126 



PEOFESSOE JAMES OEE^ D.D.^ ON THE 



court " in every branch of historical research except that in which 

 theological prepossessions are allowed to enter. And where we find 

 it supported by the absolutely incompatible assertions (1) that the so- 

 called Priestly Code is "in its present shape" post-exilic, and yet (2) 

 that it is, " in its origin, of great antiquity," and is a " codification 

 of the existing Temple usage," it becomes quite inadmissible. It is 

 a dexterous mode of puzzling opponents, no doubt, for when an 

 opponent proves, as he can easily do, that a large portion of the 

 Priestly Code is pre-exilic, he is, of course, met by the reply, 

 "Precisely so, that is what we say." And if the critic, when 

 challenged to state precisely which of the regulations of the Code are 

 post-exilic and which are not, proceeds calmly to tell us that this 

 "is an archaeological rather than a literary question," and that, 

 therefore, he is not called upon to enter into it, one wonders what 

 theory can possibly exist which cannot be proved by arguments 

 such as these. It is no wonder that Professor James Eobertson has 

 invoked the aid of British enquirers to introduce a " saner " sort of 

 criticism which shall correct the exaggerations and arbitrary assump- 

 tions of so many German critics. 



On p. 1 1 1 the Professor refers to the passage in i Kings viii, which 

 states that the Tabernacle (or " tent of meeting," as it is called) and 

 " all the holy vessels therein " were brought up to Jerusalem for the 

 service of dedication of the Temple. This passage is characteristi- 

 cally struck out by the critics, and I have never been able to find 

 any reason for this except that it conflicts with their prepossessions. 

 On such principles of historical investigation it could be proved that 

 Queen Elizabeth reigned before the Norman conquest. But I would 

 ask the meeting to note what is said in I Kings iii, 4, It states that 

 atGibeon was the " Great High Place." And the passages cited by 

 Professor Orr, i and ii Chronicles, give the reason. The Tabernacle 

 was there. This is the argument from Undersigned Coincidence, now 

 entirely ignored, though made abundant use of by writers such as 

 Lardner, Paley and Blunt, clearer and sounder thinkers, I must 

 believe, than many who have undertaken to instruct us since their 

 day. Whtj should Gibeon be the Great High Place," greater 

 than any other ? Kings states the fact. Chronicles gives the reason. 

 Why should there have been any " High Places " in the days of 

 David and Solomon ? Once more Chronicles gives the reason. 

 Because since the days of Eli the Ark had been in one place and the 



