in the 53rd chapter a picture, not of a nation, but of some definite
person; although the Prophet definitely identifies the Servant of
the Lord with Israel (Isa. xli. 8). But when did Israel embody such
a conception? It can only stand for an ideal of what Israel ought to
have been; and there have been many things which have entered into
the composition of the picture. It has been suggested that one of the
Prophets sat for this picture, just as sometimes an artist painting a
symbolical picture will get one of his friends to sit for the model;
and who could be better for this purpose than Jeremiah, the rejected
of the nation? The interpretation that finds in this picture a minute
prediction of the life and passion of Jesus is not sanctioned by a
careful study of the passage; but the instinct that has led to this
is right in the main, for as we travel down the ages looking for the
fulfilment of this ideal, we only rest with complete satisfaction on
the story of the life and death of One who stepping out from this very
race, by His uninterrupted communion with God, His hatred of sin and
His profound sympathy with mankind, bore away the sin of the world on
the red flood of sacrifice, and brought in for ever the true Kingdom of
God.
An increasing number of Old Testament scholars believe that another
of the Prophets contains an interpretation of the Exile, conceived in
the same spirit as that of the Second Isaiah, although veiled under
such a strange allegorical form that centuries of Jewish and Christian
interpretation have entirely missed its meaning. The book of the
Prophet Jonah belongs to a later age, and should probably stand last of
all the Minor Prophets, but the critical interpretation of the prophecy
falls naturally to be considered here. The character of the Book
reveals on close inspection that it was never intended for history;
as its inclusion among the prophetical writings perhaps recognises.
It is not only the improbability of the whale episode that has led to
this conclusion, but the whole character of the events narrated: the
sudden growth and withering of the gourd, the instant repentance of
the Ninevites, which included a forced régime of fasting even for the
cattle! Moreover, the closing words of the book breathe a spirit of
universalism and humanity that is almost the high-water mark of Old
Testament inspiration, and this encourages the reader to look for some
deeper meaning in the rest of the book. The story as interpreted by
critical methods is that Jonah is the nation of Israel, chosen to be
a missionary nation to the heathen. On refusing the task which Divine
selection had marked out for her she is thrown into exile, and has been
restored for the purpose of carrying out her original mission. This
is here symbolised by the whale swallowing Jonah, who on being cast
up proceeded on his neglected commission, though still with little
love for his work. The imagery is crude and may strike the reader as
exceedingly improbable, until his attention is drawn to the fact that
the whale or sea-monster plays a great part in Old Testament imagery
and is once actually used as a symbol of the Exile. "Nebuchadrezzar
the King of Babylon hath devoured me, ... he hath swallowed me up
like a dragon, ... he hath cast me out.... I will do judgment upon
Bel in Babylon, and I will bring out of his mouth that which he hath
swallowed up" (Jer. li. 34, 44). With this interpretation as a clue,
the book becomes luminous. It is an apology for the Gentiles who are
shown to be capable of repentance; Israel is blamed for her grudging
estimate of the heathen, for her refusal to convey to them the light
which she enjoyed, and for her fear lest others should share the favour
of Jehovah. Perhaps the symbolic character of the book was adopted,
because the author knew that if such truths were boldly stated they
would never be received by his age; and so he hoped that the truth
might enter in through an interesting story of wonder and adventure.
It can hardly be claimed that the author has been successful; for the
Jews resisted the universalism of the Son of Man and the propagandist
methods of the Apostle Paul, while Christendom has been far more
concerned in proving that a whale can swallow a man, than in carrying
out the command to evangelise those who know not their right hand from
their left.
THE WORK OF THE PRIESTS
The following passage (Exod. vii. 14-25) illustrates the attempt to
disintegrate the various documents ("J" is indicated by roman type,
"E" by _italics_, and "P" by CAPITALS).
