The Journal of Theological Studies 16
(July 1915) 449-82.
Public Domain.
THE TABERNACLE CHAPTERS.
A.
H. Finn
IN the book of Exodus there are two
groups of chapters dealing with
the
construction of the Tabernacle:--
Group
Group II. Cc. xxxv-xl. The carrying out of the
Instructions.
From
certain peculiarities in these chapters, and in the LXX version of
them,
three inferences have been drawn:--
(A) that the Greek translators of
Group II were not the same as the
translators
of Group I;
(B) that the translators of Group II
worked from a Hebrew text
differing
from the Massoretic;
(C) that cc. xxx, xxxi, and xxxv-xl
were later additions to the original
text
of Exodus.
These conclusions have been put
forward with a good deal of con-
fidence, and have been accepted by Biblical
students of note. Yet
they
will bear further examination.
(A) DIFFERENT
TRANSLATORS.
The inference that the translators
of Group II were not the same as
the
translators of Group I is based solely on the fact that in some cases
the
translation of certain Hebrew technical terms in Group II differs
from
that in Group I (see Dr Swete's ‘Introduction to the
Old Testa-
ment in Greek’, p. 236 ; Dr Driver's ‘Exodus’,
Cambridge Bible,
p.
378; and Dr McNeile's ’Exodus’,
Dr McNeile
in his Commentary on Exodus, p. 226, gives a list of
seventeen
of these variations, and this list is also referred to by Dr Driver.
The instances cited are not very happily
selected: several are not
technical
terms at all but quite ordinary words; at least two depend on
what
is the true reading of the Greek text; in one instance, the only
difference
is that between the genitive and dative of the same word;
and
in another the same verb is used, but compounded with a different
preposition.
It would be instructive to examine
the whole list in detail, but it will
not
be necessary here, because even if all the instances were indisputable,
the
inference would not be justified. For that inference really depends
449
450 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
on
an assumption that, as a rule, the LXX translators were fairly con-
sistent in their rendering of Hebrew words. This
is not the case.
(i) In both Groups of chapters, the translators
have varied their
renderings in the same
context.1
A few instances from a list five
times the length of Dr McNeile's will
shew this.
e]xo<menai,
and sunexo<menai;
in the next verse by
sumbolh<n; and in the tenth verse
by sumbolh<n
and sunaptou<shj.
(b) In xxvi 36, the ‘Screen’ is e]pi<spastron; in 37
katapeta<smati.
(c) In xxvii 10, ‘hooks’ are kri<koi; in 17 kefali<dej.
(d) In xxviii 37, the ‘mitre’
is mi<tra; in 39 ki<darij.
Group II. (a) In xxxviii 27,2 ‘sockets’
are kefali<dej;
in 31 ba<seij.
(b) In xxxix 34, the ‘covering’ is difqe<raj in one clause,
and kalu<mmata in the second.
(c) In xl 36, ‘journeyings’
is a]parti<%; in 38 a]nazugai?j.
This tendency to vary renderings is not peculiar
to these chapters, or
to
Exodus.3
In Lev. xxv 39-44, ‘servant’ appears as oi]ke<tou, pai?j, and dou?lon; in
v.
55 oi]ke<tai pai?dej; in some other places qera<pwn is found.
In Num. xxii 23-28, ‘smote’ is rendered by e]pa<tace, masti<cai,
e@tupte,
and pe<paikaj.
In Num. xxxv 2-5, ‘suburbs’ is rendered by proa<steia,
a]fori<smata,
sugkurou?nta,
and o!mora.
Since then the Greek translators frequently vary
their translation of
a
Hebrew word, whether technical or ordinary, in the same passage
and
even in the same verse, the fact that some of the technical terms in
Group
I are differently translated in Group II is absolutely without
significance.
Nor is this all.
(ii) In
several of the instances adduced as variations, the whole of
the evidence has not
been considered.
Again, a few instances will shew
what is meant.
(a) xxii 3 has pneu?ma
qei?on where the parallel xxxv 31 is said to have
pneu?ma alone.
In the latter passage qei?on is omitted only by the
first hand of B; all
the
other authorities have it. In the large
1 This has also been noted by Mr H. St John Thackeray : see 2nd Ed. (1914) of
Dr
Swete's ‘Introduction’ p. 236 note 2.
2 The references to chapter and
verse are according to the Hebrew numbering
throughout.
3 See Dr Swete's
‘Introduction’ pp. 328, 329.
451 NOTES AND STUDIES
of
the LXX pneu?ma
qei?on is placed in the text, and the omission of qei?on
only
recorded in a note. It is nothing but a scribal error.
Similarly, xxxviii 6 has xrusou?j where the parallel xxv 18 is said to
have
xrusotoreuta<.
But xrusotoreuta< is scarcely found
except in B*; Ba, A, F and other
authorities
have xrusa?
toreuta<, and in vv, 31, 36 toreuth< is the transla-
tion of the word (‘of beaten work’) which
immediately follows ‘gold’
in
xxv 18. That is to say B* and a couple of cursives have combined
two
words which most of the authorities keep separate, and the alleged
difference
turns upon a very dubious reading.
(b) xxxi 4 has e]rga<zesqai where xxxv 32 has poiei?n.
But xxxi 6 has poih<sousi,
and xxxv 10 has e]rgaze<sqw.
Both passages shew the
two renderings of the same verb, which
rather
suggests that the translators were the same.
(c) xxv 17 has i[lasth<rion e]pi<qema;
xxxvii 6 has i[lasth<rion alone.
Each
of the five verses which follow xxv 17 also has i[lasth<rion alone.
Were
these verses due to a different translator from that of v. 17? If
not,
why must xxxvii 6 be due to a different translator?
In this connexion e]pi<qema
does not appear again anywhere. It may
be
due to a variant rendering which has crept from the margin into the
text,
but there is another explanation possible.
In some cases, the translators seem to have
begun with one rendering
which
they have immediately abandoned for another. Thus, where
casting
(of metals) is first mentioned in xxv 12 e]la<seij
is used, but does
not
recur again, xwneu<seij
taking its place at xxvi 37. So too at the first
mention
(xxv 7 and the parallel xxxv 9) the Breastplate is podh<rh;
at
xxviii
4 peristh<qion;
and afterwards (xxviii 15, xxix 5, xxxix 8) logei?on.
