it, the chief use of it being sacerdotal. Again, according to the section before us, Joshua was to remain permanently in the tent; whereas, according to the other accounts (Num. i. 51, iii. 10, 38, xviii. 7, 22), only Aaron and his descendants were allowed to enter it. Furthermore, the tabernacle is here said to be outside of the camp, whereas later (Num. ii. 17) the tabernacle is located in the midst of the camp. These discrepancies are thought to betray the hand of a different writer in the passage before us from that of the author of the other accounts.
This hypothesis, however, not only does nothing to relieve the first difficulty, the anachronism respecting the tabernacle, but leaves the second of the difficulties entirely untouched. The differences in the conception of the tabernacle might indeed be thus explained; but it is still left unexplained how the compiler of the book should ever have been led to insert this narrative in this place. That he might sometimes disregard or overlook discrepancies of a minor sort, in putting together writings of different authors, rather than dissect and distort the writings, is very conceivable. But there is everywhere manifest such a disposition to construct an orderly and on the whole self-consistent history, that so glaring an anachronism and contradiction as is here presented is without parallel and without excuse. He could not have been ignorant of the fact that the tabernacle which he now describes as in existence had, according to the other documents, not yet been built. Moreover, he must have seen that the present place is in every way a most inappropriate one for introducing it, inasmuch as it interrupts in an utterly impertinent and irrelevant manner the account of Moses' communication with Jehovah. When we consider how freely, on the ordinary theory of compilation, the writings of the various original authors were chopped up and patched together, sometimes so that one-half of a verse is assigned to one author and all of the context to another, there would seem to be no conceivable reason why the redactor should not here, when the occasion was so urgent, have either omitted this paragraph, or else have reserved it for a later time when it would have been in place.
It is therefore no material relief to assume that this whole section