motive, but it is at the expense of the redactor's intelligence. The redactor is supposed to have inserted the Elohistic directions concerning the tabernacle before this Jehovistic section (xxxii.-xxxiv.) for the reason that in the latter the Tent of Meeting is mentioned, and it is mentioned in the account of what happened immediately after Moses' descent from the mount, where the directions were given. Therefore, it is further assumed that the actual erection of the tabernacle is put after this Jehovistic narrative for the reason that immediately after Moses' descent there had been no time for the work of building. In other words, because in this Jehovistic section the tabernacle is spoken of as an existent fact, therefore the redactor puts the Elohistic account of the command to build it before this mention, but puts the Elohistic account of the actual building of it after the Jehovistic account which speaks of it as already built! This, then, is the solution of the first difficuty-a solution which is attained by assuming the fictitiousness of one of the narratives, the inconsistency of the fictitious narrative with the older historical one, the agency of a redactor in putting the two together as one whole, and the egregious stupidity of the redactor in that he, in doing his best to weave the narratives together, gives us to understand that the tabernacle was not built until after it had been used! As to the second difficulty, this explanation, like all the others, simply leaves it untouched.

But perhaps enough has been said in setting forth the difficulties under which the ordinary theories labor. Yet it is important to present these clearly, in order the better to justify a new attempt. pecially would I insist on the second of the two difficulties as one challenging more attention than it has yet received. As already observed, ver. 12 is immediately connected with vers. 1-6. It is manifestly a continuation of the narrative respecting Jehovah's communication with Moses. That these five verses (7-11) cannot (as Keil seems to hold) describe what happened in the course of this communication is so obvious that it hardly needs demonstration. The simple fact that these verses (if historical at all) manifestly narrate something that was customary, is the conclusive refutation of any such notion. This being so, the only refuge, on the ordinary theories, is to assume that these verses are misplaced. But how or why these verses should ever have become placed here, is more than any one has ever discovered. No parallel to such a misplacement can anywhere be found, unless perhaps the account of the adulteress in John viii. is such an instance. But that passage, whatever may be true respecting its authenticity, is without the support of good manuscript authority in this place, whereas the oldest versions and MSS. fail to

cast any suspicion on the passage in Exodus. The presumption is that the passage is in the right place. Not until it is proved impossible to justify its present position, should we resort to the hypothesis that it belongs elsewhere.

Let us now see if there is not a solution which meets both of these difficulties, and not merely one; and a solution which does not, like the most of those considered, increase the embarrassment more than it relieves it. Such a solution, as I conceive, is suggested by the remarkable fact that the verbs in this section are Future verbs throughout, or, what is the same thing, Perfects with the Vav Consecutive. This fact, not at all noticed by most commentators, is casually alluded to by some as an instance of the Future used to denote a customary past action. The idea that the verbs may be actual Futures seems not to have occurred to any of them. And yet the presumption is greatly in favor of so translating them. The Imperfect, in historical narration, is always to be rendered by the Future, unless there is evidence to the contrary. In the present case what is the evidence to the contrary? Whatever that evidence may be, is it strong enough to compel us to translate the passage in such a way as to involve us in the serious perplexities which have been shown to beset the ordinary translation? Are not these grave enough to warrant us in translating the passage in the simplest and grammatically most natural way, unless we are thus landed in still greater difficulties? Certain it is that by rendering these verbs as Futures we remove at one stroke the two difficulties which have been considered. By so understanding them we simply make these verses, not a statement of what was done with an existing tabernacle, but a divine direction concerning what should be done with the future tabernacle. They are made, in short, to be the continuation of the language of Jehovah contained in ver. 5. Let us now substantiate this view more particularly.

A word first as to the grammatical question. It is of course not to be denied that the Imperfect is often used with reference to past actions. But in prose such instances are rare, and are, so far as I know, nowhere else kept up through so long a section as this; and where they are so used, the reference to repeated or habitual actions is clear. In the present case, it is true, many of the verbs might be understood as describing a customary action; but not all, and notably not the first three, can easily be so understood. It would be unnatural to translate, "And Moses used to take the tent, and used to pitch it without the camp, and used to call it the tent of meeting." These verbs apparently denote single actions; and what reason could

the writer have had for using the Future tense? It is reasonable to insist strongly on this fact, and to claim that the original presumption in favor of the Future rendering is redoubled in force by the absence of any assignable reason for using the Future tense at the opening of this section, unless the writer meant the verbs to describe something really future.

We

In addition to the grammatical consideration, now, we find that this construction relieves us of the whole difficulty arising from the apparent anachronism. The passage now does not imply that the tabernacle is already constructed, but it is only a direction what to do with it when it shall be constructed. We are under no necessity, therefore, of inventing a sanctuary, antecedent to the real tabernacle, and yet bearing the same name; or of supposing that Moses had to be turned out of house and home, in order to provide a place for religious worship. The Tent of Meeting is the same here as in the preceding chapters-in both cases something that is yet to be. are also under no necessity of accounting for contradictions by assuming plurality and inconsistency in the authorship of the different narratives. If it be said that there are other marks of diverse authorship besides the anachronism and the apparent misplacement, it is enough to reply that the interpretation which I propose leaves room for as many authors as any one chooses to assume; only it does not require us to find so much contradiction between the different authors as has been heretofore found. If it is held that, in maintaining the theory of plurality of authorship, it is important to make the disagreements as great as possible, instead of seeking, so far as can be done reasonably, to reconcile them, then that may be regarded as an objection to the proposed interpretation. But I am not aware, though this seems to be the principle practically followed by many critics, that it has yet become an established canon of hermeneutics.

