LAW
(IN
OT)
until
they
affected
the
whole
nation,
(c)
Such
oral
direction
in
no
sense
excludes
the
idea
of
any
previous
laws,
or
even
of
a
written
code.
The
task
of
the
judges
was
not
so
much
to
create
as
to
interpret.
The
existence
and
authority
of
a
law
would
still
leave
room
for
doubt
in
matters
of
individual
application,
(d)
Aa
social
life
became
more
complex,
the
three
divisions
of
the
torah
became
more
speciaUzed;
civil
suits
were
tried
by
the
judge;
the
prophets
almost
confined
themselves
to
giving
oral
direction
on
moral_
duties
;_
the
priests
were
concerned
mainly
with
the
solution
of
ritual
diiBculties.
Cf.
Justice
(II.).
Here,
then,
we
can
trace
the
character
of
Hebrew
legislation
in
its
earliest
stages.
Law
(fDrah)
means
oral
direction,
gradually
crystallizing
into
consuetudi-nary
law,
which,
so
tar
from
excluding,
may
almost
be
said
to
demand,
the
idea
of
a
definite
code
as
the
basis
of
its
interpretative
function.
Finally,
when
these
directions
were
classified
and
reduced
to
writing
(c(.
Hos
S^),
tdrah
came
to
signify
such
a
collec-tion;
and
ultimately
the
same
word
was
used
as
a
convenient
and
comprehensive
term
for
the
whole
Pentateuch,
in
which
all
the
most
important
legal
collec-tions
were
carefully
included.
3.
The
tBrah
of
the
Prophets
was
moral,
not
cere-monial.
The
priests,
while
by
their
oflice
necessarily
much
engaged
in
ceremonial
and
ritual
actions,
never-theless
had
boundless
opportunities
for
giving
the
wor-shippers
true
direction
on
the
principles
underlying
their
religious
observances;
and
it
is
for
their
neglect
of
such
opportunities,
and
not,
as
is
often
crudely
main-tained,
on
account
of
any
inherently
necessary
antagonism
between
priestly
and
prophetical
ideals,
that
the
prophets
so
frequently
rebuke
the
priests,
—
not
because
of
the
fulfilment
of
their
priestly
(i.e.
ceremonial)
duties,
but
because
of
the
non-fulfllmeut
of
their
prophetical
(i.e.
moral)
opportunities.
For
the
priests
claimed
bivine
sanction
tor
their
worship,
and
tradition
ascribed
the
origin
of
all
priestly
institutions
to
Mosaic
(or
Aaronic)
authorship.
This
the
prophets
do
not
deny;
but
they
do
deny
that
the
distinctive
feature
of
the
Sinaitic
legislation
lay
in
anything
but
its
moral
excellence.
In
this
cormexion
the
words
of
Jeremiah
cannot
be
quoted
too
often:
'I
spake
not
unto
your
fathers,
nor
commanded
them
in
the
day
tha.t
I
brought
them
out
of
the
land
of
Egypt,
concerning
burnt-offerings
or
sacrifices;
but
tliis
thing
I
commanded
them,
saying
—
Hear
my
voice,
.
.
.
and
walk
ye
in
the
way
that
I
command
you'
(Jer
7^-
^).
The
correct
interpretation
of
Am
521
-a"
corroborates
Jeremiah's
contention.
It
is
wholly
unwarrantable
to
say
that
the
prophets
con-demned
the
sacrificial
system,
or
denied
its
worth
and
Divine
sanction;
but,
on
the
other
hand,
we
are
justified
in
asserting
that
the
0rah
of
Jehovah,
'the
law
of
the
Lord,'
meant
to
the
prophets
sometUng
wholly
different
from
the
punctilious
observance
of
tradi-tional
ceremonies;
and
what
is
more,
they
appeal
with-out
fear
of
contradiction
to
the
contents
of
the
Mosaic
legislation
as
completely
establishing
their
conviction
that
it
was
in
the
sphere
of
moraUty,
rather
than
in
the
organizing
of
worship,
that
the
essence
of
Jehovah's
law
was
to
be
found.
i.
With
this
test
(as
well
as
with
the
considerations
proposed
in
§
1)
the
character
of
the
Decalogue
is
found
to
be
in
complete
agreement.
Its
Mosaic
origin
has
indeed
been
questioned,
on
the
ground
that
such
an
ethical
standard
is
wholly
at
variance
with
the.
'
essen-tially
rituahstlc
character'
of
primitive
reUgldns.
To
this
it
may
be
replied:
we
cannot
call
the
prophets
as
witnesses
tor
the
truth
of
two
mutually
contradictory
propositions.
Having
already
cited
the
prophets
in
disproof
of
the
Mosaic
authorship
of
the
Levitical
legis-lation,
on
the
ground
that
the
latter
is
essentially
ritual-istic
(and
therefore
does
not
correspond
to
the
prophets'
view
of
the
Law
of
Moses),
it
is
monstrously
unfair
to
deny
the
Sinaitic
origin
of
what
is
left
In
conformity
with
the
prophetical
standard,
on
the
ground
that
it
ought
to
be
'essentially
ritualistic'
also,
and
is
not.
