with 6%). We have now before us the cardinal pee on which has been based the ancient ewish custom of the phylacteries. Do they, we
must now ask, or do they not command and sanction this custom? The answer is by no means ΒΟ easy as may at first sight appear, for it is not an affair of exegesis alone, but involves questions of criticism and lexicology.
Thus we note that the language of the passage Ex 13% presents a strong Deuteronomic colouring, which has prevented our foremost critics+ from assigning it exclusively to J, with which source it has also undoubted affinities. Only two alter- natives are possible (cf. Wellh. Comp. εἰ. Hexat.* 74). Either we have here a section composed in whole or in part by an editor of the Deuteronomic school (so Kautzsch, Cornill, Bacon), or we have one of several examples of the literary activity of the writer (RY#) who united J and E into a single work, and who must have belonged to ‘the circles whence Deuteronomy issued’ (Kuenen, Hexat. ὃ 9 n. 4, § 13 n. 29).¢ In either case the important result follows, that we have to deal not with two enactments, separated by a couple of centuries, the earlier of which may possibly be understood in a figurative and the later in a literal sense, but with enactments of approximately the same age and reflecting the same religious standpoint.
With regard, further, to the Deuteronomic pas- sages (Dt 6°* 11*2), various critical difficulties suggest themselves. Whence this unwonted and almost verbatim repetition in the course of the same address? Must we hold that in some of the early copies of Dt the verses repeated stood in ch. 6, in others with some variations in ch. 11, and that our present text has inserted a harmonized version of them in both places (so Steuernagel in Nowack’s Handkommentar, 1898, p. 40)? Or shall we, with the latest commentator (Bertholet in Marti’s Kurzer Hand-Commentar, 1899, p. 36), regard 11"! ag an insertion which interrupts the connexion between ν. ἢ and ν. 3: The strong adver- sative with which y.* opens in the original (ox *p =‘bnt,’ not as EV ‘for’) certainly follows awk- wardly on vy.!*1, which so far makes for the latter view. The present writer, however, doubts whether either passage is in its original place. Dt 6°, for example, which is parallel to 112, Hooks as if originally intended to form the continuation
* jv, only here in OT, appears to mean ‘to prick with a sharp-pointed instrument,’ hence probably = tattoo (see ag
+ Except Dillmann; but see his latest editor's view in Dill- mann-Ryssel, /zodus, pp. 111, 141.
Σ For a con tus of modern critical opinion regarding
Ex 13*16 see Holzinger, Hinieit. in d. Hewat. 4551., and the *Tabellen’ accompanying tha’ work.
of vv.%*; this would give the following corre- spondences: 6% 8=11!8, 67=11% 69=11™", 6?=117, Assuming that both passages are genuine, we should thus have an impressive call to the con- tinued observance of the provisions of the Deutero- nomic code placed both at the beginning and the close of the hortatory introduction in chs. 6-11. In any case the characteristic Deuteronomic phrase, ‘these words which I command thee this day’ (#8), must have here, as it has everywhere else in ebs. 5-11, a prospective reference to all the provisions of the following code, and not merely to the two pre- ceding verses, as the commentators suppose. The two pairs of passages, then, we have seen, are alike in tone and intention, and that intention is to impress upon those addressed the duty of per- petual observance, in the one case (in Dt) of the whole Torah, in the other (in Ex) of two particular ordinances thereof. The whole and its parts should be continually in their thoughts and on their lips, and should form a never-failing subject for the instruction of their youth.
When we proceed to a closer examination of the special verses, Ex 13% 6, Dt 6° 118, it is very evident, if our contention as to their authors’ motive is correct, that the language of these verses is figurative throughout, as, indeed, is usually ad- mitted for Exodus, but denied, or at least ques- tioned, for Deuteronomy. But all figures of speech in Hebrew, as in other tongues, are borrowed from the common objects and processes of nature, or from the familiar facts of Se life. So it must be in the case before us. Thus, as regards the ‘sign’ upon the hand, we have only to recall the widespread practice, among all primitive races, of tattooing or branding various parts of the body with the name or symbol of the Naty to whom one wishes to dedicate one’s self, and whose protection it is desired to secure (see CUTTINGSIN THE FLESH in vol. i. 538"). Such, doubtless, is the underlying idea of the mark (nix)* of Cain, by which he was pies under the special protection of J” (see esp. Stade’s brilliant essay, ‘Das Kainzeichen,’in ZA7W, 1894, p. 250: In this essay Stade has further shown [p. 310ff.] that jn of Ex 13° is a synonym of nix in this sense).t The forehead,—for such is the meaning of ‘between the eyes’ in all our passages,—even more than the hands and wrists, was specially adapted for the reception of these religious tokens, and is so used by the most widely scattered savage and semi-savage races at the present Gah ut even in the canonical and extra- canonical literature of the Hebrews we find un- doubted references to this practice. Thus we have the young man who bore on his forehead some mark or token that he belonged to the prophets of J” (1 Καὶ 20" ; see Stade, loc. cit. 314f.; and Kittel, Handkom. wn loc.), Ezekiel’s cross (1p 9**) on the foreheads of the faithful (cf. Rev 7* 14"), the ‘token of destruction’ (σημεῖον τῆς ἀπωλείας) on the forehead of the wicked (Ps-Sol 15”, ef. v.®), while ‘the mark of the beast on hand or forehead’ (Rev 1315 14° etc.) is familiar to all. These instances more than suffice to give us a glimpse of the circle of ideas which sup fied the metaphors of the pas sages we are considering. The ordinances of the Torah were to serve the same ipa gee as these στίγματα of the ancient cults; they were to be outward and visible tokens of the Hebrews’ allegi- ance to J” their God, and of “58 special propriety in them.