BM 





on only as ' th greatest high place ' (1 Ki. iii. 4)." 

 Bat we bare seen that the continued existence of the 

 tabernacle is not a mere assumption of tbo author of 

 Chronicles, but a matter of fact attested by the 

 book* of Joshua, Samuel, and Kings. The fact that 

 Uie book of Kings knows of Qibeon as the seat of 

 the groat high plaoe (ibis book recognizes no other 

 high plaoe as legitimate) is perfectly consistent with 

 the new taken in Chronicle*, that the great high 

 plaoe was constituted as such by the fact of the 

 presence of the tabernacle there. The account in 

 Kiugi doe* not contradict that in Chronicles, but 

 confirms it 



On thii point, the author of tho same article nays : 

 " Two passages in the .... books of Judges, 

 Samuel, and Kings speak of the tabernacle . . . . ; 

 but external ami internal evidence show them to be 

 interpolated (1 Sam. ii. 2i; 1 Ki. viii. 4). " But the 

 mention of tha tabernacle in 1 Ki. viii. 4 is in thn 

 Saptnagint, as well as in the Hebrew copies, and 

 that in 1 Sam. ii. '21 is 1:1 tho Hebrew and the Alex- 

 andrian Soptua^int, though not in tho Vatican copy 

 of the Qreek. In each oa.su the mention of tho tab- 

 ernacle fits the context, and fi"-s all the Biblical 

 statements that touch tho matter. A man who re- 

 gards tha Priost-co,lo writings as unhistorical must 

 needs find in th it circumstance a reason for regard- 

 ing these pisvigts, which ascribe historicity to the 

 Priest-code writings, as interpolations ; but really 

 there is no othar reason for so regarding them. 



Tue author of thasama article farther insists upon 

 whit ho regards as the fact that at Shiloh tho ark 

 " was honied not i:i a tent but in a templo (I Sain. 

 iii. 3, 15)." Bat, admitting that there was a perma- 

 nent temple structure at Shiloh, tho account testifies 

 that tha tabernacle was also there, aud there is no 

 difficulty in understanding that tha tabernacle may 

 bive stood somewhere within the temple precincts, 

 with the ark iu its Inly of holies, and tho legal or- 

 ningein >nts for sacritioa connected with it. 



7% off'.rini* ami mcrijlc't cnnnecte<l irith the t<ihrr- 

 ntclt. The Peutateuchal writings testify that Israel 

 bad institutions of this sort from tho time when 

 Abraham first c imi to Palestine ; that there were 

 Israelitish institutions of sacrifice in K:rypt, just bo- 

 fore tin exo.l'is, anl in tin wildarnoss, i.i tho interval 

 batwaeu thi oiolis a:i I th.i giving of thr> Sinaitio 

 legislation, Gin. xti. 7; xxii. 'I frj. et al ; Ex. N. ~~>; 

 xii. 3--2S; xviii. 12; xxiv. 5, e!c Th -y affirm that, 

 under M nei, thesa earlier institutions wore regulat- 

 ed by virioos statutes, a:i I supplemented. TJba col- 

 lection of tho:n fou.i I in thn Pentateuch is in no 

 proper sense a c vie, b-it is Miir.il/ a snccossion of 

 pipers plaol ona after another, wi'h no apparent 

 ystem. The ritiwl d -serih-il differs materially 

 from that of either H donna's temple, or I ha nee-ond 

 templo; it provides for no course* in tin ordering 

 of tin priests an I Livites, n-i corps of gate-keepers 

 and othir alien lin's of that class, no singers, no 

 wood-offjring (<-.f. Neh. x. 33 [31] ; xiii. 31). no 

 m iney provision for current ex|>enses (</. Noh. x. 

 88-81 (ftft-881 ). tha half shekel tax of Ex. xxx. 12- 

 16 ; xxxriii. 23-24, bnini? a very different thing from 

 th ) permanent tax of Nehamiah. On tho other hand, 

 trace* of the existonoa of manv of tha sacrificial nsa- 

 gei doscribed in this le. rid.V.iou arc found thronirh- 

 out the history, from Joshna to Nehomiah. The 

 great dav of atonement, indeed, is not mentioned in 

 th > Old Testament outside the Pentatench. Thn 

 word for sin-off iring, except porhans in Ps. il. 7 



S, occurs only in Ezekiel, the Pentatench. and 

 post-exilic books, and is first applied in Climn- 

 iolos to the times of Hezokiah. Thn current phrases 

 to describe atonement for sin occur in Deuteronomy, 

 In 1 8ra. iii. 14. in 2 Sam. xxi. .1, and in Ps. Ii. 9 

 [7] and other Psalms, but they are abundant only in 

 tU j Pi io.it-coJe and the later Old Testament books. 



