Mount Zion (II Samuel vi, 17). But I Kings also declares (viii, 4) that, at the dedication of the temple, the Tent of Meeting and its holy vessels were brought up to be placed in the new sanctuary. This reference, though found in the LXX as well as in the Hebrew text, is expunged by the critics as an interpolation; or it is alleged that the name "Tent of Meeting" is given to David's provisional tent, a usage without warrant. Without, however, dwelling on this, there are other indications which are not open to such objection. It is quite incidentally that, in the previous history in I Samuel, we come, in the notice of the tabernacle at Shiloh, under its old name, 'ōhel moedh, on mention of "the lamp of God" burning, as directed, all night (1 Samuel iii, 3; cf. Exodus xxvii, 20, 21); and at Nob, of the "shew bread" (1 Samuel, xxi)-a characteristic institution of the Levitical Code. It is only, as it were, by accident, that the mention of "lamp" and "shewbread occurs, otherwise their existence also would probably be denied. The argument from silence, as these instances show, is a precarious one. Even Wellhausen admits that at Shiloh there must have been-as at Nob later-a considerable priestly establishment (History of Israel, pp. 19, 128), though only Eli and his two sons are mentioned. The reply given to this is that the sanctuary at Shiloh cannot have been the tabernacle, for it is called twice a "temple" (1 Samuel i, 9; iii, 3), and had "doors" and "doorposts," implying a permanent structure. On this last point it is to be observed that Old Testament tradition was quite clear that prior to the temple, Jehovah's dwelling was "a tent and a tabernacle" ('ōhel and mishkān, II Samuel vii, 6; I Chronicles xvii, 5)-the ark of God dwelt "within curtains." It is no contradiction of this that during its century-long stay at Shiloh, the "Tent of Meeting" may have gathered round it other structures, supports and conveniences-gateposts, sleeping chambers for priests and attendants, etc. But this suggests to me another remark which I think is of great importance. Are we bound to suppose that the tabernacle continued during the whole of the long period between the Exodus and the building of the temple-according to 1 Kings vi, 1, 480 years; on the shortest reckoning about 300-without change, renewal, replacement of parts occasioned by age and decay? The tabernacle as set up in the wilderness was, after all, not a structure that could for a very long space of time endure stress of wind and weather, not to speak of simple decay of material. Boards will not hold out for ever, even apart from frequent removals and journeyings, curtains will wear out, and become faded and

torn. The tabernacle could not for three or four centuries retain the fresh, beautiful appearance it had from the first, and, with general adherence to the original model, would undergo repair, replacement, and, as need required, modification. There is no necessity, therefore, for supposing that the "Tent of Meeting," as it existed at Shiloh and Nob, was in every particular an exact facsimile of the original wilderness

structure.

In this connection an interesting corroboration of the historicity of the tabernacle may be based on the identity of the sacred ark in pre-Solomonic and Solomonic times. I have often wondered that the implications of this identity are not more dwelt upon than they are. There was much that was new in Solomon's temple, but it should carefully be observed that the ark at least was not new. There is little dispute that it was the one Mosaic ark which, after many vicissitudes, was brought up, and deposited by Solomon in his new house, where it remained till the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar. The notices we have of this ark-its cherubim (1 Samuel iv, 4), the staves by which it was borne, and the tables of stone it contained (1 Kings viii, 7-9)-show that it answered so far to the description of the ark in Exodus. The suggestion that the cherubim are an unhistorical addition (Driver, etc.) is opposed not only by the text of the LXX, which agrees with the Hebrew, but by the nature of the case. What motive could exist for interpolating the two small cherubim of the ark, while Solomon's temple, with its large overshadowing cherubim, still stood? The passage in 1 Kings mentioning the staves and the tables of stone was written while the temple still existed"there they are," it is said of the staves, "unto this day" (viii, 8). In Deuteronomy also, even if we relegate that book to the age of Josiah, the ark of acacia wood and its contents are described in accordance with the ark of Exodus (Deuteronomy ix, 1-5). In any case, and this is the essential point, there must have been a familiarity with the form and nature of the ark up till the very end of the temple, and if priestly writers described it in the exile, they could hardly have ventured on a wide divergence from the reality. On the theory that the tabernacle was a copy, in reduced form, of the temple, we must suppose that the ark of the tabernacle was a copy also, and this guarantees that the description given of it corresponded very much with the reality of the Mosaic ark. It was, in fact, the one ark, the character of which was well known in exilian times, that persisted to the very end. What follows from this ? Ark and tabernacle go closely

together. It is granted that there must have been from the beginning a tent of some kind as a protection and habitation for the ark. But the tent must have corresponded in some degree with the character of the ark, and if this was the beautiful, gold-covered object which we have seen reason to believe that it was, in other words, if it agreed with the description given of it in Exodus it is highly probable that the tabernacle sheltering it would have some degree of splendour also; would be a habitation worthy in dignity and significance of the Jehovah whose ark it was. The countertheory that the ark was originally simply a fetish-chest, with perhaps two meteoric stones representing the deity, I dismiss as a figment of rationalistic imagination contrary to all historical evidence. The ark had a well-known history; men could verify what it was like at the time when David and Solomon brought it up to Zion; when Deuteronomy was written; in the age when the temple was destroyed; and we are on the safest ground when we affirm that Exodus correctly describes it, and with it the tabernacle that enshrined it.

