How shall this silence be explained? With reference to certain Psalms, where these things omitted clearly came within the author's scope, it implies ignorance. But, taking the Psalter as a whole, what shall we say as to scope? If the Psalter were ever the official book of the temple worship, the essential forms of that worship would clearly be within the scope of the Psalter. The silence of the Psalter, then, entirely disproves the Traditional theory in this regard. The Psalter could never have been the hymn-book of the first or the second temple. If it could be proved to have been, then the conclusion would be irresistible that during the whole period of the temple worship the Levitical institutions were not observed. It is true that certain Psalms of the last half of the Psalter, and a very few of the earlier half, can be proved to have been used in the temple worship, but the order of their use was different from the order of the Psalter. Rather, the Psalter, in its present form, was arranged for the worship of the synagogue entirely apart from the worship of the temple; and its Psalms were selected from a large number of hymns and prayers of all ages, the most of which expressed individual experiences. They suit very well the synagogue worship, as afterwards the worship of the Christian Church, but they do not suit, save in a few instances, the worship of the temple; and its most solemn services have no Psalms that are appropriate to them.

But the silence of the Psalter proves still more than this. Granted, now, that the Psalms were not composed for temple worship, but expressed individual experience, it is still most singular that the Levitical institutions of the Priests' code find no expression. It proves that the historical religion of Israel, in the times when our Psalms were composed, was less formal and ceremonial, and more spiritual and devout, than the Traditional view implies. The worship was more in accordance with the simpler Covenant codes, and there is no evidence of any knowledge or use of the Priests' code.

The absence of reference to the supernatural in the Psalter, we would explain as in the Wisdom Literature.

From the Psalter we advance into the Prophets. And here we note the silence as to miracles in Jeremiah, Isaiah B, Ezekiel, and post-Exilian Prophets. This seems to us to imply the ignorance of these authors as to any miracles in their times.

Theophanies are unknown to Jeremiah. We conclude from this that no Theophany was granted him. The only mention of sacred writings, other than their own prophecies, that we find in any of the prophets is (1) Hos. viii. 12, which refers to many prophetic To

roth; (2) Jer. viii. 8, the which, from the context, is written by false prophets; (3) Mal. iii. 22 (1). We might, from this silence, conclude (1) It did not fall within their scope to mention other sacred writings. They were prophets, and leaned on their own divine authority, and were not disposed to lean on sacred books of other prophets. So Isa. xxxiv. 16, calls his own prophecy 70. False prophets do not hesitate to apply the term to their own prophecies in the time of Jeremiah. Hosea refers to a number of prophetic writings of other prophets.

The only one of the Prophets who alludes to the Mosaic law is Malachi, the last of them. It came within his scope. If it be thus taken for granted that it did not fall within the scope of these Prophets to mention the Mosaic Written Law, then the Traditional view of the Rabbins that the Pentateuch was of primary authority and the Prophets of secondary importance must be abandoned. The Prophets recognize no authoritative writings as higher than their own. They do not find it worth their while to mention any other. The Traditional view must yield also in another particular. It is a mistake that the Prophets were mere expositors of the law of Moses. We do not find any reference in their writings to such a written law which it is assumed they were expounding. The Prophets stand out in entire independence of Moses and his legislation. They give divine Toroth of their own and claim divine authority for them, and do not trouble themselves about other truth. It may also be questioned whether the Traditional theory may not have to yield in another particular. If there was such a body of history and legislation compacted in the written form of our present Pentateuch, could these Prophets have failed to recognize it and allude to it? Could Isaiah use the term

תורת יהוה for his own writings, or Jeremiah speak of the ספר יהוה

of false prophets, if there were well-known and publicly recognized books of legislation called by these names? Does not their silence therefore imply ignorance of any such a law-book or collection of

1 as our Pentateuch? It seems to us that we must admit as much as this. It does not prove the non-existence of the codes and narratives of the Pentateuch, but it does prove that they were not known to these Prophets, with the exception of Malachi, as a public official vody of legislation and history. The silence of the Prophets as to sacrifices is also significant. Leaving out of account the symbolic code of Ezekiel xl.-xlviii., the Non is unknown to the Prophets. D is only found in Isaiah liii., where it has a significance given to it that is appropriate to the context, but not in

accordance with the relative position of the D in the Priests' code.

In view of the great stress laid upon sin and repentance by the Prophets, it is clear that it fell within their scope to mention these sin and trespass offerings. But before considering this omission we will call attention to one other. The Prophets make frequent allusion to Sabbaths and New Moons (Hos. ii. 11; Amos viii. 5; Is. i. 13, 14; lxvi. 23, etc.), but not to other feasts, save only the seventh year indirectly in Jer. xxv. 11, 12 (comp. with II. Chron. xxxvi. 21). The feast of Tabernacles is only in Zech. xiv. 16. There is a reference to feasts in general in Isaiah i. 13 sq., Ezekiel A, and Malachi; but these in Isaiah at least may be sufficiently explained as New Moons and Sabbaths. The omission of the seventh year can be explained as not within the scope of the writers. This can hardly be the case with the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. The first mention of Tabernacles is in the post-Exilic Prophets. We do not mean that every one of the Prophets must have mentioned these feasts as within their scope, but we do mean that when speaking of the feasts, the stress on the New Moons, in the absence of mention of the other feasts, is not in accordance with the Levitical system. Looking now at Purifications, we find no mention of them in Hosea, Amos, Micah, Isaiah, Exekiel A, or post-Exilic Prophets. Those of Joel iii. and Jeremiah are only washings.