It
is therefore possible that when the Mercy-seat is first mentioned the
translators
thought it advisable to define i[lasth<rion more closely as
a
'covering', and afterwards dropped the explanatory word.
(d) xxviii 11 has glu<mma;
xxxix 6 has e]kko<lamma.
The word is part of the phrase (in Hebrew two
words) which in RV.
is
rendered ‘the engravings of a signet’. The phrase occurs three
times
in xxviii, and three times in xxxix: the verb alone is found three
times
in xxviii, and its participle once in xxxix. No two of the Greek
renderings
agree exactly.
Verb. Phrase.
xxxix
9 glu<yeij xxviii 11 glu<mma
sfragi?- xxxix 6
e]kko<lamma
sfra-
doj gi?doj
11 diaglu<yeij 21 glufai>
sfragi<-
14 e]ggelumme<na ei]j
dwn sfragi?daj
36
e]ktupw<seij 36 e]ktu<pwma sfra- 30 e]ktetupwme<na
gi?doj sfragi?doj
452 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
In xxxix 6 the participle is doubly translated, geglumme<nouj kai> e]kkeko-
lamme<nouj,
immediately followed by e]kko<lamma sfragi?doj as above.
When it is noticed that in six out of the seven
cases referring to jewels
some
form of glu<fw
is used, and e]ktupo<w in the three referring
to the
Gold
Plate, can it be doubted that this is a deliberate variation to suit
the
different working of the different materials? The jewels are
‘engraved’;
the gold is ‘stamped in high relief’. But if so, the
recurrence
of this distinction would again point to the identity of
the
translators.
At any rate, is it quite fair to single out the
one case where a difference
between
the Groups can be made out, and to ignore the marked resem-
blances, and the variations in the same Group?
(e) xxviii 22 has a[lusidwto<n; xxxix 15 has e]mploki<ou.
No mention is made of the fact that for the same
phrase xxviii 14 has
e@rgon
plokh?j, which differs from the rendering in v. 22, and
is akin to
that
of xxxix 15. Moreover, the whole verses should be compared:--
xxviii 22 kai>
poih<seij e]pi>
to> logei?on krwssou>j
sumpeplegme<nouj
e@rgon a[lusidwto>n e]k xrusi<ou kaqarou?.
xxix 15 kai>
e]poi<hsan e]pi> to> logei?on
krwssou>j sumpeplegme<nouj
e@rgon e]mploki<ou e]k xrusi<ou kaqarou?.
The
verses are identical all but one word: ought that to pass unnoticed?
To all these may be added a remarkable instance
not included in
Dr
McNeile's list.
(f) A somewhat peculiar phrase of three Hebrew
words in xxxix 6 is
rendered
sumpeporphme<nouj kai> perisesialwme<nouj xrusi<&
Seven
verses further on (v. 13) the very same phrase is rendered
perikekuklwme<na xrusi<& kai> sundedeme<na xrusi<&
In
XXViii 20 (parallel to xxxix 13) the first of the
three Hebrew words
does
not occur, yet the Greek runs
perikekalumme<na xrusi<&: sundedeme<na e]n xrusi<&
Here
the points to be noticed are
(I) in the one passage (xxxix 6-13) two quite
different renderings of
the
same phrase are found;
(2) the parallel passages from the two Groups
(xxviii 20 = xxxix 13)
have
much in common, especially if perikekalumme<na
(which does not
express
the meaning of the missing Hebrew word) is but a corruption
of
perikekuklwme<na.1
The instances marked (d), (e), (f) are all taken
from the one pair of
1 perikekuklwme<na
is actually found in one or two MSS. Others read perikeklwsme<na,
and
there seems to have been some uncertainty about the word.
NOTES AND STUDIES 453
passages
(xxviii - xxxix) about the making of the priestly vestments.
They
should go far to shew that
(1) difference of translation does not mean
difference of translators;
(2) there are reasons for thinking that the
translators were the same
throughout.
(iii) There is evidence that the translators of
Group II were acquainted
with
the translation of Group I.
(a) The consistent translation of the three colours by u[a<kinqoj,
porfu<ra,
and ko<kkinoj; of 'Mercy-seat' by i[lasth<rion: of ‘hangings’ by
i[sti<a: and of ‘bars’ by moxloi<, all tend to shew the use of a common
vocabulary
where differences might easily occur.
(b) It is not very likely that two sets of
translators working inde-
pendently would reproduce the phrase &@an
e@xon ku<kl& tou? peristomi<ou
(xxviii
32, xxxix 23) word for word, or the phrase pa?j
o[ paraporeuo<menoj
ei]j
th>n e]pi<skeyin (xxx 14, xxxviii 26)
with only the omission of ei]j in the
latter
passage.
(c) For ‘onyx stones’ xxv 7 has li<qouj
sardi<ou, and the same appears
in
the parallel xxxv 9: but in xxviii 9 they appear as li<qouj smara<gdou,
and
this variation is reproduced in the parallel xxxix 6; and in xxviii 20,
xxxix
13. the same word is rendered bhru<llion.
How could this be possible unless the
translators of xxxv 9, xxxix 6, 13
had
the renderings of xxv 7, xxviii 9, 20 before them?
(d) xxv 3-6 is a list of materials to be
offered, which is repeated in
xxxv
5-9.
c. xxv c.xxxv
kai>
au!th e]sti> h[ a]parxh> h{n lh<yesqe (this clause is not in
the Hebrew
par’
au]tw?n
here)
xrusi<on
kai> a]rgu<rion kai> xalko>n xrusi<on
a]rgu<rion xalko>n
kai>
u[a<kinqon kai> porfu<ran kai> u[a<kinqon
porfu<ran ko<kkinon
ko<kkinon diplou?n diplou?n
dianenhsme<non
kai>
bu<sson keklwsme<nhn kai>
kai> bu<sson keklwsme<nhn kai>
tri<xaj ai]gei<aj
tri<xaj ai]ei<aj
kai>
de<rmata kriw?n h]ruqrodanwme<na kai> de<rmata kriw?n
h]ruqrodanwme<na
kai>
de<rmata u[aki<nqina kai> cu<la
kai> de<rmata
u[aki<nqina kai> cu<la
a@shpta a@shpta
kai>
li<qouj sardi<ou kai>
li<qouj ei]j kai> li<qouj sardi<ou kai> li<qouj
th>n glufh>n ei]j th>n glufh>n
ei]j
th>n e]pwmi<da kai> to>n podh<rh ei]j th>n e]pwmi<da kai>
to>n podh<rh.
