THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
covery of the code of Hammurabi. (2) The tabernacle in its general plan conforms to a type of temple much favored by the Egyptians in the time of Moses: an open space or court where the people assembled; a gate where the worshiper with an offering met the priest and which admitted to the priestly precincts; then directly beyond and in line with the gate, the house of the deity and abode of the ark. The view from the assembly place in Israel was likewise directly through the gate, across the priests' court, through the door of the great tent, when opened, into the holy place with its lamp and table and incense altar to the curtain that screened the shrine where the ark stood. In many instances there is also a correspondence in shape and proportions between the ground plan of the Egyptian temple and that of the tabernacle of Israel. (3) This tabernacle and the ordinances of worship and the laws of the priests, in their character, elaborateness, and complexity, reflect the Mosaic age. From Babylon on the east to Egypt in the west the temple was the chief building in the community in point of nobility and richness. By the dignity of its architecture it impressed the beholder with religious awe. The encompassing court, the sacred house or pyramid, and the adytum of the deity were on a scale of beauty and grandeur commensurate with the opportunities of the worshiping people. Curtains within the chamber of the god, and sheathings of gold and silver and symbolical figures added to the splendor and impressiveness and significance of the place. The priesthood was a numerous body, and was accorded high social rank. At its head, to speak more particularly of the Egyptian priesthood, stood the high priest, the embodiment of the order, and officially distinguished by gorgeous attire. Under him were orders of priests and inferior temple servants. The respective duties and prerogatives of these various classes of sacred ministers were carefully defined. The prospective priests passed through an elaborate preliminary training in order to be fitted for the performance of pontificial functions, and when graduated and on duty purified themselves by ablutions and were arrayed in white raiment of linen or cotton. Besides the minute regulations to govern the conduct of the ministering priests, an elaborate ritual was drawn up. Among the Semites the offerings consisted of animals for sacrifice and vegetable products. Beasts were distinguished as clean and unclean. To be fit for use upon the altar the animal must be not only clean, but without blemish in the eyes of the priest. A ceremony was performed of such perfection that by action and dress it told its meaning to the worshiper. Festivals were celebrated in honor of the deity, and annual pilgrimages were made to the shrine by the populace. Moses did not borrow bodily. He did not take over as a whole. But the expression of esthetic feeling and religious thought in the forms of architecture and ritual had become a fine art. The symbols used may be likened to words. Moses took these words and by means of them told to men — not to the Hebrews only, but to strangers who might visit Israel — the character of Yahweh, the way to approach him, the obligations of his wor-
shipers. The tabernacle and the priestly ritual elaborate and complex though they were, were yet no novelty, no innovation. It is not surprising that at the founding of the nation, politically and religiously, the book of the covenant, which in modern parlance would be called the constitution and statutes, should be immediately followed by the plan and specifications for a national sanctuary and by a manual for the priests containing minute instructions for their guidance in the performance of a symbolic service. The ideals of the age demanded these things; and Moses under the direction of God gave to Israel a code of laws, a sanctuary, and a service devised primarily to meet the needs of the nation, but intended to command the respect of cultured gentiles as well.
On the priority of the priestly legislation to Deuteronomy consult the works of the school of Ewald those, for example, by Dillmann ut sup., Klostermann, Strack ut sup.; further, E. C. Bissell, The Pentateuch, its Origin and Structure, New York, 1885. For evidence that the narrative portion of
P is pre-exilic, cf. Boyd, Ezekiel and
20. Litera- the Modern Dating of the Pentateuch,
ture on in Princeton Theological Review, 1908,