But most of tho other distinctive terms for sacrifice 



! are found sprinkled through the books of Judges, 

 Samuel, Kings, and the earlier prophets. 



The passages in which these terms occur are very 

 nuiuorous. It is impossible here to refer to them in 

 ili-ttiil. A thorough examination of them would not 

 lead to tho conclusion that the 1'eutateuchal system 

 of sacrifices and offerings was in complete opera- 

 tion in Israel throughout .the period from Moses to 

 Nehemiah ; but equally, it would not justify the con- 

 clusion that tho essential points of the system were 

 ever unknown in Israel during that period. Such, 

 passages as Pout. xii. 8 and Josh. v. 2-8, show that 

 the system, so far as the whole people was con- 

 cerned, was in very imperfect operation even in tho 

 time of Moses himself. Tho ritual of the times of 

 Eli has its points of difference from that of the Pen- 

 tatench, as well as its points of resemblance. Bni 

 in the successive revivals of ritual, under David and 

 S >!omon, under Hezekiah, under Jnsiah, under Ezra, 

 tho claim mado iu the records is that the revival fol- 

 lowed tho Mosaic precepts that were in the pos- 

 session of the priests ; and thero is nothing in tho 

 phenomena of tho times to contradict this claim. 



In tho article TITHES, in the ENCYCLOIMDIA Bm- 

 TANXirA, tho view is presented that tho older Isruol- 



I itish legislation had nothing to say of tithes, but de- 

 manded as duo to Jehovah the firstlings of the flock 

 and herd, and also, without fixing the amount, tho 



| first-fruits of agricultural products ; that before tho 

 writing of the Deuteronomic legislation in the sev- 



! cnth century u. c., tho amount of tho first-fruits had, 

 como to bo fixed at a tenth ; that in that code, Dent. 



! xii. 6, 11 ; xiv. 22 sq., nn innovation is introduced to 

 tho effect that the tithes "must bo consumed at a 



I central, instead of a local, sanctuary ; " and that in 

 tho times of Ezra and Neheminh there was put iu 

 force " the new law of the priestly code (Num. xviii. 

 21 fq.), iu which it is formally laid down that (he 

 tithe is a tribute paid to tho Levitos, who in turn 

 pay a tithe of it to tho priests." It is sufficient dis- 

 proof of this that tho Priest-code, Deuteronomy, 



| and Nehemiah alike regard tho tithes as something 

 entirely distinct from the first- fruits, Num. xviii. 12, 

 13, 21-20; Deut. xxvi. 10, 12; Neh. x. 3Ti-38 ; xii. 

 44. This theory of tho evolution of the tithing sys- 



| tern has no elements of continuity or of probability 

 that would justify a truly critical scholar in accept- 

 ing it in preference to the specific testimony of tl.o 

 different accounts, which ascribe the laws concerning 

 tithes to Moses. 



Iii tho article on SACRIFICE in tho ENrrcT.iOP.EDiA 

 BniTASstfA is a similar theory of the evolution < f 

 >:icrilicial worship. It holds that a Rncrifice "is pri- 

 marily a meal offered to the deity." Either the deily 

 alono partook, as in tho cnse of the burnt offering, 

 or he shared tho sacrificial feast with his worship- 

 pers. Animals came to be preferred as sacrifices, !- 

 cause animal food was thought of as more luxu- 

 rious than vegetable food. In certain stapes of 

 savagery, it is unlawful for a tribesman to eat tho 

 totem animal of his own tribe, and praiseworthy for 

 him to eat that of a hostile tribe, anil thus certain 

 animals come to be regarded as fit for food or mcii- 

 flce, while certain others aro unfit. "Generally 

 speaking, then, the original principle on which a 

 sacrificial meal is chosen is that men may not eat 

 what cannot bo offered to their Rod." As the flesh 

 of their enemies is particularly choice food, in tho 

 view of certain savago tribes, the practice of offering 

 human sacrifices Iwgan, being, in many cases at 



j least, the prodnet of cannibalism. But somehow or 

 other, a different idea ciinie to IM> connected wi'h 



| human sacrifices that of the slaving of the victim 

 to placate tlii- d.-itv, who was offended, and wl 

 vengeance must be satisfied ; the sacrifice became ] i- 

 aoular. In duo time there camo to bo piaoular ata- 