Now how shall this silence of the Prophets as to the codes of law and the Mosaic ritual be explained? They certainly came within the scope of some of them. There are but two possible solutions: the one is intentional silence; the other is unconscious silence or ignorance. We hold that the former explanation will not meet the facts of the case. The Prophets are not entirely silent; they are silent as to some things and outspoken as to others. There is, without doubt, an antagonism to ceremonialism and formality in the Prophets generally. Compare Hos. v. 6; Mic. vi. 8; Amos v. 21 sq.; Is. i. 11 sq.; Jer. vii. 21 sq. Their hostility is, however, against idolatry and the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth. They emphasize the religion and worship of Jehovah over against these, and one would expect them to emphasize the peculiar institutions of Jehovah; whereas they lay stress on those things which are common to the two religions, namely,

by, and the New Moon feast. Passover, Pentecost, and Taber

nacles are ignored. The Purification from contact with the dead, the sin and trespass offerings are ignored. These we would expect the Prophets above all to emphasize. Their silence seems to prove

that they were ignorant of these things, and that these were not observed in Israel in their times.

(5) Silence is cumulative evidence of non-observance. The argument from silence increases with the amount of ground covered, until at last it becomes exhaustive in evidence, and exclusive of the matter in question. The argument is increased by its extension in time, place, variety of authors, variety of styles, and of writings. The silence of Job is greatly increased by the evidence of Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, of the same class of Wisdom Literature, as to the same matters. The argument from silence in the Psalter is enhanced by the great number of Psalms of different authors, styles, and periods of composition. The argument from silence of the earlier Prophets Joel, Amos, and Hosea, is enhanced by that of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and the later minor Prophets. The argument from silence increases in weight in writings of the same class, but it is increased to a vastly greater extent by combining together the silence of whole classes of writings, from the Wisdom Literature, the Psalter, and the Prophets, and the Historians, and amounts to one of the strongest lines of evidences, all the more valuable for the induction and generalizations through such a wide range of literature.

Now there are certain things about which all these Hebrew writings are silent. As we have elsewhere said, some of the institutions of the religion of Israel most characteristic of the Priests' code do not occur in the pre-Exilic Literature. The sin offering first and alone appears in the pre-Exilic history in the reform of Hezekiah (II. Chron. xxix. 20-24), and here it is not offered according to the Priests' code. It is not found in the Wisdom Literature, or the Prophets. The is found in the Historical books only as a fine of emerods and gold mice paid by the Philistines (I. Sam. vi. 17), and as trespass money (II. Kings xii. 16), and not as an animal sacrifice. The occurs in the Prophets only in Is. liii., where it is not in accordance with the Priests' code in idea or importance. It is not found in the Psalter or Wisdom Literature. The offerings of the pre-Exilic Literature are those common to the religion of Jehovah in the Covenant codes, and to the religion of Baal.

The purification in the use of water is occasionally found in the Psalter, Historical books, Prophets, but nowhere in all this literature are the characteristic purifications of the Priests' code to be found.

The sacred feasts upon which the Psalter and Prophets lay stress are the New Moons. The later Prophets also lay stress on the Sabbath. The Historical books speak of the Passover as observed by

Solomon and Hezekiah, but, according to II. Kings xxiii. 21 sq., Josiah was the first to observe it in accordance with the Deuteronomic code, from the Conquest to his day. There is no allusion to the Passover in the Wisdom Literature, Psalter, or Prophets. There is no allusion to Pentecost anywhere. The feast of Tabernacles was first observed in accordance with the Priests' code after the exile (Neh. viii. 17). Hence we are not surprised to meet it for the first time in the Prophet Zechariah. The day of Atonement and year of Jubilee do not appear.

Now it seems to us that this weight of silence is conclusive proof that these things were not known to these Biblical writers, and were not in public observance in the times of silence.

The Priests' code was not observed in Israel until after the exile, and even then only by degrees could its provisions be enforced. The Deuteronomic code was not observed until the reign of Hezekiah. The religion of Israel was, prior to Hezekiah, in accordance with the simpler Covenant codes, in constant conflict with the religion of Baal, at first under the divine direction of Shophetim, and then under the divine direction of the Nebiim, who gave authoritative divine Toroth suited to the circumstances of Israel.

The argument forces us to this result. It is confirmed by other arguments which it would be out of place to consider here. It will not be out of place, however, if we consider just how much this argument from silence involves, and guard it from misuse. We hold that it involves public and general ignorance. There are those who go so far as to argue from it the non-existence of the Pentateuch and the Mosaic codes. But this seems to us going beyond the argument from silence. Before one could conclude from the silence of the Scriptures as to the Pentateuch, that it was not in existence, one would have to prove that it could not exist without being known. This is difficult to prove. We are constantly finding lost documents and long-forgotten books. The book of Deuteronomy was lost and forgotten, as we learn from II. Kings xxii. Some think this carries with it the whole Pentateuch. We believe that Deuteronomy alone is referred to. But it is an easy and natural conclusion that, if the simple code of Deuteronomy could have been lost and forgotten, the more elaborate Priests' code would have been more likely to have been lost and forgotten. If the narrative be true, and there are no good reasons to question it, it supports the argument from silence by positive argument that these Biblical authors were indeed ignorant of the existence of the Pentateuchal codes in their present combination, and that the Priests' code