124 



PROFESSOR JAMES ORE, D.D.^ ON THE 



Pentateuch, pp. 53 ff.), but if I were to start on the subject of the 

 textual criticism of the Pentateuch, I fear we should be here all night. 



I thank you for your kindness in giving me a hearing. 



Dr. Heywood Smith wished to make two observations. The 

 first was with regard to the author's remarks at the bottom of 

 p. Ill on the wearing out of the boards and curtains ; could not 

 the same God that kept the clothes and shoes of the Israelites from 

 wearing out have also preserved the material of his own Tabernacle 

 from deteriorating '? And secondly, the author says (p. 113), "We 

 are on the safest ground when we affirm that Exodus correctly 

 describes it." Have we not also the additional testimony of the 

 author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who, in his description of the 

 Tabernacle with its furniture and the Ark (chapter ix), writes as one 

 who was inspired to speak of things that had had an actual existence 

 and were not dim pictures of a myth. 



The Chairman in summing up said : It is most valuable to have 

 the opinion of experts in two branches of evidence. Sir Robert 

 Anderson and Mr. Maunder, as to the value of questions of Higher 

 Criticism. For my part, I have no doubt that experts in forensic 

 evidence and in scientific evidence have much sounder views of what 

 evidence really means than those whose criticism cannot be verified 

 by experiment or practical life. 



I cannot understand the objection to the Mosaic account of the 

 Tabernacle, that it is not clear enough for anyone to work on. At 

 least two of my friends have found it clear enough to construct 

 models not exactly alike but differing only in minor points, the 

 only great diff"erence being whether there was or was not a ridge pole. 



As to the remarks which have been made as to the author's views 

 on questions not in the paper, I would say that it is not right to try a 

 man in his absence when he has had no notice of the charge. It 

 certainly is not allowed in law, and I think should not be in 

 discussion. 



In conclusion, I propose a hearty vote of thanks to Professor Orr 

 for his most valuable and important paper. 



This was put to the meeting and carried unanimously. 



The following written communications have been received. 



From Canon GiRDLESTOXE : — 



P. 104. Reference is made to " high artistic skill." In Petrie's 