"And Yahwe said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is stubborn, he refuseth
to let the people go. _Get thee unto Pharaoh in the morning; lo,
he goeth out unto the water; and thou shalt stand by the river's
brink to meet him; and the rod which was turned to a serpent shalt
thou take into thine hand._ And thou shalt say unto him, Yahwe, the
God of the Hebrews, hath sent me unto thee, saying, Let my people
go, that they may serve me in the wilderness: and, behold, hitherto
thou hast not hearkened. Thus saith Yahwe, in this thou shalt know
that I am Yahwe: behold, I will smite ... _with the rod that is in
mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be
turned to blood_. And the fish that is in the river shall die, and
the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall loathe to drink water
from the river. AND YAHWE SAID UNTO MOSES, SAY UNTO AARON, TAKE THY
ROD, AND STRETCH OUT THINE HAND OVER THE WATERS OF EGYPT, OVER THEIR
RIVERS, OVER THEIR STREAMS, AND OVER THEIR POOLS, AND OVER ALL THEIR
PONDS OF WATER, THAT THEY MAY BECOME BLOOD; AND THERE SHALL BE BLOOD
THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND OF EGYPT, BOTH IN VESSELS OF WOOD AND IN
VESSELS OF STONE. AND MOSES AND AARON DID SO, AS YAHWE COMMANDED;
_and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the
river; in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants;
and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood_.
And the fish that was in the River died; and the river stank, and
the Egyptians could not drink water from the river; AND THE BLOOD
WAS THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND OF EGYPT. AND THE MAGICIANS OF EGYPT
DID IN LIKE MANNER WITH THEIR ENCHANTMENTS: AND PHARAOH'S HEART WAS
HARDENED, AND HE HEARKENED NOT UNTO THEM; AS YAHWE HAD SPOKEN. _And
Pharaoh turned and went into his house, neither did he lay even this
to heart._ And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for
water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river.
And seven days were fulfilled, after that Yahwe had smitten the
river."
Notes:--The account in "J" evidently had nothing about the water being
turned into blood. Yahwe himself will smite the river (_Ye' or_; the
Nile) so that the fish will die. "The river" probably stood after
"smite ..." in "J."
In "E" Moses is commanded to smite with his rod, and the Nile will be
turned into blood. In verse 17 _thine_ must have stood in the original
and was altered to "mine" when the documents were pieced together.
In "P" Aaron is to take the rod, and now all the rivers of Egypt, and
even the water in the houses, is to be turned into blood.
Notice the formal repetition in "P."
Lecture VIII
THE WORK OF THE PRIESTS
We have seen that the Exile produced two important prophetical works.
The one is a vision of a restored Jewish state, contemplated under the
guise of a Church rather than as a Nation; the work of the priestly
Prophet Ezekiel. The other is incorporated in the second half of the
prophecies ascribed to Isaiah; the author is unknown, but the work is
an attempt to interpret the calamitous history of the Exile in such
a fashion that the nation might be led to take as its ideal for the
future, the Servant of Jehovah, the bearer of light to the nations
of the world. The outlook in these two works is entirely different,
yet both seem to have called forth a school which endeavoured to work
out their ideals, but the school of Ezekiel obtained a more immediate
recognition and exerted the greater influence on the nation. For the
first time in Israel's history a prophet is found who is concerned with
matters of ritual, the regulation of a priesthood, and the details of
ecclesiasticism. Ezekiel endeavoured to secure the reforms demanded by
the Prophets, not only by the effect of his own preaching, but by the
formation of definite organisations and the establishment of certain
customs. The priestly school which followed Ezekiel and developed his
conceptions, possessed sufficient prestige to persuade the nation that
their scheme was of Divine authority. Their work was carried on during
and after the Exile, but with the exception of Ezra, the names of
the authors have not been preserved. In the Bible history their work
suddenly appears under the name of "the law of Moses" in 444 B.C. The
first certain mention of the recognition and observance of this law is
found in Nehemiah (viii.), where a memorable scene is described. Ezra
the Scribe, "the writer of the words of the commandments of the Lord
and of his statutes to Israel" (Ezra vii. 11), has come from Babylon,