The only differences are that in the second
passage there are a few
omissions
of kai<, and the insertion of
the one word dianenhsme<non,
clearly
a variant rendering for the preceding erroneous diplou?n.
Otherwise the two are identical: both have the
notable h]ruqrodanw-
454 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
me<na and a@shpta; both include keklwsme<nhn,
which is not in the
Hebrew;
both have the same four misrenderings (diplou?n; de<rmata
u[aki<nqina; ei]j th>n
glufh<n; podh<rh).
Can it reasonably be doubted that whoever wrote
the latter passage
had
the other before him?
(e) Another pair of passages is found in xxviii
16-20, xxxix 9-13, the
‘Breastplate’
and its jewels.
c. xxviii c.
xxxix
Poih<seij au]to> tetra<gwnon: e@stai tetra<gwnon diplou?n e]poi<hsan to>
diplou?n, logei?on
spiqamh?j to> mh?koj au]tou?, kai> spi- spiqamh?j to> mh?koj, kai> spiqamh?j
qamh?j
to> eu#roj. to>
eu#roj diplou?n:
Kai>
kaqufanei?j e]n au]t&? u!fasma kai> sunufa<nqh e]n au]t&? u!fasma \
kata<liqon tetra<stixon: kata<liqon tetra<stixon:
sti<xoj
li<qwn e@stai, sa<rdion,
topa<- sti<xoj li<qwn,
sa<rdion kai>
o[
sti<xoj o[ ei$j o[ sti<xoj o[ ei$j
Kai>
o[ sti<xoj o[ deu<teroj, kai> o[ sti<xoj o[ deu<teroj,
a@nqrac, kai> sa<pfeiroj,
kai> i@aspij. a@nqrac, kai> sa<pfeiroj, kai>
i@aspij:
Kai> o[ sti<xoj o[ deu<teroj, kai> o[ sti<xoj o[ deu<teroj,
a@nqrac,
kai> sa<pfeiroj, kai> i@aspij. a@nqrac, kai> sa<pfeiroj,
kai>
i@aspij:
Kai> o[ sti<xoj o[ tri<toj, kai> o[ sti<xoj o[ tri<toj,
ligu<rion, a]xa<thj,
a]me<qustoj. ligu<rion kai> a]xa<thj kai>
a]me<qustoj:
kai>
o[ sti<xoj o[ te<tartoj, kai> o[ sti<xoj o[ te<tartoj,
xruso<liqoj, kai> bhru<llion, kai> o]nu<- xruso<liqoj kai> bhru<llion kai>
xion, o]nu<xion
perikekalumme<na xrusi<&: sundede- perikekuklwme<na xrusi<&, kai>
me<na e]n xrusi<& sundedeme<na xrusi<&
e@stwsan
kata> sti<xon au]tw?n. . . . . . .
Surely independent translators would never have
hit on translations so
nearly
alike. For instance, both have u!fasma
kata<liqon, though the cor-
responding
Hebrew is missing from the second passage; and in the same
verse
(xxviii 17 = xxxix 10) both seem to have transferred li<qwn
from the
first
clause to the second. Yet in this very verse Dr McNeile
finds one
of
his differences because one has kaqufanei?j, and the other sunufa<nqh!
Is it conceivable that, if the translations were
altogether independent,
no
one of the twelve jewels should be differently translated? Further:
(iv) There are indications that the translators
were the same throughout.
The
evidence just considered might possibly be consistent with
Group
II being due to translators who had the translation of Group I
before
them, and yet were not the same as the former translators. But
it
is not at all likely that two sets of people would exhibit the same
peculiarities
and follow the same methods.
NOTES AND STUDIES 455
(a) In both Groups there is a tendency to make
the same kind of
careless
mistakes.
In. xxvii 18 the translators have mistaken the
Hebrew word which
means
‘cubit’ for a similar word meaning ‘hundred’; in xxxviii 9, 11
(a
different part of the parallel passage) the same mistake is made in
places
where the earlier chapter has the correct rendering.
Similar confusions of words that are somewhat
alike are found in
xxix
5 ('Breastplate' put for ‘Band of Ephod’); in xxvi 34 (the ‘Veil’
instead
of the 'Mercy-seat'); and in xxvi 36 (‘board’ instead of
‘clasp’).
In the same way in Group II xxxv 21, 22 have 'brought'
instead
of 'came'; xxxv 22 has ‘seals’ instead of ‘brooches’; and in
xxxviii
18 ‘the height in the breadth’ has been turned into ‘the height
and
the breadth', which (as the length has been already specified) would
give
three dimensions to the Screen, making it 5 cubits in thickness!
(b) Certain of the technical terms seem to have
been little or not at
all
understood by the translators, who betray their perplexity by some-
times
leaving them untranslated and sometimes giving
inconsistent
renderings.
In both Groups the same set of words has been
misunderstood,
e.g.
‘board’, ‘clasp’, ‘grating’ (of the Altar); ‘woven band’ (of the
Ephod);
‘finely wrought’ (garments); ‘lace’. In both Groups skhnh<
is
used sometimes of the Tabernacle and sometimes of the Tent
where
the two words occur together, the translators have been puzzled
to
know what to put for the Tent, and in each case have adopted
a
different rendering (xxvi 7 ske<phn;
xxxv 11 pararu<mata;
xl 19
au]lai<aj;
in xxvi 11 the Tent, standing alone, is
translated de<rreij).
The substitution of ‘mingled’ for ‘salted’ in
xxx 35, and of ‘fasted’
for
‘served (as a host)’ in xxxviii 8, both seem to be attempts to read
an
easier word for a more difficult one.