LAW
(IN
OT)
We
have
rightly
had
our
attention
called
to
the
witness
of
the
prophets.
But
the
weight
of
their
evidence
against
the
early
elaboration
of
the
ceremonial
law
is
exactly
proportioned
to
the
weight
attached
to
their
evidence
for
the
existence
and
authenticity
of
the
moral
code.
A
more
serious
difficulty,
however,
arises
from
the
fact
that
we
have
apparently
three
accounts
of
the
Decalogue,
exhibiting
positively
astounding
divergences
(Ex
20,
Dt
5,
and
Ex
34).
The
differences
between
Ex
20
and
Dt
6
are
not
hard
to
explain,
as
the
Ten
Words
themselves
are
in
each
case
identical,
and
it
is
only
in
the
explanatory
comments
that
the
differences
are
marked.
StyUstic
peculiarities,
as
well
as
other
considerations,
seem
to
show
that
these
latter
are
subse-quent
editorial
additions,
and
that
originally
the
Deca-logue
contained
no
more
than
the
actual
command-ments,
without
note
or
explanation.
It
is,
however,
most
instructive
to
observe
that
no
theory
of
inspiration
or
Uterary
scruples
prevented
the
editors
from
incor-porating
Into
their
account
of
the
Ten
Words
of
God
to
Moses,
the
basis
ot
all
Hebrew
legislation,
such
com-ments
and
exhortations
as
they
considered
suitable
to
the
needs
of
their
own
times.
The
difficulty
with
regard
to
Ex
34,
where
a
wholly
different
set
of
laws
seems
to
be
called
'
The
Ten
Words,'
has
not
been
solved.
Hypotheses
of
textual
displacement
abound
(cf.
OTJC^
336),
others
confidently
assert
that
the
author
'mani-festly
intends
to
allude
to
the
Decalogue'
(Driver,
LOT'
39),
while
some
scholars
have
suggested,
with
much
force
and
ingenuity,
that
we
have
in
Ex
20-23
and
34
a
series
of
abbreviations,
re-arrangements,
and
expan-sions
of
ten
groups
of
ten
laws
each.
No
final
solution
has
yet
been
reached;
but
we
may
hold
with
confidence
that
the
traditional
account
of
the
Decalogue
is
correct,
and
that
the
Ten
Commandments
in
their
original
and
shorter
form
were
promulgated
by
Moses
himself.
On
this
basis
the
law
of
Israel
rests,
and
in
the
Pentateuch
we
can
distinguish
the
attempts
made
from
time
to
time
to
apply
their
principles
to
the
lite
of
the
people.
6.
The
Book
of
the
Covenant
(Ex
20^^23^)
is
a
collection
of
'words'
and
'judgments'
arising
out
of
the
needs
of
a
very
simple
community.
The
frequent
mention
of
the
ox,
the
ass,
and
the
sheep
proves
that
this
code
ot
law
was
designed
for
an
agricultural
people.
The
state
of
civiUzation
may
be
interred
from
the
fact
that
the
principles
of
civil
and
criminal
Justice
are
all
comprehended
under
the
two
heads
of
retaUation
and
pecuniary
compensation
(cf.
OTJC
340).
ReUgious
institutions
also
are
in
an
undeveloped
and
archaic
stage.
The
laws,
however,
recognize,
and
even
insist
upon,
the
claims
ot
humanity
and
justice.
It
is
possible
that
the
original
code
may
have
been
promulgated
at
Sinai;
but
it
so,
it
has
received
considerable
expansions
to
suit
the
agricultural
requirements,
which
first
became
part
of
Israel's
daily
Ute
in
the
early
years
ot
the
occu-pation
of
Canaan.
6.
The
Law
of
Deuteronomy
shows
a
civilization
far
in
advance
of
that
contemplated
in
the
preceding
code.
Life
is
more
complex;
and
reUgious
problems
unknown
to
an
earUer
generation
demand
and
receive
full
treatment.
It
is
not
difficult
to
fix
its
approximate
date.
In
the
year
b.c.
621,
king
Josiah
inaugurated
a
national
reformation
resulting
from
the
discovery
ot
a
Book
of
the
Law
in
the
Temple.
All
the
evidence
points
to
this
book
being
practically
identical
with
Deuter-onomy;
all
the
reforms
which
Josiah
inaugurated
were
based
upon
laws
practically
indistinguishable
from
those
we
now
possess
in
the
Deuteronomic
Code;
in
tact,
no
conclusion
ot
historical
or
Uterary
criticism
has
been
reached
more
nearly
approaching
to
absolute
certainty
than
that
the
Book
of
the
Law
brought
to
light
in
621
was
none
other
than
the
fifth
book
ot
the
Penta-teuch.
But
was
it
written
by
Moses?
—
(i.)
The
book
itself
no-where
makes
such
a
claim,
(ii.)
'The
historical
situation
(suiting
the
times
of
the
later
monarchy)
is
not
merely