This brings us back to the primary descriptions in Exodus, and to the question of their historical worth. Dr. Driver and other writers say flatly that the tabernacle could not have been historical, because, apart from the costliness and skill implied in its construction, the descriptions are "marked by omissions and obscurities which indicate that " they are not the working directions upon which a fabric, such as is described, could be actually constructed" (Exodus, p. 427). It may be sufficient to put in opposition to this the opinion of an expert working architect like Mr. Fergusson, who as the result of his minute study of the subject, declared, "It seems to me clear that it must have been written by some one who had seen the tabernacle standing. No one could have worked it out in such detail without ocular demonstration of the way in which the parts were put together" (cited in Speaker's Commentary on Exodus," p. 379, cf. Art. on " Temple" in Smith's D.B.) Stress is laid upon the fact (Driver, Kennedy, etc.) that the bulk and weight of the materials of the tabernacle (boards, bars, sockets, pillars, etc.) were such that they could not be transported in the six covered wagons offered by the princes (Numbers vii, 2 ff.). We need not suppose, however, that these gift-wagons were the only means of transport at the disposal of the Levites for this purpose (cf. Keil, in loc.).

The most plausible critical objection, to my mind, to the historicity of the tabernacle is that drawn from the difference

I

in representation in the few JE passages already referred to and the elaborate descriptions in the so-called P sections, which are the main ones. I do not accept the late date of the alleged Priestly Writing, but I do not dispute the distinction in style and character between it and the notices referred to in the E or JE source. But even here the differences are greatly exaggerated, and may perhaps most easily be explained by the fact that the P sections are devoted to a formal and detailed description of the tabernacle, its relations to the rest of the camp, its rules for transport, etc., while the other more popular narrative fixes attention mainly on the incidents, and uses simple and untechnical phraseology in its allusions to comings and goings between camp and tabernacle. It is true that, before the tabernacle and ark were made, Moses, at the time when God was displeased with his people, possibly till the tabernacle was reared-was used to pitch the tent outside the camp, "afar off," it is said, and the people went out to him (Exodus xxxiii, 7-11). There were then no Levites to attend to the tent, so that the absence of mention of them implies no contradiction to the later law. When, however, it is affirmed, on the basis of Numbers xi and xii, that the same rule prevailed in the wilderness wanderings, this can only be made good by ignoring many clear indications in the JE narrative itself, that the camp was not ordinarily outside, but within the camp, and that it was served by a Levitical priesthood.

In proof of the former, given by me more extensively elsewhere (Problem of the Old Testament, pp. 167 ff.), I need only refer to the declaration in Numbers xiv, 44, that "the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and Moses, departed not out of the camp," implying, as plainly as language can do, that its resting place-therefore the place of the tabernacle-was within the camp; or again to the formula in Numbers x, 36, at the resting of the ark-" Return, O Lord, unto the ten thousands of Israel," which shows the same thing. The Levitical priesthood is amply attested by the notices in Deuteronomy (x, 6, 8; xxxi, 9, 25, 26) and Joshua (iii-vi). When, again, it is noted as a feature of contrast with the P description that in JE Jehovah descends in the pillar to the door of the tabernacle to speak with Moses, it is not observed that in the P part also (Exodus xxix, 42, 43) it is said: "At the door of the tent of meeting to speak there unto thee." I cannot, therefore, admit that, while the style of representation is somewhat freer and more popular, there is any essential disagreement between the different accounts warranting us in declaring that the P

description is unhistorical. It is a very significant admission which Dr. Driver makes at the end of his long discussion to prove that "it does not seem possible to regard the Tent of Meeting, as described by P, as historical," when he says: "Although there are great difficulties in accepting all the details as historical, the general plan and outline of P's tabernacle may rest upon historical tradition to a greater extent than we are aware. There are abundant indications showing that the ritual system of P is a development from old, and in some cases archaic ceremonial usage; and the same, mutatis mutandis, may have been the case with his picture of the tabernacle" (Exodus, pp. 430-1). If that is granted, I fail to see why, if the untenable assumption of the postexilian origin of the Code is given up, we may not go a good way further, and say that P's picture of the tabernacle goes back to the times when the tabernacle actually existed, and rests on sound historical knowledge.

DISCUSSION.

Dr. WILLIAM WOODS SMYTH said: We have been privileged to hear this interesting subject treated by a high, if not our highest living authority. And the subject and occasion are singularly in place just after the publication of Canon Driver's work on Exodus.

It is not sufficiently borne in mind that the Egyptian people, and in considerable degree Israel, at the era of the Exodus had reached a very high state of civilization. Moses was brought up in a court which for culture and refinement surpassed every Imperial and Royal Court in Europe of our time.

Again, Israel in their Exodus "spoiled the Egyptians," and the wealth of Egypt at this time, only after the Rameses period, was enormous. And they owed it all to Israel because of long unpaid labour. This great wealth supplied everything embodied in the Mosaic Tabernacle.

While we acknowledge the importance and utility of Professor Orr's interesting paper, I must express my regret that Professor Orr should have adopted the theory of J.E.P. documents, when so great an authority as Professor Eerdmanns, now in the chair of the redoubtable Kuenen, throws them overboard. Where is the use of placing any reliance upon a hypothesis, which is based on the