In both Groups the translators are puzzled by
the same words, and use
the
same methods to avoid difficulties.
(c) In both Groups there is a tendency to soften
down expressions
that
might suggest a human conception of the Deity. ‘Dwell among
you'
in xxv 8 becomes 'be seen among you', and in xxix 45, 46, 'be
called
upon among you', while in xl 35 the same verb is translated
‘overshadowed'.
Possibly a hint of the same tendency is found in the
curious
inversion in xl 35 by which the phrase ‘the Glory of the LORD
filled
the Tabernacle [the Dwelling]' is turned into ‘the Tent was filled
with
the Glory of the LORD', as though to avoid personifying the Glory.
In xxix 46, ‘I am the LORD their God' is changed
into ‘and to be
their
God'; in xxxvi 1, 'to whom the LORD gave wisdom' becomes
to
whom was given wisdom'. In both cases the personal Name is
avoided.
456
THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
(d) In both Groups there is a tendency to omit
or paraphrase
perplexing
passages, and occasionally to insert explanatory words or
phrases.
(e) The deliberate and frequent use of different
Greek words to
represent
the same Hebrew has already been shewn to run through
both
Groups, and the opposite tendency to use the same Greek for
different
Hebrew words is also found in both (e. g. e]sxa<ra represents
three
Hebrew words in the two verses xxvii 4, 5 ; and a]fai<rema stands
for
three different words in xxxv 21, 22, 29). Had one Group been
fairly
consistent in its renderings while the other varied them, there
might
have been reason to suspect a difference of translators. As it
is,
the same inconsistency is found in both, and in much the same
degree.
In short, the translation exhibits the same
characteristics throughout.
To sum up.
In support of the assertion that the translators
of Group II were not
the
same as the translators of Group I only a comparatively few instances
of
varied renderings are brought forward, and several of these are
decidedly
doubtful.
On the contrary, a considerable amount of
evidence (yet not nearly
all
that might be brought) has been adduced to shew that--
(i) differences of
rendering in one and the same passage abound,
and
therefore difference of rendering does not shew
difference of
translators;
(ii) in a considerable proportion of the
instances of difference alleged,
the
whole evidence has not been considered;
(iii) there is abundant reason for believing
that the translators of
Group
II were acquainted with and made use of the translation of
Group
I;
(iv) there is fair reason for believing that the
translators were the
same
throughout.
It is surprising that scholars of deservedly
high repute (such as those
mentioned
on p. 449) should put forward as probable the assertion that
the
translators were different, without a hint of the weight or evidence
against
it. Can it be that they have reproduced a statement from some
less
reliable source without themselves verifying the facts?
Why should this question be of any importance?
What does it
matter
whether the translators were the same or not?
If the translators were different, it would be
probable that cc. xxxv-xl
were
not in the text used by the original translators, and were therefore
a
later addition to the book. If the translators were the same, it would
NOTES AND STUDIES 457
be
evidence that as far back as 250 B. C. the book of Exodus was
substantially
complete as we now have it.
(B) DIFFERENCE OF TEXT.
The second inference is that the translators of
Group II had before
them
a Hebrew text differing from the present Massoretic
text.
It is strange that those who put this forward,
together with the assertion
that
the translators were not the same as those who translated Group I,
do
not perceive that the two contentions are not altogether consistent.
In
order to prove that the translators were different, it has to be assumed
that
they had the same technical terms to translate, and translated them
differently.
But if the translators of Group II had before them a text
different
from that which we now possess, how can we be sure that they
had
the same words to translate? It is scarcely admissible to argue as
if
these translators had the identical terms before them, and in the next
breath
to assert that their text was different.
However, it is to be noted that where difference
of text is spoken of,
something
more than mere difference is intended. That might only
mean
that the text from which the Greek translation was made differed
from
the present Hebrew in having been altered from it: whereas what
it
is sought to establish is that the Hebrew
has been modified by subse-
quent additions and alterations.
‘It is permissible', says Dr Swete
(‘Introduction' p. 236), 'to suppose
that
the Hebrew text before the original translators did not contain this
section,
and that it was supplied afterwards from a longer Hebrew
recension of the book in which the last six
chapters had not yet reached
their
final form.'
In other words, the allegation is that the LXX
text differed from the
Massoretic in being nearer to the true original.
The main (if not the sole) argument for this
conclusion is drawn from
the
fact that in the section xxxvi-xxxix the order of the contents in the
Greek
differs remarkably from that in the Hebrew (see Swete
‘Intro-
duction', p. 235 ; Driver ‘Exodus' p. 378).
The difference is very striking, but it does not
stand alone. In both
Groups
(xxv-xxxi and xxxv--xl) the Greek shews a large
number of
variations
from the Hebrew, and all of these should be taken into
account.
They may be classed under four heads : (a) Greek words or
phrases
not in the Hebrew; (b) Hebrew words or phrases not in the
Greek
; (c) difference of substance ; (d) difference of order.
VARIATIONS IN GROUP I.
(a) Greek words or phrases not in the Hebrew.
I. Sometimes
these are words frequently associated with the accom-
458 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
panying word, and therefore likely to be
inserted inadvertently; e.g.
‘fine
twined linen', xxv 4 ; ‘with pure gold', xxv 28: ‘Aaron thy brother',
xxix
5.
2. Sometimes they are manifest errors, such as
the insertion of ‘the
tent’
in ‘the ark of the tent of the
testimony', xxx 26 ; and of to> u!yoj in
xxvii
14, 15, 16, which would make the height of the hangings incon-
sistent with that given in v. 18.
3. Sometimes phrases that have recently occurred
are repeated where
evidently
they are not needed. Thus the whole phrase ‘and in the
candlestick
four cups made like almond blossoms' which commences
xxv
34 is in the Greek unnecessarily repeated at the end of v. 35.
Similar
repetitions are found in xxvii 13, xxix 20, and xxx 21. They
are
probably scribal errors due to ‘similar endings'.
4. Sometimes the additional words are by way of
explanation; e. g. in
xxv
34 'in the one branch' after ‘four
cups made like almond blossoms'.
in
xxviii 33 ‘of the robe below’ after
`upon the skirts'; in xxx 19 ‘with
water' after ‘shall wash
their hands and their feet’.
