_ The Mosaic period represented that of Israel’s faithful rela- tionship to Jehovah (Hos 216 111, Jer 22). As the cry at present is ‘Back to Ohrist,’ so the cry then was ‘Back to Moses.’ At present in going back to Christ to spply His teaching to immedi- ate needs, we re-formulate them indirectly, giving thus laws of Christian conduct. But indirect re-formulation of ancient prin- ciples is contrary to the genius of the Hebrew mind and Ἰλυσθα κε. Intensity is characteristic of Hebrew utterance, as is well illustrated in Christ's use of the words ‘hate’ (Lk 1428)
and ‘thank’ and ‘hide’ (Mt 11). The Hebrew language
* Torah (7A) is used in the OT to denote—1. Instruction: (a) human : Pr 18 62. 3 et al. ; (b) Divine, Job 2222, Is 309 et al.; (c) a body of Siena teaching, Is 4221.4, Jer 913 et al.; (d) instruction in Messianic age, Is 20 424 et al.; (6) a body of priestly direction or instruction, Hos 48, Jer 28 et al. 2. law ( rop. direction) : (a) of special laws, Ex 189 164 et al. ; (b) of codes of law—{1) as written in the code of the covenant, Ex 2412, Jos 24% et al. ; (2) the law of the Deuteronomic code, Dt 154844 et al.; (3) the law of the Priests’ Code, 2Ch 2318 gol6 et αἱ. (Ozf. Heb. Lez. p. 4351.).
1 Cf. the two records of the ten commandments (Ex 203-17, Dt 5721) and the laws in the different OT codes (see art. HEXATEUCH im vol. ii. 365»)
OLD TESTAMENT
refuses also to lend itself readily to indirect speech. It shows reluctance to give an address in substance, except in an apparent reproduction of the ipsissima verba. Thus in the OT historical books, whenever a writer wishes to report that one person made a verbal communication to another, he almost invariably says: ‘So and so spoke to so and so, saying.’ The direct form is used. Hence if in the reign of Josiah the Mosaic law and teaching were to be re-formulated to meet the ex- igencies of the time, they were naturally placed directly in the mouth of Moses. Indeed, practically no other method was possible to produce the required effect.
Dt is also far more than a code of laws. It is a hortatory exposition of law, sears on the ground of Divine love and revelation for obedience in Israel. A religious experience formed its real basis, and gave it a position of Divine authority.
The reformation under Josiah was a failure. The good king fell at the battle of Megiddo. The people lapsed into idolatry, and Judah soon went into exile. Something more than Dt seemed necessary for a religious constitution for Israel. With this thought another re-formulation of the laws began. The Bk. of Ezekiel exhibits this movement. Under the form of a vision he drew ἂν a programme for the future (see art. EZEKIEL),
e heightened the sanctity of the central sanctuary by placing it within the domain of priests, that it might not, like the old temple, be liable to de- filement through proximity to royal residences (43%), He heightened the sanctity of the priest- hood by restricting it to the sons of Zadok, the Levites being degraded from office on account of their ministration at the high pee (444), He
ave also an elaborate ritual for worship, and
escribed, with the measurements and detail of an architect’s plan, a new temple, and apportioned the land among the tribes of Israel with the regularity of a military camp. In accordance with this spirit, which saw no hope for Israel without transforming the State into a church and regulating the whole life of the people through elaborate law and ordinance, supposed Mosaic principles were again restated, and an ideal con- stitution of Israel in the wilderness was given as a new law for the Jewish people. This was issued in the Priests’ Code (see art. HEXATEUCH), and
Sle presented by Ezra to the people, who received it as the law of God (Neh 8-10, B.c. 444 or 443). The reception of the Priests’ Code under
Ezra marks practically the appearance of the Law, since shortly afterwards Dt, which had dA been united with the historical work JE (see art. HEXATEUCH), and had never been abrogated as a law of Divine authority, was joined with the Priests’ Code.
In all this legal literature the historical narrative occupied a prominent place. Laws were thought of not only as expressing abstract principles of justice and worship, but also as having originated in connexion with Divine manifestations. Hence narratives of a ets revelation of God in the early ages of mankind and Israel formed an integral part of the Priests’ Code. An example had already been set in Dt 1-4 and later by combining Dt with the historical work JE.
The enlargement and combination of sacred writings was performed by the séphérim or scribes. This class of scholars, of whom Ezra ‘the ready scribe in the Law of Moses’ (Ezr 78) was the prototype, grew up during the Exile, or shortly after, probably within priestly circles. The mem- es was not confined, however, to priests. They became the guardians and students of the Law, which they felt free to annotate and enlarge with some additions. They separated from the Hexateuch the Bk. of Joshua (see below). Thus the Law did not reach its final form until the 3rd cent. B.C. (For revision and gradual compilation