The presumption is that the tent called is the same thing here as in the preceding chapters. On any theory but the one now propounded, these five verses appear to be entirely inexplicable. But regarded as a direction concerning what should be done, they are perfectly appropriate and intelligible where they stand. Moses had been told to say unto the people that Jehovah would not go up in the midst of them. They were commanded to put off their ornaments, that Jehovah might know what he would do unto them. In ver. 6 we are parenthetically told that the command was complied with; and then, in vers. 7-11, we are further told what Jehovah did decide to

do with them. Having declared that he could not go up in the midst of the people, he determines to indicate this symbolically by requiring that the Tent of Meeting, which Moses has received orders to have constructed, and which was to serve as the place of Jehovah's manifestation of himself, should be pitched, not in the midst of the camp, but far off, outside of it. Jehovah was to be distant from the people; they were to be reminded of their sin by the location of the tabernacle. These verses, instead of being an unaccountable interruption of the context, are thus in perfect keeping with it.

Not only are these two most pressing difficulties removed by this interpretation, but also the apparent discrepancies which have been mentioned between this account of the tabernacle and the other accounts of it are relieved, if not entirely done away. Thus, what is said about Joshua's remaining in the tabernacle creates a difficulty at the worst no greater when the verbs are rendered as Futures than when they are rendered as Preterites. In fact, the discrepancy is relieved. As now translated, these verses express a threat simply, and a threat which, as the following verses show, was not fulfilled. Moses' intercession (ver. 12-16) secures from Jehovah the promise (ver. 17), “I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken, for thou hast found grace in my sight." It might be said, then, that everything in this account of the tabernacle which appears to conflict with the other descriptions of its use, may be explained as a part of a threat never carried out, so that the discrepancy falls of itself. Still, as may be reasonably urged, the discrepancy respecting Joshua has been unduly magnified. The passages which forbid any but the priests to come nigh the tabernacle have reference, as Num. xvi. 40 clearly intimates, to those who come for the purpose of exercising sacerdotal functions. Moses, at all events, though not a son of Aaron, could, according to the Elohist, enter the tabernacle and there commune with Jehovah (Ex. xxv. 22, xxix. 42; xxx. 6, 36); and he is associated with Aaron and the priests in the arrangement of the encampment with reference to the tabernacle (Num. iii. 38). Now, Aaron having become himself implicated in the people's sin, it may be regarded as a part of the penalty imposed, that he is not to enter the tabernacle. That Joshua, as Moses' confidential attendant, should be with him in the tabernacle, is no stranger than that he should accompany him to the mount when he was to commune with Jehovah (Ex. xxiv. 13, xxxii. 17).

A similar remark applies to the discrepancy respecting the use made of the tabernacle. In Ex. xxxiii. 7-11 it appears to be only an oracle; nothing is said about priests or sacrifices. If Aaron, as an

accomplice in the sin of the people, was to suffer punishment with them, this would explain the absence of all mention of him. And the revocation of the threat removes all the discrepancy in any case; for even the Elohistic narrative speaks of the tabernacle as a place where God was to meet with Moses (Ex. xxv. 22) and with the people (xxix. 43).

In like manner, the difference relative to the location of the tabernacle disappears, when it is considered that the command to put it outside of the camp symbolizes Jehovah's refusal to go up in the midst of the people. If, as is the fact, this refusal was revoked, then that the tabernacle should afterwards be spoken of as in the midst of the camp is just what is to be expected. *

It thus appears that all the difficulties which have beset the passage under consideration are either wholly removed or greatly lessened, while none of them are increased by the proposed translation. It would seem, then, that an interpretation so simple as this, one favored by grammatical idiom, and one that solves the puzzles that are created by the ordinary translation, ought to be adopted unless there are very weighty objections to it. What, then, can be said against it?

1. It may be said that ver. 6 being a historical statement, the presumption is that the language of Jehovah ends with ver. 5.—It is sufficient to reply that, though there may be such a presumption, there are yet so many instances of similar parenthetical construction, that the objection is anything but decisive. Thus, in Ex. iv. 4, 5, we read, "And the Lord said unto Moses, Put forth thy hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand: that they may believe that the Lord God of their fathers. . . . hath appeared unto thee." A precisely simi

*It may be objected to this that the discrepancy as to the location of the tabernacle is not confined to the passage before us, but recurs in Num. xi. 24-30, in the narrative concerning Eldad and Medad, where it is said of them (ver. 26) that they "remained in the camp" and "went not out unto the tabernacle." Also in Num. xii. 4 Moses, Aaron, and Miriam are commanded to "come out unto the tabernacle of the congregation." These passages, it must be admitted, make the impression that the tabernacle was outside of the camp. But these expressions might be used of those who went out of their tents to the tabernacle, even though the tabernacle was in the centre of the encampment, especially if it was separated by a considerable distance from the surrounding tents. This is confirmed by the fact that in xi. 24 it is said of Moses that he "went out, and told the people the words of the Lord," where, whether the going out was from the tabernacle, where Moses had been receiving the divine communications, (Keil), or from his own tent (Knobel), it certainly does not mean that he went out of the camp. In Ex. xxxiii. 7 the word is used; this is explicit; nothing of the sort is found in Numbers.

מהיץ