The
character of the words and phrases peculiar to the Greek is such
that they may reasonably
be considered additions by the translators, and
not omissions in the
Hebrew.
(b) Hebrew words or phrases not in the Greek.
In xxv 33 the Hebrew repeats the phrase ‘three
cups made like
almond
blossoms, a knop and a flower' because the branches
were in
pairs:
the Greek has the phrase only once.
In xxviii 34 the Hebrew repeats ‘a golden bell
and a pomegranate’
to
convey the idea of repeated alternation : the Greek has the phrase
only
once.
In xxv 35 the Hebrew has the phrase ‘a knop under two branches of
one
piece with it' three times because there were three pairs of branches,
and
each pair had a knop below their junction with the
stem. The
Greek1
reads ‘a knop under the two branches out of it, and a
knop
under
the four branches out of it'. It can hardly be doubted that the
translators
had the triple phrase before them, but combined the second
and
third clauses into one.
Similar omissions of a repeated phrase, quite in
keeping with the
Hebrew
idiom, are found in other parts of the Pentateuch.
2. xxviii 23-28 in the Hebrew is a lengthy and
complicated description
of
how the Breastplate was to be attached to the Ephod by rings and
chains:
in the Greek only vv. 24, 25 are represented. Yet those two
verses
are intimately connected with the context, and the whole passage
is
fully represented in both the Hebrew and Greek of the parallel
1 In Cod. B. Cod. A omits the second
clause.
NOTES AND STUDIES 459
xxxix
16-21. It is therefore probable that the original text of c. xxviii
also
had the whole passage, and that the translators have omitted a con-
siderable part of it.
3. In Hebrew xxx 6 reads
‘And thou shalt put it before the Veil
that is by the
before the Mercy-seat
that is over the Testimony.'
The third clause is not in the Greek. The
translators may have
passed
it over accidentally owing to the similar ending of clause 2; but,
quite
as probably, they may have mistaken Caporeth (Mercy-seat) for
Parocheth (the Veil), and omitted
the clause as redundant after clause i.
The
character of the words and phrases peculiar to the Hebrew is such
that in all probability
they are part of the original text, and their absence
from the Greek is due to
omission (accidental or intentional) by the
translators.
(c) Difference of substance.
The principal instance of this in Group I is in
c, xxviii.
Massoretic. LXX.
(23) And thou shalt
make upon
the
breastplate two rings of gold,
and
shalt put the two rings on the
two
ends of the breastplate.
(24) And thou shalt
put the two Kai>
qh<seij e]pi> to> logei?on th?j
wreathen
chains of gold on the kri<sewj tou>j krwssou<j:
ta> a[lusidwta>
two
rings at the ends of the breast e]p
] a]mfote<rwn tw?n klitw?n tou?
logei<ou
plate. e]piqh<seij. Kai> ta>j du<o a]spidi<skaj
(25) And the other two ends of e]piqh<seij e]p ] a]mfote<rouj tou>j
w@mouj
the
two wreathen chains thou shalt th?j
e]pwmi<doj kata> pro<swpon.
put
on the two ouches, and put
them
on the shoulderpieces of the
ephod,
in the forepart thereof.
It will be seen that the Hebrew gives quite
clear directions for attach-
ing the Breastplate to the Ephod by means of chains
attached to rings
on
the Breastplate at one end, and to ‘ouches’ on the Ephod at the
other.
In the Greek (since in v. 22 krwssou>j ... e@rgon a[lusidwto<n is
the
equivalent for ‘chains ... of wreathen work') the rings are altogether
omitted;
the ‘ouches' are simply placed upon the shoulderpieces
of the
Ephod;
and no connexion between the two is even suggested.
Clearly
the
Greek is incomplete, and yet bears sufficient resemblance to the
Hebrew
to shew that it was derived therefrom.
There can
be little doubt that the Greek is at fault, and not the Hebrew.
460
THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
(d) Difference
of order.
1. In xxix 20, 21 the Hebrew directs that the
blood of the ram is to
be
sprinkled upon the altar round about, and then proceeds (v. 21),
‘And
thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar',--the
natural
sequence.
The Greek places the instruction to pour out the blood upon
the
altar at the end of v. 21, so that
Moses is directed to take of the
blood
`that is upon the altar' before there is any intimation that any
blood
would be there.
2. In the directions to anoint the various parts
of the Tabernacle,
xxx
26-28, the Hebrew has ‘the Table and all the vessels thereof’
at
the beginning of v. 27, between the
natural
position: the Greek has the Table and its vessels in v. 28,
between
the Altar of Burnt Offering and the Laver, altogether out
of
place.
Also the Greek text shews
signs of perturbation in v. 27. The
MS
begins the verse with the Candlestick and its vessels, and then,
between
this and the Altar of Incense, has ‘and the Tent of Witness and
all
the vessels thereof’; an impossible reading, for (1) it is incredible
that
the Tent should have been mentioned here; (2) it is a repetition of
what
has been already stated in v. 26; (3) the Tent could scarcely be
said
to have ‘vessels'. The other authorities begin the verse with `and
all
its vessels' (which cannot refer to the immediately preceding
thereby
betraying that something which had ‘vessels’ ought to stand
here.
3. In c. xxviii the Hebrew has the verse (29)
directing Aaron to bear
the
names of the children of
attaching
the Breastplate to the Ephod, where it clearly belongs since
the
Breastplate had the names of the tribes engraved on the twelve
jewels:
the Greek has this verse after v. 22 between the direction
to
make golden chains, and the direction to place the chains on the
Breastplate,
as clearly an unsuitable position.
It will be noticed that this one passage (xxviii
23-29) shews three of
the
classes of difference : (i) a large part of the
Hebrew does not
appear
in the Greek ; (2) what does appear differs in substance; and (3)
there
is a difference of order. Yet in all three it is the Hebrew and not
the
Greek which is justified.
Where the
order differs, the Hebrew order is natural, and the Greek
improbable.