bringing with him the law of Moses. The people are gathered together
on a certain day, and from morning to noon, the law is read in their
hearing, with such comments and explanations as seemed necessary. The
immediate result of this publication was the discovery that important
provisions had been neglected and commands very seriously transgressed,
and there followed such grief and alarm among those who listened, that
it was difficult for the authorities to persuade the people to abandon
their mourning and rejoice in the fact that the law had now been made
known to them. On the morrow a further reading took place, when they
discovered that on that very day they ought to be keeping a feast of
tabernacles. The feast was therefore observed for the appointed time
of eight days, and it is expressly noted that this had not been done
since the time of Joshua. Other reforms were immediately set in motion;
marriage with those not of pure Jewish blood was not only forbidden
but, where such had actually been contracted, an immediate dissolution
was enforced; a tax of one third of a shekel was levied for the upkeep
of the Temple Services, and the law of the Sabbath was rigorously
enforced. Now this picture was not written by a contemporary, and
critics have found such difficulty in discovering the exact historical
facts that considerable doubt has been aroused, not only concerning the
historicity of this event, but even concerning the existence of Ezra
himself. But it is certain that in the Fifth Century B.C., laws were
obeyed and institutions were recognised, of which we have no record,
outside the Pentateuch, in the earlier historical books. The question
to be answered is: What was that "law of Moses" which Ezra brought to
Jerusalem and read to the people? Later Judaism calls the first five
books of the Bible "the Law of Moses," and for centuries both Jewish
and Christian scholars have identified Ezra's law with these books,
have supposed that they existed from the time of Moses downwards, but
were entirely neglected by the Jews until this time. Modern research
is compelled to dissent altogether from this tradition. Our purpose in
this book prevents us from discussing the details of this controversy,
but in addition to what has been already said in an earlier lecture,
the main results of critical study on the origin of the Law may be
outlined.
From the time occupied by Ezra in reading his law it is inferred that
it could hardly have been our first five books of the Bible; and
since to carry out the laws contained in them would involve endless
discussion because of their contradictory character (compare for
example the directions for keeping the feast of Tabernacles in Deut.
xvi. 13, 15, which commands seven days, with Lev. xxiii. 39, which adds
an eighth day for a solemn assembly; compare also the account in 1
Kings viii. 66, with 2 Chron. vii. 8, 10), it is thought that this law
of Ezra must have been much smaller than the Pentateuch, and much more
homogeneous. The Pentateuch not only contains more than "laws," but
even the legal sections bear the marks of such widely different aims
and conditions that we are compelled to assume a gradual collection,
with continual redaction and codification, in order to account for
the various phenomena. The earliest strata may go back to a great
antiquity, and the customs themselves must often be primitive Semitic
survivals, but the critical contention is that, as a whole, the "Law
of Moses" owes its present form to an age later than the Exile, and
somewhat later than Ezra himself; for Ezra's code has itself been
revised (compare Neh. x. 32, where a third of a shekel is appointed,
with Exod. xxx. 13, where it has increased to half a shekel), before it
was amalgamated with the Pentateuch in its existing form.
The critical basis for this theory of the gradual formation of the law
is found first in the fact that the legislation of the Pentateuch is
not homogeneous: it is so contradictory that to carry out the law as
it stands would be found impossible. It is claimed that the presence
of the various strata can be detected by the numerous repetitions
(_e.g._, the commandments exist in three recensions: Exod. xx. 1-17;
xxxiv. 17-28; Deut. v. 6-21); by the use of different names for God, by
the difference in language and style, and by the change in theological
conceptions; and moreover, that these different strata can be roughly
assigned to various ages, which can be actually confirmed by the record
of their observance in the historical books (compare the provisions
made for the Ark in Exod. xxv.-xl.; Num. iii.-iv., with its actual
treatment in 1 Sam.).
The different strata of the laws, and the ages to which they may be
roughly assigned, are as follows:--The earliest code of laws is said
to be that of the "Book of the Covenant" (Exod. xxiv. 7), found in
Exod. xx. 20-xxiii. 33. The primitive character of this code can be
discerned, by the comparison of its directions for worship with those
of later ages. It sanctioned the erection of rude altars at any place
where Jehovah had been revealed, whereas in later codes no place except
the one chosen spot can be used for worship, and the altar must be of
highly specialised construction (compare Exod. xx. 24-26 and Deut.
xii. 4-24, with Exod. xxvii. 1-8). Now it is precisely this informal
worship, which could be performed by any one and at any place, that
appears to have been the custom until the time of the reformation
under Josiah; and in his times, and as the cause of his reform, the
critics place the Book of Deuteronomy, v.-xxvi.; for it presupposes
the teaching of the prophets and is the programme followed by Josiah.
Then next follows "the Law of Holiness" (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.); which is
either the outcome of Ezekiel's work or is shortly prior to it; anyhow,
the connection is close. Then in 444 B.C. appears the code of Ezra,
which was afterwards developed and set in a brief narrative describing
the historical preparation for the law and its actual deliverance by
Moses; this document of history and laws is known for convenience as
the Priestly Code, and is denoted by the letter "P." The editorial
framework of the completed Hexateuch (the first six books of the
Bible), is of the same stamp as the Priests' Code, and the date of its
final compilation must not be put very much later than Ezra, since
the Samaritan Pentateuch probably goes back to the Fourth Century,
from which date it can claim an independent existence. It is this
work of the Priests that we are now to examine. "P" is to be found at
present scattered throughout the Hexateuch, and embraces nearly the
whole of Leviticus, Numbers and a good portion of Exodus; is found in
many scattered passages in Genesis and in a small portion of Joshua
and Judges, especially, in the latter case, in the closing chapters;
there is only a very little in Deuteronomy. Although not the work of
one hand, these passages can be detected by their unity of motive,
the uniform phraseology, the priestly outlook, and their concern with
legal and ritualistic regulations. The style is stereotyped, measured,
and prosaic, and is rendered somewhat monotonous by the repetition of
stated formulae. The theological ideas are dominated by the thought of
the awful holiness of God and the danger that there lies in approaching
Him in any other than the ordained way.
What were the sources from which this code drew its material? It is not
suggested that the code was simply _invented_ during the Exile. Many
of the legal commands concerning uncleanness, leprosy, and marriage
are really ancient customs, and only owed their _codification_ to
this late age; for they reflect a low stage of culture, and their
rites of purification are primitive. Again sacrifice had been
performed as far back as Semitic history can be traced, and customs
which had persisted were now simply tabulated and their form fixed.
Many of the sacrificial rites prescribed in the code still bear the
marks of their early origin, especially in the case of the burnt
and the peace-offerings, but the law of the sin-offering shows
artificial elaboration. Undoubtedly when Solomon's Temple was built
a new sacrificial ritual would be developed more in keeping with the
splendour of the edifice, and as the Temple increased in prestige, and
when under Isaiah's influence it became the one spot at which sacrifice
could be performed, the priestly caste would keep the rite in their
own hands and perform it with more care; and all this would become the
basis for a new ritualistic legislation. The minuteness of the Priestly
Code often gives the impression of a record of exact history, but a
careful examination of such measurements as are given in the case of
the Ark or the Tabernacle do not confirm the historical accuracy; for
the Tabernacle cannot be made exactly as described, and if it could
be, would neither stand up, nor be suitable for the purpose for which
it was intended, nor be able to be transported through the desert. It
is simply a tent-like model of the Temple projected into the early
history on the theory that the worship which existed in the writer's
time was that which had always existed. The artificial conception of
the history which "P" follows can of course be seen, if we separate
the various strata of the first six books in the Bible, but it can be
seen without this difficult and controversial method by comparing the
history of Kings with Chronicles: the one written largely before and
the other entirely after the legislation of "P" had been accepted. The
law of the Day of Atonement is almost entirely late, and originated in
the deepened sense of guilt produced during the Exile; neither is there
any trace of its observance until that time.
A difficult question has arisen concerning the date of this legislation
since the discovery of the Code of Hammurabi. Hammurabi was a
Babylonian king who lived somewhere about 2,250 B.C., and who has been
identified by some with the Amraphael of Gen. xiv. His code reveals a
fairly advanced stage of civilisation and morality existing in Babylon
at that time, but its chief interest for us is found in the fact that
many of the laws concerning common life, marriage, etc., are not only
like the laws of the Bible, but in some cases are verbally similar.
This phenomenon demands some theory of contact between the two codes,
but no theory has yet been found that explains all the facts. The idea
of direct borrowing on either side can hardly be taken seriously,
and the correspondence between the two codes hardly requires that;
so that the question is narrowed to one of influence. This influence
would seem to be most natural in the time of the Exile, were it not
that the strictly exclusive spirit then developed by the Jews makes it
unthinkable. There remains either the explanation of a common basis
for the two codes, traceable to their Semitic origin, or what has
received the greater support from scholars, the idea that the influence
of Hammurabi's laws on Israel's legislation is to be traced through
the former inhabitants of Canaan. To understand how this is possible,
we must remember that it is now known that Babylon had predominating
influence over Western Palestine before the conquest of Canaan by the
Hebrews; that the inhabitants of the land were much more civilised
than their conquerors; and that the invaders did not exterminate the
inhabitants, but quietly effected a settlement among them and adopted
many of their customs.
While on the subject of the influence of Babylon it will be convenient
to notice here that this influence is not confined to legal matters,
but can be traced in certain legendary elements in the Old Testament.
The ideal of the Priests' Code would not tolerate heathen mythology
that could be detected as such, to appear in its work, and yet
there are definite traces of such mythology to be found in "P"s
account of the creation in Gen. i. The discovery of the libraries of
Assurbanipal has brought to light records of a mythological cosmogony
which, while utterly different in conception and spirit from Genesis,
is sufficiently similar to suggest some degree of connection. This
Babylonian Epic of creation deals not so much with the remarkably
scientific idea of a gradual creation of our earth out of chaotic
materials, but with a conflict of gods and monsters which is supposed
to have taken place before the creation. In the opening verses of the
Bible there is a reference to the partition of the deep, which is here
called by the non-Hebrew name _Tehom_, into two parts: the waters above
and the waters under the firmament. Now in the Babylonian story the
actual creation of the earth is preceded by a mighty struggle between
_Marduk_, the sun-god (the Merodach of the Bible) and a great dragon
symbolical of the primeval waters, which bears the name _Tiamat_, the
Babylonian form of _Tehom_. The influence of this myth is the more
certainly to be traced in Genesis, because it appears elsewhere in the
Old Testament under the form of a legend of a conflict between Jehovah
and Rahab, a mighty dragon; and this legend is generally in some way
connected with creation (Job ix. 13; xxvi. 12; Isa. li. 9; Ps. lxxxix.
10). There is also a Babylonian story of the flood which keeps even
closer to the Bible narrative, and it may be seen from the Babylonian
version that this is more probably another form of the dragon myth than
a common memory of a tremendous deluge. A Babylonian seal cylinder in
the British Museum bears the picture of a man and woman standing one on
each side of a sacred tree, from which they are picking fruit, while a
serpent coils around the tree; but no written explanation of this very
suggestive picture has been discovered. These mythical stories have
come down from primitive Semitic times, but we cannot fail to notice
that while their ancestry is undoubtedly common, there is a tremendous
difference between the stage reached under the inspiration of the
Hebrew genius and the crude Polytheism of the Babylonian stories. Their
connection in some way is unmistakable, but still more certain is
their different ethical and religious level. The fact of the borrowing
does not deny the inspiration; it rather reveals how powerful that
inspiration was.
To turn now to a consideration of the work of the Priests. We must
doubtless concede to the workers a very lofty motive: it was nothing
less than an endeavour to include the whole of the nation's life under
the conception that God was dwelling among His people, and that the
nation must be holy because He is holy.