• The (oudnese of the priestly writers (or proportion (2 : 1) haa oj'ain led to strange results, for, even with the colossal ' boards ' of previous writers reduced to frames (see § vii. (b)), the louls of the Merarites were out of all proportion to those of the tJershonites. Nu 7, however, is now recognized as one of the latest sections of the Hexateuch.
Everything being now in readiness, the march began. The Levites, according to Nu 2", — and a» the symmetry of the camp requires, — marched in the middle of the line, with two divisions of three tribes each before them and two behind. This, however, does not accord with Nu 10""-, according to which the sons of Gershon and Merari marched after the first division of three tribes, and had the tabernacle set up before the arrival of the Kohath- ites w ith the sacred furniture between the second and third divisions.
xii. The Hlstoricity of P's Tabernacle.— After what has been said in our opening section — with which the art. Ark must be compared — as to the nature, location, and ultimate disappearance of the Mosaic tent of meeting, it is almost super- fluous to inquire into the historical reality of the costly and elaborate sanctuary which, according to P, Moses erected in the wilderness of Sinai. The attitude of modern OT scholarship to the jiriestly legislation, as now formulated in tlie Pentateuch (see §§ i. and iv. above), and in par- ticular to those sections of it which deal with the sanctuary and its worship, is patent on every page of this Dictionary, and is opposed to the historicit}' of P's tabernacle. It is now recognized that the highly organized community of the priestly writers, rich not only in the precious metals and the most costly Phoenician dyes, but in men of rare artistic skill, is not the unorganized body of Hebrew serfs and nomads that meets us in the oldest sources of the Pentateuch. Even after centuries spent in contact with the civilization and arts of Canaan, when skilled artists in metal were required, they had to be hired by Solomon from Phcenicia. Again, the situation of P's taber- nacle, its highly organized ministr}-, its complex ritual, are utterly at variance with the situation and simple appointments of the Elohistic tent of meeting (see g i.). With regard, further, to the details of the description, as studied in the fore- going sections, we nave repeatedly had to call attention to the obscurities, omissions, and minor inconsistencies of the text, which compel the student to the conviction that he is dealing not with the description of an actual structure, but with an architectural programme, dominated by certain leading conceptions. The most convinc- ing, however, of the arguments against the actual existence of P's tabernacle, is the silence of the pre- exilic historical writers regarding it. There is absolutely no place for it in the picture which their writings disclose of the early religion of the Hebrews. The tabernacle of P has no raison d'etre apart from the ark, the history of which is known vith fair completeness from the conquest to its removal to the temple of Solomon. Bvit in no genuine passage of the liistory of that long period is there so much as a hint of the tabernacle, with its array of ministering priests and Levites. Only the Chronicler (1 Ch 16™ 21-'* etc.), psalm- writers, editors, and authors of marginal glosses, writing at a time when P's conception of Israel's past had displaced every other, find the tabernacle of the priestly writers in the older sources, or supply it wliere tiiev think it ought to have been (cf. 2 On 1"- with 1 k 3-'f-). See, further, Wellh. Proleg. (Eng. tr.) 39 ff., and recent works cited in the Literature at the end of this article.
xiii. The ruling Ideas and religious Sio- NiFiCANCE OF THE Tahernacle. — If, then, the tabernacle of the foregoing sections had no historical existence, is its study, on that account, a waste of time and labour? By no means. On the contrary, the tabernacle as conceived by the priestly wTitera is the embodiment of a sublime idea with which are associated many other ideas and truths of the most vital moment for the liistory of religion. It
TABERNACLE
TABERXACLE
661
this place it is impossible to do more than inilicate in f-ummary form some of tliese vital relijlious truths to which reference has been made. We have already (§ iv.) expressed the conviction that the only standpoint from which to approach the study of the true signilicance of the tabernacle, as de- signed by the author of Ex 25-29, is that laid down by this author himself. Following the lead of Ezekiel, his chief aim, and the aim of the priestly writers who expanded the original sketch, is to thow to future generations the necessary conditions under which the ideal relation between J" and Israel may be restored and maintained. This ideal is expressed bj' Ezekiel and by P as a dwelling of J"in the midst of His covenant people (reff. in § iv.). The methods, however, by which these two kindred spirits sought to impress this ideal upon their con- temporaries are diametrically opposed. Ezekiel projects his ideal forward into the Me.ssianic future ; 1' throws his backwards to the golden age of Moses. Both sketches are none the less ideals, whose realization for prophet and priest alike was still in the womb of the future. Both writers follow closelj' the arrangements of the pre-exilic temple, 1', however, striving to unite these with existing traditions of the Mosaic tent of meeting. It is the recognition of these facts that makes it pos.sible to say that ' a Christian apologist can allord to admit that the elal orate description of the tabernacle is to be regarded as a product of religious idealism, working upon a historical basis' (Ottley, Aspects of the 01 J Test. 226).