n Dt (1 45- 4 1718. 19 973. 8. 26 oS 8. G1 99"1. 29 3019 31% 1. 12. 34. 36 3546) the term, esp. in the expression ‘this law,’ is used somewhat ambiguously: some- times it denotes more particularly the code of laws embodied in Dt; sometimes it is used more generally of the exposition of an Israelite’s duty contained in the book, and consisting partly of the actual laws, partly of the hortatory introduc- tions and comments accompanying them, in other words it denotes the Deuteronomic legislation generally ; in the last-named sense it also occurs repeatedly (often in such phrases as ‘the book of the law,’ ‘the law of Moses,’ ‘the law that Moses commanded,’ etc.) in the Deuteronomic sections of Jos and Kings (Jos 17-8 §%- 3-3! 995 938 1 K 95, 2 K 1081 145 17}8- 34. 37 918 998. h 93%. 35).
After the time of Ezra,* when P had been com- bined with JED, and the Pentateuch had assumed (virtually) its present form, the term is used, yet more generally, of the Pent. as a whole, as 1 Ch 16* (with reference to Ex 29°" P), 2 Ch 315 ete., Ezr 32, Neh 8. In the Psalms it is used often
* The reference in Malachi (42) is to Deuteronomy: see OTJC2 p, 4951.
| | | Ι
66
LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT)
LAW (IN OLD TESTAMENT)
of the legislative parts of the Pent. in general, as Ps 15 197 37%! 408 (perhaps here with particular reference to Dt), 9413 119' }8 ete.
ii. From the preceding survey of passages, it will be apparent that Hebrew ¢érdh had a three- fold character: it was judicial, ceremonial, and moral, ‘The ceremonial ἐν is most prominent in the OT; but the judicial and moral térah was not less a reality, esp. in early times. Nor is it doubted by critics that this ¢éradh, under all its aspects, originated with Moses. Wellhausen writes (dist. 396, 397n., 438): ‘The priests derived their Torah from Moses: they claimed only to preserve and guard what Moses had left (Dt 33+)... . From the historical tradition [of the Pent.] it is certain that Moses was the founder of the Torah.’ * Moses, however, did not create a finished code: he was the founder of a principle, and of a tradition ; he was ‘the first to call into activity the actual sense for Taw and justice, and to begin (Ex 15* 18) the series of oral decisions which were continued after him by the priest.’ And Montefiore, after emphasizing the fact that from the beginning J” was a moral God, a God of justice, continues (Hibb. Lect. pp. 45, 64f.), ‘Most original and characteristic was the moral influence of Yahveh in the domain of law. Yahveh, to the Israelite, was emphatically the God of right. . . . From the earliest times onward, Yahveh’s sanctuary was the depositary of law, and the priest was his spokesman. ‘The oracle of Yahveh, of which the priests were the interpreters, decided suits and quarrels, and probally gave guidance and advice in questions of social difficulty. The Torah—or teaching—of the priests, half-judicial half-pseda- gogic, was a deep moral influence; and there was no element in the religion which was at once more genuinely Hebrew and more closely identified with the national God. There is good reason to believe that this priestly Torah is the one religious institution which can te correctly attributed to Moses. . . . Though Moses was not the author of the written law, he was unquestionably the founder of that oral teaching, or Torah, which preceded, and became the basis of, the codes of the Pentateuch.’ That the priest, in giving judgment, was J”s spokesman, is evident from the term of Ex 1815. (the people come to Moses tu ‘inquire of God’ for the settlement of civil disputes, and his decisions are ‘the statutes and téroth of God’) 21° 995. 9 (comp. 1S 235). Questions of ceremonial also fell naturally within the priests’ province ; and their answers on this subject were regarded similarly as the judgments of God. It resulted further, Eee the ethical character of J’, that the ¢éroth of Moses and his successors, even on judicial and ceremonial matters, were always permeated by a strong moral element. The de- cisions framed by Moses and his successors aceum- ulated: they were from the first the expression of the same, or similar, principles: the result was thus a fixed tradition, haying a definitely marked character, which exerted naturally a regulative influence upon the new decisions which, as time went on, were found necessary for the purpose of meeting new needs.
lii. ‘ Térah’ was originally oral,—handed down orally from one generation of priests to another, and delivered orally by the priest to those who came to seek it of him (cf. Mal 95:7; also Job 22”, Pr 3156), The question arises, When was it first committed to writing? An examination of the Pent. shows (1) that the laws contained in it are not homo- geneous, but fall into groups, differing from one another in style, in contents, and in scope ; and
* Comp. W. R. Smith, O7JC2 303, 339.
+ Of. 2. i. 238f., ix. 981, (θέωστιες intrusted to the king by Zeus).
(2) that the different groups cannot be regarded as the product of a single generation, but must spring from different periods of the history. These and other indications make it clear that the process of writing down the oral 7érah was a gradual one. First of all, small collections of priestly 7érdtk on particular subjects were written down : then these were enlarged, or supplemented by others: till the final result was the body of ¢éroth embedded in our present Pentateuch. hese different collections did not often remain in their primitive form: new provisions were introduced into them; they were revised and adjusted to suit the requirements of a later age: in some cases, they were largely ex- panded by parenetic or other additions. The frequently loose arrangement of subjects in the various groups is a sufficient proof that we no longer possess them in their original form. The process of wiiting down began, no doubt, at an early date; though we cannot say definitely how early. The Book of the Covenant is an early written collection of such ¢éroth: it is true, the name is not actually given to it; but the analogy of Ex 1815. 30 shows that it would correctly describe it. The ritual section of this collection (939-19) appears in a different recension in Ex 3410-%6, Other collections of térdth are those forming the original nucleus of the ‘Law of Holiness’ (see below). The laws forming the basis of the Deut. code were also doubtless, at least in the great majority of cases, taken by the writer from a written source (or sources). The existence of written ¢éroth is implied distinctly in Hos 813} RV (where J” says that, however many ‘directions’ He writes for Ephraim, His people treat them as some- thing with which they have no concern): the con- text, however, and 4° (see above) show that the allusion here is not to ritual, but to ethical and religious precepts, especially those relating to civil righteousness. *