330 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



adopted at a much later period than is commonly supposed, prob- 

 ably not very long before the Babylonian captivity, and was a 

 complete revolution, substituting kinship through males for that 

 through females.. It perhaps was included in the book of the law 

 so mysteriously found in the reign of Josiah, and of the provisions 

 of which both he and the people had been entirely ignorant (II 

 Kings, xxii, xxiii). The marriage law seems to have been drawn 

 up for a people just adopting a system of female descents. This 

 is shown by the fact that the only aunt by marriage that a man 

 might not marry was his father's brother's wife ; he might marry 

 his mother's brother's wife, or his wife's father's sister. It is also 

 shown in the particular stress laid upon the prohibition of mar- 

 riage with a father's daughter. This is forbidden in verse 9, and 

 again, with more detail, in verse 11. Such a marriage would be 

 perfectly lawful under a system of female descents, and that of 

 Amnon with Tamar would have been one of this class. From 

 Ezekiel, xxii, 11, it would appear that such marriages continued 

 to be common among the Israelites up to the time of the overthrow 

 of Jerusalem. If the Levitical law is not misplaced, how comes 

 it that, in spite of the particular manner in which such marriages 

 are forbidden, David would not have withheld Tamar from Am- 

 non ? 



There are, besides, other reasons for supposing that if the 

 books of the Old Testament were arranged in order of publica- 

 tion, Leviticus ought to be placed toward the end of Kings. By 

 the Levitical law only priests and Levites were to offer sacrifices 

 and " inquire of the Lord," yet Samuel, who was neither, did both, 

 as did Saul, and David, and many others, among them Joshua, a 

 Beth-shemite (see I Samuel, vi, 14, 15 ; xiii, 9 ; xiv, 37 ; xxiii, 2, 4 ; 

 II Samuel, ii, 1 ; v, 19, 23 ; vi, 18). The Levitical law also con- 

 demned those who sacrificed in " high places," or away from the 

 sanctuary, where the ark was present ; yet Samuel (I Samuel, ix, 

 13) went up to a "high place" to sanctify the sacrifice, and after- 

 ward disposed of that portion which, according to Leviticus, vii, 

 31-34, belonged to the priest ; and David is made to say (I Chroni- 

 cles, xiii, 13), " Let us bring again the ark of our God to us, for we 

 inquired not at it in the days of Saul." All these acts and omis- 

 sions were violations of stringent laws, yet no one seems to have 

 been aware that they were doing wrong, and the only inference 

 to be drawn is that the laws did not then exist. This gains further 

 support from the fact that we read in I Kings, viii, 9, that when 

 Solomon brought the ark to the temple there was nothing in it 

 but the two tables of stone, though the ark was the place in which 

 the book of the law was to be kept (Deuteronomy, xxxi, 2G), and 

 that we hear nothing of any book of the law till Hilkiah, the high 

 priest, alleged that he found one during the reign of Josiah. 