Altogether, then, Group I furnishes instances of
all four classes
of
variation, yet
(i) So much of these
seven chapters (xxv-xxxi) is the same in both
versions
that it is unlikely that the texts were materially different;
NOTES AND STUDIES 461
(ii)
Where the two differ, the Greek and not the Hebrew is suspicious;
(iii)
No claim is made that the translators had a different text in this
Group.
VARIATIONS IN GROUP II.
When we turn to Group II, we find the same four
classes of variations,
only
on a larger scale, and therefore more noticeable.
(a) Greek words or phrases not in the Hebrew.
1. Words commonly associated with the
accompanying word:--
xxxv
12, ‘the ark of the testimony'; xxxix i, ‘Aaron the
priest';
xxxix
16b, ‘the two golden rings'.
2. Phrases that have recently occurred repeated:--xxxvii
13, ‘two on
the
one side and two on the second side', of the rings for the staves of
the
Table (repeated from v. 3 of the staves of the Ark); xxxviii 11, ‘and
the
side towards the south, a hundred by a hundred', repeats the
immediately
preceding phrase, only changing ‘north' into 'south'
(superfluous
here as the south side has already been specified, v. 9) ;
xxxviii
20, ‘and these were silvered with silver', repeats the, last clause
of
v. 19 (inaccurately, for v. 20 concerns the pins of the tabernacle
which
were of bronze and not silvered).
3. Explanations:--xxxvii 6, ‘the mercy-seat above
the ark'; xxxvii 8,
‘at
the end of the mercy-seat' (twice; xxxvii 17, ‘the Candlestick which
giveth light'; xl 17, 'in the second year of their
going forth from
Two of the Greek passages not found in the
Hebrew are noticeable
as
suggesting that they were influenced by the parallel passage in
Group
I.
xxxv 10-19--the list of things to be made-closes
with ‘the Anointing
Oil
and the Incense of Composition', not in the Hebrew, and not wanted
here
as they have already been mentioned in the preceding list: the
parallel
passage in Group I, xxxi 6-11, has them in this position at the
end
of the list, and not earlier.
After the making of the Laver (xxxviii 8) the
Greek adds, 'in the day
when
he fixed it: and he made the Laver that in it Moses and Aaron
and
his sons might wash their hands and their feet when they were
entering
into the Tent of the Testimony; or whenever they approached
the
Altar to minister, they used to wash in it, as the LORD commanded
Moses'.
Here the inclusion of Moses with the priests,
and the closing 'as the
LORD
commanded Moses', shew that this is really aversion
of x1 31, 32
(absent
from the Greek of c. xl). It was probably transferred to this
place
because the parallel xxx 17-21 has a somewhat similar ending.
Besides all these, at the beginning of xxxviii
1-7, where the Hebrew
has
‘and he made the Altar of Burnt Offering of acacia wood', the Greek
462 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
reads,
‘this man made the Brazen Altar out of the brazen censers which
belonged
to the men who rebelled with the company of Korah'.
Not
only
is this a manifest anachronism, but it does not agree with the
account
in Numbers, which represents that the censers were beaten into
plates
to make a covering for the Altar, not
that the Altar was made of
them.
Near the beginning of xxxix 32-43, after the
words ‘so did they’, the
Greek
has, ‘But of the remaining gold they made vessels wherewith to
minister
before the LORD; and of the remaining blue and purple and
scarlet
they made ministering garments for Aaron, so that he might
minister
in the
making
of the gold vessels has already been recorded in xxxvii 16-23,
and
the making of the vestments in the passage corresponding to xxxix
1-31.
Also, it breaks the connexion between the verse
recording the
completion
of the work, and the verses recording the delivery of the
finished
work to Moses.
Even more clearly than in Group I, the character of the words and
passages peculiar to the
Greek points to the conclusion that they have been
inserted by the
translators, and not omitted by the Hebrew.
(b) Words and passages in the Hebrew not found
in the Greek.
Nearly
one quarter of the contents of the Hebrew Group II does not
appear
in the Greek, but this chiefly concerns two chapters, xxxvi, xxxvii.
From
these, two entire sections (the Framework of the Tabernacle, and
the
Altar of Incense), and the greater part of a third (the Curtains) are
absent
from the Greek. These will be noticed later on (see p. 468
and
pp. 475, 476).
Of the lesser instances of Hebrew passages not
in the Greek, many
concern
minor details such as the staves of the Altar (xxxv 16, xxxviii 7,
xxxix
39), and its horns (xxxviii 2); the cords of the Tabernacle and
Court
(xxxv 18, xxxix 40); the measurements of the Table (xxxvii io),
of
the Mercy-seat (xxxvii 6), and of the Altar (xxxviii 1); and the details
about
the Cherubim (xxxvii 7-9). As all these are fully given in Group I,
it
is not unlikely that the translators thought it unnecessary to repeat
them
here.
In xxxviii 17 the Hebrew reads, ‘And he made the
Candlestick of
pure
gold: of beaten work made he the
Candlestick' ; the last four words
are
not in the Greek: in xxxvii 15 the Greek puts together the making
of
the staves for the
in
the Hebrew (just as it inserts kai>
ta> qusiasth<ria
at the beginning of
xxxi
8, while the Hebrew mentions the two altars separately afterwards)
in
xxxviii 5-7, after recording the placing of four rings on the grating
of
the altar, the Greek continues eu]rei?j toi?j moxloi?j,
w!ste ai@rein e]n
au]toi?j
to>
NOTES AND STUDIES 463
qusiasth<rion,
thus combining ‘to lie places for the staves' of v. 5 with
'to
bear it withal' of v. 7, and omitting the intervening making and
placing
of the staves. These three instances have all the appearance of
condensing
the passages to avoid repetition.
xxxvii 24 (the Candlestick and its vessels made
of a talent of gold)
and
xl 29b (sacrifices offered on the Altar of Burnt Offering) are not in
the
Greek. It is at least as likely that the translators passed over these
because
not very important as that a Jewish scribe took the trouble to
interpolate
them.
One matter calls for fuller notice.
