114 



PROFESSOR JAMES ORR, J).D., ON THE 



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 exagger- 

 ated, 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 — tlierefore the place of the tabernacle — was loithin the 

 cauip ; or again to the formula in Numbers x, 36, at the resting 

 of the ark — " Eeturn, 0 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 



