I). Date anil Origin of P. — (1) The date cannot bt earlier than Solomon's Temple. The condition of religious worship evidenced by the Books of Judges and Samuel, for example the social char- acter of the sacrificial feasts, Jg 21'", 1 S O""* 2018-S4 etc.; the performance of sacrificial rites bj other than Levites, as by Samuel, 18 7" 10" etc. (though an Ephraimite, 1 S 1'), David, 2 S 6", and David's sons, 2 S 8'* ; the illegality of the priestly portions, 1 S 2""", which though enjoined bj' the Levitical law are here regarded as so sinful as to warrant the downfall of tlie house of Eli (2--''- is a very late gloss, not found even in the best MSS of the LXX), — all show that the laws of P were either unknown, or absolutely ignored during this early period. (2) Even after Solomon's reign, even if we could suppose that 1 and 2 K always give us an accurate account of the matter, and were not themselves influenced by P or kindred elements, the Levitical law would appear to have been only very partially observed. There are few references to it beyond the elaborate descriptions of the temple in 1 K 5-7. It is still disregarded by such great lights as Elijah and Elisha, who as prophets themselves sacrificed just as Samuel haa done, and that without any regard for the one sanctuary which P throughout supposes, for example Lv 17''*. (3) This argument from silence is strengthened by the remarkable fact that in Chronicles we have in many respects a Levitical version of the same facts as those ditrerently related in Samuel and Kings ; as, for example, of the bringing up of the ark from Kiriath-jearira (contrast 2 S 6 with 1 Ch 15-16'), and the con- -spiracy against Athaliah (contrast 2 K 11 with 2 Ch 2"2"'-23), making it almost certain that the Books of Samuel and Kings were iu the main wTitten before, those of Chronicles after, the institutions of P were formulated. (4) A further tenniniis a quo is furnished by a comparison between the codes of D and P. We have already shown at some length reasons for believin" that the code of P was subsequent to that of D (see above, ii. C), showing in every respect signs of greater elaboration and development. (5) The style of P shows, by its stiffness, artificiality, and conciseness of treatment, that it is dealing with a dead past — a mere summary composed out of old written records, not the perpetuation in literary form of a still living tradition. All these facts point in the same direction, that P was far later than JE, and probably considerably later than D. Indeed, a considerable distance of time is required to account for the ditlereiice of vocabulary. (6) There is no historical event likely to account for Pprevioiis to the Exile. Such a docu- ment as compared with D marks a reformation, one might almost say a revolution, in religious worship. But it may easily lie accounted for by the Exile itself. Outside of P there was no com plete system of ritual laws. In all probabilitj . they were largely traditional and of gradual growth. Some of them were codified in Dt, but a great many points are not mentioned, for pre- cisely the same reason that many points of ritual are left untouched in the rubrics of the English Prayer-Book, because they are matters of couiiiion knowledge settled by prevailing custom. If a stranger could be supposed to have to conduct a service in an English Church, he would not know what he was expected to say, or whether he was expected to say anything, before and after the sermon, in what part of the Church he was tc
HEXATEUCH
HEXATEUCH
read the lessons, the Litany, or preach the sermon, and many other things of tlie Kind. How many more serious questions must naturally have arisen concerning the ritual of sacrilice, involving, as it did, so muih manual work ! Tliese things were originally decided, it is probalile, by local custom. When religi'^us worship tiad become centralized at Jerusalem they would probably he settled authori- tatively by the body of priests, who are likely to have followed in the main the traditions of the old sanctuary of Jerusalem. (7) But when the line of tradition was broken by the K.\ile the need ■would have arisen for more elaborate directions, and we do actually tind the prophet Ezekiel fram- ing a sort of manual of ritual, though in some respects ideal and visionary (chs. 40-48). (8) But the troubles and disturlances which followed upon the Restoration must have made it dillicult to establish any complete system of worship, ami we do not hear of any complete religious orL^anization till the time of Lzra. It would probably then be near the truth to say that P is the result nf the relir/ious movement which began with Ezekiel in Babylon, and found its completion with Ezra. Just as the hook of the Law found in the house of J" in Josiah's reign was D, or the nucleus of D, BO it is likely that the law-book read by Ezra, Neh 8, was P, or the essential ])art of P. It is important to observe that the legal ordinances referred to in Neh are to be found in P ratlier than in D ; for example, the custom of dwelling in booths, 8'»-'«.