In the Hebrew, xxv 6 and xxxv 8 (in the lists of
materials to be pro-
vided)
mention the Oil for the Light, and spices for the Anointing Oil
and
for the Incense: these verses are not in the Greek, and the Greek
has
no mention of the Oil for the Light in xxxv 14, 28. Both Hebrew
and
Greek have instructions about this oil in Group I (xxvii 20, 21), but
in
Group II neither mentions it among the things that were made, and
yet
in xxxix 37 both include it among the things delivered to Moses.
The variations seem perplexing enough,
especially as the lighting oil
is
hardly important enough to call for insertion in the Hebrew, or
deliberate
omission from the Greek. Yet there is a clue.
xxvii 20 has no direction for making the Oil for
the Light, but only
defines
it as ‘pure olive oil beaten', i. e. clear and of the
finest quality
(see
Driver's 'Exodus’, p. 296). Bearing this in mind, the Hebrew is
consistent
throughout. In xxv 6 the oil is included among the materials
to
be provided, but it does not appear among the things to be made
(xxxi
6-11) because it needed no compounding. The Anointing Oil
and
the Incense, on the contrary, were composite. Therefore in xxv 6
the
requisite spices are included among the materials to be provided; in
xxv
22-38 full directions for compounding them are given; and in
xxxi
6-11 they are named as among the things to be made.
In Group II, the direction to provide oil and
spices is repeated
(xxxv
8), and they are included among the offerings brought (xxxv 28);
no
mention is made of making the oil (in xxxv 14 it merely appears
along
with the lamps as an accessory of the Candlestick); while the
making
of the Anointing Oil and the Incense is recorded (xxxvii 29),
and
all three are finally specified in the list of what was delivered to
Moses
(xxxix 37, 38).
The real harmony of the Hebrew account is so
little on the surface
that
it can hardly be suspected of being artificial. The Greek account,
on
the other hand, is singularly incomplete. It gives the instruction as
to
the nature and quality of the lighting oil, and mentions it in the list
of
things delivered to Moses, but has no direction for providing it, and
no
mention of it among the offerings. It also gives every mention of
464
THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
the
Anointing Oil and the Incense, excepting only the two verses (xxv 6,
xxxv
8) which prescribe the provision of the necessary spices. Where
the
offering of these spices is recorded
(xxxv 28) there is a tiny but
significant
bit of evidence. The Hebrew runs, ‘and the spice, and the
oil for the light, and for the anointing
oil, and for the sweet incense'
the
Greek is kai>
ta>j sunqe<seij, kai> ei]j
to> e@laion th?j xri<sewj, kai>
th>n
su<nqesin tou? qumia<matoj, where the second kai< breaks the sense. Does
not
this suggest that the italicized clause, which would complete the
sense,
has been omitted? If so, then the fact that the same words are
missing
from the Greek of xxxv 14 would imply that in both places they
were
deliberately omitted.
On the whole, the character of the words and phrases peculiar to the
Hebrew (as in Group 1) makes it probable that they belong to the
original
text, and have been
omitted by, the translators.
(c) Difference
of substance.
1. xxxvi 3 narrates how Bezaleel
and his companions received from
Moses
the offerings which the children of
of
the sanctuary, and then continues, ‘And they’ [emphatic, referring to
the
nearer subject, the children of
freewill
offerings every morning'. The Greek translators, not realizing
the
force of the emphatic ‘they’, have thought that it must be the same
as
the ‘they’ which commences the verse, viz.: Bezaleel
and his com-
panions. Accordingly they have changed ‘brought’ into ‘received’;
have
omitted ‘unto him’, and substituted ‘from those that brought’.
The Hebrew gives a terse and vigorous picture of
the Israelites
bringing
more and more offerings to Moses morning by morning: the
Greek
turns this into the feeble statement that Bezaleel
and his fellow-
workers
continued to receive the offerings from those that brought them
(not
from Moses as in the earlier part of the verse).
2. xxxvii 17-23, the construction of the
Candlestick, is the one
passage
of any length where the substance of the Greek differs seriously
from
the Hebrew. This, like the similar instance of differing substance
in
Group I, deals with a rather lengthy and complicated description.
The
Hebrew, however, though minutely detailed with a good deal of
repetition
is clear and free from ambiguity: the Greek is confused,
hardly
intelligible, and has every appearance of having been condensed
(not
very intelligently) from the longer statement.
Where the substance differs, as in Group I, the
Hebrew is to be pre-
ferred to the Greek.
(d) Difference of order.
1. In xxxv 23 the Greek places the de<rmata u[aki<nqina before the
‘rams’
skins dyed red’, which is not the usual order: in xxxvi 9 the
NOTES AND STUDIES 465
Greek
puts ‘the same [measure] was to all [the curtains]’ between
the
measurements of the length and of the breadth of the curtains: in
xxxix
28 the Greek has the `head-tires' of the priests before the ‘mitre’
of
the High Priest. These are probably instances of scribal inadvertence,
transposing
clauses.
2. In xxxv 10-19 the Hebrew has a complete list
of the things to be
made,
arranged in regular order: the Tabernacle and its framework;
the
Incense
(with the Anointing Oil and Incense), and the Screen of the
Door;
the Brazen Altar and Laver: the Hangings and Screen of the
Court;
the pins and cords ; and finally the priestly Vestments.
The
Greek list is incomplete and strangely disordered. It begins in
the
same way with the Tabernacle and its framework, the
seat,
and Veil. But then follow the Hangings of the Court; the
Emerald
Stones; the Incense and Anointing Oil; the Table and Candle-
stick;
the Altar; the Vestments; and finally the Anointing Oil and the
Incense
over again. Can this possibly be the original account?
3. In xxxix 33-41 the Hebrew has a perfectly
regular list of the
completed
articles delivered to Moses in the same natural order as
the
list of c. xxxv.
The Greek begins with stola<j, where the Hebrew ‘Tabernacle’
is
clearly
right, being followed by the Tent and framework. Then follow
the
the
Vestments; the Hangings of the Court; the Screen of the door of
the
Tent, and of the gate of the Court (bringing together two separate
things);
all the vessels of the Tabernacle and all its service; the skin
and
other coverings; the pins; and all the service of the Tabernacle
(already
mentioned).
The order here not only differs from the Hebrew,
but also from the
Greek
in c. xxxv (notice especially the Vestments at the end of the list
in
c. xxxv; in the middle of that in c. xxxix).
It may be argued that the imperfect and
disordered lists of the
Greek
may represent an original text which was afterwards systematically
rearranged
and filled in so as to form the present symmetrical Hebrew.
This
argument ought hardly to be urged by those who hold that the
whole
description of the Tabernacle was an ‘ideal’ plan drawn up by
men
whose writings are specially characterized by system and order.
Anyhow
(r) it is unlikely that lists drawn up by the same writers would
be
so much at variance as these two; (2) it is very unlikely that the
original
lists would have shewn such utter confusion of the various
parts
1 If this is the Altar of Burnt
Offering it is strangely out of place: the associa-
tion with
Incense.
466
THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
of
the Tabernacle as is found in the Greek; and (3) original lists would
hardly
contain the little anomalies (such as repetitions) which the Greek
presents.
Unskilful condensation and
rearrangement of a fuller original would
account
for all these peculiarities.
Where the
order differs, the Hebrew is consistent and natural, the
Greek confused and
contradictory.
So far it has been shewn
that, apart from the difference of order in
the
contents of xxxvi 8b-xxxix 43, the Greek
of both Groups shews
a
large amount of variations from the Hebrew, and that in most (if not
all)
of these, there is good reason for thinking that the translators used
a
good deal of liberty in dealing with their text; adding, omitting,
altering,
and rearranging. The remarkable difference of order in that
particular
set of chapters is, then, not an isolated phenomenon; and if
the
other variations are due to the translators, it is not unlikely that
this
one also may be due to them, and not to a difference of text.
The
difference in question will be best shewn in a
Comparative Table.1
Hebrew. Greek.
see below. Vestments
(a).
I. Curtains. Curtains
(fragment).
Framework.
Veil and Screen. Veil
and Screen.
Court l (b).
see
below. Summary
II.
Table. Table.
Candlestick. Candlestick.
Altar
Incense. ------
------ Metal-work
(c).
III. Anointing
Oil and Incense. Anointing Oil and
Incense.
Altar of Burnt Offering. Brazen Altar.
Laver. Laver.
Court.
(b) Summary. see above.
IV. Account
of Metals. Account of Metals.
(a)
Vestments. see above.
V. Delivery
to Moses. Delivery to Moses.
1
The Comparative Table in Dr Swete's ’Introduction’ p.
235 is incomplete
and
obscures some points of resemblance.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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?
In the narration of how these Instructions were
obeyed, however,
clearly
some notice is needed of how Moses, who alone had received
them,
conveyed them to the people. Accordingly c. xxxv begins with
Moses
assembling the people, and telling them ‘what the LORD hath
commanded',
and now the solemn warning against infringing the
Sabbath,
which so appropriately closed the Instructions, becomes an
equally
suitable preface to the address to the assembled people. Before
they
are told of the work, they are cautioned as to its limitation, and to
this
caution is made the significant addition, ‘Ye shall kindle [lit. make
flame,
or burn] no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath
day’.
Not only are they themselves to rest, but the special injunction
against
the use of fire is added lest they should think it necessary to
keep
alive the fires for casting and fashioning metals. All work is to
cease.
This prefatory warning given, the people are
next informed what
materials
are wanted, and the short summary of things to be made is
added
so that the people may understand to what purposes these
materials
are to be applied.
Quite simply and inartificially the matters
which form the suitable
close
to the Instructions come as an equally fitting prelude to the per-
formance of the work, and precisely in that
reverse order in which they
are
actually found.
In response to Moses' address the offerings pour
in: men and women
bring
their golden ornaments, the men bringing also the ready-made
materials
they possessed, as well as silver, bronze, and acacia wood, the
NOTES AND STUDIES 481
women
contributing to the supply of materials by their spinning, and
their
rulers providing the precious stones, the spice, and the oil. Then
the
workers are convened, the materials delivered to them, and the work
of
construction commences.
In this account of the performance of the work, those
things which,
as
being of lesser importance, only appear towards the close of the
Instructions,
are naturally associated with the parts to which they
belong.
So we find them: the Incense Altar with (but after) the
Furniture
of the
because
of similar composition) immediately after the Altar on which
the
Incense was to be offered; the Laver after the Altar of Sacrifice;
and
the Ransom silver in its appropriate place between the gold and the
bronze
of the freewill offerings.
Again, a perfect order and unity runs through
the arrangement of
Group
II, and, though the order differs so much from that of Group I,
it
is the order which exactly harmonizes with the professed character of
these
chapters, viz. the narration of how the Instructions were obeyed.
Is
it credible that this harmony, so real and yet so far from obvious,
could
have been produced by yet a third set of writers, merely re-
arranging
somewhat slavishly the Instructions of Group I 'in order to
dwell
on their detailed fulfilment' (McNeile
'Exodus' p. 223)?
The inference that the different order of Group
II shews that these
chapters
belong to a later period than Group I really rests on a small
part
of the evidence : it disregards the significance of the way in which
the
contents of cc. xxx, xxxi are re-arranged, and it disregards the fact
that
the omissions and additions in Group II shew a
deliberate purpose
agreeing
with the different character of the two Groups.
The view that Group II gives a straightforward
account of how the
Instructions
were carried out is consistent with the evidence as a whole,
explains
all the variations (omissions, additions, differences of order),
and
is coherent and intelligible throughout.
The three inferences to be examined were
(A) that the translators of xxxv-xl were not the
translators of xxv-
xxxi;
(B) that the text used by the translators of
xxxv-xl differed from the
present
Massoretic text;
(C) that cc. xxx, xxxi were a later addition to
xxv-xxix,
and
cc. xxxv-xl a still later addition.
It has been the aim of these papers to shew that each of these
inferences
has been drawn from an imperfect survey of the evidence,
482 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
and
that a consideration of the whole evidence shews that
there is good
reason
for believing that
(1) the translators were the same throughout;
(2) the differences of the Greek from the Hebrew
are due to the
translators,
and not to a difference of text;
(3) cc. xxx, xxxi are an integral portion of the
original Instructions,
and
xxxv-xl a plain narrative of how the Instructions were obeyed.
A. H. FINN.
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: