THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE HEXATEUCH THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE HEXATEUCH BY CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D. RD ROBINSON PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY IK UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK New edition, revised and enlarged. NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1897 COPYRIGHT, 1892, 1893, AND 1897, BY CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS. mess or KOWAtO O. JKMKINI' KM. MEW YORK. TO FRANCIS BROWN D.D. DAVENPORT PROFESSOR OF HEBREW AND THE COGNATE LANGUAGES IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY NEW YORK PUPIL COLLEAGUE SUCCESSOR AND TRUE YOKE-FELLOW is Sook IS DEDICATED IN TRUST AND LOVE PREFACE. TEN years ago the author undertook to write a little book upon the Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, and at that time he advanced some distance in its prepara- tion. But on reflection he turned aside from it, with the opinion that the times were not yet ripe for it. He accordingly prepared the volumes entitled Biblical Study, in 1883, and Messianic Prophecy, in 1886. He has written a number of papers upon the Hexateuch in several different periodicals, and has ever kept in mind the ultimate accomplishment of his original plan. But it was his desire to wait until the completion of the new Hebrew Lexicon in order to use all the wealth of its fresh study of Hebrew words in the documents of the Hexateuch. It was also his desire to wait until he had completed his preparatory studies in the Higher Criti- cism of the Psalter, and in the Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. These studies are not in that state of forwardness which was anticipated before the publica- tion of the present book. And yet they have gone so far as to produce a considerable amount of fresh evi- dence which now appears for the first time in this volume. The circumstances in which the author is now placed make it necessary for him to define his position on the (vii) PREFACE Hexateuch. For this reason he presents to the public the result of his studies so far as they have gone. The only reason for any further delay in publication would be to make the evidence for his conclusions more com- prehensive, more exhaustive, and entirely complete. But he is assured that the evidence is already so varied and comprehensive that there can be no reasonable doubt as to the answers which must be given to the chief questions which arise in the Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch. The author has been engaged for many years in the study of this subject, since first he began original work upon it, in the University of Berlin, in 1866, under the instruction of Hengstenberg. He has advanced steadily and slowly, by constant revision and rectification of his opinions, until he has attained the results stated in this volume. He is glad that he is able to say that these results correspond in the main with the opinions which have been formed independently by leading Biblical scholars in all parts of the world. The book has been written for the general public, rather than for Hebrew students. Accordingly the text has been made as free from technical matters as possi- ble, and a large amount of material has been put in the Appendix, which thus becomes a volume by itself. This new edition represents a large amount of labor in a thoroughgoing revision of the book and in numer- ous additions of new material both in the body of the book and in the new appendices. CONTENTS. I. THE PROBLEM, p. i. (i) The Lines of Inquiry, p. 2 ; (2) The Lines of Evidence, p. 4 II. THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE, p. 6. (i) The Testimony of the Hexateuch, p. 6 ; (2) The Testimony of the Prophets, p. 13 ; (3) The Law Book of Josiah, p. 15 ; (4) The Testimony of the exilic and post-exilic Literature, p. 20; (5) The Testimony of the New Testament, p. 25. III. THE TRADITIONAL THEORIES, p. 31. (i) The Rabbinical Theory, p. 31 ; (2) The Views of the Fathers, P- 33 ; (3) Tne Position of the Reformers, p. 34. IV. THE RISE OF CRITICISM, p. 36. (i) Carlstadt, Masius, and Hobbes, p. 36; (2) Objections of Peyrerius and Spinoza to Mosaic Authorship, p. 36 ; (3) Richard Simon's Historical Criticism, p. 40; (4) The Scho- lastic Resistance, p. 42; (5) Witsius, Vitringa, and other mediating divines, p. 43. (ix) x CONTENTS V. THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS, p. 46. (i) Jean Astruc, p. 46 ; (2) The Evidence from the Divine Names, p. 48 ; (3) Eichhorn and his School, p. 49 ; (4) Marsh and Home defend the traditional opinion, p. 54; (5) Geddes, Vater, and their Fragmentary Hypothesis, p. 57 ; (6) Taylor and Edward Robinson, p. 58. VI. THE SUPPLEMENTARY HYPOTHESIS, p. 60. (i) De Wette and his School, p. 60; (2) Hengstenberg and his followers, p. 61 ; (3) Hupfeld, Knobel, and Ewald, p. 63 ; (4) Noeldeke and Schrader, p. 65 ; (5) Samuel Davidson, Pe- rowne, and Stanley, p. 66 ; (6) Delitzsch, Kurtz, and Kleinert, p. 67. VII. THE ANALYSIS OF THE HEXATEUCH, p. 69. (i) The Argument from Language, p. 69; (2) Differences of Style, p. 74; (3) Parallel Narratives, p. 75. VIII. THE DATE OF DEUTERONOMY, p. 81. (i) Argument for the Composition of Deuteronomy shortly be- fore the reform of Josiah, as stated by Riehm, p. 81 ; (2) As enlarged by Driver, p. 83; (3) Its place in the ethical de- velopment of Israel, p. 85 ; (4) The old Mosaic Code and its recodification in Deuteronomy, p. 89. IX. THE DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS, p. 90. ft) Edward Reuss and his school, p. 90; (2) Colcnso, Kuenen, and Kalisch, p. 92 ; (3) Wcllhauscn's analysis and its conse- quences, p. 94 ; (4) The newly discovered facts, p. 96 ; (5) The new theory, p. 96. CONTENTS XJ X. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODES, p. 99. (i) The differences in point of view, p. 100; (2) The Judaic code and its parallels, p. 101 ; (3) The Ephraimitic code and its parallels, p. 101 ; (4) The code of Deuteronomy and the code of Holiness, p. 101 ; (5) The altars, p. 101 ; (6) The sacred tent, p. 103 ; (7) The priesthood, p. 104 ; (8) The sacrifices, p. 104; (9) The purifications, p. 106 ; (10) The feasts, p. 106; (ii) The order of the codes, p. 107; (12) The argu- ments against the post-exilic composition of the Priest-code, p. 108. XI. THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY, p. no. (i) Discrepancy between the codes and the history, p. 1 10 ; (2) The witness of the Literature to the non-observance of the Law, p. 118 ; (3) The religious development of Israel, p. 124 ; (4) The historians and the codes, p. 126; (5) Ezekiel and the codes, p. 126. XII. THE MORE RECENT DISCUSSIONS, p. 129. (i) The case of W. Robertson Smith, p. 129 ; (2) The discussion in the Presbyterian Review, p. 130; (3) Dillmann, Baudissin, and Delitzsch, p. 131; (4) Cornill and Driver, p. 134; (5) The objection that the analysis makes the Hexateuch patchwork, answered from Tatian and St. Paul, p. 137; (6) The objection that the critics differ answered by proof of their concord, p. 142. XIII. THE ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, p. 146. (i) Mode of divine revelation, p. 146 ; (2) Theophanies, p. 146 ; (3) Miracles, p. 147 ; (4) The covenants, p. 149 ; (5) Prophecy, p. 150; (6) The divine Spirit, p. 150; (7) The divine attri- butes, p. 151 ; (8) The doctrine of sin, p. 153; (9) The doc- trine of divine judgment, p. 154; (10) The doctrine of re- demption, p. 154. Xli CONTENTS XIV. THE RESULT OF THE ARGUMENT, p. 156. (i) The four documents and the five codes, p. 156 ; (2) Driver's statement, p. 157 ; (3) The final summary, p. 160. APPENDIX. I. THE TWO NARRATIVES OF THE REVELATION OF THE DIVINE NAME YAHWEH, p. 165. II. THE CHARACTERISTIC WORDS AND PHRASES OF D, H, AND P ACCORDING TO CANON DRIVER, p. 1 68. III. THE GENESIS OF THE TEN WORDS, p. 181. IV. THE TWO NARRATIVES OF THE PESTILENCE IN EGYPT, p. 1 88. V. THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS IN THE OTHER CODES, p. 189. VI. THE GREATER BOOK OF THE COVENANT AND ITS PAR- ALLELS IN THE LATER CODES, p. 211. VII. VARIATIONS OF D AND H, p. 233. VIII. THE SEVERAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE THEOPHANY, p. 236. IX. THE DECALOGUE OF STATUTES IN DEUT. xxvu., p. 239. X. THE TYPES OF HEBREW LAW, p. 242. XL THE USE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS IN THE DOCU- MENTS, p. 256. XII. OUTLINE FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS, p. 258. INDEXES, p. 267. I. THE PROBLEM. THE Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch is a phrase which conveys little if any meaning to the general public. It is however a technical phrase with a definite meaning which, so soon as it is explained, becomes plain and evi- dent and serves to fix the attention upon the problem in hand much better than any paraphrase could do. The Hexateuch is composed of the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua. The Pentateuch comprehends the five books which in the Hebrew Canon constitute the Law, embracing Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Modern criticism has shown that the book of Joshua originally was an essential member of the group and therefore criticism has to deal with the Hexateuch. The Higher Criticism is named Higher to distinguish it from the Lower Criticism. The Lower Criticism deals with the Text of the Scriptures. It searches all the versions and manuscripts and citations in order to ascertain the genuine original Text as it came from the hands of its authors and editors. It has to do with let- ters, words, and sentences, as such, without regard to their literary form or meaning. The Higher Criticism builds on the Lower Criticism as its foundation. It takes 2 THE HEXATEUCH the Text of Scripture from the hands of Lower Criticism and studies it as literature. This distinction between the Higher and the Lower Criticism was not made by Biblical scholars, but by classical scholars in their studies of the great monuments of Greek and Roman literature. So soon as Biblical scholars began to study the Holy Scripture with scientific methods, they adopted this terminology with its distinctive meanings. The Higher Criticism has four different lines of in- quiry. (i). Integrity. Is the writing the product of one mind as an organic whole, or composed of several pieces of the same author ; or is it a collection of writings by different authors? Has it retained its original integrity or has it been interpolated? May the interpolations be discrim- inated from the original ? The Pentateuch is ascribed by the prevalent tradition to Moses, and the book of Joshua to Joshua. The Higher Criticism of the Hex- ateuch traces this tradition to its sources, examines the references to the Hexateuch in other writings, and then searches the Hexateuch itself, in order to learn whether this tradition corresponds with the facts of the case or not. It finds that the tradition has no sound historical basis, that the references to the Hexateuch in other writ- ings and the testimony of the Hexateuch itself tell a different story, and show conclusively that the Hexateuch embraces Mosaic originals, several different codes and historical documents and the handiwork of a number of editors at different epochs in the history of Israel, and that the unity of the Hexateuch is the result of a final redaction of all the earlier elements. (2). Authenticity. 'Is the author's name given in con- nection with the writing? Is it anonymous? Can it be pseudonymous? Is it a compilation? The Higher THE PROBLEM 3 Criticism of the Hexateuch finds that the Hexateuch is anonymous and that it is a compilation. (3). Literary Form. Is the writing poetry or prose ? Is the prose historic, didactic, rhetorical, or statistical ? Is the poetry lyric, dramatic, epic, pastoral, or compos- ite ? What is the style of the author and what are his distinctive characteristics in form, method, and color ? The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch finds four great historical narratives, of different styles and methods of historical composition. It finds a large number of ancient poems embedded in the narratives, so many indeed as to make a collection nearly as large as the Psalter, if they were gathered together in a separate book. It finds several law codes, differing in method of codification and style as well as in bulk and con- tents. (4). Credibility. Is the writing reliable ? Do its state- ments accord with the truth, or are they colored and warped by prejudice, superstition, or reliance upon in- sufficient or unworthy testimony ? What character does the author bear as to prudence, good judgment, fairness, integrity, and critical sagacity? The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch vindicates its credibility. It strength- ens the historical credibility (i) by showing that we have four parallel narratives instead of the single narrative of the traditional theory ; and (2) by tracing these narratives to their sources in the more ancient documents buried in them. It traces the development of the original Mosaic legislation in its successive stages of codification in accordance with the historical development of the kingdom of God. It finds minor discrepancies and in- accuracies such as are familiar to students of the Gospels ; but these increase the historic credibility of the writings, as they show that the writers and compilers were true to 4 THE HEXATEUCH their sources of information even when they could not harmonize them in all respects. The Higher Criticism has several lines of evidence upon which it relies for its conclusions. (i). The writing must be in accordance with its sup- posed historical position as to time and place and cir- cumstances. (2). Differences of style imply differences of experience and age of the same author, or, when sufficiently great, differences of author and of period of composition. (3). Differences of opinion and conception imply differ- ences of author when these are sufficiently great, and also differences of period of composition. (4). Citations show the dependence of the author upon the author or authors cited. (5). Positive testimony as to the writing in other writ- ings of acknowledged authority is the strongest evi- dence. (6). The argument from silence is often of great value. If the matter in question was beyond the scope of the author's argument, it either had certain characteristics which excluded it, or it had no manner of relation to the argument. If the matter in question was fairly within the scope of the author's argument, he either omitted it for good and sufficient reasons, or else he was unconscious or ignorant of it, or else it had not come into exist- ence.* These lines of evidence are used in the Higher Criti- cism of all kinds of literature. They were tested and verified in the study of Greek and Roman literature, and of the ecclesiastical writers of the Church, long before * See Biblical Study, pp. 87-91. THE PROBLEM 5 any Biblical scholar used them in his studies of Holy Scripture. Our problem is the Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch. We shall first consider the evidences from Holy Scrip- ture, then test the traditional theory, and finally trace the history of the Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, and use the six lines of evidence for the solution of the four great questions, as to the Integrity, the Authentic- ity, the Literary Forms and the Credibility of the Hexa- teuch. II. THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. I. The Testimony of the Hexateuch. WE shall consider first those passages of the Hexa- teuch which give evidence as to authorship. (i). "And Moses came and told the people all the words of Yahweh, and all the judgments : and all the people answered with one voice and said, All the words which Yahweh hath spoken will we do. And Moses wrote all the words of Yahweh, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the mount, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel .... And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people : and they said, All that Yahweh hath spoken will we do, and be obedient." (Ex. rxiv. 3, 4, 7.) This passage states that Moses wrote a book of the covenant ; but it does not prove that he wrote the Pen- tateuch. There is a code with an introduction and con- clusion in Ex. xx. 22-xxiii., which is known as the code of the covenant. It is the code of the Ephraimitic nar- rative of the Hexateuch. It contains several pentades of Words, a number of detached statutes, a few laws of a mixed type (probably redactional) ; but the main body of the code is made up of a series of pentades of judg- ments, which seem to be judicial decisions of cases aris- ing in an agricultural community. These are not such as would arise among the nomads whom Moses led out (6) THE TESTIMONY OF HOLT SCRIPTURE f of Egypt to Horeb. It appears that a late editor ap- pended " and all the judgments " to the " Words of Yahweh," xxiv. 3, because he thought these judgments were in Moses' book of the Covenant. There is no ref- erence to them in the subsequent context. It is proba- ble that only the Words were in Moses' book, and it is evident that these are not given in their original form. (2). "And Yahweh said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel." (Ex. xxxiv. 27.) These words written at this time by Moses refer with- out doubt to the words which precede, that is the deca- logue, which may be called the Little Book of the Covenant. This decalogue of the Little Book of the Covenant is parallel for the most part with one of the decalogues of the Greater Book of the Covenant. The one of these books is mentioned by the Ephraimitic writer, the other by the Judaic writer. The question thus arises whether there were two law codes in two dif- ferent books, given within a few weeks of each other, or whether these are two different codifications of one and the same Book of the Covenant. At all events, this pas- sage proves no more than that Moses wrote the deca- logue of the Little Book of the Covenant, and by no means implies that he wrote the chapter which contains this narrative, still less the entire Pentateuch.f (3). " But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandment, and the statutes, and the judg- ments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it." (Dt. v. 31.) This passage proves no more than that Moses spoke at Mt. Horeb, commandments, statutes and judgments. t See Appendix V. g THE HEXATEUCH No mention is made of committing any of these to writing. It is probably a parallel statement to Ex. xxiv. 12. (4). "And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and unto all the elders of Israel." . . . . " Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the cove- nant of Yahweh your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee." (Dt. xxxi. 9, 26.) According to this passage, Moses wrote a book of the Law. This book, according to Deuteronomy, either is the Deuteronomic code, xii.-xxvi., or it underlies it. The code is rhetorical in form, and has been long known as the People's code. Did the rhetorical form belong to the original code, or was an original code put in a rhetorical form by the Deuteronomist ? * A critical examination shows that the code is composed of laws of several types and strata reflecting different historical situations. Can we suppose that all these types and strata were from the hand of Moses, or should we seek an original Mosaic type ? Whatever opinion we may form on this question, it is evident that the most that you can prove from this passage is that Moses wrote a law book which for substance is given in the legal chapters of Deuteronomy. It does not prove that Moses wrote Deuteronomy, still less that he wrote the other four books of the Pentateuch. (5). " Only be strong and very courageous, to observe to do ac- cording to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee : turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest have good success whithersoever thou goest. This book of the l.i\v shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shall meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein : for then thou shalt make See p. 85 sey. THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 9 thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success." Gosh. i. 7, 8.) " As Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of unhewn stones, upon which no man had lifted up any iron : and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto Yahweh, and sacrificed peace offerings." (Josh. viii. 31.) These passages evidently refer to the law book al- ready mentioned in Deuteronomy. They confirm the evidence as to the composition of that law book by Moses, but they do not give any additional evidence. There is nothing in them that implies that Moses wrote anything else. From all these passages it is plain that Moses wrote one or more codes of law, but they give no evidence that Moses wrote all the laws of the Pentateuch con- tained in the other codes, and those which are embedded in the historical narratives. (6). " So Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel." (Deut. xxxi. 22.) The song referred to is given in Deut. xxxii. and it is one of the finest pieces of poetry in the Old Testament, called by Schultz the Magna Charta of prophecy. Whether the song in its present form came from the pen of Moses is doubted by many evangelical scholars ; but, whether it did or not, the most we can prove from this passage is that Moses wrote a song which the com- piler of the Hexateuch proposes to give in Deuteronomy xxxii., in the form in which he knew of it. (7). "And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of Yahweh : and these are their journeys according to their goings out." (Num. xxxiii. 2.) This passage definitely states what it was that Moses JO THE UEXATEUCH wrote, namely, the list of stations of the journeys of Israel from Egypt to the valley of the Jordan. It re- quires one to spring over too wide a stretch of reasoning to conclude from this list of journeys contained in a single chapter that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch. (8). " And Yahweh said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua : that I will ut- terly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." (Ex. xvii. 14.) Here it is distinctly stated what Moses was to write, namely, the words, " I will utterly blot out the remem- brance of Amalek from under heaven." The Revised Version correctly renders " in a book " taking the Mas- soretic pointing as giving the generic article in accord- ance with usage elsewhere (cf. Job xix. 23). But the American revisers insisted on giving the article a definite force " in the book " in order to support the theory that Moses kept a journal in which he wrote down from time to time the events recorded in the Pentateuch. This crude conceit as to the method of the composition of the Pentateuch may now be regarded as antiquated. The passages usually cited from the Pentateuch to prove its Mosaic authorship have been examined. Such statements in any other historical writing would imply that the author or compiler was referring to some of the written sources from which he derived the materials for his own work. When the author of the Pentateuch says that Moses wrote one or more codes of law, that he wrote a song, that he recorded a certain memorandum, it would appear that having specified such of his mate- rials as were written by Moses, he would have us infer that the other materials came from other sources of infor- mation. But it has been argued the other way, namely, THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE ;Q that, because it is said Moses wrote the codes of the cove- nant and the Deuteronomic code, he also wrote all the laws of the Pentateuch ; that because he wrote the song Deut. xxxii., he wrote all the other pieces of poetry in the Pentateuch ; that because he recorded the list of stations and the memorial against Amalek, he recorded all the other historical events of the Pentateuch. It is probable that no one would so argue did he not suppose it was necessary to maintain the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch at every cost. All that the Pentateuch says as to Mosaic authorship we may accept as valid and true ; but we cannot be asked to accept such a compre- hensive inference as that Moses wrote the whole Penta- teuch from the simple statements of the Pentateuch that he wrote out the few things distinctly specified. We shall now consider some passages of the Hexa- teuch which tell a different story. (9). In Josh. xxiv. 26, it is said that Joshua wrote the words of his last discourse in the book of the instruction or law of God. The name of this book differs from the name of the book containing the Deuteronomic code only by the substitution of Elohim, God, for Yahweh. This statement in the Ephraimitic writer seems to imply that there was an official divine law book to which Joshua made this addition. But what has become of it? If it was the same book as the Deuteronomic code, why are not these words in that code at the present time ? Is not the view more reasonable on the basis of this passage, that this old law book was used for the most part by the Deuteronomist in the book of Deuter- onomy, but by the Ephraimitic writer in the passage Josh. xxiv. 26, and that the compiler of the present Hexateuch has given us both extracts from this same original law book in the words of these two different 12 THE HEXATEUCH authors? Will any now argue from the statement, that Joshua wrote his last discourse in this law book, that Joshua wrote the whole of the book which bears his name ? It used to be so argued. The day is not distant when we shall say " it used to be so " for the argument for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. (10). In Num. xxi. 14, a piece of poetry is cited from the Book of the Wars of Yahweh. This book, which, like Joshua's law book, is no longer in existence, was prob- ably an anthology of national Hebrew poetry. Its other contents are unknown. Possibly some of them are to be found among the other poetic extracts in the Hexa- teuch. It is not said who was the author or compiler of this book. Is there any reason to think of Moses? Or shall we not rather conclude, in accordance with the methods of reasoning of the anti-critics, that because this piece of poetry was taken from the Book of the Wars of Yahweh the whole Pentateuch was taken from that book, and was written by its author? (n). In Josh. x. 12, 13, a strophe is cited from the book of Jasher, describing the theophany at the battle of Beth-Horon. " Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon ; And thou, moon, in the valley of Aijalon, And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, Until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies." This book seems to have been another collection of poetry. Two other extracts from this book are given in the Old Testament. The one, 2 Sam. i. 18, is the lament of David over Jonathan and Saul, a dirge of won- derful beauty and power ; the other is a little piece of four lines in I Kings viii. 12, 13, which, according to the LXX. was also taken from the book of Jasher, although THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 13 this reference to the book of Jasher, and one line of the poem, is missing from the Massoretic text. "The sun is known in the heavens, But Yahweh said he would dwell in thick darkness. I have built up a house of habitation for thee ; A place for thee to dwell in forever." This passage is cited in the words of Solomon at the dedication of the temple. If now the book of Jasher contains, besides the ode of the battle of Beth-Horon of the time of Joshua, a dirge of David, and a piece of poetry of Solomon, that book could not be earlier than the dedication of the temple of Solomon. The compiler who cites from that book could not have compiled the book of Joshua before the book from which he cites was written. Therefore, the book of Joshua could not have been compiled in its present form before the dedication of the temple. If now the book of Joshua is insepara- ble from the Pentateuch and makes with it a Hexateuch, and if the four documents from the Pentateuch run right on through the book of Joshua, then it is evident that the Pentateuch could not have been compiled by Moses, but must have been compiled subsequent to the dedication of the temple of Solomon. But this connec- tion of Joshua with the Pentateuch can be established by indubitable evidence from the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua,* therefore it is the evidence of the Hex- ateuch itself that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. II. The Testimony of the Prophets. We are surprised by a lack of reference to the Mosaic law in the prophets of Israel. The most important pas- sage in the discussion is Hos. viii. 12. This is rendered * See pp. 61, 68, 70 seg. 14 THE HEXATEUCH by the Revised Version correctly : " Though I write for him my law in ten thousand precepts, they are counted as a strange thing." The American revisers would translate, " I wrote for him the ten thousand things of my law." The American revisers wish to hold to the traditional interpretation of this passage, that it refers to the ten thousand precepts contained in the Pentateuch. This would imply a very extensive body of law or doctrine written in or before the time of Hosea, and here referred to by him. But unfortunately for the American revisers, the tense of the verb is against them. It is the Hebrew imperfect tense. It is incorrect to render that tense as an aorist referring it to the Mosaic legislation. It is possible to render it as a frequentative. But this would refer it to a series of divine laws reaching up to the prophet's time, and that would not suit their purpose. The English revisers give the translation which is best suited to the Hebrew tense and the context of the passage, in rendering it as hypothetical. In this case there is no more than a general reference to the fact that divine laws were recorded, and that if such laws were given to an indefinite extent so as to run up to myriads of laws, they would only multiply the transgressions of a rebellious people. The laws were really prophetic in- structions, including those of Hosea himself. That this is the true interpretation, we see from the usage of other prophets. Jeremiah viii. 8 refers to a law of Yahweh as coming through false prophets. Thorah is indeed divine instruction or doctrine, rather than divine law, and hence in the usage of the Old Testament it refers to any divine instruction, any teaching from God. It was not until the reign of rabbinical tradition that the law became a technical term for the Pentateuch. As Dc- litzsch says : " The recognition of this fact opens the THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 15 eyes and delivers from the bondage of prejudice." The older scholars were blinded by the technical usage of rabbinical theology to the historic usage of Holy Scrip- ture ; and unfortunately the same veil lieth upon the heart of some modern scholars whensoever Moses is read. III. The Law Book of Josiah. The most important passages in the Old Testament in evidence for the composition of the Pentateuch are 2 Kings xxii. 8, n ; xxiii. 2, 21, 25 ; and their parallels 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14, 15, 19, 30, xxxv. 3, 6. II. KINGS xxii.-xxm. " And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of Yahweh. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and he read it." (xxii. 8.) " And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes." (ver. n.) "And the king went up to the house of Yahweh, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great : and he II. CHRONICLES xxxiv.-v. "And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of Yahweh, Hilkiah the priest found the book of the law of Yahweh given by Moses. And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of Yahweh. And Hilkiah deliv- ered the book to Shaphan." (ver. 14, 15.) "And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes." (ver. 19.) "And the king went up to the house of Yahweh, and all the men of Judah and the in- habitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, both great and small : and he read in their ears 16 THE HEXATEUCU all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of Yahweh." (ver. 30.) "And he said unto the Le- vites that taught all Israel, . . . . kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare for your brethren, to do accord- ing to the word of Yahweh by the hand of Moses." (xxxv. 3, 6.) read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of Yahweh." (xxiii. 2.) "And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto Yahweh your God, as it is written in this book of the covenant." (ver. 21.) "And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to Yahweh with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses ; neither after him arose there any like him." (ver. 25.) Critical scholars are agreed that this law book was the Deuteronomic code. The older view was that it was the entire Pentateuch. There are a few anti-critics who adhere to this traditional theory as they do to all others. It is sufficient to cite the careful statement of the Hul- sean professor of divinity at Cambridge, England, Her- bert E. Ryle : "When we enquire what this 'Book of the Law' comprised, the evidence at our disposal is quite sufficiently explicit to direct us to a reply. Even apart from the knowledge which we now possess of the structure of the Pentateuch, there was never much probability in the supposition, that the book discovered by Hilkiah was identical with the whole Jewish 'Torah,' our Penta- teuch. The narrative does not suggest so considerable a work. Its contents were quickly perused and readily grasped. Being read aloud, it at once left distinct impressions upon ques- tions of national duty. Its dimensions could not have been very large, nor its precepts very technic.nl. The complex character THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 17 of the Pentateuch fails to satisfy the requirements of the picture. Perhaps, too (although the argument is hardly one to be pressed), as it appears that only a single roll of the Law was found, it may not unfairly be remarked, that the whole Torah was never likely to be contained in one roll ; but that, if a single roll contained any portion of the Pentateuch, it was most probably the Deu- teronomic portion of it ; for the Book of Deuteronomy, of all the component elements of the Pentateuch, presents the most unmistakable appearance of having once formed a compact in- dependent work. " But, there is no need to have recourse to arguments of such a doubtful kind. For while the evidence shows that a completed Torah could not have existed at this time, we seem to have convincing proof that 'the Book of the Law' was either a por- tion of our Deuteronomy or a collection of laws, Deuteronomic in tone, and, in range of contents, having a close resemblance to our Book of Deuteronomy. The evidence is twofold, (i). The description which is given of the book found in the Temple shows, that, in its most characteristic features, it approximated more closely to portions of Deuteronomy than to any other section of the Pentateuch. (2). The historian, from whom we obtain the account, appears, when he speaks of ' the law,' to have in view the Deuteronomic section, and scarcely to be acquainted with any other. These arguments have been frequently and fully discussed in other works, so that we need not here do more than summarize them very briefly. " (i). The description of the book shows that, in its most con- spicuous features, it was in close agreement with the contents of Deuteronomy. " (a). The book contained denunciations against the neglect of the covenant with Jehovah. (2 Kings xxii. 11-13, '6, 17). " Now the Pentateuch contains two extensive passages describ- ing the fearful visitations that should befall the people of Israel for following after other gods (Lev. xxvi. ; Deut. xxviii.-xxxi.). Of these, the passage in Deuteronomy is the longest, and while the passage in Leviticus would be calculated to produce a very similar impression, it may be noticed that the words of Huldah, in referring to the curses contained in the ' Book of the Law,' possibly contain .a reference to Deut. xxviii. 37, xxix. 24 (cf. 2 Kings xxii. 19). It cannot be doubted that one or other, or 18 THE HEXATEUCH both of these denunciations, must have been included in Josiah's 4 Book of the Law.' "(). The reforms carried out by the king and his advisers, in order to obey the commands of 'the Book of Law,' deal with matters all of which are mentioned, with more or less emphasis, in the Deuteronomic legislation, (i.) The principal religious reform carried out by Josiah was the suppression of the worship at the high places, and the concentration of worship at the Temple. No point is insisted on so frequently and so em- phatically in the Deuteronomic laws as that all public worship is to be centralised at the one place which Jehovah himself should choose (Deut. xii. 5 and passim), (ii.) Josiah took measures to abolish the worship of the heavenly bodies, a form of idolatry distinct from the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth. His action is in obedience to the commands of Deuteronomic laws (Deut. iv. 19, xvii. 3). There alone in the Pentateuch this particular form of idolatry is combated. For, although it had existed in an earlier time, it does not seem to have infected the religion of Israel until late in the monarchical period (cf. 2 Kings xxi. 3, 5, xxiii. 4, 5, n, 12). (iii.) Josiah celebrated the Feast of the Pass- over (2 Kings xxiii. 21-23) in accordance with 'the Book of the Law ' : we find the Law of the Passover laid down in Deut. xvi. 1-8. (iv.) Josiah expelled the wizards and diviners from the and in express fulfilment of 'the Book of Law' (2 Kings xxiii. 241: we find the prohibition of this common class of impostor in Oriental countries expressed in strong language in Deut. xviii. 9-14. " It is not, of course, for a moment denied that laws, dealing with these last two subjects, are to be found elsewhere in the Pentateuch. But as in all four cases Josiah's action was based upon 'the law,' whatever 'the law* was, it must have dealt with ' feasts ' and with ' wizards ' as well as with ' concentration of worship' and 'star-worship. 1 In the Deuteronomic laws all four points are touched upon. " (c). The book found in the Temple is designated 'the Book of the Covenant' (2 Kings xxiii. 2, 21), and it appears that it contained a covenant, to the observance of which the king sol- emnly pledged himself (/'/. 3). In the Pentateuch we find, it is true, a mention of 'the Book of the Covenant' (Ex. xxiv. 7), by which the substance of the Sinaitic legislation (Ex. xx.-xxiii.) THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE ^9 seems to be denoted. But it is clear, from the fact that the section, Ex. xx.-xxiii., contains no denunciation; from the fact that it contains only the very briefest notice of the Feast of the Passover, and then under another name ' the Feast of Un- leavened Bread ' (Ex. xxiii. 15) ; from the fact that it makes no mention of either wizards or star-worship ; that this portion of the Israelite law cannot be ' the covenant ' referred to in 2 Kings xxiii. On the other hand, an important section at the close of our Book of Deuteronomy is occupied with a ' Covenant ' ; and it can hardly be doubted, that a ' Book of the Law,' which was also ' the Book of the Covenant,' must have included such pas- sages as Deut. xxix. i, 'These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel ' ; ver. 9, ' Keep therefore the words of this covenant ' ; ver. 14, ' Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath '; ver. 21, 'According to all the curses of the covenant that is written in the book of the law ' ; vers. 24, 25, ' Even all the nations shall say, Wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this land ? . . . . Then men shall say, Because they forsook the cove- nant of the Lord.' " (2). The historian who has preserved to us the narrative of the finding of 'the Book of the Law 'himself quotes directly from ' the law ' in two passages, and in both instances from Deu- teronomic writing. In i Kings ii. 3, ' And keep the charge of the Lord thy God to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes and His commandments and His judgments and His testi- monies, according to that which is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest and whither- soever thou turnest thyself,' the words used are characteristically Deuteronomic, and the thought is possibly based on Deut. xvii. 18-20 (cf. Josh. i. 8). In 2 Kings xiv. 6, ' But the children of the murderers he put not to death ; according to that which is writ- ten in the book of the law of Moses, as the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children,' the citation is taken almost word for word from Deut. xxiv. 16. In numerous characteristic expressions and phrases the compiler of the Books of Kings shows a close acquaintance with the Deu- teronomic portion of the Pentateuch, though nowhere, perhaps, so frequently as in i Kings viii., ix., e.g. viii. 51 (cf Deut. iv. 20), ix. 3 (cf. Deut. xii. 5), ix. 7, 8 (cf. Deut. xxviii. 37, xxix. 24). 20 THE HEXATEUCH Generally speaking, where reference is made to ' the law ' in the Books of Kings, the allusion can only be satisfied by a reminis- cence of a Deuteronomic passage. Thus, exclusive of the two passages already quoted, may be noted i Kings viii. 9 (cf Deut. x. 5, xxix. i), 53 (cf. Deut. iv. 20), 56 (cf. Deut. xii. 9, 10, xxv. 19), 2 Kings x. 31, xviii. 12, xxi. 8, xxii. 8, xxiii. 25. " If, therefore, the compiler of the Books of Kings identi- fied ' the law of Moses ' and ' the book of the law ' with Deu- teronomy, or, at least, with a Ueuteronomic version of the law, we may nearly take it for granted, that, in his narrative of the reign ot Josiah, when he mentioned ' the Book of the Law ' without further description, he must have had in his mind the same Deuteronomic writings with which he was, so familiar." (Canon of the Old Testament, pp. 48-53.) This long extract gives the critical argument com- pactly and thoroughly, and in the course of it gives the true meaning of the several passages in the book of Kings bearing on the composition of the Pentateuch, making it clear that these give no proof of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Jeremiah, the great prophet of the age of Josiah, makes reference to this law of Yahweh, and it is admitted that he is full of the spirit and ideas of the book of Deuteronomy. But he shows no knowledge of those parts of the Pentateuch which are now generally attrib- uted to a priestly writer, and presents no evidence of the existence of a Pentateuch in his day, still less of a Pentateuch written by Moses. IV. Tlte Testimony of the Exilic and Post exilic Literature. In the Psalter the only sacred writing referred to is the roll of the book concerning the king, Ps. xl. 8. This doubtless points to the law contained in Dt. xvii. 14 sq., and gives evidence of a knowledge of the Deutero- THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 21 nomic code by the writer of this exilic psalm. " Law " in the Psalter is for the most part used in psalms of a very late postexilic date. We have thus far found no recognition of a Mosaic Pentateuch in any writing prior to the restoration from exile. We have found nothing more than the Pentateuch itself gives us in the passages cited, a Mosaic law book of limited dimensions, a covenant code and the code of Deuteronomy. I shall first refer to a passage from the last of the prophets : " Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I com- manded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and judgments." (Malachi iv. 4.) This reference to the law of Moses coupled as it is with the name Horeb, if it imply a written law, refers to the Deuteronomic code where Horeb is used for Sinai of the priestly document of the Hexateuch. It seems probable that in the time of Malachi, the Deu- teronomic code still existed as a separate writing. The Chronicler is a late writer, not earlier than the Greek period, some considerable time subsequent to the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah, when it is admitted that the Pentateuch existed in its present form. What then is the evidence of the Chronicler on this subject ? It is evident that a great variety of phrases is used for law by the Chronicler. We shall divide them into groups. (a). Words of the Law. Neh. viii. 9, 13. Portions of the Law. Neh. xii. 44. The Law of Yahweh. Ez. vii. 10; I Chron. xvi. 40 ; 2 Chron. xii. I, xxxi. 3, 4, xxxv. 26. The Law of God. Neh. x. 29, 30. The Law of Yahweh thy God. I Chron. xxii. 12. 22 THE HEXATEUCH Book of the Law. Neh. viii. 3 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 15- Book of the Law of Yahweh their God. Neh. ix. 3. Book of the Law of God. Neh. viii. 18. Book of the Law of Yahweh. 2 Chron. xvii. 9, xxxiv. 14. Written in the Law. Neh. x. 34, 37. In the Book in the Law of God. Neh. viii. 8. It is evident that Mosaic authorship cannot be proven from these phrases. (b\ In the Law which Yahweh commanded by the hand of Moses. Neh. viii. 14. The Word that thou commandest thy servant Moses. Neh. i. 8. All that Moses the servant of God had com- manded, i Chron. vi. 34. There is nothing in these statements which is not con- tained already in the Pentateuch itself with regard to the matters referred to. They do not prove the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, but only the connection of Moses with certain things in the way of law and pre- diction recorded in the Pentateuch. (c). The third group needs more careful consideration : Law of Moses. 2 Chron. xxx. 16; Ez. vii. 6. Book of the Law of Moses. Neh. viii. i. Written in the Law of Moses. 2 Chron. xxiii. i8;Ez. iii. 2; Dan. ix. 1 1, 13. Written in the Book of Moses. 2 Chron. xxxv. 12; Ez. vi. 1 8. Written in the Law in the Book of Moses. 2 Chron. xxv. 4. THE TESTIMONY OF HOLT SCRIPTURE 23 The question here arises whether the attachment of the name of Moses to this law book implies Mosaic au- thorship of the book and all its contents, (i). Is it certain that it refers to our Pentateuch ? Delitzsch, who has resisted the progress of the Higher Criticism as an honest, God-fearing man, and who has yielded only when convinced by irresistible arguments, says no. In his last volume on Genesis, he says : " Nowhere in the canonical literature of the Old Tes- tament do the terms ' the law,' ' the book of the law,' ' the law of Moses,' cover the Pentateuch in its present form, not in the history of Joshua, Jos. i. 8, or Jehosh- aphat, 2 Chron. xvii. 9, not altogether even in the history of Ezra and Nehemiah, Neh. viii. ib. " * But admitting that it refers to the priestly document, or to the whole Pentateuch, does it imply Mosaic author- ship in all respects? We urge that it does not imply this. If the Chronicler had known the historic origin and successive stages of development in the composition of the Hexateuch as we know them, e. g. that we have in our Hexateuch a Mosaic code written by Moses in a book of the covenant which appears in one form in Ex. xx.-xxiii., and in another form in Ex. xxxiv., and in a book of law in Dt. xii.-xxvi., and which lies at the basis of the code of Holiness in Leviticus and the priest's code in the middle books of the Pentateuch ; and that these codes existing in four different historic writings had been compiled in the more comprehensive codification of our Pentateuch ; would he not have been justified in speaking of the Pentateuch as the book of Moses, the law of Moses, the book of the law of Moses ? So it seems to some who have carefully considered the whole * P. 13. 24 THE HEXATEUCH subject. Others may think differently, but have they any right to force their interpretation upon us? The critics base their opinion upon important considerations. There is a sufficient number of parallels in the Old Testament. Take for example the name David in the titles of the Davidic psalms. The older theory was that David wrote the entire Psalter, then the theory was pro- posed that David, in the titles of the psalms, implied the Davidic authorship of those particular psalms. But this theory has to be abandoned because many of these psalms which bear the name of David are post exilic. It seems altogether probable that these psalms were all taken from the earliest of the minor psalters, which were collected under the name of David because David was the traditional master of sacred song. The Psalter of David in this ancient collection did not imply that David wrote all these psalms, but that his was an appropriate name under which to compile them. The same is true with regard to that ancient collection of distichs which bears the title " Proverbs of Solomon." (Pr. x.-xxii. 16.) Who can believe that Solomon was the author of them all? He was the master of sacred wisdom and under his name it was appropriate to compile a collection of wis- dom. Why may we not conclude that the Chronicler, who wrote after these three compilations had been made, of the minor psalter of David, the proverbs of Sol- omon, and the laws of Moses, used these three names in exactly the same way ; and that he knew that no one of the three implied authorship, but only that Moses was the father of the law, as David was the father of the psalmody, and Solomon the father of the wisdom ? Some may not be able to explain these things as we do, but if they do not, have they any right to force their interpretation of these facts upon us? All these THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 25 phrases refer to the law. But what about the history? If the book is called the law of Moses, the book of the law of Moses, does that imply that all the history in the book was written by Moses? Are we compelled to con- clude that nothing could have been written in 'the book except what came from Moses or was compiled by Moses? Those who insist upon interpreting such phrases in such a way as to force belief in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, when they are capable of another interpretation and are given that explanation by Christian scholars of the highest rank, and by those pre- eminent in Biblical learning, should beware lest they risk the canonicity of the writings of the Chronicler by bringing him in conflict with the mass of evidence that may be presented from the Pentateuch itself to show that, if the Chronicler held their opinion, he was alto- gether mistaken. V. The Testimony of the New Testament. The evidence from the New Testament may be dis- tributed in five sections and summed up as follows: (i). Jesus speaks of the law of Moses, Luke xxiv. 44, John vii. 23 ; and the book of Moses, Mark xit. 26. Moses is used for the Pentateuch, Acts xv. 21 ; 2 Cor. iii. 15. These are all cases of naming books cited. These passages must be interpreted in accordance with usage. It is the custom in literature to name anonymous writings after the name of the chief character in it, or the theme of it ; and then in that case it is quite common to personify the book and represent it as saying or teach- ing this or that. When Jesus uses Moses as another name for the Law or Pentateuch, it is by no means certain that Jesus meant to say that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. The Book of Esther is named Esther not because any 26 THE HEXATEUCH one ever supposed that she wrote it ; but because she is the heroine, the theme of the book, and when one says, as it is often said, " Esther never uses the name of God, or teaches any doctrine of faith," you understand him as using Esther for the book Esther. No one ever supposed that Ruth wrote the book of Ruth, or would suppose that she was regarded as its author if one should say, as it has often been said," Ruth teaches a doctrine different from Deuteronomy and Ezra in rep- resenting that even a Moabitish woman may enter the kingdom of God." The usage of the New Testament is also sufficiently clear at these points. Thus the epistle to the Hebrews iv. 7 uses David as a name of the Psalter. It was a common opinion until the i8th cen- tury that David wrote all the psalms, but no Biblical scholar at present, so far as is known, thinks that the epistle to the Hebrews forces him to hold that David is the author of the entire Psalter. Why then should any one insist that when the name Moses is given to the Pentateuch, it implies that Moses wrote all the writings attributed to him by tradition? (2). Jesus represents Moses as a law-giver, giving the Ten Commandments, Markvii. 10; the law of the lepers' offering, Mark i. 44, etc.; the law of divorce, Matt. xix. 7-8 ; the law of raising up seed for the brother's wife, Luke xx. 28; the law in general, John vii. 19. The epistle to the Hebrews represents Moses as giving the law of priesthood, Heb. vii. 14, and as a law-giver whose law could not be disobeyed with impunity, Heb. x. 28. These passages all represent Moses to be the law-giver that he appears to be in the narratives of the Penta- teuch, but do not, by any means, imply the authorship of those narratives that contain these laws, any more than the reference in I Cor. ix. 14, to the command of THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 27 Christ in Luke x. 7, and the institution of the Lord's supper by Jesus, I Cor. xi. 2-3 seq., imply that Jesus was the author of the gospels containing his words. (3). Jesus represents Moses as a prophet who wrote of him, John v. 46, 47, so Philip, John i. 45, Peter, Acts iii. 22-24, Stephen, Acts vii. 37, Paul, Acts xxvi. 22 ; and in Rom. x. 5, 19, the apostle refers to the address in Deut. xxx., and the song, Deut. xxxii. These passages may prove that certain prophecies came from Moses, but do not prove that the Pentateuch as a whole, or the narratives in which these prophecies occur, were written by Moses. (4). Certain historical events narrated in the Penta- teuch in which Moses takes the lead are mentioned in Luke xx. 37; Heb. viii. 5; ix. 19, xii. 21, etc., but these simply teach the historical character of the trans- actions, not the exclusive Mosaic authorship of the writings containing these historical incidents.* (5). In Acts iii. 24, it is said, " All the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of those days." But Samuel uttered no Messianic prophecy in the book of Samuel. The name Samuel is used as the name of the book, and the name of the book is personified and represented as speaking the prophecy which in the book is attributed to the prophet Nathan. If now Samuel as the name of the book may be represented by the apostle Peter as speaking the prophecy of Nathan, why may not Moses as the name of the book of Moses be represented as giving the exhortations of an unknown prophet con- tained in the book which bears his name? It is quite true that an ancient Jewish tradition in the * See Biblical Study, pp. 192-193- 23 THE HEXATEUCH Talmud represents that Samuel wrote his book, but a later writer in the Talmud itself comments on the statement that Samuel wrote his book thus: "' But it is written there : and Samuel died, and they buried him in Rama.' Gad the seer and Nathan the prophet finished it." In other words, the book was begun by Samuel and completed by Nathan and Gad. It may be that there are some persons at the present tinfe who would accept this Talmudic comment on the older Talmudic tradition, but certainly no one believes that Samuel recorded Nathan's prophecy delivered long after Samuel's death, and this is just the prophecy that Peter represents Samuel as speaking. But some one will say, " Was it not the common opinion in the days of our Lord that Moses wrote the Pentateuch?" We answer that, so far as we know, it was the common opinion that David wrote the Psalter. As to the Pentateuch, opinion was divided whether it was lost when the temple was destroyed by the king of Babylon, and restored or recast by Ezra, or not. If you insist upon interpreting the New Testament by the opinion of the Jews at the time as regards the Penta- teuch you must follow it also as regards the Psalter. But why should we interpret Jesus and His apostles by the opinions of the Jews of His time? Why should we suppose that He shared with them all the errors He did not oppose and refute? Jesus either knew that Moses wrote the Pentateuch or He did not know. (a). If we should say Jesus did not know whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch or not, we would not go beyond His own saying that He knew not the time of His own advent. Those who understand the doctrine of the humiliation of Christ and the incarnation of Christ, find no more difficulty in supposing that Jesus did not know THE TESTIMONY OF HOLT SCRIPTURE 9 the author of the Pentateuch than that He did not know the day of His own advent. As Charles Gore says: "When he speaks of the 'sun-rising' He is using ordinary language. He shows no signs at all of transcending the science of His age. Equally He shows no signs of transcending the History of His age. . . . The utterances of Christ about the Old Testament do not seem to be nearly definite or clear enough to allow of our supposing that in this case He is departing from the general method of the incarnation, by bringing to bear the unveiled omniscience of the Godhead to anticipate or foreclose a development of natural knowledge." (Litx Mundi, p. 360.) (&). If on the other hand any one should say Jesus must have known all things and He ought not to have used language that might deceive men, we respond that His language does not deceive men. Literary usage in all ages and in the Bible itself shows that it is equally true and good language for the critics as for the anti- critics. The question is, shall we interpret the words of Jesus by the opinions of His contemporaries? This we deny. Jesus was not obliged to correct all the errors of His contemporaries. He did not correct their false views of science. He was the great physician, but He did not teach medicine. He was greater than Solomon, and yet He declined to decide questions of civil law and politics. He never rebuked slavery. Is He re- sponsible for slavery on that account? The Southern slaveholders used to say so. But even they are now convinced of their error. The signs of the times indi- cate that in a few years the anti-critics will disap- pear as completely as the slaveholders. The attempt to bar the way of the Higher Criticism of the Old Testa- ment by interposing the authority of the New Testa- ment is an unworthy attempt to make our Lord and 30 THE IIEXATEUCH His apostles responsible for those conceits and follies of ancient tradition which modern traditional dogma has with great unwisdom accepted and endorsed. Dr. Wm. Henry Green, in his recent book,* limits himself to the following assertions with regard to alter- natives (a) and (&) : Dr. Green says without the slightest proof, with regard to alternative (ft), that Jesus "explicitly confirms the current belief that Moses wrote the books ascribed to him." Dr. Green, when writing these words, knew that the reasons stated above had been given for the opinion that Jesus did not do so ; and yet he ignores them. We may assume that he could not answer them. Jesus is the reverse of explicit on this subject. Dr. Green says, with reference to alternative (a), that " such a lowering of view respecting the incarnate person of our Lord may logically affect the acceptance of His instructions in other matters." This is mere assertion. He does not attempt to meet the arguments of Canon Gore and other scholars, but hints at dreadful conse- quences. He does not state what those logical conse- quences may be. Canon Gore, who is a learned author- ity on the doctrine of the incarnation, does not discern them.f Such methods as those used by Dr. Green in dealing with critical questions are, to say the least, un- scholarly. * The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, 1895, p. 33. t Dissertation 1895, pp. 95 seg. III. THE TRADITIONAL THEORIES. WE shall now consider the evidence from Tradition. The earliest Rabbinical theory of the Old Testament Literature known to us is contained in the Tract Baba Bathra of the Talmud. The Beraitha reads as follows: " Moses wrote his book, the chapter of Balaam, and Job ; Joshua wrote his book and the eight verses of the Law ; * Samuel wrote his book and Judges and Ruth ; David wrote the book of the Psalms with the aid of ten ancients, with the aid of Adam the first, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph and the three sons of Korah ; Jeremiah wrote his book, the book of Kings and Lamentations ; Hezekiah and his company wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes ; the men of the great synagogue wrote Ezekiel, and the twelve (minor proph- ets), Daniel and the roll of Esther; Ezra wrote his book and the genealogy of Chronicles until himself." * Thus this tract assigns writers to all the Biblical books. But it is very clear that " write " in this passage does not mean compose of authorship, but commit to writing, whether by the author himself or others. Thus only can we explain the writing of Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes by Hezekiah and his company ; and of Ezekiel, the minor prophets and the roll of Esther, * See Biblical Study, p. 176. (31) 32 THE HEXATEUCH by the men of the great synagogue. If this be true in these cases we cannot be sure that it is not true in the other cases also. This statement of the Mishna is enlarged upon by the Gemara. "The author (of the Beraitha) said, Joshua wrote his book and the eight verses of the law ; this is taught according to him who says of the eight verses of the law, Joshua wrote them. For it is taught : And Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there. How is it possible that Moses died and wrote : and Moses died there ? It is only unto this passage Moses wrote, afterwards Joshua wrote the rest. These are the words of Rabbi Jehuda. Others say of Rabbi Nehemiah. But Rabbi Simeon said to him : Is it possible that the book of the law could lack one letter, since it is written : Take this book of the law ? It is only unto this the Holy One, blessed be He ! said, and Moses said and wrote. From this place and onwards the Holy One, blessed be He ! said, and Moses wrote with weeping." The Talmud elsewhere contains other conflicting state- ments, which cannot, however, claim the antiquity or authority of the passage cited above. The ordinary Jewish view is that Moses also wrote the last eight verses by divine dictation.* A still more ancient and higher authority in some respects is the Apocalypse of Ezra f from the first Christian century, printed among the Apocryphal books in the English Bible, and preserved in five versions, and used not infrequently by the Fathers as if it were in- spired Scripture. This tradition represents that the Law and all the holy books were burned at the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and lost ; that Ezra under divine inspiration restored them all, and also com- posed seventy others to be delivered to the wise as the * See Wopue, Histoirt de la Bible, 1881, p. 21, sy. ; Joscphus, Antiquities, Iv. 8, 48 ; Philo, Life of Moses, iii. ,'39. t xiv. 19-46. THE TRADITIONAL THEORIES 33 esoteric wisdom for the interpretation of the twenty- four. This view of the restoration of the Old Testament tvritings by Ezra was advocated by some of the Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria,* Tertullian,f Chrysos- tom,^: in an anonymous writing wrongly attributed to .Augustine,! an( ^ the Clementine Homilies.| Another common opinion of the Fathers is represented by Ire- naeus.l" " During the captivity of the people under Nabuchadnezzar, the Scriptures had been corrupted, and when, after seventy years, the Jews had returned to their own land, then in the time of Artaxerxes, King of the Persians, (God) inspired Esdras, the priest of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of former prophets, and to re-establish with the people the Mosaic legis- lation." With him agree Theodoret ** and Basil.ff Jerome ^ says with reference to this tradition : " Whether you wish to say that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, or that Ezra restored it, is indifferent to me." Bellarmin is of the opinion that the books of the Jews were not entirely lost, but that Ezra corrected those that had become corrupted, and improved the copies he restored. Junilius, in the sixth century, author of the first extant Introduction, If a reproduction of a lost work of his instructor, Paul of Nisibis, of the Antiochian school of Exegesis, makes the wise discrimination between those Scriptures having their authors indicated in their titles and introductions, and those whose authorship rested * Sfromafa, i., 22. t De cultufoeminarum, c. 3. J Horn, viii., in Epist. Hebraeos, Migne's edition, xvii., p 74. De Mirabilibus Sacra Scriptures, ii., 33. | iii., c. 47. U Adv. Haereses, iii., 21, 2. ** Praef in Psalmos. tt Epist. ad Chilonem, Migne's edition, iv., p. 358. %\ Adv. Helvitium. De Verbo Dei, lib. 2. || Institutio regular is Divince Legis. 34 THE HEXATEUCH purely on tradition, in the latter including the Penta- teuch and Joshua.* This position of Junilius is the true scholarly position. It puts the authorship of the Pentateuch on the same level as the authorship of the other historical books of the Old Testament. This work of Junilius held its own as an authority in the Western Church until the Reformation. It would be difficult to define a consensus of the Fathers in regard to the authorship of the historical books of the Old Testament. Little attention was given to such topics in the six- teenth century. How the Reformers would have met these questions we may infer from their freedom with regard to traditional views in the few cases in which they expressed themselves. Luther denied the Apocalypse to John, and Eccle- siastes to Solomon. He maintained that the epistle of James was not an apostolic writing. He regarded Jude as an extract from 2d Peter, and asks what it matters if Moses should not himself have written the Pentateuch.f Calvin denied the Pauline authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews and doubted the Petrine authorship of 2d Peter. He held that Ezra or some one else edited the Psalter, and regarded Ezra as the author of Malachi, Malachi being his surname. He also constructed a harmony of the Pcntateuchal legislation after the model of the Harmony of the Gospels. Questions of human authorship and date of Biblical writings troubled the Reformers but little. They had to battle against the Vulgate for the original text and popular versions, and for a simple grammatical exegesis over against traditional authority and the manifold * See Kihn, Theodor von Afof>suestia, ss. 319- .130, ji viii., a. I Vorreden in \Valch 's edition of Luther's H'erketi, xiv., pp. 35, 146-153, Tisckreden, I., p. a8. THE TRADITIONAL THEORIES 35 sense. Hence it is that on these literary questions the symbols of the Reformation take no position whatever except to lay stress upon the sublimity of the style, the unity and harmony of Scripture, and the internal evi- dence of its inspiration and authority. The Westminster standards are in entire accord with the other Reformed Confessions and the faith of the Reformation on these subjects. They express a devout admiration and profound reverence for the holy, majes- tic character and style of the divine Word, but do not define the human authors and dates of the various writ- ings. As Prof. A. F. Mitchell, of St. Andrew's, well states : " Any one who will take the trouble to compare their list of the canonical books with that given in the Belgian Confession or the Irish articles, may satisfy himself that they held with Dr. Jameson that the authority of these books does not depend on the fact whether this prophet or that wrote a particular book or parts of a book, whether a certain portion was derived from the Elohist or the Jehovist, whether Moses wrote the close of Deute- ronomy, Solomon was the author of Ecclesiastes, or Paul of the Epistle to the Hebcews, but in the fact that a prophet, an in- spired man, wrote them, and that they bear the stamp and im- press of a divine origin." Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, p. xlix. And Matthew Poole, the great Presbyterian critic of the seventeenth century, quotes with approval the fol- lowing from Melchior Canus : " It is not much material to the Catholick faith that any book was written by this or that author, so long as the Spirit of God is believed to be the author of it; which Gregory delivers and explains : For it matters not with what pen the King writes his letter, if it be true that he writ it." Blow at the Root, 4th ed., 1671, p. 228. IV. THE RISE OF CRITICISM. THE Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was first ques- tioned in modern times by Carlstadt,* who left the author undetermined. The Roman Catholic scholar Masius, and the British philosopher Hobbes distinguished between Mosaic originals and our present Pentateuch, but the Roman Catholic priest Peyrerius,f and especially Spi- noza,J first arranged the objections to the Mosaic author- ship in formidable array, the latter reviving the doubts of Aben Ezra. They presented evidence against the Mosaic author- ship from 1 8 different passages as follows. We shall classify them and test them. I. Historical Objections. (i). Gen. xii. 6. " The Canaanite was then in the land " implies a time when this was not the case, that is centuries after the conquest by Joshua. (2). Gen. xiv. 14. "And pursued as far as Dan." But Dan did not receive this name until long after the death of Moses; for Judges xviii. 29 tells us that the De Scriptor. Canon, $ 85, 1521. t In his Sjsf. Thfo. Praead., 1660, liv., cap. i. t In his Tract, Theo. Polil., 1670, c. 8. (36) THE RISE OF CRITICISM 37 Danites in the times of the Judges" called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father who was born unto Israel ; howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first." (3). Gen. xxxvi. gives a list of kings reigning in Edom : " before there reigned any king over the chil- dren of Israel." (Ver. 31). This implies an author living after the establishment of kings in Israel not earlier than the Hebrew monarchy. (4). Ex. xvi. 35. "And the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years, until they came to a land in- habited ; they did eat the manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan." This passage im- plies the entrance into Canaan after the death of Moses and the author's knowledge of the event described in Jos. v. 12. (5). Deut. i. i. "These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel beyond Jordan " implies an author who was in Palestine, for only such an one could write " beyond Jordan." (6). Deut. ii. 12. The children of Esau destroyed the Horites and dwelt in their stead " as Israel did unto the land of his possession which Yahweh gave unto them." This implies the conquest of Canaan. (7). Deut. iii. II. "For only Og, king of Bashan, remained of the remnant of the Rephaim ; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron ; is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon?" This implies a writer look- ing back upon the story of the conquest of Bashan from a date much later than Moses. (8). Deut. iii. 14. "And called them after his own name Havvoth-jair unto this day." This implies a day long after this naming which was made in the last days of Moses. 38 THE 11EXATEUCH (9). Deut. xxxiv. 10. " And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses." This implies a time long subsequent to Moses. These are all historical statements which are incon- sistent with Mosaic authorship. Either then they are notes of later editors, or else the writings which contain them must be later than the history implied in them. Two other instances have not altogether stood the test of criticism. (10). Gen. xxii. 14. Mt. Moriah is called the mount of God, which could not be so called until the erection of the temple. This objection rests upon a mistake. It is not called the Mount of Yahweh, but the place is called " Yahweh sees." As it is said to this day, " in the mount where Yahweh appears." This proverbial expression, however, implies a long sojourn in the Holy Land, and, therefore, a period long subsequent to Moses. (11). Deut. ii. 5. "Not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread on," when compared with I Chron. xviii., where David conquers Edom, shows an inconsist- ency, and doubtless implies a time when Israel was friendly with Edom, but does not in itself imply a later date than Moses. II. Indications of Special Authorship. (12). Num. xxi. 14. The citation of the book of the wars of Yahweh implies another author than Moses. (13). Deut. xxvii. 2 seg. t comp. Jos. viii. 30 scq., where the law was written on an altar, implies a law much less extensive than the Pentateuch. It is now generally agreed that the reference here is to the Deuteronomic code. THE RISE OF CRITICISM 39 III. Inconsistencies. (14). Deut. x. 8, which narrates the separation of the Levites at Jotbathah is inconsistent with their separa- tion before the death of Aaron as reported in Leviticus and Numbers. (15). Ex. iv. 20, which represents that Moses took his family with him to Egypt, is inconsistent with Ex. xviii. 2 seq., which states that they remained with his father-in-law in Midian. Modern critics explain these variations as due to the different stories of the same thing recorded in different documents. IV. Personal Considerations. (16). Ex. xxxiii. n. "Yahweh spake unto Moses face to face." (17). Num. xii. 3. "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth." (18). Deut. xxxi. 9. "And Moses wrote this law." Several other passages Num. i. I ; ii. 2 ; v. I ; xxxi. 14; Deut. xxxi. i ; xxxiii. i, where Moses is spoken of in the third person and sometimes in flattering terms. Some of these might be accounted for after the anal- ogy of the classic historians as a variation of style, but the laudatory references are not to be explained in this way and therefore count against the Mosaic authorship of them. We are therefore compelled either to take them as editorial notes, or, as this is difficult if not impossible in many of these cases, to regard them as from documents written by other persons than Moses. These objections of Peyrerius and Spinoza are of an external character. A few of them have been satisfac- torily explained and their force dulled ; others have been 40 THE HEXATEUCH admitted as implying the work of later editors. The most of them have maintained their validity. Soon after Spinoza, Richard Simon, a Roman Catholic, published his work on the Historical Criticism of the Old Testament.* He first began to apply historical crit- icism in a systematic manner to the study of the books of the Old Testament. He represented the historical books as made up of the ancient writings of the proph- ets, who were public scribes, and who wrote down the history in official documents on the spot, from the time of Moses onward, so that the Pentateuch in its present shape is not by Moses. Simon distinguished in the Pentateuch between that which was written by Moses, e.g., the commands and ordinances ; and that written by the prophetical scribes, the greater part of the history. As the books of Kings and Chronicles were made up by abridgments and summaries of the ancient acts preserved in the archives of the nation, so was the Pentateuch.f The later prophets edited the works of the earlier proph- ets and added explanatory statements. Simon pre- sents as evidences that Moses did not write the Penta- teuch: (i). The double account of the deluge. (2). The lack of order in the arrangement of the narratives and laws. (3). The diversity of the style. It is evident that the Roman Catholic scholar goes deeper into the subject than the philosopher Spinoza had gone. He presents another class of evidences. These three lines were not sufficiently worked by Simon. He fell into the easy temptation of expending his strength on the elaboration and justification of his theory. The facts he discovered have proved of perma- nent value, and have been worked as a rich mine by later Histoirt Criliqtu de Vieux Testament, 1678. t/. c., p. 17, sey. THE RISE OF CRITICISM \ scholars, but his theory was at once attacked and de- stroyed. The Arminian Clericus, in an anonymous work,* assailed Simon for his abuse of Protestant writers, but really went to greater lengths than Simon. He dis- tinguishes in the Pentateuch three classes of facts, those before Moses, those during his time, and those subse- quent to his death,f and represents the Pentateuch in its present form as composed by the priest sent from Babylon to instruct the inhabitants of Samaria in the religion of the land, 2 Kings xvii4 Afterward he gave up this theory and took the ground .of interpolations by a later editor. Anton Van DaleJ distinguishes between the Mosaic code and the Pentateuch, which latter Ezra composed from other writings, historical and prophetical, inserting the Mosaic code as a whole in his work. This was also essentially the view of Semler.^f These various writers brought to light a most valuable collection of facts which demanded the attention of Biblical scholars of all creeds and phases of thought. They all made the mistake of proposing untenable theories of various kinds to account for the facts, instead of working upon the facts and rising from them by in- duction and generalization to permanent results. Some of them, like Spinoza and Hobbes, were animated by a spirit more or less hostile to the evangelical faith. Others, like Carlstadt and Clericus, were heterodox in other matters. The most important investigations were * Sentimens de quelques theologians de Holland sur FHistoire Critique^ Amst., 1685. t/. c., p. 107. \ P. 129. Com, on Genesis, introd. de Scriptore Pent., n. Simon replied to Cle- ricus in Rtponse au Livre intitule Sentimens, etc. Par Le Preur de Belleville, Rotterdam, 1686. | De origine et pr Jgressu idol., 1696 (p. 71), and epist. ad Morin. (p. 686). If Apparatus ad Liberalem Vet. Test. Interp., 1773 (p. 67). 42 THE HEXATEUCH those of the Roman Catholics, Masius and Simon. These authors, in a Church noted for its adherence to tradition, felt that they were free on this question of the author- ship of the Pentateuch, there being no consensus of the Fathers against them. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was de- fended by Huet, a Jesuit ;* Heidegger, a divine of the Reformed Church of Switzerland ;f the Dutch Re- formed, Maresius4 and the German Lutheran, Carpzov. These scholastic divines, instead of seeking to account for the facts brought to light by the critics, proceeded to defend the Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch and to explain away these facts. Thus, Huet is unwill- ing to admit that Moses did not write the account of his own death. Maresius insists that the testimony of Christ decides the matter for us. Heidegger argues that the whole Pentateuch was found by Hilkiah in the temple in the time of Josiah, that Christ and His apos- tles ascribe the Pentateuch to Moses as author, and he follows the Rabbinical tradition, rejecting the traditions prevalent with the Christian fathers. He admits that the last verses of Deuteronomy were added by Joshua or some one else, but explains Gen. xxii. 14 as a proph- ecy of the temple or of seeing Christ in the flesh, and the kings of Edom prior to kings in Israel, Gen. xxxvi. 31, as a line of kings prior to Moses as king. He meets the argument from diversity of style by the remark that the Holy Spirit might inspire the same author to use a * Demonstratio Evangelica. 1679, iv., cap. xiv. t ExercitioHfs Biblica, 1700, Dissert, ix. \ Prof/, apol.pro authentia script. , pp. 23-36. And in his Ke/tttatto Fabulet Prcradamitica, Grompae, 1656, he meets the various arguments of Peyrerius. Introductio ad I.ibros Canon icos, Bib. Vet. Test., Edit. 2, Lipsae 1731. See also Du Pin Dissert, prelim. Bib. desauteurs eccl., Paris, 1688. THE RISE OF CRITICISM 43 variety of styles.* He meets the argument from defect- ive arrangement by representing it as a charge against the Holy Spirit.f Carpzov calls in the spirit of prophecy to account for the kings of Edom (Gen. xxxvi. 31), and the account of the continuation of the manna until the conquest (Ex. xvi. 35). Such special pleading and arbi- trary conjectures were as hurtful from the scholastic side as were the hasty and ill-adjusted theories from the other. There were, however, in those times, other divines who looked the facts in the face and took a better way. Thus Witsius ^ admits four interpolations, after care- fully considering the objections that were urged to the Mosaic authorship, and is followed by Dr. Graves, who admits six additions by a later hand, and also by Adam Clarke,| who, in general, admits additions by Ezra. Prideaux^f represents Ezra as editing the Penta- teuch and making additions in a number of places illustrating, connecting and completing the narratives.** * " In Spiritus s. quinetiam calamus dirigentis arbitrio fuit, verba et verborum ordinem suggere, prout ipsi, visuum est. Sicut diversos Scriptores diversi modo ita inspiravit, ut diverse stylo uterentur: ita eundem Scriptorem quo minus diversi modo inspiraret, nihil vetabat equidem," p. 269. t Nam spiritus prophetiae et infallibilitatis si in uno, veluti scriba, revisore pec- care, abberrare potest, poterit etiam in altero, puta in Mose," p. 270. \ Misc. Sacra, 1692, pp. 104, 130. Lectures on the Four Last Books of the Pentateuch, 1807, 4th Edit., 1831, p. 439 sq. | Holy Bible, 1810-26. 1 Old and New Testaments connected, 1716-18, Part I., Book V. (3). ** "The third thing which Ezra did about the holy Scriptures in his edition of them was, that he added in several places throughout the books of this edition what appeared necessary for the illustrating, connecting, or completing of them ; wherein he was assisted by the same Spirit by which they were at first wrote. Of this sort we may reckon the last chapter of Deuteronomy, which, giving an account of the death and burial of Moses, and of the succession of Joshua after him, it could not be written by Moses himself, who undoubtedly was the pen- man of the rest of that book. It seems most probable that it was added by 44 THE HEXATEUCH Vitringa * gave a more careful consideration to the facts, and taught that Moses collected, digested, and embel- lished the documents of the patriarchs and supplied their deficiencies. This, he argues, does not destroy the authority of the book, for Moses was aided by the Holy Spirit. So Luke prepared his history of the Gospel from the narratives of others and annotations of eye- witnesses, and these are of no less authority than the narratives of Matthew and John. The aid of the Holy Spirit was given to them, whether they composed as eye-witnesses or digested the narratives of others. This view of Vitringa was advocated by Calmet,f Bishop Gleig,^: and others. About the same time several Ro- man Catholic divines took ground independently in favor of the theory of the use of written documents by Moses in the composition of Genesis, namely, Abb Fleury, and Abbe" Laurent Frangois.l) Prideaux, Calmet, Vi- tringa and their associates represented the true schol- Ezra at this time. And such we may also reckon the several interpolations which occur in many places of the holy Scriptures." He refers especially to Gen. xii. 6; xiv. 14; xxii. 14 ; xxxvi. 3; Ex. xvi. 35 ; Deut. ii. 12; iii. u, 14 ; and concludes : " Of which interpolations undoubtedly Ezra was the author, in all the books which passed his examination, and Simon the Just of all the rest which were added afterward, for they all seemed to refer to those latter times. But these additions do not detract anything from the divine authority of the whole, because they were all inserted by the direction of the same Holy Spirit which dictated all the rest." Observ. Sacra, c. IV., 2, 1722. t Com. Littetale, 1722, torn, I., p. xiii. J Stackhouse's History of the Bible, corrected and improved, 1817, Vol. I., p xx. J Moevrs des Israelites, p. 6, Bruxelles, 1701. This was translated into Eng- lish and enlarged by Ad.nm Clarke ; -\A edition, 1809. | Preuves tfe la Religion de Jesus Christ, contra les Sfinosistes et les Dfistes, 1751, I. 2, c. 3, art. 7. " II est plus que vrai-semblable que dans la lignee, ou s'est conservee la connoissance de Dicu on conservit aussi par ecrit, des memoircs des ancicns temps ; car les hommcs n* ont jamais etc sans ce oin." THE RISE OF CRITICISM 45 arly position. They presented a reasonable solution, in view of the facts then adduced. They laid the founda- tions for Evangelical Criticism in the great revival of HigJier Criticism, which was about to begin and run a long and successful course. We shall divide the history of this movement of Higher Criticism into three stadia : the documentary, supplementary, and development hy- potheses. V. THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS. JEAN ASTRUC, a Roman Catholic physician, opened a new era for the study of the Pentateuch. In 1753 he made it evident that Genesis was composed of several docu- ments. He presented to the learned world, with some hesitation and timidity, his discovery that the use of the divine names Elohim and Yahweh divided the book of Genesis into two great memoirs and nine lesser ones, as follows : vii. 20-23 ; xiv., xix. 29-38 ; xxii. 20-24 J xxv. 12-18; xxvi. 34-35; xxviii. 6-9; xxxiv., xxxv. 28-xxxvi. The advantages of this discovery are ad- mirably presented : (i). It explains the singularity of the use of these two divine names. (2). It explains the repetitions of the same subject by distributing these among the memoirs. (3). It excuses Moses from neg- ligence in composition by the supposition that he arranged these memoirs in four different columns, as Origen did the ancient versions in his Hcxapla and as Harmonists arrange the four Gospels. This was a real discovery, which, after a hundred years of debate, has won the consent of the vast ma- jority of Biblical scholars. His analysis is in some respects too mechanical, and, in not a few instances, is defective and needed rectification, but as a whole it has (46) THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 47 been maintained. He relies also too much upon the different use of the divine names, and too little upon va- riations in style, language, and narrative. Since his date his line of argument has been more thoroughly worked out by many scholars. In the preparation of the new Hebrew Lexicon by Drs. Francis Brown and Driver and myself, the divine names fell to me. I have carefully examined every use of the divine names in the Hebrew Bible and I have considered every case with reference to documentary analysis. These are the facts: In Ex. vi. 2-3 it is written : " And Elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Yahweh : and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob as 'El Shadday, but by my name Yahweh I was not known to them." Turning now to Genesis we find 'El Shadday used in connection with the covenants made with Abraham and Jacob ; but we also find that the divine name Yahveh is placed in the mouth of the antediluvians and patriarchs from Genesis, chap, ii., onward. Here is a glaring incon- sistency not invented by critics, but on the surface of Genesis itself. The discovery of Astruc, that this incon- sistency is due to a usage of different documents, re- moved the difficulty. Criticism has found that the priestly writer who wrote Ex. vi. never uses the divine name Yahweh in his document prior to Ex. vi., when he states that it was revealed to Moses for the first time. The use of the divine name Yahweh in Genesis is in the Judaic document, which nowhere mentions or seems to know anything about the revelation of the name Yahweh to Moses. He uses it as the name of God from the be- ginning. The early analysts were confronted with the difficulty that there was a very singular and apparently capricious use of the divine name left in the Judaic doc- ument after the Elohistic document had been eliminated. 48 THE HEXATEUCH This led to a more thorough study of that document which resulted in the discovery that it had been closely connected with another document which uses the divine name Elohim. This discovery was made by Ilgen in 1798 ; * but the discovery was ignored until a much later date when it was rediscovered by Hupfeld. Looking now at Exodus Hi., we observe that it tells of a revelation of the divine name Yahweh to Moses, at Horeb. This is a parallel narrative to chapter vi., and is now recognized by criticism as from the Ephraimitic author. Thus the whole difficulty of the use of the divine names is solved. The critics did not make the difficulty. They have removed the difficulty by the science of criticism. This Ephraimitic author not only uses the divine name Elohim, but it is his style to use it with the definite article, and it is also his style to use it by preference, even after the divine name Yahweh was revealed ; whereas the priestly writer seldom uses Elohim after he tells of the revelation of Yahweh to Moses.f In the book of Deuteronomy we find a fourth docu- ment which also extends through Joshua, and appears occasionally in the earlier narratives. It is the style of this writer to use the terms Yahweh thy God, or Yahweh your God. He uses Yahweh thy God 238 times. This phrase is used elsewhere in the Hexateuch, 5 times in the Ten Words ; 3 times in the ancient law of worship, in the covenant codes and in two passages Gen. xxvii. 20, Ex. xv. 26, in verses which present other reasons for being considered editorial seams. Other peculiarities in the use of divine names may be mentioned here. Adottay, " my Lord," as applied to God, is used in J 13 times, elsewhere in the Hexateuch only * L'I kunden des Jermalemer Temfel-archivs. f See Appendix I. THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 49 in Gen. xx. 4 ; (E ?) and Ex. xv. 17, (Song of Red Sea, where the Samaritan codex has Yahweh). Adonay Yah- weh is used only in Gen. xv. 2, 8 ; Jos. vii. 7 (J) and Dt. iii. 24 ; ix. 26 (D). " God of Abraham " is a phrase of J. " Israel's God " is a phrase of E, used 9 times. It is also used in Ex. xxxiv. 23 (covenant code of J) and Jos. vii. 13, 19, 20, where JE are so mixed that it is dif- ficult to disentangle them, and by R in Num. xvi. 9 ; Jos. ix. 18, 19, xxii. 24 ; x. 40, 42; xiii. 14, 33. "God of the Hebrews" is a phrase of JE, used 5 times. " Other gods " is a phrase of D, used in the Hexateuch besides only in the Ten Words, in the Deuteronomic expression Ex. xx. 3=Dt. v. 7 ; and in the covenant code of E, Ex. xxiii. 18= "other God," of the covenant code of J, Ex. xxxiv. 14, possibly by editorial change ; and Jos. xxiv. 2, 1 6 (E); Dt. xxxi. 18, 20 (JE). Elohim is construed with the plural verb only in E, Gen. xx. 13, xxxv. 7, Jos. xxiv. 19. The attention of German scholars was called to this discovery of the use of the divine names by Jerusalem. Eichhorn was independently led to the same opinion. In 1780 he published his Introduction to the Old Tes- tament. Eichhorn combined in one the results of Simon and Astruc, embracing the various elements in an organic method which he called the Higher Criticism. In the preface to his 2d edition, 1787, he says : *' I am obliged to give the most pains to a hitherto entirely unworked field, the investigation of the internpl condition of the particular writings of the Old Testament by help of the Higher Criticism (a new name to no Humanist). Let any one think what they will of these efforts, my own consciousness tells me, that they are the result of very careful investigation, although no one can be less wrapt up in them than I their author. 50 THE HEXATEUCH The powers of one man hardly suffice to complete such investi- gations so entirely at once. They demand a healthful and ever cheerful spirit, and how long can any one maintain it in such toilsome investigations ? They demand the keenest insight into the internal condition of every book ; and who will not be dulled after a while ?" Eichhorn separated the Elohistic and Jehovistic docu- ments in Genesis with great pains and wonderful success, recognizing besides as separate documents ii. 4~iii. 24; xiv. ; xxxiii. i8-xxxiv. 31; xxxvi. ; xlix. 1-27. This analysis of Eichhorn has been the basis of all critical in- vestigation since his day, and notwithstanding the sub- sequent distinction of a second Elohist and Redactor, the results of Eichhorn have been maintained.* The great advantages of this analysis are admirably stated by Eichhorn (ii., p. 329) : " For this discovery of the internal condition of the first books of Moses, party spirit will perhaps for a pair of decennials snort at the Higher Criticism instead of rewarding it with the full thanks that are due it, for (1) the credibility of the book gains by such a use of more ancient documents. (2) The harmony of the two narratives at the same time, with their slight deviations, *Thus Prof. Henry P. Smith, in his article in the Presbyterian Review, Hi., p. 375, in showing the present consensus of the critics, says : " If we find, how- ever, that the recognized leaders, though far apart on the question of the ' order of production ' of different documents, are substantially agreed as to what makes up each document, we ought to recognize that the unanimity here is so much the stronger on account of the diversity there. An examination shows that in the first thirty chapters of Genesis the following passages are unanimously accepted by Hupfeld, Noldeke, Dillmann, Wellhausen, and Kayser, as making up one of the documents called by Dillmann A ; by Wellhausen Q ; to wit : i. i ii. 3 ; v. 1-28, 30-32 ; vi. 9-22; viii. 1-4, 1.1-19; ix. 1-17, 28, 29 ; xi 10-26, 32 ; xii. 4, 5 ; xiii. 6, n, 12; xvi. 3, 15, 16 ; xvii. 1-27 ; xix. 29 ; xxi. 2-5 ; xxiii. i-ao ; xxv. 7- ii, 17, 23, 26; xxvi. 34, 35 ; xxviii. 1-9 (I have disregarded fractions of averse)." Now it shows the keenness and accuracy of F.ichhorn as well as the invincible strength of the evidence that in his first effort, his F.lolrist embraces all of the passages given above except the detached verses, xii. 4, 5 ; xiii. 6, 11, 12 ; xvi. 3, 13, 16 ; xxv. 26. THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 5^ proves their independence and mutual reliability. (3) Interpre- ters will be relieved of difficulty by this Higher Criticism which separates document from document. (4) Finally the gain of Criticism is also great. If the Higher Criticism has now for the first distinguished author from author, and in general charac- terized each according to his own ways, diction, favorite expres- sions, and other peculiarities, then her lower sister who busies herself only with words, and spies out false readings, has rules and principles by which she must test particular readings." * Eichhorn regarded Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers as having grown from the collection of particular writ- ings which the redactor connected by historical narra- tives : Exodus and Leviticus composed at Mt. Sinai ; Numbers in the land of Moab. He thought that Moses was the author of Deuteronomy, except the last chap- ter. Deuteronomy is characterized as the law book for the people, and the legislation of the other books as the priests' code. He remarks that the Pentateuch only claims Moses as the author of particular sections, and that the middle books are not cited in the Old Testa- ment under the name of Moses. He explains it from the fact that they constituted the priests' code over against Deuteronomy, the people's book. This import- ant distinction of Eichhorn was also a valuable discovery for Higher Criticism. Long neglected, it has in recent times again come into play, as we shall see further on. Eichhorn also admits many glosses by a late hand, but in general abides by the authorship in the Mosaic period, and chiefly by Moses himself. * See also Urgeschichte in the Repertorium, 1779, v., p. 187. We cannot help calling attention to the fine literary sense of Eichhorn, as manifest in the following extract : " Read it (Genesis) as two historical works of antiquity, and breathe thereby the atmosphere of its age and country. Forget then the century in which thou livest and the knowledge it affords thce ; and if thou canst not do this, dream not that thou wilt be able to enjoy the book in the spirit of its origin." 52 THE HEXATEUCH Eichhorn carried his methods of Higher Criticism into the entire Old Testament with the hand of a master, and laid the foundation of views which have been maintained ever since with increasing determination. But we do not find that in all cases he grasped the truth. He some- times chased shadows, and framed, in some cases, vision- ary theories in relation to both the Old and the New Testaments, like others who have preceded him and fol- lowed him. He could not transcend the limits of his age, and adapt himself to future discoveries. The labors of a large number of scholars, and the work of a century and more were still needed, as Eichhorn modestly an- ticipated. Eichhorn's Higher Criticism swept the field in Ger- many in his day, meeting but feeble opposition. Even J. D. Michaelis, one of the chief scholars of Germany, " the pillar of supernaturalism," who sought to modify some of the positions of Eichhorn,* although he was willing to accept the analysis of Astruc and Eichhorn with cer- tain modifications, f met with little favor. He died, leaving his work incomplete.^: As J. G. Gabler, the father of Biblical Theology, says : The analysis of the two documents by Astruc, Jerusalem, and especially by Eichhorn, is so masterly, and the combination of the various documents in one by Moses has been made so Einleit. in d. got I lichen Schri/ten d. Alt, Bundes, 1787. tP. 267. t Michaelis denies that Ex. i.-ii. can belong to the Elohist I suppose that what Moses wrote of himself he took from no books " (p. 269) ; and claims that Genesis i., the account of ihe Creation, must have been given to Moses by inspi- ration directly from God (p. 369). He objects to the artificial analysis of Astruc, but claims that when D'H^X and ni!V are used throughout entire chapters, a difference of style is evident (p. 277). He recognizes that Moses must have used written as well as traditional and monumental sources. 8 In his Introduction to his edition of tichhorn's L'rgetcJiicktr, 1790. THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 53 evident that, " in our day it can be regarded as settled and presupposed without fear of any important opposi- tion." G. L. Bauer, in 1794,* followed Eichhorn in his anal- ysis, but held that the Pentateuch was composed in the time of David, f Rosenmiiller ^ also followed Eichhorn, but subsequently changed his view, influenced chiefly by J. G. HasseJ and the overdoing of the analysis by Ilgen. Jahn^f also followed Eichhorn in part. Fulda** distinguishes between law codes, and Pentateuch, and puts the codes first, in the time of David, the present Pentateuch in the Restoration. Ottmar (Nachtigal),ff makes Jeremiah the last collector and arranger of the Pentateuch. These discussions produced little impression upon Great Britain. The conflict with Deism had forced the majority of her divines into a false position. If they had maintained the internal divine evidence for the authority of Holy Scripture and the evangelical critical position of the Reformers and Westminster divines, they would not have hesitated to look the facts in the face, and strive to account for them ; they would not have committed the grave mistakes by which Biblical learning was almost paralyzed in Great Britain for half a century. Eager for the defence of traditional views, they, for the most part, fell back again on Jewish Rabbinical tradition and ex- ternal evidence, contending with painful anxiety for authors and dates, and so antagonized Higher Criticism itself as Deistic Criticism and Rationalistic Criticism, * Entiuurf einer Einleit., 3d Edit. Entwur/ein. hist.-krit. Einleit., 1806. t P. 328. \Scholia, 1795, i., pp. 7-12. In Edition Hi., 1821. | Entdeckungen im Felde der altesten Ei d-u.-Menschengeschichte. If Int. ad Vet. Foed. 1793, pp. 209-224. ** Paulus, Revert, iii., p. 180. ft Uber d. allmdhlige Bildung, etc., in Henke's Magazin, ii., 433, iv. 1-36 (P- 30)- 54 THE IIEXATEUCH not discriminating between those who were attacking the Scriptures in order to destroy them, and those who were searching the Scriptures, in order to defend them. Mozley says : * " There was hardly such a thing as Bibli- cal Criticism in this country (Great Britain) at the begin- ning of this century. Poole's Synopsis contained all that an ordinary clergyman could wish to know. Arnold is described as in all his glory at Rugby, with Poole's Synopsis on one side and Facciolati on the other." Thus Bishop Marsh, in 1792, in a brief address at Cambridge,t takes the position : " The Pentateuch contains a system of ceremonial and moral laws which, unless we reject the authority of all history, were observed by the Israelites from the time of their departure out of Egypt till their dispersion at the taking of Jerusalem. These laws, therefore, are as ancient as the conquest of Palestine. It is also an undeniable historical fact that the Jews in every age believed their ancestors had received them from the hands of Moses, and that these laws were the basis of their political and religious institutions as long as they continued to be a people. We are therefore reduced to this dilemma, to acknowledge either that these laws were actually delivered by Moses, or that a whole nation, during fifteen hundred years, groaned under the weight of an imposture, without once detecting or even suspecting the fraud " (p. 7). This statement is, in part, quoted and approved by Home in his Introduction.^: But it is a weak position ; indeed, the chief fault of the traditional theory, as we shall have occasion hereafter to show. The evidence from the Scriptures is all to the effect that these laws were not observed, and any argument for the composition of the Pentateuch that rests upon their observance " from the * Reminiscences, 1882, American edit, ii., p. 41. t Tke Authenticity of the Five Boohs of Moses, 410, p. 16. \ Vol. ii. 19, ist edit. 1818. THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 55 time of the departure out of Egypt till their disperse- ment," is an insecure argument. Bishop Marsh acknowl- edges a few alterations in the Pentateuch, " a circum- stance at which we ought not to be surprised, when we reflect on the many thousands of transcripts that have been made from it in the course of three thousand years." * Faberf says : "At any one epoch during the whole existence of the Hebrew Polity, it would have been just as impossible to introduce a new and spurious Pentateuch, as it would be now impossible to introduce a new and spurious Bible. In each case the reason is the very same, the general publicity of the book." \ " The general publicity" of the Pentateuch from the conquest to the exile is opposed by strong evidence to the contrary, as we shall see hereafter. T. Hartwell Home, in 1818, issued his Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowl- edge of the Holy Scriptures, which passed through many editions, and has been highly esteemed for its many excellent qualities by several generations of students. Home's statement in the Preface to the second edition of his work shows how far Great Britain was behind the continent at that time. He says : " It (the work) originated in the author's own wants many years since, .... when he stood in need of a guide in reading of the Holy Scriptures At this time the author had no friend to assist his studies, or remove his doubts, nor any means of procuring critical works. At length a list of the more eminent foreign Biblical critics fell into his hands, and directed him to some of the sources of information which he was seek- ing. He then resolved to procure such of them as his humble means would permit, with the design in the first instance of sat- * Page 16. Mforcc Mosaics, 1801, zd edit., 1818. t An unknown reader of the copy we have examined, writes on the margin : " ? 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14." 1 4th, 1823; loth, 1836. 56 THE HEXATEUCH isfying his own mind on those topics which had perplexed him, and ultimately of laying before the public the results of his in- quiries, should no treatise appear that might supersede such a publication." It is evident from Home's work that he wrote it be- fore he had fully read the literature of his subject, and before he had mastered its principles and its details. Home passes lightly over the views of Eichhorn, simply remarking : " On the Continent the hypothesis of Calmet was adopted by M. Astruc, who fancied that he discovered traces of twelve different ancient documents from which the earlier chapters of Exodus as well as the entire book of Genesis are compiled. These, however, were reduced by Eichhorn to two in number, which he affirms may be distinguished by the appellations of Elohim and Jehovah, given to the Almighty. The hypothesis of Eichhorn is adopted by Rosenmuller (from whom it was bor- rowed by the late Dr. Geddes), and is partially acceded to by Jahn. To this hypothesis there is but one objection, and we apprehend that it is a fatal one, namely, the total silence of Moses as to any documents consulted by him Should the reader, however, be disposed to adopt the hypothesis of Calmet without the refinements of Eichhorn and his followers, this will not, in the smallest degree, detract from the divine authority of the book of Genesis." (vol. ii., p. 31, first edition.) He also makes the following argument : " Moreover, that the Pentateuch was extant in the time of David, is evident from the very numerous allusions made in his psulms to its contents ; but it could not have been drawn up by him, since the law contained in the Pentateuch forbids many practices of which David was guilty." (4th edit., vol. i., p. 54.) Little did he anticipate how soon the arguments from silence and from violation of law upon which he relies, would be turned against the Mosaic authorship of the' Pentateuch, and prove so difficult to answer. Little did he and Bishop Marsh imagine that their main argument, THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 5? " the observance of the law from the conquest till the exile" would prove the special weakness of the traditional theory. Home refers above to the Roman Catholic divine, Dr. Alex. Geddes, as holding the view of Eichhorn ; but in fact Geddes differs radically from Eichhorn and his school, and is the real father of a variant theory of the compo- sition of the Pentateuch, which has been called the frag- mentary hypothesis. Thus Dr. Geddes says : * " It has been well observed by Michaelis that all external tes- timony here is of little avail ; it is from intrinsic evidence only that we must derive our proofs. Now, from intrinsic evidence, three things, to me, seem indubitable : (i) The Pentateuch in its present form was not written by Moses. (2) It was written in the land of Chanaan, and most probably at Jerusalem. (3) It could not be written before the reign of David, nor after that of Hezekiah. The long pacific reign of Solomon (the Augustan age of Judea) is the period to which I would refer it ; yet I con- fess there are some marks of a posterior date, or at least of posterior interpolation. But although I am inclined to believe that the Pentateuch was reduced into its present form in the reign of Solomon, I am fully persuaded that it was compiled from ancient documents, some of which were coeval with Moses, and some even anterior to Moses. Whether all these were writ- ten records or many of them only oral traditions, it would be rash to determine." Also p. xxi. : " To the Pentateuch I have joined the book of Joshua, both because I conceive it to have been compiled by the same author, and because it is a necessary appendix to the history contained in the former books." The fragmentary hypothesis of Geddes was introduced into Germany by Vater.f Vater's view is that the Pen- * The Holy Bible ; or, The Books Accounted Sacred by Jews and Chris- tians, etc., faithfully translated, etc. London, 1792, vol. i., p. xviii. \ Commentar fiber den Pentateuch mit Einleitungen zu den einzelnen Abschnitten, der eingeschalteten Ubersetzung von Dr. Alexander Geddes's merkwurdigeren kritischen und exegetischen Anmerkungen, etc. Halle, 1805. 58 THE HEXATEUCH tateuch and Book of Joshua are composed of a great number of separate fragments of different authors, loosely joined by a collector.* He puts the greater part of Deuteronomy at least as early as the Davidic age, but the composition of our Pentateuch toward the time of the exile.f Calling attention to the discrepancies in the codes of legislation and the non-observance of them in the history of Israel, he makes the important statement: " Still in later times we find the most important laws of the Mosaic constitution either unknown or at least unobserved, so that the conclusion may be drawn therefrom that either the Pentateuch was not there, or at least not yet in its present ex- tent the book of religion that was regarded as generally obliga- tory, which it must have been if it had been esteemed as such from the times of Moses." III., p. 652. Vater takes the first alternative of the non-existence of the books. His other alternative was not sufficiently considered by himself or by others. The fragmentary hypothesis was also advocated by A. T. Hartmann4 Von B6hlen, and others. It was a radical and destruc- tive theory, that called forth the determined opposition of all earnest men, and it was soon overthrown. Comparing this fragmentary hypothesis of Geddes and others with the documentary hypothesis of Eichhorn's school and the Rabbinical view as advocated by Marsh and Home, we remark that the documentary hypothesis of the school of Eichhorn, notwithstanding serious de- fects, is in the midst of two extremes. It gave the best solution of the facts that had been discovered in those times. The documentary hypothesis found representa- iii., p. 504. tin., p. 680. t Historisffi-Arit. Forsckungen, 1831. % Die Genesis kistorixk-krit. erlSutert, 1835. THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 59 tion in Great Britain and America in Taylor's edition of Calmet's Dictionary of the Holy Bible,* and in the American edition by Edward Robinson in 1835. Tay- lor's statement, as revised by Robinson, is the following : " It may be admitted, for instance, (i) that the Book of Gene- sis contains various repetitions or double narratives of the same early events ; (2) that these duplicate narratives,when closely com- pared, present characteristic differences of style ; (3) that these differences are too considerable and too distinct to admit of any other explanation than that of different originals, taken into association." * Edition of 1833. VI. THE SUPPLEMENTARY HYPOTHESIS. THIS stadium is characterized by the effort to deter- mine the genesis of the various documents constituting the Pentateuch. De Wette is the man who chiefly influ- ences the discussion.* Reviewing the previous stadium Merx properly re- marks that both the fragmentary and documentary hypotheses " have this in common that they seek to attain their aim chiefly by the way of Literary Criticism, and neglect or use only as a subsidiary help, the realistic, antiquarian and historical crit- icism of the contents of the Pentateuch. This element De Wette chiefly brought into the scientific investigation in his Kritik der israelitischen Geschichte, Halle, 1807." P. Ixxxii. of ad Aufl. of Tuch's Com. tiber Genesis, Halle, 1871. At first hovering between the documentary hypothe- sis of Eichhorn and the fragmentary hypothesis of Geddes, recognizing the features of truth and of error in them both, De Wette at last rises above them and presses for the unity of the Pentateuch in its present * For an excellent account of the criticism of this stadium see the valuable articles of Prof. F. A. Cast, D.D., on Pentateuch Criticism, in the April and July Numbers of the Reformed Quarterly Review, 1883 ; also Nachwort, by Merx in ad Aufl. of Tuch's Gen fit's, 1871, p. Ixxviii. s?. t etc. (60) THE SUPPLEMENTARY HYPOTHESIS Q form as the//## of one mind. He first stated that Deu- teronomy is an independent part of the Pentateuch, composed in the age of Josiah.* He subsequently adopted into his system the improvements suggested by other Biblical scholars who followed in his footsteps, f In 1824 BleekJ adopted the view of Geddes and Vater, that the death of Moses was not the proper close of the history begun in Genesis, but that it aimed at the occu- pation of the Holy Land, and that the Book of Joshua therefore belonged with the Pentateuch, so that these should rather be considered as a Hexateuch. Bleek was the first to give shape to what has been called the supple- mentary hypothesis. He made the Elohist original and fundamental, the Jahvist the supplerhenter. Bleek also advanced in his position by subsequent investigations of himself and others. His final statement is presented in his posthumous Lectures on Introduction, i86o. In 1823 Ewald | also insisted upon the unity of Gene- sis over against the fragmentary hypothesis, and in 1831,^ showed that the Elohistic and Jahvistic docu- ments extended through the entire Pentateuch. Soon after, the same was found to be the case with Joshua, and the unity of the Hexateuch in the midst of the diversity of documents was made manifest. Over against these critical investigations the tradi- tional theory was advocated by Ranke,** who sharply and successfully attacked the fragmentary hypothesis, * 1805, Dissert, zur Deut. ; 1806-7, Beitr. zur Einleit. ; 1817, Lehrb. d. hist.- krit . Einleitung. 2d edition, trans, by Theo. Parker, Boston, 1843. t 6th Aufl. Einleit. 1844. 7th, 1852. \ Rosenm., Bib. Exeget. Repert. I. The 2d edition was translated into English by G. H. Venables, 1865. | Composition der Genesis, 1823. H Stud, und Krit. in a review of Stahelin on Genesis, 602 sq. ** Untersiichungen, 1834-40. (52 THE HEXATEUCH but did not squarely meet the position of the school of De Wette. Hengstenberg * made war upon the dis- tinction of documents and sought to efface the differ- ences by his theory of an intentional change of the divine names in accordance with their essential meaning and the circumstances of the case. Kurtz also f took a similar position, which, however, he subsequently aban- doned.^ Drechsler also sharply attacked the methods of the Higher Criticism. But the ablest work on the scholastic side was produced by Havernick. | Havernick sturdily maintained the Rabbinical view after Carpzov and Heidegger, and declined to make concessions as to variety of documents in the Pentateuch. This revival of traditional views was very strong, and powerful efforts were put forth to overcome the advancing critics, but in vain, for it died away essentially with these distin- guished champions. Kurtz soon went over to an inter- mediate position. Keil, in 1854, took up the work of Havernick, but without any appreciable effect upon the discussion so far as Germany is concerned. In 1866 it was the author's privilege to study with Hengsten- berg in the University of Berlin. His studies were at first chiefly on the traditional side. He can say that he worked over the chief authorities on that side, and they had all the advantages of his predilections in their favor. But Hengstenberg himself convinced him in his own lecture-room that hewas defending a lost cause. He then turned away from the study of the Pentateuch and Beitr&ge *ur F.inltitung ins Alte Testament : Bd. li.-iii., Die Autkentie des Pentateucks, 1836-39. t Beitr&ge, 1844, and r.inheit a'tr Gtnfsis, 1846. | Ctidi. d. Alt. Bundes, 1848, yf Ed. 1864. I Unwissenichaft. d. A'rittA, 1837. | Hi*t.-krH. Einleit., 1836. (ate Aufl. by Keil, 1854). THE SUPPLEMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 63 the Historical books and devoted himself to the study of the Poetical and Prophetical books, under the guidance of Roediger, and it was not until his fourth year in Ger- many that he returned to the study of the Pentateuch, and then worked under the guidance chiefly of Ewald. His experience corresponds with that of many other stu- dents of his time. We yielded against our wishes to in- superable arguments, and when compelled to adopt the analysis of the Hexateuch reserved our decision on the date of the documents until these could be definitely determined. Hengstenberg was the last great champion of traditionalism in the Old Testament. His successor, August Dillmann, a pupil of Ewald, has been the most painstaking critic of our times. Hermann Strack said in 1 882 :* " Keil is now about the only prominent Old Testa- ment scholar who holds to the Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch." Keil died soon afterwards, and with him scholarly opposition ceased in Germany. A more careful analysis of Genesis was undertaken by Tuch,f a-nd this was extended by Stahelin to the entire Pentateuch4 Hupfeld took up the analysis of Genesis, and, unaware of the work of Ilgen, came independently to essentially the same results, only that in his exceedingly careful discrimination of the various documents he made it clear that there were Elohist, 2d Elohist, Jahvist, and Redactor; the Redactor, differing from the other three, in that he is distinguished for the conscientiousness with which he reproduces the ancient documents, word for word, and the skill with which he combines them in the unity and order which characterize * Handb. d. Theol. Wissensch., 1882, I. t Comm. u. d. Genesis, 1838. \Krit. Unters. in Genesis, 1830. Krit. Unters., 1843. Specielle Einleit., 1862. Quellen d. Genesis, 1853. 64 THE I1EXATEUCH his work. This was a very great gain. Knobel * ana- lyzed the Hexateuch and made the Elohist the funda- mental writing, and found two other documents used by the Jahvistic supplementer, and combined with it. Ewald f gave a new turn to the question by taking the Elohistic document as the Book of Origins. This gathered into itself three older writings in part : the book of the wars of Yahweh, a biography of Moses, and the book of the Covenants, having the design to trace the history from the creation of the world until the erection of the temple of Solomon. It was com- posed in the first third of the reign of Solomon. The second Elohist is the third narrator, in the age of Elijah and Joel. The Jahvist is the fourth narrator, in the eighth century. The Redactor is the fifth narrator, who worked up the entire Hexateuch except Lev. xxvi. 3-45, Deut. i. I xxii. 47, xxxiv. 11-12, and xxxiii., which were three separate writings subsequently united with it. The Deuteronomist wrote his work in the second half of the reign of Manasseh. The last work upon the Pentateuch was done by the author of Deut. xxxiii. shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem. Thus our Pentateuch, in the course of centuries, gradu- ally grew into its present form.^: It became more and more evident that the problem was to determine the work of the Redactor. E. Bohmer followed Hupfeld and sought to define more * Comm. Gen., 1852, (-2te Au/t., 1860). Exod. und Levit., 1857. Krit, des Pent, und Josh., 1861. f Gesck. des Volkes Israel, 1843-52. a Bde. 3te Ausg. 7 Bde., 1864-68, Bd. I., P- 94/ \ We cannot pause to pive the reasons of Ewald for his positions or to criticise them. We may remark that his positions are carefully taken and justified by plausible evidences. We will consider the most important of them in out criticism of the theories of this stadium as a whole. } Liber Genesis Pent., 1860, Das erste Buck d. Torak, 1862. THE SUPPLEMENTARY HYPOTHESIS (35 exactly the Redactor's part. Noldeke * examined the Elohist with the utmost exactness, and represented it as a systematic work by itself, to a very large extent pre- served in the Pentateuch. He held that it was written by a priest at Jerusalem in the ninth or tenth century B.C. Other materials were used by the Jehovist, es- pecially the work of the second Elohist, from about the same time as the first Elohist. The Redactor, about 800 B.C., united the two together. In the reign of Josiah, the Deuteronomist added his book and worked over Joshua and gave the Pentateuch its present form. Schrader f introduced the more recent investigations into the scheme of De Wette, and combined the docu- mentary and supplementary hypotheses as follows : There are two chief documents : the Annalistic (Elohist) and Theocratic (2d Elohist), composed, the former in in the earlier part of the reign of David, the author a priest who used earlier written sources ; the latter soon after the division of the kingdom in the northern realm, 975-950 B.C., also using ancient documents. The third prophetic narrator (Jehovist) combined the two, freely appropriating, and rejecting, and enlarging by numerous additions, making a complete and harmonious work, in the reign of Jeroboam II., 825-800 B.C., in the northern kingdom. The Deuteronomist in the prophetic spirit composed the law of Moses contained in Deuteron- omy, and became the final redactor of the Pentateuch in its present form, immediately before the reform of Josiah, 622 B.C., being a man closely associated with the prophet Jeremiah. Schrader briefly and clearly sums up the various characteristic differences in the * Alttest. Lit., 1868, Untersuch., 1869. t 8th edition of De Wette's Einleit., 1869. 66 THE HEXATEUCH documents: (i) a thoroughgoing difference of language; (2) a striking difference in style ; (3) difference in re- ligious conceptions; (4) discrepancy in historical state- ments ; (5) difference of plan and method of narration. The supplementary hypothesis passed over into Eng- land through Samuel Davidson.* Davidson places the Elohist, a Levite in Judah, in the time of Saul ; the 2d Elohist in the time of Elisha, 880 B.C. ; the Jehovist in the reign of Uzziah. These three were combined by a Redactor, " with considerable independence, adding oc- casionally a connecting link, omitting what seemed to stand in the way of the connection, abridging in dif- ferent modes, and transposing pieces according to his own view." f The date of the completion of the Pen- tateuch coincides with the composition of Deuteronomy in the reign of Manasseh, whose author is also respon- sible for the present form of Joshua4 Dr. Perowne also adopted it in a mediating way ; Dean Stanley unre- servedly,! and others in various forms. * Introduction to the Old Testament, 1862. t P. 51. \ Pp. 131 and 421. " So far then the direct evidence from the Pentateuch itself is not sufficient to establish the Mosaic authorship of every portion of the five books. Certain parts of Ex., Lev., and Numbers, and the whole of Deut. to the end of chap. xxx., is all that is expressly said to have been written by Moses." " There is, therefore, it seems, good ground for concluding that, besides some smaller inde- pendent documents, traces may be discovered of two original historical works which form the basis of the Book of Genesis and of the earlier chapters of Ex- odus. Of these there can be no doubt that the Elohistic is the earlier." "On carefully weighing all the evidence hitherto adduced, we can hardly question without a literary scepticism which would be most unreasonable, that the Penta- teuch is, to a very large extent, as early as the time of Moses, though it may have undergone many later revisions and corrections, the last of these being cer- tainly as late as the time of Ezra. But as regards any direct and unimpeachable testimony to the composition of the whole work by Moses, we have it not." Smith's Dictionary of the ffiMe, article, Pentateuch, 1863. , | Lectures OH the History of the Jewish Church, Part II., p. 648. N. Y., 1869. THE SUPPLEMENTARY HYPOTHESIS (ft Delitzsch, Kurtz, and Kleinert, in Germany, also strove to mediate. Delitzsch* held that the legislation of Ex- odus, Leviticus, and Numbers was Mosaic legislation, but the codification of the various laws was made by a man like Eleazar, in the Holy Land after the conquest, who became the author of the Elohistic document. Joshua, or one of the elders, supplemented this work as the Jehovist, taking Moses' Book of Deuteronomy and incorporating it with the rest. Kurtz f abandoned his previous defence of the traditional theory, and took the ground that the two streams of history in the Penta- teuch must be distinguished. He agreed with Delitzsch in the main, save that he put the codification of the various laws of the middle books by a man like Eleazar in the land of Moab. Kleinert:}: maintained that the codification of the Deuteronomic law took place in the time of Samuel, and that it was set in its historical rim with the other discourses and songs by Samuel, the great reformer.| The redaction of our Pentateuch was placed in the time of Hezekiah.^f Lange ** also took a medi- ating position. In a critical examination of the supplementary hypoth- esis we must distinguish between the theory and the facts upon which it is grounded. We should not allow ourselves to be influenced by the circumstance that many of the scholars who have been engaged in these re- searches have been rationalistic or semi-rationalistic in their religious opinions ; and that they have employed * Comm. on Genesis, 1852. 3 is used by J and P. (5)- njOS and DJEK verily are used by J E, for which D and P use JQK. (6). Amorite, as the general name of the ancient population of both West and East Palestine, is used by E, Gn. xv. 16, xlviii. 22 ; Nu. xxi. 21, 31 f., Jos. xxiv. 8, 12, 15, 18, for which J prefers Canaan ite, Gn. xii. 6, xiii. 7, xxiv. 3, 37, xxxiv. 30. E never uses Canaanite. (7). The first person of the pronoun '33N is used in Deuteronomy 56 times. The only real exception is xii. 50, '3N~DJ where the reason for the abbreviation is evidently its use with DJ. The other apparent exceptions in Deuteronomy are due to different original documents which have been incorporated with Deuter- onomy, e. g., xxxii. 49, 52, part of the priestly document ; the Song, xxxii. 1-43 (5 t) ; and xxix. 5 (D*), where there is a mixed text. This usage of Deuteronomy is found elsewhere only in the song of Deborah, Judges v.; the prophet Amos. 10 times (except iv. 6, 'JN~D3) ; the Deuteronomic redactor of Judges, Samuel and Kings, save in little pieces; Psalms 22, 46, 50, 91, 104, 141 ; and the prophecy, Is. xxi. i-io, where the examples are too few to give us firm ground for usage. The shorter form '3X is used in II and P about 120 times. The only exception is Genesis xxiii. 4, which is probably due to the use of an ancient phrase (cf. Ps. xxxix. 13). This corresponds with the usage of exilic writings, as Ezekiel, which uses it 138 times (the only exception xxxvi. 28 in a phrase), Lamentations, 4 times; and of postexilic prophets, Haggai. 4 times ; Zechariah, i.-viii., 10 times ; Malachi, 7 times (except iii. 23) ; Joel, 4 times; also the Chronicler 47 times (ex- cept i C. xvii. i, derived from 2 S. vii. 2, and Neh. i. 6); Proverbs i.-viii., 5 times; Canticles, 12 times; Daniel, 23 times (except x. THE ANALYSIS OF THE HEXATEUCH. 71 i) ; Esther, 6 times ; Ecclesiastes, 29 times. No pre-exilic writ- ing uses ''JN exclusively except Zephaniah twice and the Song of Habakkuk once (regarded by many critics as a post-exilic psalm); but these few examp'es cannot determine usage. The usage of E and J differs both from D and P. In J of the Hexateuch '3JK is used 51 times to 32 of ""JN; in E, "QJX 32 times to 25 of "OK. With this correspond the original documents of Judges, which u?e ''33N 15 times to 11 of "ON, and the Ephraimitic documents of Samuel, which use 'aJN 19 times to 10 of "'JK. All these show a preponderance of usage in favor of ^X. Hosea uses each n times, and the earlier Isaiah each 3 times. Other writers show an increasing tendency to use "ON. The Judaic documents of Samuel and Kings use \3K 52 times to 30 of "GJN ; the Ephraimitic document of Kings, "ON 22 times to 2 of *33X ; Jeremiah, 'JK 52 times to 37 of "QJK ; Isaiah xl.-lxvi., 70 times ''JK to 2 1 '2:x ; Job, 28 times ""JX to 14 '3JK. It is evident that three layers of the Hexa- teuch are distinctly characterized by their use of this pronoun, and they agree with other groups of literature in their usage. (8). 1^3 with finite verb only in Gn. xxxi. 20 (E). (9)- ^>y3. owner, husband, lord, and as noun of relation, and Baal, the Canaanitish god, is often used by E and D, but never used by J H P. (10). nya to be brutish, twice in E and -pj?2 brute, 5 times in E, not elsewhere in Hexateuch. (u). "i{j>a in the meaning of body, is used only in P of the ~ i Hexateuch, elsewhere in Ecclesiastes, and in Poetry. (12). tjha to drive out, in J E not elsewhere in the Hexateuch. (13). nK"iin speak with, in P 19 times, E 5 times, Dt. v. 21, in J never used. J uses instead Qy -i;n 4 times, E 7 times, D 2 , twice Dt. v. 4, ix. 10, but P never uses it. (14). nnOT likeness, similitude, is used in P and Ezekiel, else- where in the Bible only in the exilic Isaiah, xiii. 4, xl. 18; 2 K. xvi. 10 ; 2 Ch. iv. 3 ; Ps. Iviii. 5 ; Dan. x. 16. (15). irn a flowing, liberty, only in P of the Hexateuch, Ex. xxx. 23 ; Lv. xxv. 10; elsewhere Jer. xxxiv. 8, 15, 17 ; Is. Ixi. i ; Ez. xlvi. 17. 72 THE HEXATEUCH (16). in "ifa generations, used only in E ; Ex. iii. 15, xvii. 16; elsewhere always with conjunction 1 and, irn iff. (17). ^!\ judge. This verb is used in E, Gen. xv. 14, xxx. 6; elsewhere in the Hexateuch only in the poems, Gen. xlix. 16 ; Dt. xxxii. 36. (i 8). rim behold, is only in E in the Hexateuch; elsewhere chiefly in Job, Psalms, and Isaiah. (19). nNOn sin, Gn. xx. 9 (E) ; Ex. xxxii. 21, 30, 31 (J) ; else- where only 2 Kings xvii. 21 ; Pss. xxxii. I, xl. 7, cix. 7. (20). Tllty Gn. xxv. 6, xliii. 7, 27, 28, xlv. 28, xlvi. 30 (J) ; Gn. xlv. 3, 26; Ex. iv. 1 8 (E); Dt. xxxi. 27 ; but not in H or P; elsewhere i Sam. xx. 14; 2 Sam. xii. 22, xviii. 14; i K. xx. 32. (21). J uses the Qal i^ beget ; but P uses instead the Hiphil T^n 60 times. (22). rrv cast, throw, shoot, only in J E of Hexateuch, Gn. xxxi. 51; Ex. xv. 4, xix. 13; Nu. xxi. 30; Jos. xviii. 6; but as Hiphil, to teach, in all the documents. (23). JTOV DID be put to a violent death, capital punishment. The penalty of death is so expressed in the statutes of the code of E, Ex. xxi. 12, 15, 16, 17, xxii. 18, and those ancient statutes embedded in the legislation of H, Lv. xx. 2, 9, 10, u, 12, 13, 15, 16, 27, xxiv. 16, 17, and of P; Ex. xxxi. 14, 15; Lv. xxvii. 29; Nu. xv. 35, xxxv. 16, 17, 18, 21, 31 ; Ju. xxi. 5. In the narratives it is used only Ex. xix. 12 (E), and Gn. xxvi. n, both of which use the participial construction, which is characteristic of ancient statutes. The phrase rffCP nio (the Qal instead of Hophal) with the same meaning is used of human infliction, i S. xiv. 39, 44, xxii. 16 ; I K. ii. 37, 42 ; and of divine infliction, Gen. ii. 17, iii. 4; Ju. xiii. 21, 22 ; 2 S. xii. 14, xiv. 14; 2 K. i. 4, 6, 16. All of these are Judaic documents. It is used of human infliction, Ez. iii. 18, xxxiii. 8, 14. Apart from these Judaic passages, it is used of assassination, 2 K. viii. 10 (an Ephraimitic document) ; elsewhere of divine infliction, Gn. xx. 7 (E) ; Nu. xxvi. 65 (P), both of which are probably redactional. The phrase rPO* non is also Judaic, Ju. xv. 13; I K. iii. 26, 27; Je. xxvi. 19, xxxviii. 15. It is characteristic of the Deutcronomic rode to express the death penalty by the verb alone without the intensive infinitive abso- lute; cf. Dt. xvii. 2, 6, xviii. 20, xix. 12, xxii. 22, 25, xxiv. 7, and THE ANALFSIS OF THE HEXATEUCH f3 frequently elsewhere in the other codes, and throughout the literature of the Old Testament. Here there are three distinct usages of the verb DID i n connection with the death penalty, which characterize three distinct layers of the Hexateuch. (24). HBO tribe, is used by P about 100 times; J uses y& instead. (25). rON^lp in the meaning, business, occupation, is used in Gn. xxxix. it (J); in the meaning property, Ex. xxii. 7, 10 (E), Gn. xxxiii. 14 (J) ; but in the sense of work, it is frequent in P and the Chronicler ; elsewhere in the Hexateuch only in the reason of the Fourth Commandment, Ex. xx. 9, io,=Dt. v. 13, 14, and Dt. xvi. 8. (26). row breath, Gn. ii. 7, vii. 22 (J) and n^j(n)-^3 every breathing thing, Dt. xx. 16; Jos. x. 40, xi. 11, 14 (all D) ; neither elsewhere in the Hexateuch. (27). The penalty of stoning is expressed in J E by the verb f>j?D .^j-iD and the ace. of the person or animal, Ex. viii. 22, xvii. 4, xxi. 28 ; i S. xxx. 6 ; i K. xxi. 10. The Niph. is used Ex. xix. 13, xxi. 29, 32 (J E), the Pual i K. xxi. 14, 15. D uses the ace. of the person, but 3 and plural of the stones, eg., D\33N2, Dt. xiii. ii, xvii. 5, xxii. 21, 24; Jos. vii. 25 ; 28. xvi. 6, 13; i K. xxi. 13. This verb is used in the Piel for removing stones, Is. v. 2, Ixii. 10; but it is not used in any sense in H P or other writings. In the code of H the synonymous verb Qii is used either with ace. of person, Lv. xxiv. 14, or 3 of person, Lv. xxiv. 16, without instrument ; or with ace. of person and ace. instru- ment, Lv. xxiv. 23 ; also Jos. vii. 25 ; 2 C. xxiv. 21 ; or ace. pers. and 3 of instrument, Lv. xx. 2, 27, also Ez. xvi. 40. In all these cases the singular fax is used. There are also uses of ace. instru- ment and 1 of person, i K. xii. 18=2 C. x. 18; or ^y of person, Ez. xxiii. 47. In the code of P the same verb is used, but always with 3 of the instrument and plural of the noun, e.g., D\32&O, Nu. xiv. 10, xv. 35, 36. The single example of this in Dt. xxi. 21 must be due to a later copyist substituting unconsciously a later for an earlier verb. Here, then, we have four different phrases for the penalty of stoning representing four different layers of the Hexateuch. (28). K2 serve, 3 time? in P, not elsewhere in Hexateuch. jo*' 74: THE HEXATEUC11 war, 13 times in P, JOY xy 15 times in P, 5 times in Chronicles ; service, P, 8 times; elsewhere in Hexateuch only Dt. xxiv. 5, Jos. iv. 13 (D) ; in the meaning army, host, 47 times in P, 23 times in Chronicler; elsewhere in Hexateuch, Gn. xxi. 22, 32 (E), xxvi. 26 (J), Jos. v. 14, 15 ; of heavenly bodies, twice in P; of the entire creation, Gn. ii. I (P). (29). The Mount of the Lawgiving is called Horeb in E and D, but Sinai in J and P. (30). E uses a large number of archaic words such as jhj, Nu. XX. 21, for nn ; fcy Gn. xxxi. 28, nt?# Gn. ^ 2O ^"KTJJ Ex. xviii. 1 8, for nit?y, int?JJ ; ljS"l Ex. iii. 19, Nu. xxii. 13, 1 6, for na!> ; rrn Gn. xlvi. 3, for nin ; njn, Ex. ii. 4, for njn-* Each of the four writers has his favorite words and phrases. They all use essentially the same vocabulary, because they use the same language and the same dialect, with the exception of E, who shows traces of an occasional use of the Ephraimitic dia- lect ; but there arc certain terms and phrases which are charac- teristic of each. There is an ascending scale in the use of words and phrases when we compare author with author in any lan- guage, (i). The great majority of words and phrases are the common stock of the language used by all. (2). The same theme leads to the use of similar words and phrases. (3). Dif- fetences begin in the percentage of use of certain words and phrases. That which is occasional with one writer is common with another, and the reverse. (4). There are a few words and expressions which are peculiar to certain authors, used by one author and avoided by other authors. II. Difference of Style. It is agreed among critics that E is brief, terse, and ar- chaic in his style. J is poetic and descriptive as Well- hausen says, "the best narrator in the Bible." His imagination and fancy are ever active. P is annalis- tic and diffuse fond of names and dates. He aims at * These are only specimens of a vast array of words. Many others will appear when we come to the argument from Religion and Doctrine. See pp. 101 $eq. t 149 sey., and App. IX., X., XI. THE ANALYSIS OF THE HEXATEUCH 75 precision and completeness. The logical faculty prevails. There is little color. D is rhetorical and hortatory, practical and earnest. His aim is instruction and guid- ance. This difference of style was noted by Simon, and has been carefully traced by criticism in our day. There are those who try to explain away this difference as oc- casioned by the difference of theme, but this does not account for the difference of style in the parallel treat- ment of the same theme. And then the differences of style are alongside of the differences in the use of words and phrases and the divine names. There is as great a difference in style between the different documents of the Hexateuch as there is between the four Gospels. Kautzsch and Socin have recently presented the differ- ent documents of Genesis in different kinds of type.* Bacon has exhibited them apart by themselves, f III. Parallel Narratives. Another line of evidence is the very large number of doublets and triplets, (i). There are two accounts of the creation which have recently been discovered to be two ancient poems. In the Pentameter poem, Gen. i., God creates by speaking. He is conceived as a com- mander of an army, summoning his troops into the field, line upon line, until they all stand before him for review, an organized host. In the Trimeter poem, Gn. ii., there is a rapid change of image. God uses His hands in cre- ation. He plants the garden in Eden as a gardener. He moulds the forms of men and animals out of the soil of the ground like a sculptor. He builds the form of Eve from a piece of the body of man like a builder. In the Pentameter poem the divine Spirit is conceived * Die Genesis mit ausserer Unterscheidung der Quellenschriften, 1888. t The Genesis of Genesis, 1891. 76 THE HEXATEUCH as a bird hovering over the original chaos with creative energy. In the Trimeter poem God's breath, proceeding from the divine nostrils into the nostrils of the creatures, imparts the breath of life. In the Pentameter poem a waste, an empty abyss, is conceived as prior to the first creative word, and light appears as the first of God's creations to fill this abyss with illumination. In the Trimeter poem a rainless ground without vegetable and animal life is conceived as prior to the first divine activity which was forming a single man, Adam. The order of creation is different. In the Pentameter poem six orders of creation appear instantaneously in obedience to the creative word on the mornings of six creative days: (i). Light, (2). Ex- panse, (3). Dry land and vegetables, (4). The great luminaries, (5). Animals of water and air, (6). Land animals and mankind. In the Trimeter poem, the ground is conceived as al- ready existing, the great luminaries are left out of consideration, and the order is (i). Adam; (2), trees; (3), animals; and (4), Eve. The result of the divine inspection differs greatly in the two poems. In the Pentameter poem, as each order appears, it is recog- nized as " good " and is then assigned its service. The review concludes with the approbation, " very excellent." In the Trimeter poem, which proposes to give the origin and development of sin, we notice a striking antithesis to the " good " and " very good " of the six days' work. Thus it was not good to eat of the prohibited tree of knowledge of good and evil. " It was not good that the man should be alone. " And the animals were not good for man. " But for man there was not found an help- meet for him. " The time of the Pentameter poem was six creative days. The time of the Trimeter was a day, THE ANALYSIS OF THE HEXATEUCH 77 unless we conceive that " day " has the more general sense of the time when. In the Pentameter, mankind was created male and female, a species alongside of the spe- cies of animals. In the Trimeter, first a man, then after the trees and animals a woman, and a plurality of men and women only after two great tragedies of sin. When God reviews His organized host, according to the Pen- tameter poem, He looks approvingly on mankind, male and female, a race whom He had just created, and pro- nounces them at the head and crown of all His creations, "very excellent." But according to the Trimeter poem, God looks upon mankind, male and female, as a race, only as very evil, after Adam and Eve have sinned, after Cain has killed his brother Abel, after mankind has become a race in the Sethite line of redemption and in the accursed line of Cain. Add to these material facts, this additional one that the verb bard, in the Pentameter poem, is a word seldom used except in P, and the second Isaiah in the Qal species. The Trimeter poem uses dsah for it in accord- ance with the usage of J elsewhere, and of all the earlier writers. To these evidences we might add the evi- dences from vocabulary and style which may be found in the critical commentaries. How any one can look these facts in the face and say that these two accounts of the creation came from one and the same writer, Moses, it is difficult to understand. (2). There are two narratives of the Deluge, also two poems of different movements skilfully compacted by the redactor from J and P, so that both pieces are preserved almost complete. These give variant accounts of the deluge and differ in style, poetical structure and their descriptions ; and they agree in general in vocabu- lary and style with the corresponding poems of J and P relating to the creation. 78 THE IIEXATEUCH (3). There are two versions of the Ten Words, the one in Deuteronomy, the other in Exodus, with import- ant differences. The version in Exodus may be analyzed and the reasons distributed among E, J and P. The version in Exodus also bears traces of the use of the Deuteronomic version, showing that it is the latest and fullest version, made by the redactor of J, E, D, and P, from the versions in the four documents. E calls these tables, tables of stone; J, tables of stone; D, tables of the covenant ; P, tables of the testimony.* (4). E and J give three stories of the peril of the wives of the patriarchs at the courts of Pharaoh and Abimelek : Gen. xii. 10-20 (J); xx. 1-13 (E) ; xxvi. 6-1 1 (J). These stories, apart from persons and places, are so alike that they may be, two of them, parallel accounts of what transpired at the court of Abimelek, the one story referring to Isaac, the other to Abraham. And it may be that the story of Abraham at the court of Pharaoh is only a third variation of the same story. With similarity of theme, there are characteristic differ- ences in the language and style of the different narrators. (5). Among the Egyptian plagues J reports a mur- rain, a cattle-pest (Ex. ix. 1-7). This seems to be a parallel plague to the " boils breaking forth with blains" of P (Ex. ix. 8-12), which come upon man and beast. These narratives exhibit the characteristic differ- ences of these two narrators, f (6). There are three accounts of the insect pest. The narratives of J and E are mingled in Ex. viii. 16-28. P stands by itself in Ex. viii. 11^-15. In J E this pest is l^y, a swarm of insects. In P it is C3D> lice. Psalm Ixxviii. gives the insect swarm of J, but omits the lice of P, but Psalm cv. uses both of these terms. * See Appendix III. + See Appendix IV. THE ANALYSIS OF THE HEXATEUCH f9 (7). There are several versions of the call and blessing of Abraham in Gen. xii. 1-3 (J) ; xv. 4-5 (E) ; xvii. 1-8 (P); xxii. 15-18 (R), which show the distinctive characteristics of the narrators. (8). According to E, Joshua set up twelve stones in the bed of the Jordan as a memorial of the crossing. (Jos. iv. 7$, 9). According to J, the stones from the bed of the Jordan were set up at GilgaL (Jos. iv. 20.) (9). The rebellion of Dathan and Abiram, the Reuben- ites, is referred to in Dt. xi. 6. But no mention is made of the rebellion of the Levitical Korahites. These two rebellions are combined in the narrative Num. xvi. Critical analysis, however, shows that the redactor has here combined a narrative of J E, which gives the rebel- lion of the Reubenites and is the basis of the story of D, with a narrative of P, which. gives the story of the Korahites, which is unknown to J E, and therefore to D. (10). There are two reports of the bringing of the water from the rock. The one, Ex. xvii., is in the wilderness of Sin, early in the wanderings ; the other, Num. xx., is in the wilderness of Zin, forty years after. The former is in the narrative of J E, the latter in the narrative of P. The question thus arises whether these are not va- riant accounts of the same miracle, occasioned by an unconscious mistake of Sin for Zin. This is a case very much like the two stories of the cleansing of the temple by Jesus, the one in the synoptists at the last passover of Jesus, the other in the Gospel of John at the first passover. There is room for difference of opinion re- garding both of these events ; but whether they are different events or not, the stories being about the same essential thing, the differences between J E and P, in the report of the water from the rock, are just as great 80 THE HEXATEUCH as those between John and the synoptists in the story of the cleansing of the temple. (H). There are two narratives of the appointment of assistants to Moses to aid him in the government of Israel. The one, Ex. xviii., is in the document E ; the other, Dt. i., 9-18, belongs to D", a later addition to D. In the former, Jethro suggests the institution in order to relieve Moses, prior to the legislation at Horeb, and men are selected as princes (DI-IBJ) of thousands, hun- dreds, fifties, and tens, who are men of ability, fearing God, men of faithfulness, hating oppression (ver. 21). In the latter, Moses makes the appointment because of the marvellous increase of the people, subsequent to the sojourn at Horeb ; and he selects chiefs (fi^E^l) and judges (DI^SE), men of wisdom (o^^n) an< 3 under- standing (0"035) (vers. .12-14). The point of view and style of the narratives are altogether different. (12). There are two narratives of the invasion of Palestine. It is sufficient to use Dr. Moore's condensed comparison. (Commentary on Jvdges, pp. 6-7.) "Jud. i. i-ii. 5, with the cognate fragments in Jos. xiii. ff. accords very well with the undoubted excerpts from J in Jos. i.-ix.; the whole tenor and style of the narrative resembles that of J in the Pentateuch It contains an account of the inva- sion and settlement of Western Palestine entirely different from that given in the Book of Joshua, and of vastly greater historical value. In Joshua the united armies of Israel, under the com- mand of Joshua, in two campaigns (x. 1 1) conquer all Palestine from the Lebanon to the southern desert, and ruthlessly exter- minate its entire population. The land is partitioned among the tribes (xiii. fT), who have only to enter and take possession of the territory allotted to them. In Jud. i., on the contrary, the tribes invade the land singly, or as they are united by common interest ; they fight for their own land with varying success, or settle peaceably among the older population. The larger cities, with few exceptions, the fertile valleys, and the seaboard plain remain in the hands of the Canaanites." VIII. THE DATE OF DEUTERONOMY. HAVING given some of the evidences for the Analysis of the Documents we shall now consider the question of the date of Deuteronomy. The supplementary hypothe- sis tried to determine the order and fix the time of the genesis or production of these various documents. The pivot of the whole is the theory of De Wette, that Deu- teronomy was composed shortly before the reform of Josiah. This theory is based on the statements of 2 Kings xxii. 3 f.,* as to discovery of the lost law book. The arguments in support of this theory, as stated by the late Prof. Riehm, of Halle, are as follows: He argues (i) that Deuteronomy was not written until some time after the conquest, by the expression "within thy gates"; the statement, ii. 12, "as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which Yahweh gave unto them "; and the ancient landmarks, xix. 14. The first and last are often explained from the prophetic point of view of the Deuteronomic code which looks forward to the prolonged occupation of the Holy Land and shapes the legislation accordingly. The middle one is explained as a redactor's note of explanation. But while these * See p. 15 seq. (81) 82 THE F1EXATEUCH explanations might satisfy if there were no other reasons against Mosaic authorship, they more naturally indicate a long occupation of the land when the code was framed in its present form. (2). The book is pushed down to the reign of Solomon by the law of the king (xxviii. 36 ; compare xvii. 14-20), and its prohibition of horses and chariots and many wives. We cannot deny to Moses the conception of a future kingdom in Israel. In view of the fact that the Israelites had just come out of bondage to the king of Egypt, and that they were surrounded by nations having kings ; it was natural to think of kings for Israel likewise. The subsequent pro- vision of temporary judges or rulers called by God and endued with His Spirit, is not contemplated in the Deuteronomic code. A king would be the likely thing in the subsequent times after the conquest. If the Deuteronomic code had this ideal, such a law in the code might be regarded as appropriate. The reproof by Samuel of a subsequent desire for a king might be in view of the altered circumstances. The nation was not ripe for the kingdom, as the history of Saul clearly indi- cates. It was premature on the part of the people, pre- sumptuous, and overriding the divine provision of the temporary judges or saviors. And yet while all this speculation may be true, it is not so natural an interpre- tation as that the law was made in view of the historic occasions for it which were first in Solomon's time, and that the law of the king was given when Israel had ripened into a kingdom. (3). Riehm presses the composition of Deuteronomy down to the time of Jehoshaphat, by the law of the su- preme judiciary at one place, Deut. xvii. 8 scq., which did not exist till the time of Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. xix. 8-1 1. (4). He presses it down to the time of Hezekiah on THE DATE OF DEUTERONOMY 83 account of the one only central altar which was not realized till the time of Hezekiah, 2 Kings xviii. 4 ; 2 Chron. xxxi. I ; Isaiah xxxvi. 7. The facts are that the one place of judgment and the one exclusive altar were not realized until the times mentioned, as the ideal of the king was not realized until the Davidic dynasty; but do these facts disprove the promulgation of the Deuter- onomic code in the land of Moab ? These facts prove the non-observance of the code, the disregard of it, and possibly also ignorance of it; they favor its non-exist- ence, but do not entirely prove it. If we could present good and sufficient reasons for the opinion that the Deuteronomic code is a prophetic ideal code, given before the conquest in view of a long sojourn of the nation in Palestine, these facts might be explained. But the difficulty is to find such reasons. Who can prove it ? (5). Riehm fixes the composition in the time of Ma- nasseh and the reign of Psammeticus on account of the going down to Egypt in ships, Deut. xxviii. 68. The author of Deuteronomy, the People's Book, (Lon- don, 1877), has referred to The Records of the Past, (vi., p. 37,) for a statement from the time of Rameses III., which shows the equipment of fleets on the Med- iterranean at that time. This was therefore quite pos- sible for Moses to conceive of. But if the other reasons for a late date are valid this helps to give the date more closely. Canon Driver gives additional reasons as follows : (6). " The forms of idolatry alluded to, especially the worship of the " host of heaven " (iv. 19 ; xvii. 3), seem to point to the middle period of the monarchy. It is true, the worship of the sun and moon is ancient, as is attested even by the names of places in Canaan ; but in the no- 84 THE HEXATEUCfl tices (which are frequent) of idolatrous practices in Judges to Kings, no mention occurs of " the host of heaven " till the period of the later kings. That the cult is pre- supposed in Dt. and not merely anticipated propheti- cally, seems clear from the terms in which it is referred to. While we are not in a position to affirm positively that the danger was not felt earlier, the law, as formu- lated in Dt., seems designed to meet the form which the cult assumed at a later age." (7). " The influence of Dt. upon subsequent writers is clear and indisputable. It is remarkable, now, that the early prophets, Amos, Hosea, and the undisputed por- tions of Isaiah, show no certain traces of this influence ; Jeremiah exhibits marks of it on nearly every page; Zephaniah and Ezekiel are also evidently influenced by it. If Dt. were composed in the period between Isaiah and Jeremiah, these facts would be exactly accounted for." (8). " T\it prophetic teaching of Dt., the point of view from which the laws are presented, the principles by which conduct is estimated, presuppose a relatively ad- vanced stage of theological reflection, as they also ap- proximate to what is found in Jeremiah and Ezekiel." (9). " In Dt. xvi. 22, we read, 'Thou shaltnot set thee up a mazzebah (obelisk or pillar), which the Lord thy God hateth.' Had Isaiah known of this law he would hardly have adopted the mazzebah (xix. 19) as a symbol of the conversion of Egypt to the true faith. The sup- position that heathen pillars are meant in Dt. is not favored by the context (v. 2ib) ; the use of these has, moreover, been proscribed before (vii. 5 ; xii. 3)." (10). "The language and style of Dt., clear and flow- ing, free from archaisms, but purer than that of Jere- miah, would suit the same period. It is difficult in this THE DATE OF DEUTERONOMY 85 connection not to feel the force of Dillmann's remark (p. 6 1 1), that ' the style of Dt. implies a long develop- ment of the art of public oratory, and is not of a char- acter to belong to the first age of Israelitish litera- ture.' "* To these reasons we may add an argument suggested by Steuernagel. (11). The use of the divine name YaJiweh thy God, so characteristic of the earlier stratum of D (234 times), seems to have been influenced by the usage of Hosea (xii. 10 ; xiii. 4 ; xiv. 2), and to have originated from the conception of Israel as the son (Hos. xi.) or wife (Hos. i.-iii.) of Yahweh, and of Yahweh's personal love to Israel as a nation conceived in the unity of the relations of sonship and marriage. The doctrine of the love of Yahweh, and His faithfulness, so characteristic of Deut- eronomy, seems to have been derived from this prophet of love, whose influence was powerful upon Jeremiah also. It is easy to see the origin of these conceptions in the personal experience of the prophet Hosea. It is not easy to see how such sublime conceptions could have originated in the time of Moses and then have re- mained dead for centuries until Hosea revived them. I may add : (12). The humanitarianism of Dt. may be best explained from the experience of the troublous times from Hezekiah till Josiah. The prophet Amos repeatedly rebukes the oppressors of the poor (ii. 6 ; iv. i ; v. 12 ; viii. 4, 6), and this oppression is forbidden in Ex. xxiii. 6, 1 1 (Covenant Code of E). The prophet Isaiah emphasizes the wrongs of the fatherless and widows (i. 17, 23; ix. 16; x. 2; cf. Hos. xiv. 4). But no prophet before Jeremiah seems to be concerned with * Literature of the Old Testament, p. 83. gtf THE UEXATEUCH the oppression of the stranger. The terms (Ex. xx. 10= Dt. v. 14, Decalogue; Ex. xxii. 20; xxiii. 9, 12, Cove- nant Code) are Deuteronomic redactions. But Deuter- onomy combines " the stranger and the fatherless and the widow" (xiv. 29; xvi. II, 14; xix. 20, 21 ; xxiv. 19, 20, 21 ; xxv. 12, 13 ; xxvii. 19), a phrase used nowhere else; stranger and fatherless (xiv. 17, 29; xvi. II, 14), not elsewhere used (cf. however, fatherless and stranger, Zee. vii. 10; poor and stranger, Lv. xix. 10; xxiii. 22 (H). But Dt. also thinks of the stranger alone (i. 16; x. 18, 19; xxiii. 8; xxiv. 14; xxvi. H), and so Jeremiah first among the prophets (vii. 6 ; xxii. 3) and then Ezek. xxii. 7, 29 ; Mai. iii. 5. It is evident that ethically the Deut- eronomic Code rises higher than Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah, and prepares the way for Jeremiah and Ezekiel. (13). The statement of 2 Kings xxii. 3 f . is to the effect that a law book was discovered* whose laws had for a long time been neglected, and whose commands had been so long disobeyed that the nation was rejected by Yahweh on that account. These laws and their pen- alties had been lost sight of by kings, princes, and priest- hood, as well as by people. This neglect was a national sin, involving the extreme penalty of the exile of the nation. The laws of this Code, whose transgression incurred such a penalty, could not have originated in obscurity a short time before this reform. They must have been ancient, venerable laws. A deeper study of Deuteronomy in recent years has disclosed several stages of legislation and of redaction.f I have myself examined the legislation very carefully during the past two years. It is evident that prior to * See pp. 15 seq. t Driver, Critical and Exegeiical Commentary on Deuteronomy^ 1895 ; and especially Steuernajjel, /-ntstehung des deuteronomiscken Gesttees, 1896. THE DATE OF DEUTERONOMY 87 the final redaction of Deuteronomy there were two layers of codification ; the earlier characterized by ad- dressing the people in the second person singular, the later by using the second person plural. The greater portion of the legislation belongs to the former. There are many other characteristic differences, but the one mentioned is the most striking and thoroughgoing. There are two sets of introductions and conclusions cor- responding with these strata of the legislation. All the earlier Words of God to the people in the Decalogue and the two Covenant Codes are in the form of the sec- ond singular.* The Words of God to the people in the second plural are all redactional in J E D and are characteristic of D a and of H. Underlying the parenetic form, the experi- enced critic clearly sees the older laws. Some of these are Words (Qi*Ql) in the form of the second singular of persona] address. Others are Judgments (QiftSIDft) in the form of conditional or temporal clauses, being cases decided by the judges in the local courts. Still others are Statutes (Q">pn) either in the earlier participial form or the later third person singular of the verb with or without a relative clause. These are distinct types of legislation, originating from different sources. It seems that the story of the finding of the law book in 2 Kings xxii. 3 f. implies both of these strata and their redaction in one code. The author of the story knew our Deuteronomy in essentially its present form. The reform of Josiah was carried through in accordance with the laws of both strata. Therefore the composition of the earlier stratum, which comprehends the great body of the legislation, must be much earlier; and the most * See Appendices IV.-IX. 88 HIE HEXATEUCFI of the laws in their original form earlier still. The Deut- eronomic Code evidently contains laws of different epochs, many quite ancient, which gradually emerged in the legal development of the kingdom of Judah. The Covenant Code of E represents the legal development of the Northern Kingdom. The two codes have a com- mon basis, but they seem to have been for the most part independent in their development. (14). It has often been urged that the laws of war (Dt. xx. 1-20; xxi. 10-14) imply the circumstances of the wars under Moses and Joshua. The command to exter- minate the Canaanites (xx. 16-17) ' s certainly ancient; but it is here a qualification of the laws of war given in the previous context in order to justify the historic deal- ings with the Canaanites (cf. Dt. vii. 22 ; Ex. xxiii. 27-30). These laws in other respects indicate a human- itarian spirit and an ethical sense much higher than any- thing illustrated in the times of the conquest of the land, or in the wars of David and his successors in the mon- archy. They are doubtless earlier than Josiah, and may have been influenced by Amos i. The command to ex- terminate the Amalekites (xxv. 17-19) is an ancient law taken up into the Code and so indicated by the exhorta- tion to " Remember " (cf. Ex. xvii. 14-16). Looking now at Deuteronomy itself, we note its language as to the authorship of its code (xxxi. 9-11, 24-26). " And Moses wrote this law and gave it unto the priests, the sons of Levi, who bear the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and unto all the elders of Israel : and Moses enjoined them saying. At the end of seven years, in the festival of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel shall come to appear before the face of Yahweh thy God, in the place which He will choose, thou shall read this law before all Israel in their ears." "And it came to pass when Moses had finished writing the THE DATE OF DEUTERONOMY. gg words of this law in a book to their end, Moses enjoined the Le- vites, the bearers of the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, saying : ' Take this book of the law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of Yahweh your God, and let it be there for a wit- ness against thee.' " This seems to imply the Mosaic authorship and com- position of a code of law, but was that code the Deuter- onomic code in its present form? The view of Delitzsch can hardly be regarded as doing violence to the text when he represents that Deuteronomy is in the same relation to Moses as the fourth gospel to Jesus, in that as the apostle John reproduces the discourses of Jesus, so the Deuteronomist reproduces the discourses of Moses, giving more attention to the internal spirit than the written form, and thus presents the discourses of Moses in a free rhetorical manner. We are also justified in the supposition that an origi- nal code of Mosaic laws underlies Deuteronomy ; that that code was enlarged and recodified in several stages of redaction ; and eventually, in the hands of two or more editors, put in its present rhetorical form as a people's law book. Would it be any the less inspired on that account ? Were not Josiah, Hilkiah and Jeremiah capable of giv- ing authority to such a law book as a code of divine law essentially Mosaic in origin ? IX. THE DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS.* EDWARD REUSS is the chief who has given direction and character to this stadium of the Higher Criticism. As early as 1833 f he maintained that the priest-code of the middle books of the Pentateuch was subsequent to the Deuteronomic code. This came to him, he says, as an intuition in his Biblical studies, and he presented it to his students in his University lectures from 1834 on- ward. In 1835 George took independently a similar position.^: Vatke also, in 1835, reached the same results from the point of view of the Hegelian philosophy, taking the ground that the religion of Israel has three stages of development, and that the simple religion of the feeling in the Prophets and Deuteronomy precedes the more external and reflective religion of the mass of * For the history of this Stadium see Wellhausen in Bleek's Einleitung, 4th Aufl., p. 152 sg. ; Ment in Tuch's Com. &. d. Genesis^ p. Ixxviii. sq. ; Duff, History o/ Research concerning the Structure of the Old Testament Books in the Btbliotheca Sacra, 1880, Oct., and 1882, July ; Kayser, Der gegenwartige Stand der Pentateuch/rage in the Jahrbftcher f. Prot. Theologie, 1881, ii., iii., and iv. ; Cast, Pentateuch-Criticism, its History and Present State, in the Reformed Quarterly Revinv, July, 1882. t Article Judenthum in Ersch and Gruber's F.ncyclop., ii. Bd. 27, p. 334. Hall. IMeraturxeitung, 1838. J Die alter en judisch. Feste mil einer Kritik der Gesetxgebung des Ptnt. t '835. (90) THE DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS 91 the Pentateuch ; and that Prophetism and Mosaism must, for the most part, be transposed.* These writers did not receive much attention. Their positions were too theoretical and without a sufficient support in the details of practical exegesis to gain ac- ceptance. In 1862 J. Popperf took the position that the de- scription of the erection of the tabernacle, Ex. xxxv.-xl., and the consecration of the priests, Lev. vii. ix., were later than the directions respecting them both in Ex. xxv.-xxxi., and contended that they received their present form some time after the Babylonian captivity. Reuss continued to work at his theory in his Univer- sity lectures, and it was through his pupils that in recent times it has won its way to so wide an acceptance. The first of these was Heinrich Graf, who, in 1866,^: presented strong arguments for the priority of Deuteronomy to the priest-code of Lev. xviii.-xxiii., xxv., xxvi., Ex. xxxi., holding that the latter was from the prophet Ezekiel, and that in the time of Ezra other legislation was was added, e.g. Ex. xii. 1-28, 43-5 1, xxv.-xxxi., xxxv.-xl.; Lev. i.-xvi., xxiv. 10-23 ; Num. i. 48-x. 28, xv.-xix., xxviii.-xxxi., xxxv. i6-xxxvi. 13, and that the last addi- tions were made soon after Ezra. Graf still held to the priority of the Elohistic narrative. This inconsistency was exposed by Riehm and Noldeke, so that Graf was forced to make the Elohistic narrative post-exilic also. Meanwhile the English world had been stirred by the * Biblische Theologie, 1835, i. i, p. 641 sg. t Biblische Bericht iiber die Sti/tshutte. J Merx, Archiv, i., pp. 68-106, 208-236 ; Die geschichtliche Biicher des Alt. Test. Studien &* Krit., 1868, p. 372 ; Merx, Archiv, i., 466-477. Reuss also at this time held the same position. 92 THE HEXATEUCH attacks of Bishop Colenso on the historical character of the Pentateuch and book of Joshua, and in the Essays and Reviews by a number of scholars representing free thought.* These writers fell back on the older deistic objections to the Pentateuch as history, and as contain- ing a supernatural religion, and mingled therewith a reproduction of German thought, chiefly through Bun- sen. They magnified the discrepancies in the narratives and legislation, and attacked the supernatural element, but added nothing to the Higher Criticism of the Script- ures. So far as they took position on this subject they fell into line with the more radical element of the school of De Wctte. They called the attention of British and American scholars away from the literary study of the Bible and the true work of the Higher Criticism, to a defence of the supernatural and the inspiration of the Bible. They were attacked by various divines in Great Britain and America, and their influence overcome for the time.f The work of Colenso, however, made a great im- pression upon the Dutch scholar Kuenen, who had already been advancing under the influence chiefly of Popper and Graf, to the most radical positions.^: He * The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua critically examined ', Part i.-vii., 1862-79 ' Recent Inquiries in Theology by eminent English Churchmen, being Essays and Reviews, 4th Am. edition from 2d London, 1862. t Among these we may mention the authors of Aids to Faith, being a reply to " Essays and Reviews," American edition 1862 ; W. H. Green, The Penta- teuch vindicated from the Aspersions of Bishop Colenso, N. Y., 1863. J In his Historisch-kritisch Onderzoek, Leiden, 1861-5, P- l6 S f-. *94 f - he had taken a similar position to Graf, that the legislation in the Elohistic docu- ment was composed of laws of various dates arising out of the priestly circle, the last editing of them being later than the Deuteronomist, so that the Redactor of the Pentateuch was a priest. But subsequent investigations led him further. His later positions are represented in his Go is dien st van Israel, 1869-70, the English edition, Religion of Israel, 1874 ; TV vtj/ Boeken van Mazes, 1872 ; De Profeten en de pro/etie onder Israel, 1875, translated into English, The THE DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS 93 took the ground that the religion of Israel was a purely natural religion, developing like all other religions in various stages from the grossest polytheism and idolatry to the exalted spiritual conceptions of the prophets. He rejects the historical character of the Hexateuch, and regards it as composed of ancient but unreliable legends and myths, the legislation representing various stages, the earliest in the period of the kings. The Deuteronomic code is a programme of the Mosaic party in the reign of Josiah, the priest-code the programme of the hierarchy at the restoration under Ezra. He is un- willing to ascribe to Moses more than a fragment of the decalogue. He finds three forms of worship, that of the people, of the prophets, and of the law, the later devel- oping out the earlier. Meanwhile the new theory found a supporter in Eng- land in Dr. Kalisch, in 1867, who, influenced in part by Vatke and Kuenen, but chiefly by George, in a series of valuab'e excursus, traces the development of the various forms of legislation, and reaches the conclusion that the priestly requirements of Leviticus are post-exilic.* The views of Reuss, in 1869, were advocated by Duhm,f and especially in 1874, by Kayser4 who under- took a most careful analysis of the Pentateuch with Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, 1877, and numerous articles in Theologisch Tijdschrift, since that time, and last of all Hibbert Lectures, National Relig- ions and Universal Religions, 1882. Kuenen's views are presented by Oort in a popular form in the Bible for Learners, 3 vols., 1880. His final opinion is given in his Historisch-kritisch Onderzoek, 2de Uitgave, 1887-1889. * In his Commentary on Exodus, 1855, Dr. Kalisch is inclined to defend the traditional view of the authorship of the Pentateuch. In his Com. on Genesis, 1858, he is concerned only with the geographical and other scientific and his- torical difficulties. But in his Com. on Leviticus, Part i., 1867, Part ii., 1872, he advances to the most radical positions. t Theologie der Propheten. \ Vorexilische Buck der Urgeschichte, 94 THE HEXATEUCH reference to the theory, and gave it much needed sup- port from the literary side. Still later, Wcllhausen,* in 1876-7, gave a masterly analysis of the literary feat- ures of the entire Hexateuch, which commanded the at- tention of all Old Testament scholars, and then, in 1878, carried the same method of analysis into the entire legislation, combining the philosophical method of Vatke with the exegetical of Reuss. These works at once won over a large number of prominent scholars to his position, such as Hermann Schultz, Kautzsch, Smend, Stade, Konig, Giesebrecht, Siegfried, and others in Germany ; Lenormant and Vernes, in France ; W. Robertson Smith, Samuel Sharp, C. H. Toy, and others in Great Britain and America.f Wellhausen, like Kuenen, attacks the historical character of the Penta- teuch, denies the supernatural element, and reconstructs in the most arbitrary manner but these features are personal, and have no necessary connection with his critical analysis of the literary documents and legisla- tion of the Pentateuch, so that men of every shade of opinion with regard to the supernatural and to evangel- ical religion may be found among the advocates of the theory. * Jahr. f. Deutsche Theologie, 1876, pp. 392-450, 531-633, 1877, p. 407-409 ; Geschichte Israels, i., 1878. t Schultz, Alttestamentliche Tk ologie, ii. Auf., 1878; Kautzsch, Theo. Lite- ratur Zeitung, 1879 (a); Stade, Gesekichte des Volkes Israel; Smend, Ver rrophet Etekie/, 1880; Konig, Der Offenbarungsbegri/ des Alt. Test., 1882 ; Siegfried in PQnjer's Theo. Jahresbericht, 1882 ; Giesebrecht, Der Sprachge- brauch des Hexateuchischen Elohisten in Zeit. /. d. Alt-test. ll'is*enscha/t, 1881-2 ; Lenormant, Beginnings of History, edited by Prof. Brown, 1882 ; Maurice Vernes in Lichtenberjjer's Enycloftedia, art. Penlateuque, x., p. 447 ; W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 1881 ; Tk: Prophets of Israel, 1882; Sam. Sharp, llntvryof the Hebrew Nation, 4th Edit., 1883; C. H. Toy, Babylonian Element in Estkiel, in Jo urn*! q/ the Society oj UiHical literature end Exegesis, 1882, and numerous others. THE DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS 95 At last the veteran scholar, Edward Reuss himself, sums up the results of his pupils' work as well as his own further studies in 1879 a d 1881.* Reuss ascribes to Moses the Decalogue stript of its present para- phrase. The poetic pieces Gen. xlix. ; Ex. xv. ; Num. xxiii.-iv., the book of the wars of Jehovah, and the book of Jas/ier, belong to the northern kingdom after their separation from Judah. The book of the Cove- nant was written in the reign of Jehoshaphat. The Je- hovist wrote the second integral part of our Pentateuch in the second half of the ninth century, and this was followed by Deut. xxxiii., and sundry legends as to the origin of the race preserved in our Genesis. Deut. xxxii. next appeared. Under Josiah the Deuteronomist composed the third great section of our Pentateuch, and was followed by the author of the book of Joshua. After the Restoration, the law book Lev. xvii. xxvi. was issued, and the priest-code with the fourth great section of our Pentateuch. It is evident that the school of Reuss propose a revo- lutionary theory of ths Literature and Religion of Israel. How shall we meet it but on the same evan- gelical principles with which all other theories have been met, without fear and without prejudice, in the honest search for the real truth and facts of the case ? In a critical examination of this theory, it is important to dis- tinguish the essential features from the accidental. We must distinguish between the Rationalism and unbelief that characterize Kuenen, Wellhausen, and Reuss, which are not essential to the theory itself, and such supporters of the theory as Konig in Germany, Lenormant in * L? Histoire Sainte et la Lot, 1879 ; Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Alien Testaments, 1881. 96 THE HEXATEUCH France, Robertson Smith in Scotland, and C. H.Toy in this country.* We have still further here, as through- out our previous investigation, to distinguish between the theory and the new facts which have been brought to light for which this theory proposes to account better than any previous ones. The facts are these: (i). Our Pentateuchal legisla- tion is composed of several codes, which show through- out variation from one another. (2). If we take the Pentateuchal legislation as a unit at the basis of the his- tory of Israel, we find a discrepancy between it and the History and the Literature of the nation prior to the exile in these two particulars : (a). A silence in the his- torical, prophetical, poetical, and ethical writings as to many of its chief institutions ; (6). The infraction of this legislation by the leaders of the nation, throughout the history in unconscious innocence, and unrebuked. (3). We can trace a development in the religion of Israel from the conquest to the exile in four stages correspond- ing in a most remarkable manner to the variations be- tween the codes. (4). The books of Kings and Chroni- cles in their representation of the history of Israel regard it, the former from the point of view of the Deutero- nomic code, the latter from the point of view of the priest- code. (5). The prophet Ezekiel presents us a detailed representation of institutions which seem intermediate between the Deuteronomic code and the priest-code. The theory of the school of Reuss attempts to account (i) for the variation of the codes by three different legis- lations at widely different periods of time, e.g., in the * Konip, Dfr Ofcnbarunzsbetp-iff, ii., p. 333 sq. ; Lcnormant, Beginnings of History, p. \. so, . ; VV. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, Chap. I. ; C. H. Toy, in The Journal of the Society of Biblical Liter- ature and Exegesis, 1882, p. 66 ; Judaism and Christianity, p. 70, 1893. THE DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS 97 reign of Jehoshaphat, of Josiah, and at the Restoration ; (2) for the silence and the infraction, the discrepancy between the Pentateuchal legislation, and the history and the literature, by the non-existence of the legislation in those times of silence and infraction ; (3) for the development of the religion of Israel in accordance with these codes by the representation that the origin of these codes corresponds with that development ; (4) for the difference in point of view of the authors of Kings and Chronicles, on the ground that the author of Kings knew only of Deuteronomy, while the author of Chronicles was filled with the spirit of the new priest-code ; (5) for the peculiar position of Ezekiel's legislation by the state- ment, that his legislation was in fact an advance beyond the Deuteronomic code, and a preparation for the priest- code, which was post-exilic. No one can examine this theory in view of the facts which it seeks to explain with- out admitting at once its simplicity ; its correspondence with the law of the development of other religions ; its apparent harmony with these facts, and its removal of not a few difficulties. Hence its attractiveness and power over against the prevalent theory which was not constructed to account for these facts, and which has been too often defended by special pleading. There are various ways of dealing with this radical and revolutionary theory. We might attempt to deny these facts or explain them away. Such a course is but kicking against the pricks. It does not satisfy inquirers, but rather destroys the confidence of all earnest seekers after the truth. We might yield to the attractiveness of the theory, and go with the tide of Biblical scholar- ship which has set so strongly in that direction. We might shut our eyes to the whole matter, go to work in other fieldd, attend to the practical duties 98 THE HEXATEUCH of life, and leave these Pentateuchal studies to others. Any one of these three ways would be easier than to look the facts in the face, and inquire whether the theory of the school of Reuss accounts for them in whole or in part or at all.* * Prof. W. Henry Green gives himself away when he says : " The author frankly confesses for himself that, while he felt at every point the weakness and unsatisfactory character of the arguments of the divisive critics, he was long de- terred by the complexity of the task from undertaking to prepare such a treatise as the nature of the case required. He might have continued still to shrink from it but for the proposal, in 1888, by his friend, Dr. W. R. Harper, of an amicable discussion of the subject in the columns of the Hebraica. The kindly proposal was accepted, though with some hesitation lest the cause whose de- fense was thus undertaken might suffer from unskilful advocacy " ( Unity of the Book of Genesis , 1895, Preface, p. viii.). It is evident that Dr. Green, although he had been a teacher of the Old Testament for nearly fifty years, had not taken part in the critical study of the Hexateuch himself, and had paid little attention to the labors of the critics until 1888. Then he entered the lists as an advocate to oppose the results of modern criticism. He studied the whole ques- tion as counsel for the defense of the traditional theories, and not as a seeker after the truth and the facts of the case. X. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODES. THE variation in the several codes, Ex. xx.-xxiv. Ex. xxxiv., Deut. xii.-xxvi., and the scattered legis- lation of the middle books, is so constant that it is im- possible to explain it away. These variations were already noted in part by Calvin, who wrote a Harmony of the Legislation, but he was not followed by later writers. These variations were more closely scrutinized by Eichhorn, and he explained them on the ground that the Deuteronomic code was a people 's code, the Legisla- tion of the middle books a priests code.* Another important difference to which Riehm calls attention is that the priest-code seems designed for a people still wandering in the wilderness, the other for a people already dwelling in the land of Canaan. More- over, the Deuteronomic code is connected with a cove- nant in the land of Moab, the covenant code with a covenant at Horeb (Deut. xxix. 9-14). The priest-code *This is acknowledged by Riehm : " For all the Deuteronomic laws prescribe to the people who know not the law, what to do and leave undone, none of them define the duties of the priests and Levites who knew the law. . . . The first distinction between the ancient (Levitical) and Deuteronomic legislation is ac- cordingly this : that the one will give a complete law-book designed for all, those knowing the law and those ignorant of it, the other designed only f<>r the people who knew not the law." Gesetzgebung Mo sis , 1854, p. u sq. (99) 100 THE HEXATEUCH is given as the words of Yahvveh revealed to Moses. In the Deuteronomic code Moses comes forward as a popular orator to urge the people to the observance of the laws which he makes known as the prophet of Yahweh. Thus according to Eichhorn and Riehm we have a difference of point of view which determines the structure and the character of these codes and necessarily produced a variation throughout. To this discrimination of the Deuteronomic and priests' codes we may add that the two codes, Ex. xx.-xxiii. and xxxiv. differ no less strik- ingly from them both. They contain brief, terse, pregnant sentences of command. They resemble the decalogue itself. It is generally agreed among Biblical scholars, that the little book of the Covenant is also a decalogue (Ex. xxxiv.), and not a few find that the larger book of the Covenant is also composed of a series of decalogues.* To this opinion we subscribe without hesitation, and find in it an evidence that this legislation is the nearest to the fundamental Mosaic legislation, in accordance with the explicit statement that Moses wrote it in a book of the Covenant. We thus have a third and fourth earlier points of view. These four codes therefore present us the judicial, the prophetical, and the priestly points of view, which determine the variation in aim, form, structure, and character of the three codes. This has been entirely neglected by the advocates of the traditional theory. This has also been ignored to a great extent by the advocates of the theories of De Wette and Reuss, who have sought to explain these variations by a development extending over a wide period of time. Bertheau, Die siffif* C,rupf>tn Mosaisfhtr <7e>ffze, 1840, even finds such decalopues in the middle books, but does not make it evident save in the two books of the Covenant. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODES 1Q1 The evangelical men of our time naturally feel the force of the philosophical theory of development, and other things being equal, will accept it to account for the phenomena, if they can do it without peril to their faith. We shall look at the differences and inquire how they may be harmonized. (i). When we compare the decalogue of the covenant code of J, with the corresponding parts of the covenant code of E, and then the laws corresponding to this decalogue in the codes of D, H, and P; the develop- ment of this decalogue in intension and extension is so clear in the constant order J E, D, H, P, that it seems impossible to dispute it.* (2). When now we take the decalogues of the covenant code of E, so far as they have not yet been used in the previous study, and trace them in their corresponding laws through the codes D, H, P, it becomes clear that the laws in the covenant code of E " form the founda- tion of the Deuteronomic legislation/'f (3). There is also an apparent development between the codes of D and H, which may be seen in the laws common to these codes.J (4). There is an evident development in the laws respecting altars. JE narrate that altars were built by Noah after leav- ing the ark Gn. viii. 20 ; by Abraham at Shechem Gn. xii. 7, Bethel Gn. xii. 8, Hebron Gn. xiii. 18, Mt. Moriah Gn. xxii. 9 ; by Isaac at Beersheba Gn. xxvi. 25 ; by Jacob at Shechem Gn. xxxiii. 2O, at Bethel Gn. xxxv. 7 ; by Moses at Rephidim Ex. xvii. 15, Horeb Ex. xxiv. 4; by * See Appendix V. t Driver /. c. p. 70. See Appendix VI. J See Appendix VII. Yet this perhaps a mistake for j-QJTO, being obj. of DE>"3JP1i not elsewhere with rOttD, cf. also Dillmann. 102 THE 1IEXATEUCH Balak at Bamoth Baal, Pisgah & Peor Nu. xxiii. i, 14, 29; by Joshua on Mt. Ebal Jos. viii. 30; the prophetic histories narrate that altars were built by Gideon at Ophra Ju. vi. 24; by a man of God at Bethel Ju. xxi. 4; by Samuel at Ramah I S. vii. 17 ; by Saul after Mich- mash i S. xiv. 35 ; by David on the threshing floor of Oman 2 S. xxiv. 25 = 1 Ch. xxi. 18, xxii. i ; that Sol- omon sacrificed on the altar at Gibeon I K. iii. 4 and built altars in the temple at Jerusalem I K. vi. 20, viii. 64; that Jeroboam built an altar at Bethel I K. xii. 32 (which was destroyed by Josiah 2 K. xxiii. 15); and that Elijah repaired an ancient altar on Carmel I K. xviii. 30. An altar in Egypt is predicted Is. xix. 19. All this accords with the law of the Covenant code Ex. xx. 24-26 which recognizes a plurality of altars and pre- scribes that they shall be built of soil or unhewn stones, and without steps ; so of stones Dt. xxvii. 6, of whole stones Jos. viii. 31 and of twelve stones \ K. xviii. 30, 32, cf. Is. xxvii. 9. The altar was also a place of refuge Ex. xxi. 14 (JE) i K. i. 50, 51, ii. 28. (2). D prescribes one central altar Dt. xii. 27, but no attempt to enforce this law ap- pears until Josiah who destroys all other altars besides the one in Jerusalem 2 K. xxiii. 8-20. (3). P limits sacrifices to the altars of the tabernacle. A great altar was built East of the Jordan, but it was according to P only as an ^y after the pattern of the altar before the Tabernacle Jos. xxii. 10-34. P describes two altars: a. the altar of burnt offering Ex. xxx. 28, xxxi. 9, xxxv. 16, xxxviii. i, xl. 6, 10, 29, Lv. iv. 7, 10, 25, 25, 30, 34= brazen altar Ex. xxxviii. 30, xxxix. 39, made of acacia wood plated with brass 5x5x3 cubits having four horns and a network of brass, upon which all sacrifices by fire were made Ex. xxvii. 1-8, xxxviii. 1-7; b. altar for the THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODES 1Q3 burning of incense, made of acacia wood plated with gold ixix2 cubits, with four horns and a crown of gold, Ex. xxx. i-6=the altar of incense Ex. xxx. 27, xxxi. 8, xxxv. 15, xxxvii. 25=the altar of gold Ex. xxxix. 38, xl. 5, 26, Nu. iv. ii=the altar of sweet incense Lv. iv. 7 ; these altars are known elsewhere only in Chr.; I Ch. vi. 34, xvi. 40, xxi. 29 ; 2 Ch. i. 5,6. (5). There is also a development of the sacred tent. This is named, The tent of meeting of God with his people (tent of congregation or assembly Ges. M.V. al.). Accord- ing to E, Moses so called the tent which he used to pitch without the camp, afar off, into which he used to enter, and where God spake with him face to face, Ex. xxxiii. 7~ii, Nu. xii. 5, 10, Dt. xxxi. 14, 15. J seems to have some conception of a tent of meeting outside the camp, Nu. xi. 24, 26 ; D has no allusion to such a tent ; P men- tions it 1 3 1 1. as " the tent of meeting "; 19 1. as " the tent " (cf. Ez. xli. i) and tent of the testimony Nu. ix. 15, xvii. 22, 23, xviii. 2 (as containing ark and tables of the testimony) cf. 2 Ch. xxiv. 6, this tent sometimes confounded with the tabernacle, but distinguished in "tabernacle of the tent of meeting" Ex. xxxix. 32, xl. 2, 6, 29, cf. i Ch. vi. 17; "the tarbernacle and the tent " Nu. iii. 25 ; "the taber- nacle and the tent" Ex. xxxv. n. The tent was of three layers of skins, goatskins, ramskins, and tachash skins, each layer of eleven pieces stretched in the form of a tent, covering and protecting the tabernacle, which was in the form of a parallelopip. (Ex. xxvi.). A tent of meeting was at Shilo i Sam. ii. 22 (omitted in LXX., Vulg.) cf. Ps. Ixxviii. 60, called " tent of Joseph" v. 67. The tent of meet- ing was later at Gibeon 2 Ch. i. 3, 6, 1 3 ; courses of ministry were arranged for service at the " tent of meeting " i Ch. vi. 17, xxiii. 32, cf. i Ch. ix. 19 (the tent) v. 2 [, 23 " house of the tent "; David erected a tent for ark on Mount 104 THE HEXATEUCH Zion 2 Sam. vi. 17, I Ch. xv. i, xvi. I, 2 Ch. i. 4; Joab fled for refuge to the tent of Yahweh I K. ii. 28-30; sacred oil was brought from the tent i K. i. 39 ; the tent of meeting was taken up into temple I K viii. 4=2 Ch. v. 5 ; Yahweh had not previously dwelt in a house, but had gone from tent to tent, from one to another, i Ch. xvii. 5, cf. 2 Sam. vii. 6. (6). There is development in the conception of the priesthood. In the blessing of Moses the tribe of Levi was chosen to bear the Urim and Thummin, to teach Is- rael, to burn incense and sacrifice. (Dt. xxxiii. 8-1 1.) According to E, in the covenant of Horeb, Israel became a kingdom of priests. (Ex. xix. 5, 6.) At the covenant sac- rifice Moses selected young men to assist him, showing that there were no official priests at that time. (Ex. xxiv. 5.) But priests bore the ark and the sacred trumpets at Jericho. (Josh. iv. 9; vi. 4.) According to J, priests draw near to Yahweh at Sinai (Ex. xix. 22), showing a priesthood at that date, an important difference of con- ception from E. At the conquest priests bear the ark. (Jos. iii. 6 ; iv. 3.) According to D, the tribe of Levi was separated to be the priestly tribe to bear the ark, to stand before Yahweh, to minister in his name, and to bless the people. (Dt. x. 8, 9; xxxi. 9; Jos. iii. 3; vi. 6; xiii. 33; xviii. 7.) P has an entirely different legisla- tion respecting the priesthood. It gives an account of the consecration and ordination of the Levites as priests, in substitution for the first-born sons, and then of the consecration of an Aaronic priesthood ; and of a high priesthood, each of the three grades with its distinguish- ing dress, and correspondingly discriminated duties. (7). The sacrificial system shows a development in sev- eral stages. JE in their codes and histories frequently use the whole burnt-offering, and the peace-offering, the THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODES 1Q5 fundamental sacrifices, also the first fruits and firstlings. E gives an account of the national sacrifice at the ratification ,of the covenant at Horeb (Ex. xxiv.), and mentions the drink-offering of Jacob. (Gen. xxxv. 14.) J distinguishes between the clean and the unclean of animals as dating from the sacrifice of Noah (Gen. vii. 1-5) ; uses Minchah as a general name for both the sacrifice of sheep and of fruit (grain), in the story of Cain and Abel (Gen. iv. 3-5) ; and also gives a law for the victim of passover which seems to be unknown to E. (See p. 206.) D enlarges the scope of the offerings mentioned in J E. It uses the whole burnt-offering, peace-offerings and firstlings of J E and the passover victim of J. But in addition it uses the term " offerings of Yahweh made by fire," and gives the votive offerings, free-will offerings and heave-offerings. It also prohibits the offering of children in whole burnt-offering, a prohibition apparently unknown to J E and the earlier history. P now gives an elaborate system of sacrifices and pre- cise rules for their observance. All the terms of the offerings of JED appear, and many new ones, (i) T^ip is commonly employed for offerings of material things. (2). The sin-offering is in three stages as it purifies the three altars in its gradations of access to the divine pres- ence. (3). The trespass-offering is in three varieties for the ordinary person, the Nazarite, and the leper. (4). The development of the peace-offerings into the votive offering, the free-will offering, the thank-offering, is evi- dent as well as the ordinary peace-offering. (5). The spec- ial sacrifice of the ram of consecration at the installation of the priesthood is mentioned. These sacrifices, peculiar to the priest-code, involve an extensive list of phrases which are unknown to the other codes. 45 ' is used in Gen. xxxi. 39 (E), in the primitive meaning of " bear ]0(J THE HEXATEUCH (8). According to the covenant code the men of Israel are holy and are not to eat of flesh torn off beasts in the field, they are to cast it to the dogs. (Ex. xxii. 31.) In D an animal that died of itself might be given to the stranger to eat, and sold to the foreigners. (Dt. xiv. 21.) In H these carcasses could not be eaten by home- born or stranger. (Lev. xvii. 15, 16.) In P the distinc- tion between home-born and stranger has passed away, and the prohibition is universal. (Lev. xi. 39, 40.) Sev- eral generations are necessary to account for such a series of modifications of the same law. This is only an incident of the development of the legislation under the head of Purifications. The Deuteronomic code forbids to cut oneself, distinguishes the clean from the unclean animals (xiv. 3-21), and prescribes washing with water for uncleanness (xxiii. 10 sq.}. The priest-code gives an extended series of purifications in the varied use of pure water, and by the use of ashes of the red heifer (Lev. xii., xv., Num. xix.), and of various ingredients in the healing of the leper (Lev. xiii.-xiv.). (9). The Feasts. The Covenant-code ordains the Sab- bath, feasts of unleavened bread, harvest and ingather- ings, and the seventh year. (Ex. xxiii. 10-17.) The Deuteronomic code mentions the Passover, feast of un- leavened bread, feast of weeks, feast of tabernacles, and year of release. (Deut. xv., xvi.) The priest-code gives a complete cycle of feasts (Lev. xxiii. ; Num. xxviii.), new moons, Sabbaths, the seven great Sabbaths, Pass- over and unleavened bread, day of first fruits, feast of Ion," but in P it means only to make a sin-offering or to purify from sin or un- cleanness. It is characteristic of H and P that D'D/f defines D2T in the con- struct singular or plural in a number of phrases used with great frequency. In P it is distinguished from 71313 and DT13 but not from mini and therefore prob- ably is interchangeable with THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODES 1()7 trumpets, day of atonement, tabernacles, the seventh year's feast, the year of Jubilee, a most artistic system.* It will be observed that these variations are in the chief features of the ceremonial system. They present the appearance of development from the more simple to the complex, and in the order, Covenant codes, Deu- teronomic code, code of Holiness, and priest-code. The traditional theory is certainly at fault here in regarding the Deuteronomic legislation as secondary over against the priest-code as primary. The Deuteronomic code is secondary to the Covenant codes, but not to the priest- code. This fault of the traditional theory had not been overcome by the theories of Eichhorn, Geddes or De Wette. Here is an advantage of Reuss' theory over all previous ones. We must admit the order of develop- ment. A code for the elders and judges of tribes or clans in their various localities, a code for the instruction of the nation as a whole in rhetorical and popular form, and a code for the priests from the holy place as a centre, in the nature of the case will show a progress from the simple to the more and more complex and elaborate in matters of ritualistic observance. The Covenant code of E is a series of decalogues for the elders in the administration of justice in various localities. It is based on the covenant at Horeb and lies at the root of the Pentateuchal legislation. It is claimed that Moses wrote such a book of the Covenant. The Deuteronomic code is a people's code in a prophetic form to instruct and stimulate the people of Yahweh as an organic whole. It is based on the experience of the wandering in the wilderness, it looks forward to a prolonged occupation of the promised * See Appendix VI. 108 THE IIEXATEUCH land, and is based on a new covenant in the plains of Moab. We would expect to find progress and develop- ment here especially on the practical side. It is claimed that Moses gives a law code at this time ; and we can see no sufficient reasons for doubting it. The priest- code is from the priestly point of view in connection with the tabernacle and its institutions. It will neces- sarily exhibit progress and development on the technical side in the details of the ritual. This code is scattered in groups in the middle books, and broken up by in- sertions of historical incidents, but when put together exhibits an organic whole, a unity and symmetry which is wonderful in connection with the attention given to details. This code is represented as given by Yahweh to Moses or Aaron, or both, but it is not represented as written down by Moses as is the case with the two other codes. It claims to be Mosaic legislation, but if we should suppose that later priests gathered the de- tailed laws and groups of laws into codes at any times subsequent to the conquest, this claim would be satis- fied. This collection of laws contains an earlier separate code called the code of Holiness. It may also contain other such codes yet to be determined by criticism, all constituent sources of the present priest-code and going back through several codifications to primitive times. There are several obstacles which have been proposed to the composition of the priestly legislation in the post- exilic period : (i). The language of the Elohist and the priest-code is classic. The discussions respecting the language of the Elohist have proved marked differences from the other documents, but they have not proved any such deflection in the syntax of the u>aw consec., and the multiplication of nouns formed by affixes as charac- terize Ezckiel. And yet the word-lists show closer re- THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODES 1Q9 semblance between the priestly code and Ezekiel than between that code and any earlier writer. (2). The priest-code is a unit in its wonderful variety of detail. Given the ark of the covenant as the throne of Yahweh, the King of Israel, the holy God, and all the institutions, and the ritual, seem to be the most ap- propriate elaboration of that one idea. They are wrapt up in the idea itself as a germ. Why should it require centuries for the development of the germ into its legiti- mate flowers and fruit ? An idea like that would be more than seed-corn to Israel in the wilderness. We would expect some such practical development as we do find in the priest's code at the time. Such a specu- lative development is possible. But is it so probable as a practical development, finding expression in appro- priate legislation? The unity may come from the priestly compiler and express the unification of historic experience. (3). The priest-code is realistic, and its realism is that of the wilderness, of the wanderings and the nomadic life. This is so inextricably involved with the ideal in all parts of the legislation, so simple, artless, and inartistic, that it seems unlikely that it should be pure invention, or the elaboration of an ideal which could not escape anachronisms in some particulars. But if the funda- mental legislation is Mosaic, why might not the priestly compiler, taking his stand in the wilderness of the wan- derings, have been true to his historic and ideal stand- point ? And then there are apparently anachronisms as has been pointed out by several critics.* * See Westphal, Les Sources des Pentateuque, ii. pp. 321 seq. XI. THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY. I. Discrepancy between the Codes and the History. It must be admitted by the candid investigator of the Scriptures that there is a discrepancy between the Pentateuchal legislation and the history and literature of Israel prior to the exile. It extends through the most important laws of the ritual. It is two-fold : that of silence on the one side, and that of unconscious and uncondemned violation on the other. In the period of the Judges there are many altars besides the altar at Shiloh, where the ark and the tent of meeting were situated. These altars were erected in places conse- crated by Theophanies in accordance with the Covenant code and in violation of the Deuteronomic code and priests' code. The sacrifices were offered by laymen, such as Joshua and Gideon at Ebal (Jos. viii. 30); at Mispeh in Perea (Judges xi. n); at Bochim (Judges ii. 5); at Ophra (vi. 24); at Mispeh in Benjamin (xxi. 8); and elsewhere (Judges xiii. 19). This is a violation of the Deuteronomic code and priest-code, but not of the covenant code. Dr. Green explains these violations thus : " In every such instance sacrifices were offered on the spot by those to whom the Lord thus appeared ; and in the absence (no) THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY of such a Theophany, sacrifices were never offered except at Shiloh or in the presence of the ark and by priests of the house of Aaron." This explanation does not satisfy us for these reasons : (r) These transactions are no more than the Covenant-code requires. (2) They indicate a practice identical with that of the patriarchs. The Deu- teronomic code and priest-code required a change in the earlier practice. Why were these two great codes trans- gressed by the judges under the influence of the divine Spirit? (3) The ark of the Covenant, according to the priest-code, was the permanent place of divine Theoph- any. Why was this forsaken by Yahweh Himself in violation of His own law, and why did He encourage the chiefs of the nation to violate the law? Why did Yahweh Himself permit His one altar and sanctuary and the legitimate Aaronic priesthood to be so neglected and dishonored ? (4) The statement that the sacrifices were never offered except at Shiloh or in the presence of the ark and by priests of the house of Aaron, except at the times specified, rests upon no other evidence than silence, which may count equally well on the other side, since that which is mentioned as having been done sev- eral times may be presumed, with no evidence to the contrary, to have been done at other times. Moreover, the silence of the history as to any national habitual wor- ship at Shiloh as the one only legitimate altar in accord- ance with the Deuteronomic code and priest-code, seems rather to count against such a thing. For the neglect of the sanctuary at Shiloh does not seem from the narra- tives extraordinary or abnormal. According to the history of this period the sacrifices are peace-offerings and burnt-offerings of the Covenant code, but no offerings peculiar to the Deuteronomic code, no sin and trespass offerings of the priests' code. 112 THE HEXATEUCH There are simple ceremonial washings, but none of the peculiar Levitical purifications. The Passover was once kept (Josh. v. 10) and an animal feast at Shiloh (Judges xxi. 19), but there is no mention of any of the feasts peculiar to the priests' code. The ark of the Covenant, the tent of meeting, and the Nazarite vow* are dif- ferent from these things as presented in the priest-code. In the time of Samuel a similar state of affairs is dis- covered. Sacrifices are offered by Samuel, tribal chiefs, and Saul at various places: at Mispeh (i Sam. vii. 5), at Ramah (i Sam. vii. 17), at Gilgal (i Sam. x. 8, xi. 15, xv. 21-33), at Zuph (i Sam. ix. 12 sq.), at Bethlehem (i Sam. xvi. 4-5), at Michmash (i Sam. xiv. 35). The sac- rifices are burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. The puri- fications are by simple washing with water. The only feast mentioned is an annual one at Bethlehem (i Sam. xx. 6). On the other hand, the ark of the Covenant comes into prominence as vindicating its sanctity wher- ever it was carried. It was captured by the Philistines and taken from Shiloh into their own country, but sub- sequently returned and placed under the charge of Le- vitical priests at Kirjath-Jearim, where it remained twenty years (i Sam. v.-vii.). This hill is called the hill of God, and had its high place, whither pilgrimages were made (i Sam. x. 5). Nob also was a holy place where the priests dwelt, having the tent of meeting, shcw-bread, and ephod (i Sam. xxi. 9). The Urim and Thummim was also consulted. These are sacred things of the * The Nazarite Samson abstains from wine, and from eating unclean thinps, and from cutting the hair (Ju. xiii. 4-5), but he uses the jawbone of an ass as a weapon to destroy his enemies (Ju. xiv. 15-20), in violation of the law of the Nazarite in the priest.' code, which forbids the Nazarite from coming in contact with a dead body. It is sufficient to read the law of Num. vi. to see that Sam- son was a very different kind of Nazarite from that contemplated in the priests code. THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY priest-code. They imply a use of these things at this time, but do not imply a use of the priest-code ; for they are in a different form and of a different character from that in which they appear in the priest-code. Sam- uel and the nation as a whole neglected the ark of the Covenant, the tent of meeting, and the priesthood at Nob, in violation of the priest-code and Deuteronomic code. Dr. Green thus explains these things : " During all this period of sad degeneracy and earnest labors for Israel's reformation, Samuel prayed for the people and pleaded with them and led their worship. He sacrificed at Mis- peh, at Gilgal, at Ramah, at Bethel (possibly), and at Bethlehem, but never once at Kirjath-Jearim. He never assembled the people at or near the house of Abinidab. He never took measures to have the ark present at any assembly of the people or upon any occasion of sacrifice. The Lord had not indicated His will to establish another sanctuary where He might record His name in place of Shiloh, which he had forsaken."* This explanation seems to us invalid for these rea- sons: (i) According to the priest-code the ark of the Covenant was the throne of Yahweh, and it alone gave the place where it rested sanctity. Shiloh was a holy place only so long as the ark was there. Wherever it went it made a holy place. So the hill Kirjath-Jearim became holy and the house of God so long as the ark was there. As we interpret I Sam. x., this place is called the hill of God and house of God, and pilgrimages were made thither for worship by bands of prophets. But if Dr. Green's interpretation of this passage be cor- rect and Bethel is the hill of God, then, according to this passage, it is a place of pilgrimage and worship rather * Moses and the Prof/if /s, 1882, p. 150. TnE HEXATEUCH than the place of the ark, a still more flagrant violation of the priest-code. And if we do not find worship at Kirjath-Jearim here, what evidence is there save silence, that Samuel and the people did not resort thither for worship as well as to other places ? (2) But why did Samuel, the fearless reformer, so neglect the priest-code and Deuteronomic code while the ark remained for twenty years within easy access at Kirjath-Jearim? Advancing into the period of the Kings we find the worship at the high places continues. David brought up the ark of the Covenant to Zion and erected a new tent for it (2 Sam. vi. 1-17). He also erected an altar, and sacrificed on Mt. Moriah, the site of the temple. The offerings are whole burnt-offerings and peace-offer- ings. The purifications are not indicated ; the feasts are the Sabbaths, new moons, and other festivals not speci- fied. We note the presence of the brazen altar, the tabernacle of Yahweh, the tent of meeting and theshew- bread, of the priest-code, in the Chronicler (i Chron. xv. 17, xvi. 39, 40, xxi. 29, xxiii. 29); but the other writers knew nothing of these things. The erection of the temple of Solomon concentrated the worship of the people at Jerusalem, but did not do away with the worship on high places or bring about a general recognition of the Deuteronomic code. The offerings arc confined to whole burnt-offerings and peace- offerings. The Levitical purifications are not mentioned. The Chronicler mentions the celebration of the Sabbath, new moons, and three great feasts, (unleavened bread, feast of weeks, and especially tabernacles 2 Chron. vii. 8-10; viii. 3.); and that the temple and its priesthood were organized in accordance with a plan given by God to David (i Chron. xxviii. 19); but these things are un- known to the prophetic histories. THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY H5 Taking our stand here by the temple of Solomon and looking back through the previous history to the con- quest, we note a constant transgression of the Deuter- onomic code and priests' code, or rather an apparent unconsciousness of their existence. And yet some of the most essential things of the priest-code are mentioned by the Chronicler. These cannot be explained by the theory of the school of Reuss. The way that Kuenen and Well- hausen meet the difficulty is hardly creditable to their fairness and good judgment. We cannot consent to the denial of the historical sense of the Chronicler for the sake of any theory. We might conceive that the tabernacle 'was an idealizing of the temple in accordance with the difference between the nomadic life and the settled life of the holy land, if there were any propriety in this idealization under the circumstances. We have a brill- iant example of the power of the imagination of a prophet in such an artistic elaboration and detailed rep- resentation in Ezekiel xl.-xlviii. Ezekiel's imagination goes forth into the future and from the river Chebar to the Holy Land. We cannot therefore deny the possi- bility of such a prophet as Ezekiel constructing an ideal of legislation in the wilderness with all its details. And yet it seems arbitrary for the school of Reuss to make Ezekiel's legislation a programme and that of Exodus an idealization. There is propriety in the representation of Ezekiel in taking the Holy Land as the site of his temple and institution. But there is no propriety in the supposed post-exilic author of the middle books tak- ing the wilderness and the nomadic life as the scene of his legislation. He would rather from the necessities of the case have followed the Deuteronomist and Ezekiel, and have legislated in his programme for the Holy Land. There must be some substantial basis in the his- THE HEXATEUCH tory for his representation. This, however, does not force us to think of the antiquity of our present priests' code, but only of the antiquity of those laws and insti- tutions in it which are ascribed to the earlier times. The Davidic legislation and the organization of the temple service point backward to the simpler Mosaic legislation of which it is an elaboration. The temple of Solomon is easier to explain on the basis of the tabernacle of Moses than the latter on the basis of the former. But notwithstanding all this concentration of worship, the Deuteronomic code is not fulfilled by the doing away of high places and sacrifices thereon. The sacri- fices of sin and trespass-offerings, the purifications and the feasts of the priest-code do not appear. The Da- vidic legislation is thus at an angle with the Penta- teuchal ; being on the one side an advance, and on the other a remarkable falling behind the requirements of the Deuteronomic code and priest-code, which cannot be accounted for if they were taken as the basis of the Davidic constitution, or if they had been in general ob- servance since the conquest. The rupture of the nation after the death of Solomon rendered the observance of the Davidic constitution as well as the priest-code and Deuteronomic code an im- possibility for the northern kingdom. Ancestral worship on high places is conducted by Elijah on Carmel and by others at various altars. In Judah itself it continued as the prevailing mode of worship, save for the spas- modic efforts of Hczckiah and Josiah, until after the exile of the northern kingdom. This worship on high places even survives the destruction of the temple at Jerusa- lem, and we find a company of pilgrims resorting to the ancient sanctuary at Mispeh (Jcr. xli. 5 sq.} after the THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY overthrow of the nation. Dr. Green explains these things thus : " The worship on high places was irreg- ular and illegal after the temple was built ; but the fact that they were tolerated by pious princes, who contented themselves with abolishing the emblems and practice of idolatry found there, only shows that they did not do their whole duty not that the law which had ruled ever since the days of Moses did not exist. They may very easily have persuaded themselves that the spirit of the law was maintained if only the abuses were recti- fied ; that if God was sincerely and piously worshipped in these local sanctuaries, there could not be much harm in suffering them to remain." This explanation is not satisfactory. For (i) it is an unlikely supposition that these pious princes so neglected a well-known duty. (2) It assumes that the law ruled from the days of Moses, which is the reverse of the facts. (3) It assumes that these pious princes presumed to please God by neglect- ing the prescriptions of the law and recognizing true worship against the law. Looking now at the testimony of Hebrew Literature with reference to the offerings, the purifications, and the feasts of the priest-code, these are conspicuous by their absence prior to the exile The sin-offering first and alone appears in the pre-exilic history in the reform of Hezekiah according to the Chronicler (2 Chron. xxix. 20-24). It is not found in the pre-exilic prophets, or in the entire Psalter save possibly the exilic Ps. xl. ; or in the ethical writings. In pre-exilic writings the trespass- offering is not found. It first occurs in the exilic Isaiah liii. ; the Levitical purifications are not mentioned ; the feasts of the priest-code do not appear.* *With reference to this sin-offering of Hezekiah, one can see no evidence that it was offered in accordance with the ritual of the sin-offering, Lev. iv. 13. sy, T1IE HEXATEUCH What, then, are we to conclude from these facts ? The traditional theory was not designed to account for them. The theory of Rcuss was constructed in order to account for them on the ground that the codes did not come into existence until they are recognized in the literature and the history of Israel. The traditional theory is against the facts so far as it is claimed by Marsh, Home, and others, that the Pentateuchal legislation was ob- served in Israel from the conquest to the exile, the in- fractions being only occasional. On the other hand the evidence is invincible from silence and repeated instances of infraction in unconscious innocence and uncondemned, that the priestly legislation was not so observed. II. The witness of the Literature as to non-observance of the Laiv. There is also abundant evidence from positive state- ments in the literature of the Old Testament that the where the blood must be sprinkled before Yahweh, and some put of it upon the horns of the altar of incense and all the rest poured out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering. The ritual seems rather to be similar to that of the burnt- offering (Lev. i.), where the blood is scattered upon the altar (comp 2 Chron. xxix. 22 and Lev. i. 5). We find in a Kings xii. 17 in the reign of Joash that sin and trespass money was given to the priests as a fine or compensa- tion for neglected duties, which corresponds with the law of the sin-offeri.ig that the flesh goes to the priests, but there is no victim here, and hence no cor- respondence with the priest-code. The attempt of Dclitzsch (Pent. Krit. Stu- efieti, p. 9), to find a sin-offering in Hos. iv. 8 (followed by Keil, Com. F.zck. ad Auf., p. 21), is a novel explanation of the passage and against the context. The same is true of the passage, Micah vi. 7. They are properly rendered in the A. V. : "sin of my people," parallel with " iniquity," and "sin of my soul," parallel with "my transgression." The supposed sin-offering of the Psalm xl., is amis- taken rendering of a noun which here as everywhere else should be rendered "sin." The trespass-offering of Isaiah liii. 10 is the sacrifice of the Messianic servant consisting of himself. This undoubtedly presupposes a victim in the tres- pass-offering, but inasmuch as all critics agree that the sed ml half of Isaiah is exilic, that passage cannot help us to prove it a pre-exilic irespan-offering. THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORZ Legislation of the Pentateuch was not observed in the historic life of the Hebrew people. (i). The prophet Amos (v. 25) represents that during the forty years wanderings, Israel did not offer burnt- offerings and peace-offerings to Yahweh. This corre- sponds with the statement Josh. v. 5, that circumcision had been neglected so that an entire generation had to be circumcised at Gilgal, after the entrance into Pales- tine. Then the Passover was kept which had likewise been neglected. The neglect of those essential things carries with it the non-observance of the entire priests' code, for according to that code an uncircumcised man or one who did not keep the Passover was cut off from the congregation. The period of the Judges is character- ized by the failure to exterminate the Canaanites and by a series of captivities under foreign oppressors, dur- ing which tribal chieftains and local judges assumed the place assigned to the Levitical priesthood and to the kings by the Deuteronomic code. How could there be one sanctuary in the midst of in- dependent, hostile, and warring tribes ? The observance of the Deuteronomic code and priest-code was impos- sible even if they had been in existence. The rally of the nation under Phinehas against Benjamin (Judges xx.), to avenge the wrong of the Levite, was the last until the revival of Samuel, and this is narrated in one of the latest documents of the Book. Indeed, there was no nation as such under Samuel and Saul. It was not until David established his throne in Jerusalem and moved the ark of the Covenant thither that a political and relig- ious unity became possible. Then again we see a great rally of the nation about the ark and the priesthood, but it would have been impossible to overcome the worship on high places and ancestral modes of worship, even if 120 THE HEXATEUCH an attempt had been made to execute such legislation as is found in D, H, and P. That which could not be ac- complished by David and Solomon became impossible when Jeroboam tore away the mass of Israel from the house of David. Nor could weakened Judah, under its most pious kings, such as Jehoshaphat and Joash, do more than overcome, in part, idolatry at the high places. It was not until the reforms of Hezekiah and especially of Josiah, that Israel for brief periods could be brought to the acceptance of the Deuteronomic code. (2). And here we meet the statement that the Deuter- onomic code, thrown aside and neglected in the temple, was providentially discovered and brought to light as the basis of the reform. If the Deuteronomic code could thus be lost sight of, how much more the elaborate and techni- cal priests' code if such a code were in existence ? We also meet the statement that the Passover had not been ob- served in accordance with the law from the time of the observance of the Passover by Joshua and Israel on their entrance into the holy land (Josh v.) If such an important institution as the Passover could have been so neglected from the conquest to the days of Josiah, how much more other institutions of Deuteronomy of less funda- mental importance? (3). After a brief period of reform under Josiah, Judah went into exile, and it was not until the return from exile under the more favorable circumstances of a small, compact and select population, that Ezra and Nehemiah could reform the nation on the basis of the priests' code. Here, again (Nch. viii. 17), we have the statement that the feast of tabernacles had not been observed accord- ing to the priest-code from the time of Joshua onward, until that occasion. If this be true of this great feast, THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY how much more of other feasts and institutions of the priest-code ? (4). If we compare the statement of the Chronicler 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21 with Jer. xxv. n, 12, and Lev. xxvi. 34 seq., it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the non-observance of the Sabbatical year of the priest- code is assigned as one of the chief reasons of the exile, and that the seventy years of its duration have a certain proportion of retribution in relation to a long-continued series of non-observances. If now we compare the law of the seventh year in the three codes, we find a devel- opment from the more simple provisions of Ex. xxiii. 10, n, through Deut. xv. 1-3, to Lev. xxv. In this latter passage the Sabbatical feasts reach their culmina- tion in the year of Jubilee. The neglect of the seventh year carries with it the neglect of the Jubilee year. In- deed, this elaborate Sabbatical system required for its fulfilment a people and a land in an entirely different situation from that of Israel in the entire period from the conquest to the exile. (5). The most sacred day of the Mosaic calendar was the Day of Atonement. On this day the sin-offering attained its culmination. The sin-offering of the ritual for the new moons and the double sin-offerings for the great feasts reached their climax in the goat for Azazel and the goat for Yahweh expressing the two sides of expiation by blood and of forgiveness by entire removal. It is here a most singular fact that in the priest-code (Lev. xvi.) we have the institution of the Day of Atone- ment and its peculiar sacrifices, but nowhere in the Pentateuch or elsewhere in the Old Testament any account of the observance in fact. There is no allusion, direct or indirect, to its most solemn services in Hebrew history or prophecy, in sacred song or sentence of wis- 122 TIIE UEXATEUCH dom. It seems not to have formed a part of the historic life and experience of the people. The omission of the sin-offering in its simpler form shows very clearly that the people of Israel had not in their historical life at- tained the religious experience that was indispensable for an apprehension of the Day of Atonement and its deep religious lessons. The historical realization first appears in the first century before the advent of our Saviour.* Thus comparing the codes with the history, we must regard them as ideals in an ascending series from the Covenant codes through the Deuteronomic code to the priests'-code, which could not be realized in the historical experience of the nation. If the Covenant code of E was based upon the idea that Israel was a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, and the Deuteronomic code was pervaded with deep spiritual conceptions of faith, love, and absolute devotion to God, and if, in the priests' code, the idea of holiness is wrought out from the holy throne of the ark into all the details of the national life ; then these were beyond the experience of the tribes who entered the Holy Land. In order to its execution, the priests' code required a holy land under the absolute control of a holy people, all the alien nations exterminated, and every impure influence banished. It required a united, homo- geneous people, living in a land under the protection of the continued presence of God in the form of a the- ophany enthroned in the throne room of the Holy of * Prof. DeliUach discusses this subject in an admirable manner in Zeitschri/t /. Kirckliche \\'iitenscha/t ', 1880, IV. We aprec with him that the passes, I King* viii. 27, seq.\ Ezra iii. 1-6; Neh. viii. 13-17; Krekiel xlv. 18-20; Zech. vii.-viii., do not no-cessarily exclude the Day of Atonement, but we must go further and conclude that the most natural explanation in Jos. xi. 20; D uses im nirpn and 33i? ]^tt Dt. ii. 30 ; J uses the term 3^5 T33H Ex. viii. ii, 28, Ix. 34, x. i ; 133 Ex. vii. 14, ix. 7 ; P uses uS flB'pn Ex. ril. 3, and 3^> pTfl Ex. vii. 13, 22, viii. 15, ix. 35 ; 3^> pjfl Ex. ix. 12, xi. 10, riv. 4, 8, 17. THE ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 155 sin, Ex. xxxiv. 6-9 and Num. xiv. 18-20; when Moses intercedes for the people then sin is covered over with- out sacrifice, Ex. xxxii. 30-34. In D Yahweh chooses Israel and enters into a relation of love with them. P conceives of redemption either as the removal of sin from the persons of the sinners or the sacred places, or as the covering it over at the divine altars by the blood of the sin-offerings. There is an interesting usage of terms in the documents.* The relation of love between God and man is charac- teristic of D. . God's love to His people is in Dt. iv. 37 ; vii. 8, 13; x. 15; xxiii. 6; not elsewhere in the Hexa- teuch, but first in Hosea the prophet. Love to God is in Dt. vi. 5 ; vii. 9 ; x. 12 ; xi. I ; xiii. 22 ; xiii. 4 ; xix. 9; xxx. 6, 16, 20; Jos. xxii. 5; xxiii. 11. Elsewhere in the Hexateuch only Ex. xx. 6=Dt. v. 10 [a Deuter- onomic addition to the Ten Words]. These examples from the field of Biblical Theology are sufficient for our purpose at present. They might be increased to an indefinite extent. They show the same order of development that we have found in the legislation and in the language, and indicate that the documents were composed at such epochs as best ex- plain this development. * 7XJ is used in poetic passages of E of the redemption of Jacob, Gn. xlviii. 16, and of Israel's redemption by God, Ex. xv. 13 and Ex. vi. 6 (RP), but it is used by HP only in the lower sense of redemption of things by payment of a fine, Lv. xxvii. 13, 15, 19, 20, 31. It is used in the sense of acting as a kins- man chiefly in DHP and Ruth, not in JE. mS is used for the redemption of Israel by D, but by JE and P only in the lower sense. fc$J>J forgive is used in E ; n?D in DP ; both terms in J. tf>J is used in Hos. xiv. 3 ; Mic. vii. 18 ; Is. ii. 9, xxxiii. 24 ; Jb. vii. 21 ; i Sam. xv. 25 ; but is unknown to Jeremiah, Kings the second Isaiah, Daniel, Lamentations, and the Chronicler, who use npD- It is found only in the earlier and the latest Psalms. XIV. THE RESULT OF THE ARGUMENT. WE have gone over the several lines of argument usu- ally employed in Higher Criticism in order to gain their witness to the composition of the Pentateuch. The sev- eral lines of evidence converge to the same results. These may be stated as follows : The document E is known to Hosea, it resembles the Ephraimitic prophet and also the Ephraimitic writers in the books of Samuel and Kings. It is the most archaic of the documents in language, style, and historical and doctrinal conceptions. It shows great interest in the sacred places of Northern Israel. It appears therefore that E was the narrative of the Northern kingdom of Israel, and that its law code, the greater book of the covenant, was the Mosaic law in its Ephraimitic codification. It is possible that J was known to Hosea, but this is not certain. It was evidently known to the prophet Isaiah. Its interest in the sanctuaries in Judah and its resemblance with the Judaic writers of the histories of David and Solomon in the books of Samuel and Kings, make it altogether probable that we have in this writing the Judaic recension of the history. The only legisla- tion it attributes to Moses is the moral law of the Ten Words, the decalogue of worship (the little book of the (156) THE RESULT OF THE ARGUMENT Covenant) and a special law of the Passover its style is the very choicest and best. The author probably lived at the centre of Jewish affairs, in the holy city, Jerusalem, where he had access to the best sources of information and where he had acquired the best literary culture. Deuteronomy cannot be traced earlier than the reign of Josiah. It then comes into full recognition and use in the work of the compiler of the Book of Kings and in the prophecy of Jeremiah. It was a recodification of the old covenant code of Moses in the Judaic recension, and thus the code shows parallelism with the covenant code of E. The prophetic codifier shows by his method and style that he had back of him a long history of prophetic oral and written discourses. The code of Holiness comes into the historic field first in connection with Ezekiel. It is a codification of the immemorial practice of the priests of Jerusalem going back to Aaron and Moses. The priest-code and the document which contains it cannot be proven till Ezra's time. It was a larger codi- fication of the priestly ritual and customs coming down by tradition from Moses and Aaron in the priestly circles of Jerusalem, which had been carefully con- served as holy relics in the priestly families among the exiles, as bearing in them sacred memories and holy promises. Driver makes this moderate and cautious statement : " It cannot be doubted that Moses was the ulti- mate founder of both the national and the religious life of Israel ; and that he provided his people not only with at least the nucleus of a system of civil ordinances (such as would, in fact, arise directly out of his judicial func- tions, as described in Ex. xviii.), but also (as the neces- 158 T1IE HEXATEUCH sary corrslative of the primary truth that Jehovah was the God of Israel} with some system of ceremonial observ- ances, designed as the expression and concomitant of the religious and ethical duties involved in the people's relations to its national God. It is reasonable to sup- pose that the teaching of Moses on these subjects is pre- served, in its least modified form, in the Decalogue and the " Book of the Covenant " (Ex. xx.-xxiii.) It is not, however, required by the view treated above as probable to conclude that the Mosaic legislation was limited to the subjects dealt with in Ex. xx.-xxiii. ; amongst the enactments peculiar to Dt. which tradition, as it seems, ascribed to a later period of the legislator's life there are many which likewise may well have formed part of it. It is further in analogy with ancient custom to sup- pose that some form of priesthood would be established by Moses : that this priesthood would be hereditary ; and that the priesthood would also inherit from their founder some traditionary lore (beyond what is con- tained in Ex. xx.-xxiii.) on matters of ceremonial observ- ance. And accordingly we find that JE both mentions repeatedly an Ark and " Tent of Meeting " as existing in the Mosaic age (Ex. xxxiii. 7-11, Nu. xi., 240*, xii. 4ff, Dt. xxxi. I4ff), and assigns to Aaron a prominent and, indeed, an official position (Ex. iv. 14, "Aaron the Le- vitc /' xviii. 12; xxiv. I, 9); further, that in Dt. (x. 6b) a hereditary priesthood descended from him is expressly recognized ; and also that there are early allusions to the " tribe of Lcvi " as enjoying priestly privileges and exer- cising priestly functions (Dt. xxxiii. 10; Mic. iii. II ; cf. Jud. xvii. 13). The principles by which the priesthood was to be guided were laid down, it may be supposed, in outline by Moses. In process of time, however, as na- tional life grew more complex, and fresh cases requiring THE RESULT OF THE ARGUMENT to be dealt with arose, these principles would be found no longer to suffice, and their extension would become a necessity. Especially in matters of ceremonial observ- ance, which would remain naturally within the control of the priests, regulations such as those enjoined in Ex. xx. 24-26, xxii. 29-31, xxiii. 14-19, would not long con- tinue in the same rudimentary state; fresh definitions and distinctions would be introduced, more precise rules would be prescribed for the method of sacrifice, the ritual to be observed by the priests, the dues which they were authorized to receive from the people, and other similar matters. After the priesthood had acquired, through the foundation of Solomon's temple, a permanent centre, it is probable that the process of development and sys- tematization advanced more rapidly than before. And thus the allusions in Dt. imply the existence of usages beyond those which fall directly within the scope of the book, and belonging specially to the jurisdiction of the priests (e.g. xvii. 1 1, xxiv. 8) : Ezekiel, being a priest himself, alludes to such usages more distinctly. Al- though, therefore, there are reasons for supposing that the priest-code assumed finally the shape in which we have it in the age subsequent to Ezekiel, it rests ulti- mately upon an ancient traditional basis ; and many of the institutions prominent in it are recognized, in various stages of their growth, by the earlier pre-exilic literature, by Dt. arid by Ezekiel. The laws of P, even when they included later elements, were still referred to Moses, no doubt because in its basis and origin Hebrew legislation was actually derived from him, and was only modified gradually."* The conclusions of our argument may be stated as follows : * Literature of the Old Testament ', pp. 145, 146. 160 THE HEXATEUCH (i). We have not one narrative, but a fourfold narra- tive of the origin of the old covenant religion, as we have a fourfold gospel giving the narrative of the origin of the new covenant religion. There is, indeed, a re- markable correspondence in these four types or points of view. The Ephraimitic writer may be compared with Mark, the Judaic writer with Matthew, the priestly writer with Luke, and the Deuteronomist with John. The difference between the Pentateuch and the Gospels is that the four narratives of the Pentateuch have been compacted by a series of inspired Redactors ; whereas the Gospels have to be harmonized by uninspired teach- ers in the Church. This unity in variety strengthens the credibility of the Pentateuch. As the four Gospels contain the gospel of Christ, so the narratives of the Pentateuch contain the law of Moses. As our Saviour is set forth by the Evangelist as the mediator of the new covenant, Moses is set forth by the narratives of the Pentateuch as the mediator of the old covenant. (2). The Pentateuch does not give us one Mosaic code, but several codes of Mosaic legislation, a deca- logue of worship, a judicial code of several decalogues, a people's code, a code of holiness, and a priest-code, contained in the narratives, somewhat as the Gospels present us the discourses of Jesus in the varied types peculiar to Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. As we harmonize the Gospels for a complete and symmetrical statement of the doctrine of Jesus, so we harmonize the codes of the Pentateuch for a complete and symmetrical exposition of the law of Moses. The law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (3). The Mosaic legislation was delivered through Moses, the great prophetic law-giver of Israel, and then THE RESULT OF THE ARGUMENT unfolded in historical usage and interpretation in a series of codifications by inspired prophets and priests; but it was in several stages of advancement in the his- torical life and experience of Israel from the conquest to the exile. It was a divine ideal, a supernatural revealed instruction, to guide the people of Israel throughout their history, and lead them to the prophet greater than Moses, who was to fulfil and complete his legislation. The law was the true light of Israel until the first Ad- vent, even as the Gospel is the light and guide of the Church until the Second Advent. Israel appropriated more and more the instruction of the law, as the Church has appropriated more and more the doctrine of the Gospel. The history of God's people under both cove- nants has been essentially the same a grand march for- ward under the supernatural light of a divine revelation. (4). Law and Prophecy are not two distinct and sepa- rate modes of revelation, but the same. The law of Moses was as truly prophetic as legal. Moses was even more a prophet than a law-giver. The prophets of God that followed him all give divine law as well as divine prophecy. As the apostles in the new covenant were not merely expositors of the Gospel, but came forth from the risen and glorified Christ with new revelations, enlarging and completing the Gospel. ; so the prophets were not mere expositors of the law, but came forth im- mediately from the presence of Jahweh as really as Moses did, with new revelations enlarging and complet- ing the old. The distinction between law and prophecy in the Bible is a fluctuating one, so that the whole divine revelation may be called law, and also prophecy, accord- ing to the usage of the Bible itself. (5). There is in the law, as in the Gospel, a divine transforming power which shaped the history of Israel, 162 THE HEXATEUCH as the Gospel has shaped the history of the Church in successive stages of appropriation. Not without some reason have many recent Christian scholars after Nean- der divided the history of the Christian Church after the names of the chief apostles as indicating the various types of Christianity. With even more reason might we divide the history of Israel into stages of progress in ac- cordance with the several law codes. The Christian Church may look forward to a time when the unity and variety of the gospel of Christ shall be fully manifested in her historic life. The people of Israel also reached a stage when in her historic life the several codes har- monized, and the whole bent of the nation was in the study of the law and a conscientious fulfilment of it, and then in the fulness of time Christ Jesus the Messiah came. The deeper study of the unity and variety of the Hex- ateuchal narratives and laws, as we defend their his- toricity against Reuss, Kuenen, and Wellhausen, and advance in the apprehension of their sublime harmony, will fructify and enrich the theology of our day, just as the deeper study of the unity and variety of the gospels by the school of Neander, in the defence of them against Strauss, Rcnan, and Baur, has been an unspeakable bless- ing in the past generation. This having been accom- plished, we may look forward to a time when our eyes shall be opened as never before to the magnificent unity of the whole Bible in the midst of its wondrous variety. Then the word of God, as one supernatural divine revelation, will rise into such a position of spirit- ual power and transcendent influence, as shall greatly advance the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and hasten the realization of that most blessed hope of both the Old and New Testaments, the coming of the Messiah in glory. APPENDIX. I. THE TWO NARRATIVES OF THE REVELATION OF THE DIVINE NAME YAHWEH, p. 165. II. THE CHARACTERISTIC WORDS AND PHRASES OF D, H, AND P ACCORDING TO CANON DRIVER, p. 168. III. THE GENESIS OF THE TEN WORDS, p. 181. IV. THE TWO NARRATIVES OF THE PESTILENCE IN EGYPT, p. i 88. V. THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS IN THE OTHER CODES, p. 189. VI. THE GREATER BOOK OF THE COVENANT AND ITS PAR- ALLELS IN THE LATER CODES, p. 211. VII. VARIATIONS OF D AND H, p. 233. VIII. THE SEVERAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE THEOPHANY, p. 236. IX. THE DECALOGUE OF STATUTES, Deut. xxvii., p. 239. X. THE TYPES OF HEBREW LAW, p. 242. XL THE USE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS IN THE DOCU- MENTS, p. 256. XII. OUTLINE FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS, p. 258. (163) I. THE TWO NARRATIVES OF THE REVELATION OF THE DIVINE NAME YAHWEH. Ex. Hi. 12-15 (#) And he said, Verily / shall be with thee (-|DJ? iTHK) and this shall be the sign to thee that I 03JN) have sent thee : when thou hast brought forth the people from Egypt, ye shall serve God (DTl^xn) upon this mountain. And Moses said unto God (DTl^Nn), Behold I OajN) am going to come unto the children of Israel and say to them, the God of your fa- thers hath sent me unto you. If they say to me, what is his name, what shall I say unto them ? And God said (DTI^N) unto Moses, / shall be the one who will be (e. g. with thee nV!X I^X rpnx). And he said, Thus shaltthou say to the chil- dren of Israel, / shall be (e. g. with thee iTi"IN) hath sent me unto you. And God (Dv6tt)' said again unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel Jahveh (mrp He who will be with thee), the God of your fathers, the God of Abra- ham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you. This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial to all generations. Ex. vi. 2-7 (/"). And God (DTl^N) spake unto Moses and said unto him, I am Yahweh (mrp MN). I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac and unto Jacob as 'El Shadday, but as to my name Jahveh I was not k-nown to them. And I have also established my cove- nant Om3 DK Tlpn) with them to give to them the land of Canaan, the land of their so- journings (D!T"UD), in which they sojourned. And I OJNJ have also heard the groaning (npKJ) of the children of Israel whom the Egyptians keep in bondage and have remembered my covenant GV~)2 ~1DT). Where- fore say to the children of Is- rael, / amYahweh(T\\rp J'N), and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage and redeem you with a stretched-out arm and with great judgments ; and take you to me for a people and be to you for a God (D'r6x!? D3^ PIT!), and ye shall know that I am Yahweh your God ("ON ^ DHJ7T Drrr^K miT), who bringeth you forth from under the burdens of the Egyptians. These parallel passages not only give different accounts of (165) 166 APPENDIX the same revelation of the divine name, Jahveh, but they also ex- hibit the differences in style between E and P. I shall not men- tion all of these differences, but only some of the more striking ones. (l). establish a covenant JVO D'pn is used by P 8 times, and in Ez. xvi. 60, 62, in this sense ; but by Lev. xxvi. 9 (H the Holiness code of P) and Deut. viii. 18 (D) in the sense con- firm a coi'enant. It is not used elsewhere. (2). remember a covenant JVO13T is used by P 4 times and by H in Lev. xxvi. 42, 45 ; elsewhere, Ez. xvi. 60, i C. xvi. 15, Ps. cv. 8, cvi. 45, cxi. 5 ; Am. i 9. It is not used in J E D. (3). / am Jahveh (mrp 'JX) is used by J, Gen. xv. 7, xxviii. 13; Ex. vii. 17, viii. 18, x. 2;andxv. 26 (R) ; elsewhere in the Hex- ateuch in P 35 times and H 40 times, often in the emphatic sense 1 Jahveh. It is never used by E or D. (4). 'JK is always used by P (130 times) for 7, except possibly Gen. xxiii. 4 ; whereas '2JN, the longer form, is commonly used in E and D. The usage in J varies. (5). DM^NH is used as subject or object 33 times in E, and as an absolute defining a preceding construct T2 times in E. It is used by P only Gen. xvii. 18, Jos. xxii. 34 (?), and in his sources Gen. v. 22, 24, vi. 9, n. (6). God of the fathers JTON \~6x is a phrase used 12 times by E and 8 times in D; by J thrice, but never by P. (7). wbtib riYl is used 10 times by P, 6 times by Jeremiah, 6 times by Ezekiel, by D in Deut. xxvi. 17, xxix. 12; else- where in 2 Sam. vii. 24, i C. xvii. 22, Zech. viii. 8, and in Gen. xxviii. 21, which is a redactor's insertion in the docu- ment E. (8). IUD is used by P 7 times ; elsewhere Job xviii. 19, Ez. xx. 38, Ps. Iv. 16, cxix. 54, never in the other documents of the Hexateuch. (9). npKJ is used by P here and Ex. ii. 24 ; elsewhere Judges ii. 18, Ez. xxx. 24. (10). ^HC'^K is used in the blessing of Jacob, Gen. xlix. 25, ac- cording to LXX. Sam., Syriac, Arabic versions, and some Massoretic MSS. On this basis it is used by P 5 times and by the Redactor in Gen. xliii. 14, not elsewhere in the Hexa- teuch. THE DIVINE NAME YAHWEH (n). The style of P in using suffixes with the sign of the defi- nite accusative rather than with the verb appears 6 times in this passage, but not at all in the parallel passage of E. (12). Notice also "And God spake unto Moses and said," the style of P, as compared with " And God said " of E. I have examined in the preparation of the new Hebrew Lexi- con every usage of the divine names in the Old Testament. I may add (i) DTI^N without the definite article, but definite through long use, is found in E 91 times. P uses it in the older poems of the Creation and the deluge 50 times ; elsewhere only 28 times. J uses it in poetic sources, Gn. iii. 1-5, ix. 27 ; Dt. xxxii. 17, 39 ; elsewhere only Gn. xxxix. 9 (where it is probably in an editorial expansion). It is used by D 1 1 times. This usage of the Hexateuch corresponds with other Hebrew literature. It is used in the prophetic histories 100 times, chiefly in the Ephrai- mitic sources, and in Hosea 5 times, but in the pre-exilic writers of Judah seldom, and these seem to have special reasons, e.g. Am. iv. u;=Je. 1. 40;= Is. xiii. 19 (all citing an ancient phrase relat- ing to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) ; Je. x. 10, xxiii. 36 (where the adjective with the predicate D^n DTI^N makes it necessary, and indeed the plural adjective shows it to be an ancient phrase cited also in Dt. v. 23 ; cf. also the predicate HEX DTl^N)- In exilic writers it is more frequent : Ez. 13 times ; 2nd Igaiah 9 times ; Is. xxxv. 4 ; and in post-exilic writers still more common ; Zee. twice, Mai. 5 times, Jonah 4 times, Ecc. 7 times, the Chronicler 45 times, theElohistic Psalter, xl.-lxxxvi., 1 80 times (elsewhere in the Psalter only 21 times). (2) The usage of D*r6xn mentioned p. 166 may be thus supplemented. It is used in the Ephraimitic sources of the prophetic histories 22 times ; in J only Gn. xliv. 16 (which whilst in the midst of J was probably added by the Redactor from E) ; in Deut. only as predicate in discourses, iv. 35, 39, vii. 9, not elsewhere in pre- exilic literature. In later literature, Is. xxxvii, 16 (Hist.), xlv. 18; Jb. ii. 10 (Introduction) ; Ps. cviii. 14. The phrases in which DTl^n defines a previous construct are not taken into con- sideration. (3) niiT is used cautiously by E after Ex. iii. only 163 times, whereas P uses it 78) times after Ex. vi, and J uses it constantly 449 times, and Deut., apart from his usual phrases, 211 times. It is used in the prophetic histories, sparingly in the Ephraimitic sources, but constantly in the Judaic sources. II. THE CHARACTERISTIC WORDS AND PHRASES OF THE DOCUMENTS. In his invaluable work, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, Canon Driver gives the following specimens of the characteristic words and phrases of D, H, and P. (l). The style of Deuteronomy. " The literary style of Dt. is very marked and individual. In vocabulary, indeed, it presents comparatively few exceptional words ; but particular words and phrases, consisting sometimes of entire clauses, recur with extraordinary frequency, giving a distinctive colouring to every part of the work. In its predomi- nant features the phraseology is strongly original, but in certain particulars it is based upon that of the parenetic sections of JE in the Book of Exodus (esp. 13, 3-16. 15, 26. 19, 3-8, parts of 20, 2-17. 23, 20 ff. 34, 10-26). In the following select list of phrases characteristic of Dt., the first to appear to have been adopted by the author from these sections of JE ; those which follow are original, or occur so rarely in JE, that there is no ground to suppose them to have been bor- rowed thence. For the convenience of the synopsis, the occur- rences in the Deuteronomic sections of Joshua are annexed in brackets. I. 3DK to lore, with God as object : 6, 5. 7, 9. 10, 12. II, I. 13. 22. *3. 3 [Heb. 4]. 19, 9. 30, 6. 16. 20. [Josh. 22, 5. 23, II.] So Ex. 20. 6 ( Dt. 5, to). A characteristic principle of Dt. Of God's love to His people : 4, 37. 7, 8. 13. 10, 15. 23, 5 [Heb. 6]. Not so before. Otherwise first in Hos. 3, i. 9, 15. n, i, cf. 4. 14, 4 [Heb. 5]. (108; CHARACTERISTIC WORDS AND PHRASES 169 'H^N other gods : 6, 14. 7, 4. 8, 19. n, 16. 28. 13, 2. 6. 13 [Heb. 3. 7. 14]. 17, 3. 18, 20. 28, 14. 36. 64. 29, 26 [Heb. 25]. 30, 17. 31, 18. 20. [Josh. 23, 16. 24, 2 16.] So Ex. 20, 3 (= Dt. 5, 7). 23, 13 ; cf. 34, 14 (iHN ^N). Always in Dt. (ex- cept 5, 7. 18, 20. 31, 18. 20) with to serve or go after. Often in Kings and Jeremiah, but (as Kleinert remarks) usually with other verbs, 3. That your (thy) days may be long [or to prolong days] : 4, 26. 40. 5, 33 [Heb. 30], 6, 2 b . u, 9. 17, 20. 22, 7. 25, 15. 30, 18. 32, 47. So Ex. 20, 12 (= Dt. 5, 16). Elsewhere, only Is. 53, 10. Prov. 28, 16. Eccl. 8, 13 ; and rather differently, Josh. 24, 31 = Jud. 2, 7-t 4. The land (pNH : less frequently the ground, nOlSH) which Jehovah thy God is giving thee (also us, you, them i, 20 etc.) : 4, 40. 15, 7, and constantly. So Ex. 20, 12 (= Dt. 5, 16) riDINn. 5. DH2J? JV3 house of bondage (lit. of slaves') : 6, 12. 7, 8. 8, 14. 13, 5. 10 [Heb. 6. ii], [Josh. 24, 17.] So Jud. 6, 8. Mic. 6, 4. Jer. 34, 13. From Ex. 13, 3. 14. 20, 2 (= Dt. 5, 6).f 6. In thy gates (of the cities of Israel): 12, 12. 15. 17. 18. 21. 14, 21. 27-2.?. 15, 7. 22. 16, 5. ii. 14. 18. 17, 2. 8. 18, 6. 23, 16 [Heb. 17]. 24, 14. 26, 12. 28, 52. 55. 57. 31, 12. So Ex. 20, 10 (== Dt. 5, 14). Nowhere else in this application : but cf. i Ki. 8, 37 = 2 Ch. 6, 28. 7a. n?3D DJ7 a people of special possession : 7, 6. 14, 2. 26, i8.f Cf. EX. 19, 5 r6jD ^ Drvnv ^o. KTlp DJ? a holy people : 7, 6. 14, 2. 21. 26, 19. 28, g.f Varied from Ex. 19, 6 j^llp 'IJ a holy nation : cf. 22, 30 and holy men shall ye be unto me. 8. Which I command thee this day : 4, 40. 6, 6. 7, ii, and repeatedly. So Ex. 34, ii. 9. Take heed to thyself (yourselves) lest, etc.: 4, 9. 23. 6, 12. 8, if. n, 16. 12, 13. 19. 30. 15, 9 (cf. 24, 8) ; comp. 2, 4. 4, 15. [Josh. 23, ii.] So Ex. 34, 12 ; cf. 19, 12. (Also Ex. 10, 28. Gen. 24, 6. 31, 24, cf. 29 ; but with no special force.) 10. A mighty hand and a stretched out arm : 4, 34. 5, 15. 7, 19. II, 2. 26, 8. The combination occurs first in Dt. Mighty hand alone : Dt. 3, 24. 6, 21. 7, 8. 9, 26. 34, 12 [cf. Josh. 4, 24]. So in JE Ex. 3, 19. 6, i. 13, 9. 32, ii. (Nu. 20, 20 differently.) Stretched out arm alone: Dt. 9, 29 'varied from Ex. 32, n). So Ex. 6, 6 P. 11. "IfQ to choose : of Israel 4, 37. 7, 6. 7, 10, 15. 14, 2, the priests 18. 5. 21, 5, of the future king 17, 15, and especially in the 170 APPENDIX phrase " the place which Jehovah shall choose to place (or set) His name there," 12, 5. n. 14. 18. 21. 26. 14, 23-25. 15, 20. 16, 2. 6. 7. u. 15. 16. 17, 8. 10. 26, 2, or "the place which Jehovah shall choose" 18, 6. 31, n. [Josh. 9, 27.] Very characteristic of Dt. : not applied before to God's choice of Israel ; often in Kings of Jerusalem (i Ki. 8, 44. ir, 32 etc.) ; in Jeremiah once, 33, 24, of Israel. Also charact. of II. Isaiah (41, 8. 9. 43, 10. 44, I. 2 : cf. chosen 43, 20. 45, 4. Of the future, 14, i. 65, 9. 15. 22: and applied to Jehovah's ideal Servant, 42, i. 49, 7). 12. (^KntTO "plpO JTin mjm andthou shall extinguish the evil from thy midst (or from Israel) : 13, 5 [Heb. 6]. 17, 7. 12. 19, 19. 21, 21. 22, 21. 22. 24. 24, 7.f This phrase is peculiar to Dt. ; but Jud. 20, 13 is similar. 13. That the Lord thy God may (or Because He will) bless thee : 14, 24. 29. 15, 4. 10. 16, 10. 15. 23, 20 [Heb. 21]. 24, 19: cf. 12, 7. 15, 6. 14. 14. The stranger, the fatherless, and the widow : 10, 18. 24, 17. 19. 20. 21. 27, 19. Cf. Ex. 22, 21 f. Hence Jer. 7, 6. 22, 3. Ezek. 22, 7. Together with the Levite : 14, 29. 16, 11. 14. 26, 12. 13. !$ p3T to cleave, of devotion to God: 10, 20. u, 22. 13, 4 [Heb. 5]. 30, 20 : the corresponding adjective, 4, 4. [Josh. 22, 5. 23, 8.] So 2 Ki. 18, 6 : cf. 3, 3. i Ki. n, 2.f 16. And remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt : 5, 15. 15, '5- J6, 12. 24, (8. 22.f I?. (V^y) "|^V D^nn Vb thine eye shall not spare (him} : 7, 16. 13, 8 [Heb. 9]. 19, 13. 21. 25, 12. Also Gen. 45, 20. Is. 13, 18, and frequently in Ezek. 18. NDn ~|3 iTHI and it be sin in thee : 15, 9. 23, 21 [Heb. 22]. 24, 15 ; cf. 21, 22 : with not, 23, 22 [Heb. 23], 19. rQIBn pXH the good land (of Canaan) i, 35. 3, 25. 4, 21. 22. 6, 18. 8, 10 (cf. 7). 9, 6. ii, 17. [Josh. 23, 16.] So I Ch. 28, 8.f Dt. i, 25 (Nu. 14, 7) and Ex. 3, 8 are rather different. 20. Which thou (ye) knowest (or tnewesl) not : 8, 3. 16. 11, 28. 13, 2. 6. 13 [Heb. 3. 7. 14]. 28, 33. 36. 64. 29, 26 [Heb. 25]. Chiefly with reference to strange gods, or a foreign people. Cf. 32, 1 7. 21 That it may be well with thee (-|^> 3B jyc6 or 1E'N) : 4. 40. 5, 16. 29 [Heb. 26]. 6, 3. 18. 12, 25. 28. 22, 7. Similarly (03^) "]*? 31t^ : 5, 3? [Heb. 30]. 19, 13, and 31B$> 6, 24. 10, 13. 22. 3't2'!"l. inf. abs., used adverbially i thoroughly: 9, 21. 13, 14 [Heb. 15]. 17, 4. 19, 18. 27, 8. Elsewhere, as thus applied, only 2 Ki. 11, i8.f CHARACTERISTIC WORDS AND PHRASES 23. To fear God (njfiv ' often with that they may learn prefixed): 4, 10. 5, 29 [Heb. 26]. 6, 24. 8, 6. 10, 12. 14, 23. 17, 19. 28, 58. 31, 13, cf. 12. 24. (73V) ^3in X7, in the sense of not to be allowed : 7, 22. 12, 17. 16, 5. 17, 15. 21, 16. 22, 3. 19. 29. 24, 4. A very uncommon use ; cf. Gen. 43, 32. 25. To do that which is right (l^H) in the eyes of Jehovah : 12, 25. 13, 18 [Heb. 19]. 21, 9 : with 31t3H that which is good added, 6, 18. 12, 28. So Ex. 15, 26, then Jer. 34, 15, and several times in the framework of Kings and the parallel passages of Chronicles. 26. To do that which is evil (jnn) in the eyes of Jehovah : 4, 25. 9, 18. 17, 2. 31, 29. So Nu 32, 13 ; often in the framework of Judges and Kings, Jeremiah, and occasionally elsewhere. Both 25 and : 6 gained currency through Dt. , and are rare except in pass- ages written under its influence 27. The priests the Levites (= the Levitical priests) : 17, 9. 18, i. 24, 8. 27, 9 : the priests the sons of Lez>i, 21, 5 31, 9 [Josh. 3, 3. 8, 33.] So Jer. 33, 18. Ez 43, 19.44, 15. 2 Ch. 5, 5. 23, 18. 30, 27. P's expression " sons of Aaron " is never used in Dt. 28. With all thy (your) heart and with all thy (your) soul : 4, 29. 6, 5. 10, 12. ii, 13. 13, 3 [Heb. 4]. 26, 16. 30, 2. 6. 10. [Josh. 22, 5. 23, 14 ] A genuine expression of the spirit of the book (p. 73). Only besides (in the third person) i Ki. 2, 4. 8, 48 |. 2 Ki. 23, 3. 25 || . 2 Ch, 15, 12 ; and (in the first person, of God) Jer. 32, 41. 29. ^Q? jnj, in the sense of delivering up to : i, 8. 21. 2, 31. 33. 36. 7, 2. 23. 23, 14 [Heb. 15]. 28, 7 and 25 (with ?]3J). 31, 5. [Josh. 10, 12. ii, 6.] Also Jud. ii, 9. i Ki. 8, 46. Is. 41, 2.f The usual phrase in this sense is T3 JJ"IJ. 30. To turn (ID) neither to the right hand nor to the left : 2, 27 lit. (Nu. 20, 17 has ilBJ) : so i Sa. 6, 12. Metaph. 5, 32 [Heb. 29]. 17, 11. 20. 28, 14. [Josh, i, 7. 23, 6.] So 2 Ki. 22, 2 |.f 31. D^T nj^JW the work of the hands (= enterprise) : 2, 7. 14, 29, 16, 15. 24, 19. 28, 12. 30, 9 : in a bad sense, 31, 29. 32. mD, of the redemption from Egypt: 7, 8 (Mic. 6, 4). 9, 26, 13, 5 [Heb. 6]. 15, 15. 21, 8. 24, 18. Not so before : Ex. 15, 13 (the Song of Moses) uses 7K3 (to reclaim). 33. 2"|p midst, in different connexions, especially "plpl, "p~lpQ- A favourite word in Deut., though naturally occurring in JE, as also elsewhere. In P "pn is preferred. 34. To rejoice before Jehovah : 12, 7. 12. 18. 14, 26. 16, ii. 14 (cf. Lev. 23, 40). 26, II. 27, 7. 172 APPENDIX 35. To make His name dwell there (|3^, }3tJ>) : 12, II. 14, 23. 16, 2. 6. II. 26, 2. Only besides Jer. 7, 12. Ezra 6, 12. Neh. i, g.f With D^ ('o *) : 12, 5. 21. 14, 24. This occurs also in Kings (to- gether with Jivr6, fVrP, which are not in Dt.): i Ki. 9, 3. n, 36 al. 36. (D3T, TT)"|T rbvftthat to which thy (your) hand is put : 12, 7. 18. 15, 10. 23, 20 [Heb. 21]. 28, 8. 2o.f 37. ^4Vlp ^3 .fiw / Jehovah am holy : 19, 2. 2 20, 26. 21, 8. 3 Cf. n, 44. 45 (For I am holy). 3. T^a/ sanctify you (them, etc.) : 20, 8. 21, 8. 15. 23. 22, 9. 16. 32. So Ex. 31, 13. Ez. 20, 12. 37, 28. f 4. B^K K*K for whoever : 17, 3. 8. 10. 13. 18, 6. 20, 2. 9. 22, 4. 18. 24, 15. So 15, 2. Nu. 5, 12. 9, 10. Ez. 14, 4. 7 (with SsiE" JV2O as ch. 17, 3. 8. 10). 5. 1 -mil set (Tirol) my face against . . . : 17, 10.20, 3. 5 (^8 TOn). 6. 26, 17. So Ez. 14. 8. 15, 7*. 7 b (DBM. Jer. 21, 10 (DB>). 44. 6. I will cut off from the midst of his (its , their) people : 17, IO. 2O, 3. 5. 6. 5 Cf. Ez. 14, 8 ( ... !pn : in Lev. TlpO). 7. nip!"Q "j^ri ^ w0//fc in the statutes : 18, 3. 20, 23. 26, 3. Also i Ki. 3, 3. 6, 12. 2 Ki. 17, 8. 19 ; but chiefly in Ez., viz, 5, 6. 7. n, 20. 18, 9. 17. 20, 13. 19. 21. 33, 15: cf. Jer. 44, 10 (THi 8. "'BSE'Ol Tflpn my statutes and my judgments : 18, 4 (inverted). 5. 26. 19, 37. 20, 22. 25, 18. 26, 15. 43. 9. To observe and do : 18, 4. 19, 37. 20, 8. 22. 22, 31. 25, 18. 26, 3. 10. ~\$S& flesh = next-of-kin : 18, 12. 13. 17 (iT"lXE>)- 2O > J 9- 2I > 2 - Nu. 27, ii ; i-)j*>3 IXK^ 18, 6. 25, 49. Not so elsewhere. 11. HOT evil purpose (of unchastity) : 18, 17. 19, 29. 20, 14 bis. So Jud. 20, 6. Hos 6, 9. Jer. 13, 27. Ez. 16, 27. 43. 58. 22, 9. ir. 23, 21. 27. 29. 35. 44. 48 bis. 49. 24, 13. (In RV. often lewdness.) 12. JVDJJ neighbor : 18, 20. 19, II. 15. 17. 24, 19. 25. 14 bis. 15. 17. 5, 21 bis. Zech. 13, "j.\ A peculiar term ; not the one in ordinary use. Followed by the participial clause that sanctify you (him, etc.). * Followed by a relative clause. t The dagger (both here and elsewhere) denotes that all instances of the word or phrase referred to that occur in the OT. have been cited. The distinctive character of an expression is evidently the more marked, and the agreement be- tween two writers who use it is the more striking, in proportion to the rarity with which it occurs in the OT. generally. 6 In P always "shall tecnt off " (see 7). In general the Divine " I " appears here with a prominence which it never assumes in the laws of P. 174 APPENDIX 13. Toprofane the name of Jehovah 18, 21. 19, 12. 20, 3. 21, 6. 22, 2, 32 (Am. 2, 7. Isa. 48. n) : a holy thing or sanctuary 19, 8. 21, 12. 23. 22, 15 (so Nu. 1 8, 32): in other connexions 19, 29. 21, g b . 15. 22, 9 : comp. 21, 4. 9'. So Ex. 31, 14 (of the Sabbath). So often in Ezek. : of Jehovah 13, 19. 22, 26 ; His name 20, 9. 14. 22. 39. 36, 20-23. 39, 7 ; His sabbaths 20, 13. 16. 21. 24. 22, 8. 23, 38 (Isa. 56, 2. 6) ; His holy things or sanctuary 22, 26. 23, 39. 44, 7 ; cf. also 7, 21. 22. 24. 22, 16. 24, 21. 25, 3. 28, 7. 16. 18. Obviously the correlative of Nos. 2, 3. 14. My sabbaths : 19, 3. 30. 26, 2. Ex. 31, 13. Ez. 20, 12. 13. 16. 20. ai. 24. 22, 8. 26. 23, 38. 44, 24. Isa. 56, 4.f 15- DvvX things of nought = vain gods : 19,4.26, I. Not elsewhere in Pent. Chiefly besides in Isaiah (9 times, and ^NH once). 16. Tn^XD nKVI and thou shall be afraid of thy God : 19, 14. 32. 25, 17- 36. 43-t 17. (D3 DrPD"l) 13 VDT A/J (their) blood shall be upon him (them) : 20, 9. n. 12. 13. 16. 27. Ez. 18. 13 (HYP 13 V"l). 33, 5 (13 1OT rPiT).f (The ordinary phrase is 1CJO (3) !?y 1D1). 18. The bread of (theit) God : 21, 6. 8. 17. 21. 22. 22, 25. Nu. 28, 2 (cf. 24. Lev. 3, 11. 16). Ez. 44, 7-f (Ez. 16, 19 differently.) 19'. NBn NK'J to bear sin : 19, 17. 22, 9. Nu. 18, 22. 32 ; cf. Ez. 23,49.! I9 b . (D)lNEn (1)KBO to bear his (their) sin: 20, 20. 24, 15. Nu. 9, I3.f 2O a . (D)1Jiy (1)KKO to bear his (their) iniquity: 17, 16. 19, 8. 20, 17. 19. So 5, i. 17. 7, 18. Nu. 5, 31. 14, 34 (cf. 15, 31 P)3 njlj?). Ez. 14, 10. 44, 10. 12. f 20 b . Jiy NETJ to bear iniquity : Ex. 28, 43 ; cf. Lev. 22, l6.f 2O e . . . . Jiy KCO to bear the iniquity of . . . ( &r responsible for) : Ex. 28, 38 Nu. 18, I bis ; so bear their iniquity, v. 23 (see Dillm ; and comp. Wellh. Comp. p. 341). f 2O d . . . . to bear the iniquity of another : Lev. 10, 17. 16,22. Nu. 30, 15 [H. 16]. Ez. 4, 4. 5. 6 (not always in the same application). So NOD Ntyj to bear the sin 0/many, Is. 53, 12. (3). The style of P. " The following is a select list of some of the most noticeable expressions characteristic of P ; many occurring rarely or never besides, some only in Ezekicl. The list could readily be in- creased, especially if terms occurring only in the laws had been added ; ' these, however, have been excluded, as the object of the E.g. " savour of satisfaction," " fire-sacrifice," " statute for ever." But the CHARACTERISTIC WORDS AND PHRASES 175 list is rather to show that the historical sections of P exhibit the same literary features as the legal ones, and that the same habits of thought and expression pervade both. 1 References to Lev. 17-26 have been included in the list. It will be recollected that these chapters do not consist wholly of excerpts from H, but comprise elements belonging to P (p. 44). H itself also, as was remarked, is related to P, representing likewise priestly usage, though in an earlier phase ; so that it is but natural that its phraseology should exhibit points of contact with that of P. 1. God, not Jehovah : Gen. I, i and uniformly, except Gen. 17, I. 21, i b , until Ex. 6, 2. 2. Kind('ti) : Gen, i, u. 12 bis. 21 bis. 24 bis. 25 ter. 6, 20 ter. 7, 14 quater. Lev. n, 14. 15. 16. 19 [hence Dt. 14, 13. 14. 15. 18]. 22 quater. 29. Ez. 47, lO.f 3. To swarm (fit?) : Gen. i, 20. 21. 7, 21. 8, 17. Ex. 7, 28 [hence Ps. 105, 30]. Lev. n, 29. 41. 42. 43. 46. Ez. 47, 9. Fig. of men : Gen. 9, 7. Ex. i, 7.f 4. Swarming things (f)B>) : Gen. I, 20. 7, 21. Lev. 5, 2. II, IO. 2O [hence Dt. 14, 19]. 21. 23. 29. 31. 41. 42. 43.44. 22, s.f 5. To be fruitful and multiply (rail ms) : Gen. I, 22. 28. 8, 17. 9, i. 7. 17, 20 (cf. 2 and 6). 28, 3. 35, n. 47, 27, 48, 4. Ex. i, 7. Lev. 26, 9. Also Jer. 23, 3 ; and (inverted) 3, 16. Ez. 36, n.f 6. For food (H^3N^) : Gen. i, 29. 30. 6, 21. 9, 3. Ex. 16, 15. Lev. n, 39. 25, 6. Ez. 15, 4. 6. 21, 37. 23, 37. 29, 5. 34, 5. 8. 10. 12. 39, 4-f (In Jer. 12, 9 fpDK? is an infin.) 7. Generations (nn^in) : (a) In the phrase These are the generations of . . . (see p. 5 f .). (b) Otherwise : Gen. 10, 32. 25, 13. Ex. 6, 16. 19. 28, 10. Nu. i (12 times), i Ch. 5, 7. 7, 2. 4. 9. 8, 28. 9, 9. 34. 26, 31. f laws of P, it is worth remarking, are, as a rule, formulated differently from those of either JE or D (contrast e.g. the ^ D1K, "O t?3J, 1N K*K, ^ HSPK etc. of Lev. i, 2. 4, 2. 5, i. 15. 13, 2. 29. 38. Nu. 5, 6. 6, 2 al. with the E^K ^l of Ex. 21, 7. 14. 20. 26, etc.), and show besides differences of terminology, which, however, the reader must be left to note for himself. 1 Were these expressions confined to the legal sections, it might be argued that they were the work of the same hand as JE, who, with a change of subject, adopted naturally an altered phraseology ; but they are found repeatedly in the narrative parts of the Hexateuch, where the peculiar phraseology cannot be at- tributed to the special character of the subject (e.g. Gen. 6-9. Ex. 6, 2-7, 13. c. 16. Nu. 13-14. 16-17. Josh. 22, 9 ff.). 176 APPENDIX 8. HXO in the sf. e., in cases where ordinarily ilKO would be said : Gen. 5, 3. 6. 18. 25. 28. 7, 24. 8, 3. n, 10. 25. 21, 5. 25, 7. 17. 35, 28. 47, 9. 28. Ex. 6, 16. 18. 20. 38, 25. 27 (thrice). Nu 2, 9. 16. 24. 31. 33, 39. So besides only Neh. 5, n (prob. corrupt). 2 Ch. 25, 9 Qri. Est. i, 4.f (Peculiar. P uses riKD in such cases only twice, Gen. 17, 17. 23, i.) 9. To expire (JTO) : Gen. 6, 17. 7, 21. 25, 8. 17. 35, 29. 49, 33. Nu. 17, 12. 13. 20, 3 bis. 29. Josh. 22, 20. (Only besides in poetry : Zech. 13, 8. Ps. 88, 16. 104, 29 Lam. i, 19 ; and 8 times in Job.)f 10. With thee(him, etc.) appended to an enumeration : Gen. 6, 18. 7, 7. 13. 8, 16. 18. 9, 8. 28,4. 46, 6. 7. Ex. 28, I. 41. 29, 21 bis. Lev. 8, 2. 30. lo, 9. 14. 15 (25, 41. 54 DJ?). Nu. 18, i. 2. 7. n. 19 bis. Similarly after you (thee, etc.) appended to " seed : " Gen. 9, 9. 17, 7 bis. 8. 9. 10. 19. 35, 12. 48, 4. Ex. 28, 43. Nu 25, 13. 11. And Noah did (so) ; according to, etc. : Gen. 6, 22 : exactly the same form of sentence, Ex. 7, 6. 12, 28. 50 39, 32 b . 40, 16. Nu. i, 54. 2, 34. 8. 20. 17, ii [Heb. 26] : cf. Ex. 39, 43. Nu. 5, 4. 9, 5 12. This selfsame day (nTH DVH DXV) : Gen. 7. 13. 17, 23. 26. Ex. 12. 17. 41. 51. Lev. 23, 14. 21. 28. 29 30. Dt. 32, 48. Josh. 5, n. 10, 27 (not P : probably the compiler). Ez. 2, 3. 24, 2 bis. 40, i.f 13. After their families (D!T~ DlYinQt'D?) : Gen. 8, 19. 10, 5. 20. 31. 36, 40. Ex.6, 17. 25. 12, 21. ' Nu i (13 times). 2, 34. 3-4(15 times). n, 10 (JE). 26 (16 times) 29, 12. 33, 54. Josh. 13, 15. 23. 24 28. 29. 31. 15, i. 12. 20. 16, 5. 8. 17, 2 bis. 18, ii. 20. 21. 28. 19 (12 times). 21, 7. 33. 40 (Heb. 38). I Sa. 10, 21. i Ch. 5, 7. 6, 62. 63 (Heb. 47. 48, from Josh. 21, 33. 38).! 14. 7D7 as regards all, with a generalizing force namely, I mean (Ewald, 310*): Gen. 9, io''. 23, io b . Ex. 14, 28 (cf. 9 ^>T!1). 27. 3- 19 (si vera 1 ). 28, 38. 36 i b . Lev. 5, 3. n. 26. 42. 16, 16 21. 22. iS. Nu. 4, 27. 31. 32. 5, 9. 18, 4. 8. 9. Ez. 44, 9. (Prob. a juristic use. Occasionally elsewhere, esp. in Ch.) 15. An everlasting covenant : Gen. 9, 16. 17,7. 13. 19. Ex. 31, 16. Lev. 24, 8 ; cf. Nu. 18, 19. 25, 13.** ' The isolated occurrence of this expression in JE does not make it the less characteristic of P. Of course the writer of Ex. 12, 31 was acquainted with the word nnQfOt and could use it, if he pleased, in combination with 7. It is the frequency of the combination which causes it to be characteristic of a particular author. For the same reason ri/'i'f is characteristic of St. Mark's style, notwith- standing the fact that the other evangelists employ it occasionally. The same remark holds good of Nos. 12, 15, 17, 22, 38, 41, etc. 1 The asterisk indicates that all pasfages of the Hexateuch in which the word or phrase quoted occurs are cited or referred to. CHARACTERISTIC WORDS AND PHRASES 16. Exceedingly (ISO "1NE3, not the usual phrase): Gen. 17, 2. 6. 20. Ex i, 7. Ez. 9, 9. 16, 13. f 17. Substance ({*n31) : Gen. 12, 5. 13, 6. 31, 18. 36, 7. 46, 6. Nu. 16, 32 <(his). Nu. 9, 10. 10, 8. 15, 14. 15. 21. 23. 38. 18, 23. 35, 2g.f 21. Sojournings (D'TIJO), with land : Gen. 17, 8. 28, 4. 36, 7. 37, i. Ex. 6, 4. Ez. 20, 38 ; with days : Gen. 47, 9 bis. Only besides Ps. 119, 54; and rather differently 55, 16. Job 18, 19. f 22. Possession (riTPlN) : Gen. 17, 8. 23, 4. 9. 20. 36, 43. 47, n. 48, 4. 49, 30. 50, 13. Lev. 14, 34. 25, 10-46. 27, 16. 21. 22. 24. 28. Nu. 27, 4. 7. 32, 5. 22. 29. 32. 35, 2. 8. 28. Dt. 32, 49. Josh. 21, 12. 39. 22, 4 (D 2 ). 9. 19 bis. Elsewhere only in Ezekiel (44, 28 bis. 45, 5. 6. 7 bis. 8. 46, 16. 18 ter. 48, 20. 21. 22 bis) ; Ps. 2, 8 ; i Ch. 7, 28. 9, 2 (= Neh. n, 3). 2 Ch. n, 14. 31, i.f 23. The cognate verb to get possessions (THXJ), rather a peculiar word : Gen. 34, 10 47, 27. Nu. 32, 30. Josh. 22, 9. ig.f 24. Purchase, purchased possession (HJpD) : Gen. 17, 12. 13. 23. 27. 23, 18. Ex. 12, 44. Lev. 25, 16 bis. 51. 27, 22. (Prob. a legal term. Only besides Jer. 2?, n. 12. 14. i6.)f 25. Peoples (D'DV) in the sense of kinsfolk (peculiar) : (a) That soul (or that man) shall be cut off from his kinsfolk : Gen. 17, 14. Ex. 30, 33. 38. 31, 14. Lev. 7, 20. 21. 25. 27. 17, 9. 19, 8. 23, 29. Nu. 9, i3f. (In Lev. 17, 4. 10. 18, 29, 20, 3. 5. 6. 18. 23, 30. Nu. 15, 30 the noun is singular.) (6) To be gathered to one's kinsfolk : Gen. 25, 8. 17. 35, 29. 49, 33. Nu. ?o, 24. 27, 13. 31, 2. Dt. 32, 50 bis.\ 178 APPENDIX (<) Lev. 19, 16. 21, i. 4. 14. 15. Ez. 18, 18: perhaps Jud. 5, 14. Hos. 10. 14. f 26. Settler or sojourner (acnn) : Gen. 23, 4 (hence Ps. 39, 13. I Ch. 29, 15). Ex. 12, 45. Lev. 22, 10. 25, 6. 23. 35. 40. 45. 47 bis. Nu. 35, 15. Also i Ki. 17. i (text doubtful ).f 27. Getting, acquisition (pp) : Gen. 31, 18. 34. 23. 36, 6. Lev. 22, n. Josh. 14, 4 : cf. Ez. 38, 12 f. ; also Pr. 4, 7. Ps. 104, 24. 105, 21. f 28. Rigour (pS) : Ex. i, 13. 14. Lev. 25, 43. 46. 53. Ez. 34, 4.f 29. Judgments (D'BDt? [not the usual word]) : Ex. 6, 6. 7, 4. 12. 12. Nu. 33, 4. Ez. 5. 10. 15. II, 9. 14, 21. 16, 41. 25, it. 28, 22. 26. 30, 14. 19. Pr. 19, 29. 2 Ch. 24, 24. f 30. Fathers' houses ( families : ni2N JV3, or sometimes ni2K alone) : Ex. 6, 14. 25. 12, 3. Nu. 1-4 (often). 17, 2. 3. 6. 26, 2. 31, 26. 32, 28. 34, 14. 36, i. Josh. 14, i. 19, 51. 2C, i. 22, 14. 31. Hosts (D1K3Y) of the Israelites : Ex. 6, 26. 7, 4. 12, 17. 41. 51. Nu. i, 3. 52. 2, 3. 9. 10. 16. 18. 24. 25. 32. 10, 14. 18. 22. 25. 28. 33, i.* (Dt. 20, 9 differently.) 32. Congregation (my) of the Israelites: Ex. 12, 3. 6. 19. 47. 16, I. 2. 9. 10. 22. 17, i. 34, 31. 35, i. 4. 20. 38, 25. Lev. 4, 13. 15. 8, 3~5- 9. 5- I0 6- !? *6. 5- *9i 2 - 2 4. M- l6 - Nu. 13, 26 bis. 14, 1. 2. 5. 7. 10. 27. 35. 36. 16, 2. 3. 9 bis. 19 bis. 21. 22 (Lev. 10, 6). 24. 26. 41. 42. 45. 46. [Heb. 17,6. 7. 10. n]. 20, i 2. 8 bis. ii. 22. 27. 29. 25, 6. 7. 31, 12. 16. 26. 27. 43 (as well as often in the other chapters of Nu. assigned wholly to P). 32, 2. 4. Josh. 9, 15. 18 bis. 19. 21. 27. 18, I. 20, 6. 9. 22, 12. 16. 17. 18 (Nu. 16, 22). 20. 30. (Cf. No. 39.) Never in JEor Dt., and rare in the other hist, books : Jud. 20, I. 21, 10. 13. 16. i Ki. 8, 5 ( 2 Ch. 5. 6). 12, 20. 33. Between the two evenings : Ex. 12, 6. 16, 12. 29, 39. 41. 30, 8. Lev. 23, 5. Nu. 9, 3. 5. II. 28, 4. 8.f 34. In all your dwellings (Di'DUC^D $>33) : Ex. 12, 20. 35. 3. Lev. 3, 17. 7, 26. 23, 3. 14. 21. 31. Nu. 35, 29 (cf. 15, 2. 31, 10). Ez. 6, 6. 14. 35. This is the thing which Jehovah hath commanded : Ex. 16, 1 6. 32. 35, 4. Lev. 8, 5. 9, 6. 17, 2. Nu. 30, 2. 36, 6.f 36. A head (rblh) lit. skull) in enumerations : Ex. 16, 16. 38, 26. Nu i, 2. 18. 20. 22. 3, 47. i Ch. 23, 3. 24. f 37. To remain over (epy : not the usual word) : Ex. 16, 18. 23. 26, 12 bis. 13. Lev. 25, 27. Nu. 3, 46. 48. 4g.f 38. Ruler or prince (K'"'3). among the Israelites : Ex. 16, 22. 35. 27. Lev. 4, 22. Nu. i, 16. 44. cc. 2. 3. and 7 (repeatedly). 4, 46. 10, CHARACTERISTIC WORDS AND PHRASES 1^9 4. 13, 2. 17, 2. 6 (Heb. 17. 21). 25, 14. 18. 34, 18-28. Josh. 22, 14. In JE once only, Ex. 22, 27 : never in Dt. Jud. Sam. : in Kings only i Ki. 8, I, and in a semi-poetical passage, 11, 34. Cf. Gen. 17, 20. 23, 6. 25, 16. 3$, 2. Often in Ez., even of the king. 39. Rulers (princes) of (or in) the congregation: Ex. 16, 22. 34, 31. Nu. 4, 34. 16, 2. 31, 13. 32, 2. Josh. 9, 15. 18 (cf. 19. 21). 22, 30 (cf. 32) : cf. Nu. 27, 2. 36, i. Josh. 17, 4.f 40. Deep rest (firQEJ>) : Ex. 16, 23. 31, 15. 35, 2. Lev. 16, 31. 23, 3. 24. 32. 39 bis. 25, 4. s.f 41. According to the command (lit. mouth) of Jehovah (HIIT '3 ?JJ) : Ex. 17, i. Lev. 24, 12. Nu. 3, 16. 39. 51. 4, 37. 41. 45. 49. 9, 18. 20. 23. 10, 13. 13, 3. 33, 2. 38. 36, 5. Josh. 15, 13 6x). 17, 4 6x). 19, 50. 21, 3 (?N). 22. 9. Very uncommon elsewhere : Dt. 34, 5 b (probably from P : cf. Nu. 33, 38). 2 Ki. 24, 3. 42. Half (rPVrtD : not the usual word) : Ex. 30, 13 bis. 15. 23. 38, 26. Lev. 6, 13 bis. Nu. 31, 29. 30. 42. 47. Josh. 21, 25 (= i Ch. 6, 55). Only besides I Ki. 16, 9. Neh. 8, 3. i Ch. 6, 46. f 43. ~>yo to trespass and 7y trespass (often combined, and then rendered in RV. to commit a trespass) : Lev. 5, 15. 6, 2. [Heb. 5, 21], 26, 40. Nu, 5, 6. 12. 27. 31, 16. Dt. 32, 51. Josh. 7, i. 22, 16. 20. 22. 31.* Ez. 14, 13. 15, 8. 17, 20. 18, 24. 20, 27. 39, 23. 26. (A word belonging to the priestly terminology. Never in Jud., Sam., Kgs. , or other prophets [except Dan. 9, 7] ; and chiefly else- where in Ch.) 44. The methodical form of subscription and superscription : Gen. 10, [5]. 20. 30. 31. 25, 16. 36, 19. 20. 31. 40. 43.46, 8. 15. 18. 22. 25. Ex. i, i. 6, 14. 16. ig b . 25 b . 26. Nu. i, 44. 4, 28. 33. 37. 41. 45. 7, I7 b . 23 b . 29 b etc. 84. 33, i. Josh. 13, 23''. 28. 32. 14, i. 15, I2 b . 20. 16, 8 b . 18, 20. 28 b . 19, 8 b . 16. 23. 31. 39. 48. 51 [cf. Gen 10, 30. 31]. 21, 19. 26. 33. 40. 41-42. (Not a complete enumer- ation). 45. For tribe P has nearly always nt3Q, very rarely B2^ ; for to beget T^in (Gen. 5, 3-32. 6, 10. n, 11-27. 17. 2O - 2 5> J 9- 48, 6. Lev. 25, 45. Nu. 26, 29. 58), not ^ (as in the genealogies of J : Gen. 4, 18 ter. 10, S. 13. 15. 24 bis. 26. 22, 23. 25, 3) ; for to be hard or to harden (of the heart) pTH, ptH lit. to be or make strong (Ex. 7. 13 22. 8, 19 [Heb 15], 9, 12. 14, 4. 8. 17), not -Q3, T23n lit. to be or make heavy (Ex. 7, 14. 8, 15. 32 [Heb. n. 28]. 9, 7. 34. 10, i) ; for to stone D31 (Lev. 20, 2. 27. 24, 14. 16 bis. 23. Nu. 14, 10. 15, 35. 36: also Dt. 21, 21. Josh. 7, 25" [? P]*), 180 APPENDIX not ^>pD (Ex. 8, 26 [Heb. 22]. 17, 4. 19, 13 bis. 21, 28 bis. 29. 32. Dt. 13, 10 [Heb. u]. 17, 5. 22, 21. 24. Josh 7, 25 b *) ; for to *py-\\T\ (Nu. 13, 2. 16. 17. 21. 25. 32 *>. 14, 6. 7. 34. 36. 38. 15, 39 : also 10, 33 JE. Dt. i, 33 *), not ^31 (Nu. 21, 32. Dt. i, 24. Josh. 2, i. 6, 22. 23. 25. 7, 2 bis. 14, 7) ; and for the pron. of i ps. sing. 'JX (nearly 130 times ; ^3JK once only Gen. 23, 4 : comp. in Ez. 'JX 138 times, '2JK once 36, 28). III. THE GENESIS OF THE TEN WORDS. The Ten Commandments^ I. THOU SHALT HAVE NONE OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. II. THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE A GRAVEN IMAGE \tior, E], any form that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth : thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor be led to serve them : for I Yahweh thy God am a zealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, {and, Dj upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me ; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my command- ments. III. THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF YAHWEH THY GOD IN VAIN ; for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. IV. REMEMBER [" Observe," D] THE SABBATH DAY TO KEEP IT HOLY. Exodus. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work : but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Yahweh thy God : [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man- Deuteronomy. as Yahweh thy God commanded thee. Six days shalt thou la- bour, and do all thy work ; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Yahweh thy God : [in it] thou shalt not do any work, [* The small capitals give the original words. Where the versions agree in specifications and reasons, they are not distinguished ; but where they disagree, they appear in parallel columns, with the difference indicated by italics. In a few cases of minor difference, the variation is placed in brackets.] (181) 182 APPENDIX servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day : wherefore Yahweh blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates : in order that thy man-servant and thy maid- servant may rest as well as thou. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand, and by a stretched- out arm ; therefore Yahweh thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day, V. HONOUR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER: that thy days may be long upon the land which Yahweh thy God giveth thee. as Yahweh thy God commanded thee : that thy days may be long : and that it may be well with thee upon the land which Yahweh thy God giveth thee. VI. THOU SHALT DO NO MURDER. VII. ["And,"D]. THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. VIII. ["And,"DJ. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. IX. [" And," Dj. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOUR TO A LIE [" to a vain thing," Dj. X. ["And," D]. THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOUR'S HOUSE [wife, D]. Thou shalt not covet thy neigh- bour's wife, nor his man-ser- vant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. and thou shalt not desire thy neighbour's house, his field, or his man-servant, or his maid- servant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's. It will first be necessary to separate the work of the Deuter- onomist. We have already seen that he has changed slightly I he language of three of the Ten Words. We should expect, there- fore, that in the reasons he would be freer still. His changes THE GENESIS OF THE TEN WORDS 183 have been in commands four, five, and ten. In the specifications of the fourth command, he adds " nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of [thy cattle] "; so, in the specification of the .cnth command, he adds " his field." But the most striking difference is in the reason of the fourth command, which is totally ditfer- ent from the reason given in Exodus. The reason given in Deuteronomy is so characteristic of the author's style, and of his usage elsewhere, that no one can doubt that this reason is pecul- iar to him, and that he has added it to the fourth command. See the reason for the observance of the year of release (Deut. xv. 15), the Passover (xvi. n, 12), and the regard for the poor (xxiv. 1 8, 22). Besides these additions, we observe the phrase "as Yahweh thy God commanded thee" appended immediately to the fourth and fifth words, and the additional reason, " and that it may be well with thee," added to the fifth command, a reason which is a favorite one in Deuteronomy (v. 29; vi. 18; xii. 25). It would seem, therefore, quite evident, that all of these variations of Deuteronomy are additions in the way of en- largement, paraphrase, explanation, and enforcement of the Ten Words. Looking now at the version of Exodus, we note that the reason for the observance of the sabbath is peculiar to it. It is not at all likely that the author of Deuteronomy would have taken the liberty of cutting off any portions of the commands as they were known to him, and substituting another and very different reason for the one previously given. It would seem, therefore, that this reason of Exodus is a later addition to the command, no less than the additions that we have found in Deuteronomy. The writer or editor of Exodus xx. in its present form, clearly had before him the same command as the author of Deuter- onomy, with the exception of the Deuteronomic additions and this reason of the fourth command. It is not difficult to trace the origin of this reason. We find it essentially in Genesis ii. 2, 3: "And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made ; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made." These passages are recognized as belonging to the priestly 184 APPENDIX narrative and the priests' code (P). It would seem, therefore, that this addition to the fourth command is due to him. The other parts of the commands are common to the versions, and we can find nothing more that can be ascribed to the priestly narrator except a single word in the fourth command, to be con- sidered later. We have now to explain the origin of the remaining specifica- tions and reasons. We begin with the second command. The second part of the reason appended to this command, we find in essentially the same form in Exodus xxxiv. 6, 7, in the great reve- lation of the Divine grace by the theophanic voice to Moses : " Yahweh, Yahweh, a God full of compassion and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy and faithfulness ; keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin : and that will by no means clear [the guilty] ; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation." We find also, in the little Book of the Covenant, the first part of the reason, thus : " For Yahweh, whose name is Zealous, is a zealous God " (Exod. xxxiv. 14). Now, both of these passages belong to the writing of the Judaic narrator (J). It seems clear, therefore, that he must have appended this reason to the second command ; and certainly nothing could be more appro- priate. Moreover, in the specifications we have the same verb as in Exodus xxxiv. 14, although this fact is obscured by the Re- vised Version, which renders the verb in the second command "Thou shall not bow down thyself," but in the little Book of the Covenant, " Thou shalt worship [no other god]." It seems probable, therefore, that this specification, as well as the reason, of the second command, belong to J. The reason appended to the third command reminds us of the phrase "will not hold [him] guiltless " of the theophanic words already referred to in connection with the reason of the previous command, where we find the same verb naqa/i, which is obscured by the Revised Version in its rendering " and that will by no means clear (the guilty]," which is a singularly bad translation in other respects (Exod. xxxiv. 7). This favors the opinion that this reason, like the previous one, was derived from J. The specifications of the fourth command are more dif- THE GENESIS OF THE TEN WORDS 135 ficult. They seem to combine material from E as well as J. J gives us two sabbath laws. One of these is in the little Book of the Covenant (Exod. xxxiv. 21): "Six days shalt thou labour, and on the seventh day thou shalt keep sabbath. In ploughing and reaping, thou shalt keep sabbath." Here great stress is laid upon abstinence from labor, even in the busiest seasons of the year. The first clause, " Six days shalt thou labour," is the same in both commands, although here again the Revised Version has made a difference by rendering the one " labour " and the other " work." Exodus xvi. gives an account of the sabbath in connection with the giving of the manna. Here the narratives of P and J are combined. In the parts belonging to J we find the following: " For to-day is a sabbath unto Yahweh : to-day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it : but on the seventh day is the sabbath. In it there shall be none. . . . See, for that Yahweh hath given you the sabbath. ... So the people rested on the seventh day " (Exod. xvi. 25-30). Here we notice the phrase " sabbath unto Yahweh," which recurs in the specification of the fourth command. It seems likely, therefore, that in these two phrases we have the version of J. But there remain some very striking features that cannot be found in J, and these we find in E. The greater Book of the Covenant gives the sabbath law of E thus : " Six days shalt thou do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt keep sabbath : that thine ox and thine ass may have rest, and the son of thy maid-servant and the stranger may be refreshed." We observe that this law lays stress upon the refreshment of the animal, servant, and stranger, rather than upon abrtinence from labor. This striking feature of the command, not found in J, is characteristic of E elsewhere also in his code of legislation. We have seen that the first clause, " Six days thou shalt labour," belongs to J. To this is now added the phrase, " and do all thy work." This resembles E in the verb, but differs in the noun. The command here uses a noun, meldkhah, which is peculiar to the style of P. We can ascribe this introduction of the word instead of the noun ma'ase/i of E, only to the process of assimilation that was later than any of the versions, and which strongly tended in the direction of Genesis ii. 2, 3. Hence, in the clause " thou shalt not do any work," the 186 APPENDIX same phrase is repeated, and then follow the specifications. E gives specifications of the ox and ass where the command uses " cattle," and son of thy maid-servant and stranger where the command gives " thy maid-servant and stranger." The command, however, adds "son and daughter and man-servant." It seems likely that these specifications all belong to E. There is one difficulty remaining. E gives us simply "the stranger " ; but the command, " thy stranger which is within thy gates." The phrase " within thy gates" is Deuteronomic. It seems likely that this has come into the text of Exodus by as- similation to the text of Deuteronomy at a late date, just as mdakhah above is an assimilation to Genesis ii. 2. This is favored by the Septuagint Version, which uses instead of it " among thee," as if it read a different Hebrew word. We should not be surprised at so many changes in the fourth command ; for it recurs so many times, and in so many different forms, in the several narratives and codes. The reason appended to the fifth word is also Deuteronomic (see Deut. iv. 40; vi. 2 , xi. 9). This must also be a late addi- tion to the version of Exodus by assimilation to the version of Deuteronomy. The specifications of the tenth command are like those of the fourth, and doubtless came from the same writer, E. We observe the ox and the ass and the maid-servant of E from Exodus xxiii. 12, and the man-servant of the fourth command. The wife is added here, for she could hardly be missing in any specifications here, whereas she would have been unsuitable in connection with the fourth command. Thus we have, for the most part, traced the origin of the rea- sons and specifications that have been added to the Ten Words. We have found that each of the four writings that constitute our Pentateuch has a share in the work, and that their work has enriched the commands and enlarged their interpretation in many ways. It would be a serious loss if we were deprived of any of them. The Divine voice gave the Ten Words with thunder tones from heaven, and the Divine finger wrote them upon the two tables; and then the Divine Spirit inspired the several writers of the Pentateuch, each in his own way, to illustrate and enforce them THE GENESIS OF THE TEN WORDS by specifications, reasons, and exhortations. In later times the prophets urged these Ten Words in other ways ; and at last our Saviour, in the Sermon on the Mount, took them up, removed from them the rubbish of rabbinical speculation, and set them in the bright sunlight of the gospel, showing that they are the eternal words of God for all ages and for all men, the guide of the tongue and the heart as well as the outward act and deport- ment ; and summing them all up in the one blessed word " love," love to God, and love to our neighbor.* * During the past two years I have made a thorough study of the develop- ment of Hebrew law. This has convinced me that the Deuteronomic redactor made many changes in Ex. xx. We may ascribe to him the specification of Word II., ''nor any form that is in heaven above or that is in the earth be- neath or tliat is in the water under the earth "; the motive is clear from Dt. v. 12-24 ; so also the clause, " nor led to serve them" the motive for which is in the enticements to idolatry, Deut. xiii. It is also probable that the divine name Yahweh was used in the original, and that Yahweh thy God is an as- similation of Rd (see p. 85). The most serious changes were made in Words IV. and V. Eight of the Words are of the characteristic type of Q^~Q1, the second pers. sing, of the verb. It is improbable that these two Words originally differed from the normal type. It is easy to find the original Word V., "Thou skalt not do any work on the seventh day" embedded in the com- mand. It is preceded by an admonition to "observe" and "remember" the one characteristic of D, the other of P. The corresponding laws of the Sabbath, Ex. xxiii. 12, xxxiv. 21 (J E) preserve the original type. The original form of Word V. may be determined from a comparative study of this law in other codes. In Ex. xxi. 17, Lv. xx. 9, the negative of 7?p is used. In the primitive decalogue, Dt. xxvii. 16 (see p. 239), the negative fppn. This is the an- tithesis to 133. The original Word was probably, " Thou shalt not set light by thy father and thy mother." The negative was changed to its antithetical positive by one of the Redactors. IV. THE PESTILENCE IN EGYPT. J. Ex. ix. I 7. "And Yahweh said unto Moses, Come unto Pharaoh and speak unto him. Thus saith Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, Let my people go that they may serve me. (i). For if thou refuse to let them go, and wilt hold them still (2). Behold the hand of Yahweh is going to be upon thy cattle, which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the herds, and upon the flocks, a very grievous murrain. (3). And Yahweh will sever between the cattle of Is- rael and the cattle of Egypt; and there shall nothing die of all that belongeth to the chil- dren of Israel. (4). And Yahweh set a time, saying, To-morrow Yahweh will do this thing in the land. (5). And Yahv h did this thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died ; but of the cattle of the children of Is- rael died not one. (6). And Pharaoh sent and behold not even one of the cattle of the Israelites had died. But the heart of Pharaoh was stubborn and he did not let the people go." (?) (188) P. Ex. ix. 8-12. " And Yahweh said unto Mo- ses and unto Aaron, Take to you handfuls of ashes of the furnace, and let Moses sprinkle it toward heaven in the sight of Pharaoh. (8). And it shall be- come small dust over all the land of Egypt, and shall be upon man and upon beast a boil break- ing forth with blains throughout all the land of Egypt. (9). And they took ashes of the furnace and stood before Pharaoh ; and Moses sprinkled it up toward heaven, and it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man and upon beast. (10). And the magicians were not able to stand before Moses because of the boils ; for the boils were upon the magicians and upon all the Egyptians, (n). And Yah- weh hardened the heart of Pha- raoh and he hearkened not unto them, as Yahweh had spoken unto Moses." (12). V. THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS IN THE OTHER CODES. THE book which Moses was commanded to write as the basis of the Covenant according to J (Ex. xxxiv. 27), is called the little book of the Covenant, to distinguish it from the book which Moses wrote according to E as the basis of the Covenant at Horeb (Ex. xxiv. 4) which is called the greater book of the Covenant. This little book of the Covenant is scarcely larger than the tables of the Covenant (Ex. xx. 1-17). Indeed it is now the opinion of many critics that we have here another decalogue. It is true the critics differ in their arrangement of these commands, but as there have always been differences in the synagogue and the church as to the arrangement of the " Ten Commandments of the Tables," such differences of opinion as to the arrangement of this deca- logue cannot destroy the consensus as to their number in either case. There are some critics who hold that this decalogue was written upon the Tables (Ex. xxxiv. 28), on account of "the words of the covenant," which seem to go back upon " write thou these words, for upon the basis of these words do I conclude a covenant with thee and with Israel " (v. 27) ; and also on account of the verb onD'l which has no subject expressed and where the most natural interpretation finds the subject in Moses, the sub- ject of the verbs which immediately precede. If the section Ex. xxxiv. 1 1-28 stood by itself we could not escape this conclusion ; but if we go back to Ex. xxxiv. i we find the promise that Yah- weh will write upon these tables the same commands that were upon the former tables destroyed by Moses, and these were certainly the ten words of Ex. xx. 2-17. This certainly was the opinion of the Redactor. We shall take the decalogue of J as a basis for our comparison : We shall compare these laws of J and E with corresponding laws in the Deuteronomic code (D), the code of Holiness (H), and the Priests' code (P). We shall also bring into comparison the Ten Words of the Tables. There are two versions of these, the one in Ex. xx. (T a), the other in Deuteronomy v. (T b). The version in Ex. xx. embraces material from P, and, accord- ingly, has embedded in it the Tables of E and J. The Tables in D are called " Tables of the Covenant," Deut. ix. 9 ; in P (189) J90 APPENDIX. "Tables of the testimony," Ex. xxxi. iSa ; in E "Tables of stone," Ex. xxxi. i8<; in J "Tables of stones," Ex. xxxiv. i, 4. /. Command. J. " Surely thou shall not worship another God"" (Ex. xxxiv. 14 a) E " Ye shall not make with me gods of silver " (Ex. xx. 23 a). T. " Thou shall have no other gods before me " (Ex. xx. 3). D. " If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet say- ing, Let us go after other gods .... and let us serve, them, thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet " (Dt. xiii. 2). H. " Turn ye not unto worthless gods " (Lev. xix. 4). This is the same command in five different codes (a) " other gods" (Tand D), = "another god " (J), = "gods of silver" (E), = " worthless gods " (H) ; (b) " have " (T), = " go after and serve " (D), = "make" 'E), = "turn unto"(H), = "worship" (J); (c) " with me " (E), " before me " (T). //. Command. J. " Mo 'ten gods thou shalt not make thee" (Ex. xxxiv. 17). E. " And gods of gold ye shall not make you " (Ex. xx. 23 b). T. " Thou shalt not make thee any graven image" (Ex. xx. 4). H. " Molten gods ye shall not make you " (Lev. xix. 4). D. " Cursed be the man that maketh a graven or molten image " (Dt xxvii. 15). " Molten gods " (J and H), = " gods of gold " (E), = "graven image " (T), = " graven or molten image " (D). It is probable that the reasons attached to these commands were not original. In J the reasons are appended to the first command. " For Yahweh, his name is jealous. The jealous God is He. (Take heed) lest thou conclude a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they go whoring after their gods and sacrifice unto their gods, they invite thee and thou eat of their peace offerings, and then take some of their daughters for thy sons, and when their daughters go whoring after their gods they make thy sons go whoring after their gods " (Ex. xxxiv. 14 , 16). These verses simply unfold the meaning of N3p. As Yahweh is the husband of Israel he demands the exclusive allegiance of his people. Any worship of other gods is as the neglect of her THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 191 husband by a wife and her going after other lovers. Any par- ticipation in the sacrificial meals of these gods is committing whoredom with them. In both versions of the Tables a corre- sponding reason is appended to the second command. " ( nor T a) any form that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth ; thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor be led to serve them : for I Yahweh thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children (and T b) upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me ; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my command- ments " (Ex. xx. 4-6 ; Dt. v. 8-10). (a). This enlargement of the command has its parallel in Dt. iv. 15-19. " Take ye, therefore, good heed unto yourselves ; for ye saw no manner of form on the day that Yahweh spake unto you in Ho- reb out of the midst of the fire : lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the heaven, the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness ofany fish that is in the water under the earth : and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars, even all the host of heaven, thou be drawn away and worship them and serve them." It is evident that this is an expansion by D of the lesser specifi- cation given in connection with the Tables. The specification is partly earlier than D, and partly derived from D. (See p. 187.) (b). The first part of the reason of the ad command of the Ta- bles is the same essentially as the first part of the reason of the decalogue of J. J. " For Yahweh, his name is jealous. The jealous God is He " (Ex. xxxiv. 14 b~). T. " For I, Yahweh, thy God, am a jealous God " (Ex. xx. 5). This we may also compare with D. " For Yahweh, thy God, is a consuming fire, a jealous God " (Dt. iv. 24). (c). The second part of the reason of the 2d command of the decalogue of the Tables we find in essentially the same form in the revelation of the divine grace by the theophanic voice, " Yah- 192 APPENDIX weh, Yahweh, a God full of compassion and gracious, slow to an- ger, and plenteous in mercy and faithfulness : keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin : and that will by no means acquit ; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation " (Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7). This passage certainly belongs to J. It is probable, therefore, that the whole of the specification and reasons appended to the 2d command of the Tables belongs to the document J. (a). The larger portion of the reason attached to the first com- mand of the decalogue of worship in J is not found in T. We find this prohibition of making a covenant with the Canaanites in D. " Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them : neither shalt thou make marriages with them ; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods ; so will the anger of Jahveh be kindled against you, and he will destroy thee quick- ly " (Dt. vii. 2-4). The conception of " whoring after other gods " is found in the Hexateuch elsewhere in Deut. xxxi. 16 (J) ; Lev. xvii. 7 ; xx. 5-6 (H), and Num. xiv. 33 (J ?) ; xv. 39 (P). There seems to be little doubt that this conception also is original to J. ///. Command. J. Six days shalt thou labor, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest (Ex. xxxiv. 21). E. Six days shalt thou do thy work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest (Ex. xxiii. 12). T a. Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it (Ex. xx. 8). T b. Observe the Sabbath day to sanctify //(Dt. v. 12). H. Ye shall observe my Sabbaths (Lev. xix. 3, 30; xxvi. 2). P. Verily ye shall observe my Sabbaths (Ex. xxxi. 13). In the decalogue of J the feast of unleavened bread precedes the Sabbath, but in the parallel passage in E, and in the cata- logues of holy days in P, the Sabbath comes first. The reason for this strange transposition it is difficult to see. J mentions the six days as days in which to "labor" "do THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. thy work" (E). The seventh -day is for "rest," nitt? (J E). In the Tables " the seventh day " gives place to " the Sabbath," n3K>. This is to be " sanctified," KHp. It is to be ' ; remembered " (T a) ; but observed (T b, H, P). The Sabbath becomes Sab- baths in H, P. J gives an additional specification. "In ploughing and reaping thou shalt rest" (Ex. xxxiv. 21), that is, in the busiest seasons of the year, when the temptation to labor would be strongest. The Tables also give specifications. T a. " Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work ; but the seventh day is a Sabbath unto Jahveh thy God : thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates" (Ex. xx. 9, 10). T b. " As Jahveh thy God commanded thee, Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath unto Jahveh thy God : thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stran- ger that is within thy gates " (Dt. v. 12-14). The Priest code contains two sets of specifications from differ- ent sources. P a. " Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore ; for it is holy unto you : every one that profaneth it shall be put to a violent death : for whosoever doth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done ; but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to Jahveh : whosoever doeth any work on the Sabbath day, he shall be put to a violent death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations for an everlasting cove- nant" (Ex. xxxi. 14-16). Compare also in the catalogue of D'lyiE of P. P b. "Six days shall work be done: but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, an holy convocation ; ye [94 APPENDIX. shall do no manner of work : it is a sabbath unto Jah- veh in all your dwellings " (Lev. xxiii. 3). Compare also the catalogue of ritual offerings, Num. xxviii. 9-10, where the offerings for the Sabbath are presented. The specifications are two-fold : (a) as to the method of ob- serving the day, and () as to those who are to observe it. (a). The first object is abstinence from labor, DDsta T a and b. This takes the place of ^pE'yo ntryn of E. The second object is rest To this fundamental conception contained in the ri3B> of J we have the rw\ rest, pas', take breath, of E. The third object in view, religious observance, is peculiar to P in his phrases prut? n3E> ,rOfc? ilPJ? and np topo. (6). Those who are to observe it are in J " thou," in E ox and ass, the son of the maidservant, and stranger ; in T a, son, daugh- ter, manservant, maidservant, cattle, and stranger; T b, ox and ass are added to those of T a ; in P, it is every soul, or person, un- der penalty of a violent death. (f). The reasons of the command are still more varied than the specifications. There are none in J. E. "that thine ox and thine ass may rest and that the son of thy maidservant and the stranger may take breath " (Ex. xxiii. 12). T b. " in order that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and Jahveh thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm ; therefore Jahveh thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day " (Dt. v. 14-15). T a. " For in six days Jahveh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day ; where- fore Jahveh blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it " (Ex. XX. II). P. " For it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations : that ye may know that I am Jahveh which sanc- tify you it is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever : for in six days Jahveh made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed " (Ex. xxxi. 13. 17.) It is evident that the reason given in T b is only a Deutero- nomic enlargement of E fortified by the reference to the deliver- THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. ance from Egypt which is the Deuteronomic underlying motive of gratitude to keep all the commands. This reason is omitted in T a, and was without doubt absent from the Tables as given in the Versions of J and E. It is not difficult to trace the origin of the reason given in T a. We find it essentially in the appendix to the Poem of the Creation : " And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it ; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made " (Gen. ii. 2-3). It is a characteristic of the priestly document. It is also characteristic of P that he represents the Sabbath as a sign of the covenant, just as he has given the sign of the Abra- hamic covenant, circumcision (Gen. xvii.), and the sign of the covenant with Noah, the rainbow (Gen. ix. 13 seg.), these three signs being peculiar to his document. The three commands thus far given have their parallels in the Tables ; the seven now to be considered have nothing to corre- spond with them in the Tables. IV. Command. ]. The feast of unleavened bread thou ' shalt observe (Ex. xxxiv. i8#). E. The feast of unleavened broad thou shalt observe (Ex. xxiii. i$a). D. Observe the month Abib and keep Passover to Jahveh thy God(D\.. xvi. i). P. In the first month on the fourteenth day of the month, be- tween the evenings, is passover to Jahveh, And on the fifteenth day of this month is the feast of unleavened bread to Jahveh (Lev. xxiii. 5-6). In the ritual of the holy days, Num. xxviii. 16-17, (P ), we have a section identical with Lev. xxiii. 5-6, save that " Mazzoth to Jah- veh " has fallen out after "feast," probably by an ancient copy- ist's mistake, and " between the evenings " is omitted. H prob- ably had a similar brief law, but it was left off when his law was appended to P in Lev. xxiii. The comparison of these parallel laws in the four codes shows that the feast of unleavened bread was the great feast of J E. There is no reference to the Passover in E. In J it is mentioned in his 8th command. Passover has !90 APPENDIX. become a proper name in D and has risen above the feast of un- leavened bread. So also in P, the Passover comes first in im- portance. The simple command for the observance of the feast of unleavened bread is enlarged in all the laws. In D and P it is appended to the Passover. We shall reserve the Passover for dis- cussion under the 8th Command of J and limit ourselves here to the feast of unleavened bread. J. "Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread according as I have commanded thee, at the season of the month Abib. For in the month Abib thou didst go out from Egypt " (Ex. xxxiv. 1 8). E. " Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread according as I have commanded thee, at the season of the month Abib. For in it thou didst go forth from Egypt " (Ex. xxiii. 15). D. "Seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction ; for thou earnest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste : that thou mayest remem- ber the day when thou earnest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life. And there shall be no leaven seen with thee in all thy borders seven days. .... Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread : and on the seventh day shall be a Azereth to Jahveh thy God ; thou shalt do no work " (Dt. xvi. 3-4, 8). P (a). " Seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation : ye shall do no servile work. But ye shall offer an offering made by fire to Jahveh seven days: on the seventh day is an holy convocation ; ye shall do no servile work " (Lev. xxiii. 6-8). (&), " Seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten. In the first day shall be an holy convocation ; ye shall do no servile work ; but ye shall offer an offering made by fire, etc." (Num. xxviii. 17-25). The month Abib is the time of J E D, but P in accordance with his usage mentions the number of the month. The simple rule of J E as regards eating unleavened bread, in D is paraphrased and intensified, and the last day is made into a special day called mvy. THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. In P the feast opens and concludes with great Sabbaths of holy convocation, and an elaborate scheme of sacrifices was prepared. Attached to the feast of unleavened bread in J is the law of firstlings. J. "All firstlings of the womb are mine, and all male cattle, the firstlings of the ox and sheep. And the firstlings of the ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep. And if thou canst not redeem it thou shalt break its neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem " (Ex. xxxiv. 19-20). E. " The firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give me. So shalt thou do to thy oxen, to thy sheep ; seven days shall it be with its mother, on the eighth day thou shalt give it to me " (Ex. xxii. 28-29). D. " All the firstling males that are born of thy herd and of thy flock thou shalt sanctify unto Jahveh thy God : thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thine ox, nor shear the firstling of thy flock. Thou shalt eat it before Jah- vah thy God year by year in the place which Jahveh shall choose, thou and thy household. And if it have any blemish (as if it be), lame or blind, any ill blemish whatsoever, thou shalt not sacrifice it unto Jahveh thy God. Thou shalt eat it within thy gates : the unclean and the clean (shall eat it} alike, as the gazelle, and as the hart " (Dt. xv. 19-22). H. " Only the firstling among beasts, which is made a firstling to Jahveh, no man shall sanctify it ; whether it be ox or sheep. It is Jahveh's. And if it be an unclean beast, then he shall ransom it according to thine estimation, and shall add unto it the fifth part thereof : or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thine estimation " (Lev. xxvii. 26-27). P. " Every thing that openeth the womb, of all flesh which they offer unto Jahveh, both of man and beast, shall be thine : nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou re- deem. And those that are to be redeemed of them from a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thine esti- mation, for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary (the same is twenty gerahs). But 198 APPENDIX. the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem : they are holy : thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire for a sweet sa- vour unto Jahveh. And the flesh of them shall be thine " (e. g. the priests), (Num. xviii. 15-18). The law of the firstborn is associated with the feast of unleav- ened bread in the narrative of J, and there is a remarkable verbal correspondence between the law of J and the narrative of J. In the narrative we find the following: " Thou shalt cause to pass over to Jahveh all that openeth the womb, and every firstling which thou hast that cometh of a beast : the males shall be Jahveh's. And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep ; and if thou canst not re- deem it thou shalt break its neck : and all the firstborn of man among thy sons shalt thou redeem " (Ex. xiii. 12-13). The law of E is not in the decalogue of worship, but in a pen- tade (Ex. xxii. 28). In D nothing is said of redemption. Only the animals without blemish could go to the sacrifice. The others could be eaten at home. The firstborn suitable for sacrifice were to be eaten in the communion meal of the peace-offering in the central sanctuary of D. In H the beasts were to be ransomed ac- cording to an estimation and a fifth part added to their value. In P the firstborn of men and unclean beasts were to be redeemed. The "lit? is common to the five codes ; but there is a differ- ence between the codes as to the terms for the animals of the flock. J and H agree in giving ntf, a term compre- hending sheep and goat. E and D use JNV, sheep. P uses the two words 3KO, sheep, and ry, goat. The estimation of the re- demption price was five shekels of the sanctuary. The firstlings unredeemed went to the priests as well as the redemption money of the redeemed. The stages of legal development are clearly marked in these successive codes. Attached to the law of the feast of the unleavened bread in J is the command. J. " And thou shalt not appear in my presence empty " (Ex. xxxiv. 20). E. " And they shall not appear in my presence empty" (Ex. xxiii. 15). THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 199 D. " And they shall not appear before Jahveh empty " (Dt. xvi. 1 6). In J E this is attached to the feast of unleavened bread. In D it is extended to the three great feasts, and the command is enlarged, " every man according to the gift of his hand, accord- ing to the blessing of Jahveh thy God which he hath given thee " (Dt. xvi. 17). In H and P these become prescribed offerings of an elaborate ritual (Lev. xxiii.; Num. xxviii., xxix.). V. Command. J. " And the feast of weeks thdu shalt keep at the first fruits of the wheat harvest" (Ex. xxxiv. 2-2.0). E. " And the feast of harvest (thou shalt observe) the first fruits of thy work which thou shalt sow in the field " (Ex. xxiii. 16). D. " Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee : from the time thou beginnest to put the sickle to the standing grain shalt thou begin to number seven weeks. And thou shalt keep the feast of -weeks unto Jahveh thy God with a tribute of a freewill offering of thine hand, which thou shalt give, according as Jahveh thy God blesseth thee : and thou shalt rejoice before Jahveh thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manser- vant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are in the midst of thee, in the place which Jahveh thy God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt ; and thou shalt observe and do these statutes" (Dt. xvi. 9-12). H. " And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering ; seven sabbaths shall there be complete : even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days ; and ye shall offer a new minchah unto 'Jahveh. Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth parts (of an ephah) : they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baken with leaven, for first fruits unto Jahveh. And ye shall pre- sent with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the 200 APPENDIX. first year, and one young bullock, and two rams : they shall be a burnt offering unto Jahveh, with their minchah and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour, unto Jahveh. And ye shall offer one he-goat for a sin-offering, and two he-lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings. And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first-fruits for a wave offering before Jahveh, with the two lambs : they shall be holy to Jahveh for the priest. And ye shall make proclamation on the self-same day ; there shall be an holy convocation unto you : ye shall do no servile work : it is a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations " (Lev. xxiii. 15-21). P. "Also in the day of the first-fruits, when ye offer a new minchah unto ^ahveh in your weeks, ye shall have an holy convocation ; ye shall do no servile work, but ye shall offer a burnt offering for a sweet savour unto Jah- veh ; two young bullocks, one ram, seven he-lambs of the first year; and their minchah, fine flour mingled with oil, three tenth parts for each bullock, two tenth parts for the one ram, a several tenth part for every lamb of the seven lambs ; one he-goat, to make atone- ment for you. Beside the continual burnt offering, and the minchah thereof, ye shall offer them (they shall be unto you without blemish), and their drink offerings" (Num. xxviii. 26-31). The name of this feast in J and D is feast of weeks, in E the feast of harvest, in P the day of the first-fruits. The time of ob- servance of J is at the first-fruits of the wheat harvest. E is more general the first-fruits of thy sowing. D counts seven weeks from the time of the first putting the sickle to the stand- ing grain. H counts seven Sabbaths from the day of the 'omer offering, on the morrow after the Sabbath of the feast of un- leavened bread. According to D it was a joyful family feast, in which freewill offerings were offered at the central sanctuary. According to H, it was the time for the offering of the two fresh loaves of the new harvest, prior to which no portion of the har- vest could be eaten by the people. It was also a great Sabbath with a ritual sin offering and peace offerings, burnt offerings and minchoth. P gives explicit directions as to these offerings. THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. VI. Command. 201 J. " And the feast of the ingathering (thou shalt observe) at the circuit of the year " (Ex. xxxiv. 228). E. " And the feast of the ingathering (thou shalt observe) in the going forth of the year when thou gatherest in thy work from the field " (Ex. xxiii. i6). D. " Thou shalt keep the feast of booths seven days, after that thou hast gathered in from thy threshing-floor and from thy winepress : and thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manser- vant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within thy gates. Seven days shalt thou keep a feast unto Jahveh thy God in the place which Jahveh shall choose : because Jahveh thy God shall bless thee in all thine increase, and in all the work of thine hands, and thou shalt be altogether joyful " (Dt. xvi. 13-15). H. " And ye shall take you on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook ; and ye shall rejoice before Jahveh your God seven days. And ye shall keep it a feast unto Jahveh seven days in the year : it is a statute forever in your generations: ye shall keep it in the seventh month. Ye shall dwell in booths seven days ; all that are homeborn in Israel shall dwell in booths : that your generations may know that I made the chil- dren of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt : I am Jahveh your God " (Lev. xxiii. 40-44). P (a). " Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, On the fif- teenth day of this seventh month is the feast of booths for seven days unto "Jahveh. On the first day shall be an holy convocation : ye shall do no servile work. Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto Jah- veh : on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you, and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto Jahveh : it is a closing festival ; ye shall do no servile work " (Lev. xxiii. 34-36). (&). " And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month ye shall APPENDIX. have an holy convocation ; ye shall do no servile work, and ye shall keep a feast unto Jahveh seven days : and ye shall offer a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto Jahveh ; thirteen young bul- locks, two rams, fourteen he-lambs of the first year; they shall be without blemish : and their minchah, fine flour mingled with oil, three tenth parts for every bullock of the thirteen bullocks, two tenth parts for each ram of the two rams, and a several tenth part for every lamb of the fourteen lambs : and one he-goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, the minchah thereof, and the drink offering thereof. And on the second day (ye shall offer) twelve young bul- locks, two rams, fourteen he-lambs of the first year without blemish : and their minchah and their drink offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordinance: and one he-goat for a sin offering ; beside the continual burnt offering, and the minchah thereof, and their drink offerings " .... (Each of the intervening days has its ritual). " On the eighth day ye shall have a closing festival : ye shall do no servile work : but ye shall offer a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord : one bullock, one ram, seven he-lambs of the first year without blemish : their minchah and their drink offerings for the bullock, for the ram, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the ordinance: and one he-goat for a sin offering; beside the continual burnt offering, and the minchah thereof, and the drink offering thereof" (Num. xxix. 12-19, 35-38). The third annual feast is called "the feast of the ingathering" in J E feast of booths HDD in D and P, observed by dwelling in booths in H. The time in J is "at the circuit of the year," rum nDlpn in the going forth of the year njpn HNV3 E. In E the additional statement is made, " when thou gather- est in thy work from the field," "after thou hast gathered in from thy threshing floor and from thy winepress," D. H puts the feast in the seventh month, and P on the fifteenth day of the THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 203 seventh month. From J E we would suppose the feast was for a single day. But D H P mention seven days of observance. P mentions an mvy on the eighth day, the seventh great Sab- bath of the year. In D it is a joyful harvest feast at the central sanctuary. In H it is a celebration of their dwelling in booths when they came forth from Egypt. In P it is a feast in which the ritual prescribes a greater amount of whole burnt offerings expressing worship than at any other feast. It is the culmina- tion of the worship of the year. Appended to this command in J is the command, " Three times in the year shall all thy males appear before the Lord Jah- veh, the God of Israel. For I will dispossess nations from thy presence, and I will make thy boundary broad in order that no one may desire thy land when thou goest up to appear before Jahveh thy God three times in the year " (Ex. xxxiv. 23, 24). In the other codes we find similar prescriptions : E a. " Three times shalt thou keep feast to me in the year " (Ex. xxiii. 14). E b. " Three times in the year shall all thy males appear before the Lord Jahveh "(Ex. xxiii. 17). D. " Three times in the year shall all thy males appear before Jahveh thy God in the place which he shall choose " (Dt. xvi. 16). Instead of the three times of J E D, we have the three harvest feasts of H, the offering of the first ripe sheaf, the offering of the first loaves of the harvest, and the dwelling in booths after all the harvests had been gathered in (Lev. xxiii.). P gives the rit- ual of the seven great Sabbaths of the year in Num. xxviii.-xxix. D appends his law of the one central sanctuary as is usual with him. E gives the command as an introduction to the three feasts as well as a conclusion. But these differ in language to such an extent that one of them must have been taken from an- other source. It seems probable that E b, as less original, is a later addition. E a uses D^TI for D'OVS in E b. J D ; and Jjn for " appear before " of E b. J D. E b uses i?x for nN of J and D. The encouragement of J is peculiar to him. VII. Command. J. " Thou shalt not offer the blood of my zebach with leavened bread" (Ex. xxxiv. 25 a). 204 APPENDIX. E. " Thou shalt not offer the blood of my zetach with leavened bread" (Ex. xxiii. 18 a), P a. " He shall bring with the zcbach of the t hank-off ?r ing per- forated cakes, unleavened, mingled with oil and wafers unleavened, anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, soaked. With perforated cakes of leavened bread he may offer his oblation with the ze- bach of his peace offering for thank-offering " (Lev. vii. 12, 13). P b. " No mine hah which ye bring to Jahveh shall be offered leavened" (Lev. ii. li). J E and P b use pon, leavened. P a uses rflVO, unleavened, as well as |Dn. J uses for offer BCIt? = H2T E = ynpn P a, b. ] E use PQT = D'O^n rQT Pa. P allows the use of leavened bread in the case specified to be eaten at the common meal of the peace- offering, and H mentions the offering of the two leavened loaves at the harvest feast (Lev. xxiii. 17). VIII. Command. J. " And the zebach of the feast of the Passover shall not be left unto the morning " (Ex. xxxiv. 25 b). E. " And the fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning" (Ex. xxiii. 18 b). D. " And thou shalt sacrifice the passover unto Jahveh thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which Jahveh shall choose to cause his name to dwell there." .... " Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning. Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which Jahveh thy God giveth thee : but at the place which Jahveh thy God shall choose to cause his name to dwell in, there thou shait sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou earnest forth out of Egypt. And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which Jah- veh thy God shall choose " (Deut. xvi. 2, 4 b 7).* *It u improbable that this Word in its original form departed from the type of second singular. The original reading was probably THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 2Q5 P (a). " They shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break a bone thereof: according to all the statute of the passover, they shall keep it" (Num. ix. 12). P(). "And in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, is Jahveh's passover" (Num. xxviii. 16). The fuller law of the passover is given in connection with the mingled history of J and P in Ex. xii. P. " Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth (day) of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for an household : and if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbor next unto his house take one according to the number of the souls ; according to every man's eating, ye shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year : ye shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats : and ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at even. And they shall take of the blood, and put it on the two side posts and on the lintel, upon the houses wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleav- ened bread ; with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat not of it r?w, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire ; its head with its legs and with the inwards there- of. And ye shall let nothing of it remain unlilthe morn- ing ; but that which remaineth of it until the morn- ing, ye shall burn with fire. And thus shall ye eat it ; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand : and ye shall eat it in haste : it is jahveh's passover." .... " And Jahveh said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover : there shall no alien eat thereof : but every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A sojourner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. In one house shall it be eaten ; thou shalt not carry forth aught of the flesh abroad out of the house ; nei- 20$ APPENDIX. ther shall ye break a bone thereof " (Ex. xii. 3-1 1 ; 43-46). J. "Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out, and take you lambs according to your families, and kill the passover. And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strilce the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the basin ; and none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning. For Jahveh will pass through to smite the Egyptians ; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, Jahveh will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you. And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever. And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which Jahveh will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service ? that ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of Jahveh's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses" (Ex. xii. 21-27). The passover feast of the eighth command of J, which is here incidentally referred to under the offering peculiar to the feast, is more fully mentioned in the narrative of J. The passover sacrifice is indeed a special kind of the zebach, or peace-offering, nODH Jn ri3T = HDD mT of Ex. xii. 27. E gives the command a more general reference to all the feasts. D uses the phrase "sacrifice the passover," riDDH rOT = riDDH Qnv of J. In the narrative of J the victim is JKV, a lamb; in P, a Pit?, embracing C3D, lamb, and Ty, kid. There is no specification in the codes of E and J. In J the zebach shall not be left until the morning, npa^ fa *b = ipa iy fa t6 of E = -ip^-iean p fa j6 of D = np3 ny Wmn *6 of P (narrative) = tp3 ny WKl'" N^J of P a. D emphasizes the celebration of the feast at the central sanc- tuary. Pa gives the additional rule, " nor break a bone thereof," both in his code and in his narrative. If we had space we could point to a large number of features which distinguish the docu- THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 207 ments here and elsewhere, as illustrated by these extensive pas- sages. Any one of our readers may do it for himself. IX. Command. J. " The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring to the house of Jahveh thy God" (Ex. xxxiv. 26 a). E. " The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring to the house of Jahveh thy God" (Ex. xxiii. 19). D. " That thou shalt take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which thou shalt bring in from thy land that Jahveh thy God giveth thee ; and thou shalt put it in a basket, and shalt go unto the place which Jahveh thy God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there. And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days, and say unto him, I profess this day unto Jahveh thy God, that I am come unto the land which Jahveh sware unco our fathers for to give us. And the priest shall take the basket out of thine hand, and set it down before the altar of Jahveh thy God. And thou shalt answer and say before Jahveh thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt and sojourned there, few in number ; and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and popu- lous : and the Egyptians evil entreated us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage : and we cried unto Jahveh the God of our fathers, and Jahveh heard our voice and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our op- pression : and Jahveh brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders : and he hath brought us into this place, and hath given us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. And now, behold, I have brought the first of the fruit of the ground, which thou, Jahveh, hast given me. And thou shalt set it down before Jahveh thy God, and worship before Jahveh thy God : and thou shalt re- joice in all the good which Jahveh thy God hath given unto thee, and unto thine house, thou, and the Levite, and the stranger that is in the midst of thee " (Deut. xxvi. 2-1 1). 208 APPENDIX. H. "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest : and he shall wave (he sheaf before Jjhveh to be accepted for you : on the morrow after the sab- bath the priest shall wave it. And in the day when ye wave the sheaf, ye shall offer a he-lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto Jahveh. And the minchah thereof shall be two tenth parts (of an epha/i) of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto Jahveh for a sweet savour: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an bin. And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this self-same day, until ye have brought the oblation of your God. It is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwell- ings " (Lev. xxiii. 10-14). P. " All the best of the oil, and all the best of the vintage, and of the corn, the first-fruits of them which they give unto Jahveh, to thee have I given them. The first ripe fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring unto Jahveh, shall be thine ; every one that is clean in thy house shall eat thereof " (Num. xviii. 12-13). The phrase of J E is -|riD"IK ^133 JVtl'jn = rrcriNn na ^3 jvtrao of D = D3vvp rvE'io of H = DJVE'Ni p-n pwn :6n ^31 imr 3^n b of p. The house of Jahveh seems to imply a temple. It may have been a change by insertion from an original command to bring the first fruits to Jahveh. In D it is brought to the priest of Jahveh. In H it is the offering of the first ripe sheaf. In P it is generalized so as to include oil and wine and grain, and these are to be given to the priests for food. X. Command. J. " Thou shall not seethe a kid (which is still) with its mother's milk " (Ex. xxxiv. 266). E. " Thou shalt not seethe a kid (which is still) with its mother's milk " {Ex.. xxiii. 19). THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 209 D. " Thou shall not seethe a kid (which is still) with its mother's milk" (Dt. xiv. 21). This command is identical in these three codes. It is not clear in itself, and probably remained as an enigma after the law and usage had changed. The older Protestant interpreters. Luther, Calvin, Piscator, et al., thought of a limitation of the age of the animal for purposes of sacrifice. This is most suited to the context, for we have had three laws of offerings prior to it. But the Rabbinical interpretation that it is a dietary law against eating a kid in the milk of its mother has been followed by most moderns. The Deuteronomic code (xiv. 21) is thought to favor the latter view from the fact that it is there preceded by the command not to eat anything that dies of itself. But on the other hand, it is followed by the laws of tithes and first-fruits, and it may rather go with these laws there, as it is associated with the law of first-fruits here. We do not hesitate to follow the former interpretation and class this law with the three preceding ones as laws of offerings. 7EJQ is used for cooking the portions of the animal victim that were eaten by the offerers in the communion meal of the PQT (Ex. xxix. 31). This then would forbid the sacri- fice of suckling animals. It is true that in the larger book of the Covenant (Ex. xxii. 29) first born of animals were to be given to Jahveh on the eighth day, notwithstanding the law in Ex. xxiii. 19, corresponding exactly with ours. It is also true that in Lev. xxii. 27, we have the more explicit statement, " From the eighth day and upward it shall be accepted for a qorban an offering by fire unto Jahveh," but notwithstanding the consensus of Rabbin- ical interpretation we are not sure that this amounts to any more than that as the male child was circumcised on the eighth day, so the animal on the eighth day was taken from its mother to the divine presence. It may then have been kept in the flocks and herds of the altar for subsequent use at the proper age. In- deed the "and upward," favors our view. But even if the ordi- nary view is taken as to the age of animals suitable for offerings, we have still to bear in mind that the various codes differ not in- frequently in their prescriptions. The offerings are generally of animals a year old or more, in the specifiations of age that are not infrequently made. We have gone over this decalogue of worship given in the nar- rative of J, and have compared its ten laws with similar laws in 210 APPENDIX. the other codes. We have found that the same fundamental commands underlie the several forms in which they appear in the different codes. These fundamental commands we may re- gard as Mosaic; but how is it possible to explain the variations in the codes on the traditional theory that all these variations were given by Moses to the same people before their entrance into the Holy Land, and ere it was possible to fulfil any of them in action ? They appear in the codes in several stages of devel- opment representing different stages of codification, as changes were rendered necessary in the experience of God's people in the Holy Land. If any one can propose any more reasonable ex- planation, or one more in accord with the traditional theory that will take the facts of the case into account, we shall gladly follow him. VI. THE GREATER BOOK OF THE COVENANT AND ITS PARALLELS IN THE LATER CODES. THE book of the Covenant, upon which the Covenant at Horeb was based, Ex. xxiv. 7, contained Words of Yahweh only, Ex. xxiv. 3<5-4. The redactor added " Judgments " in the clause, "all the Words of Yahweh and all the judgments," xxiv. 3 NV, thus : . : T . : i |- " If thy brother, a Hebrew man or woman be sold unto thee, he shall serve thee six years and in the seventh year thou shalt dismiss him free from thee ; and when thou dismissest him free from thee thou shalt not dismiss him empty." (5). The Deuteronomic code, vs. 16-17, gives : " And it shall come to pass if he say unto thee : I will not go out from thee. I love thee and thy house, because it is good for me to be with thee, then thou shalt take the awl and put it in his ear and in the door, and he shall become thy slave for- ever. So also shalt thou do to thy female slave." D^n^NH is the divine name usual in the second Elohist. JfiTl is only here in the verbal form, the noun JfiTiO only here and Deut. xv. 17, both of them archaic terms. The Deu- teronomic code embraces male and female slaves under the same laws. Here only the male slave is contemplated. The law of P is given in Lev. xxv. 39-46 : 216 APPENDIX "And if thy brother be waxen poor with thee, and sell himself unto thee ; thou shalt not make him to serve as a bondservant. As an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee ; he shall serve with thee unto the year of jubile : then shall he go out from thee, he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt : they shall not be sold as bondmen. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour ; but shalt fear thy God. And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have ; of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land ; and they shall be your possession. And ye shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession ; of them shall ye take your bondmen forever: but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigour." In the Priests' Code (i) the verb naoj is used as in D, and the year of jubile takes the place of the seventh year. The Hebrew slave was to be treated as a hired servant and a so- journer. (4). He and his children "shall go out from thee." Opyo NV) (5). There is a distinction between the Hebrew slave and the foreign slave : the latter could be enslaved forever, but not the Hebrew slave. This seems to reverse the law in E and D in this respect. III. Pcntade of Hebrew Slave Concubines (xxi. 7-11). (i). If a man shall sell his daughter fora slave woman she shall not go forth as the slaves go forth. (2). If she be displeasing to her lord who has appointed her for himself, he shall let her be redeemed. To a foreign people he shall not have the power to sell her when he has acted treacheously with her. (3). But if for his son he appointed her, according to the rights of daughters he shall do for her. (4). If another he take to himself, her (provision of) flesh, her clothing and cohabiting with her he shall not withhold. THE GREATER BOOK OF THE COVENANT 21 V (5). And if these three things he will not do to her she shall go forth without price, without silver. This series gives us not laws for dealing with a female slave who according to Deut. xv. 17, was to be treated exactly as a male slave ; but for female slaves who were rather concubines. There are no parallels to this Pentade in the other codes. 2. TJa is used especially for treacherous dealing between the sexes, but only here in the Hexateuch. 4. "IK> = flesh that is the meat of animals as the chief provision of her support. It is only here and Ps. Ixxviii. 20, 27, in this sense. It is used in Lev. xviii., xxi. 2, (H), xxv. 49, Num. xxvii. n, (P), of near relatives. niD3 is also archaic, found again xxii. 26, of our code and in Job. It is found else- where only in the brief law, Deut. xxii. 12, respecting the fringes, and in the narrative of the Ephraimitic writer, Gen. xx. 1 6, and Isaiah iv. 3. DJJ? is only found here from py = dwell, meaning cohabitation. This was her right, as well as food and clothing, and these things could not be withheld from her. IV. Statutes of Acts of Violence (xxi. 12- 1 6). (i). Whoso smiteth a man and he die, shall be put to a violent death. But as for the one who hath not hunted after him, but God hath caused him to fall into his hands I will appoint thee a place whither he may flee. But if a man act passionately against his neighbour, to slay him by craft, from my altar thou shalttake him to die. (2). Whoso smiteth his father or his mother shall be put to a violent death. (3). Whoso stealeth a man and selleth him, or he be found in his possession, he shall be put to a violent death. (4). Whoso curseth his father or his mother shall be put to a violent death. i. This law is found in the priests' code in the form : " A man when he smiteth any human person shall be put to a violent death." Lev. xxiv. 17. D^K J?QJ is used instead of E"N. In Deut. xix. 4, it is in the form injrrntf rG" 1 "tl"X- Two cases are given of the type of judgments under this Statute, (a) This case in which the man did not hunt for him (mv) is pre- sented in the Deuteronomic code, xix. 4, thus: "without knowledge, he not hating him (KJ:?) yesterday and the day 218 APPENDIX before " with an illustration v. 5. In the priest's code Num. xxxv. 22, " If accidentally without enmity (nTK) he push him (epn) or cast any vessel upon him without purpose " (nnv). The appointed place is in accordance with the next command, the divine altar. In accordance with the priest's code and Deuteronomic code it is one of the cities of refuge. (Num. xxxv., Deut. xix.). (). The case of intentional murder is here presented as an act of violent passion ("W) and of craft (TO"iy). In the Deu- teronomic code xix. ii it is expressed : " If there be a man hating (NJ>) his neighbour and he lie in wait for him (3~lN) and rise up against him and smite a person (K'DJ) and he die." In the priest's code, Num. xxxv. 20-21, it is: "If, in hatred he push him or cast anything upon him designedly so that he has died, or if in enmity (HTN3) he hath smitten him with his hand so that he hath died." In these cases according to our code he is taken from the divine altar and put to death. The cases in I Kg. i. 50, u, 28, were in accordance with this code. According to the Deuteronomic and priests' codes he was delivered over from the cities of refuge into the hands of the avenger of blood. 3. 1T3 NVpJI, or he (the man stolen) be found in his hand = power = possession. Thus there are two cases, in the one, the stolen man was sold ; in the other, the stolen man became the slave of the thief. In either case the man-stealer was to be put to a violent death. In Dcut. xxiv. 7 it is thus ex- pressed: "If a man be found stealing a person (t'DJ) from among his brethren the children of Israel, and he lay hands upon him and sell him, that thief shall die." 2, 4. These two parental laws are of the same type. Similar laws arc in the decalogue, Dt. xxvii. 16, " Cursed be whoso makcth light of his father or his mother "; in H, " Verily, whoso curseth his father or his mother shall be put to a violent death. His father and his mother he has cursed, his blood be upon him," Lv. xjt. 9. The law of the rebellious son, Dt. xxi. 18-21, also involves the penalty of stoning. In this group there arc four laws of the same type, with parti- THE GREATER BOOK OF THE COVENANT 219 cipial clauses and the penalty nov rfe. This is an ancient type of the ph originally inscribed on stones in public places. The best collection of these is the decalogue, Dt. xxvii. (see p. 239). The two cases under (i) have been inserted from other sources, (a) is ancient and Ephraimitic because of D\~6sn, but introduced by -]{J>K with Perf., it resembles the type of the mpn, Dt. xix. 4-5, and of H. {b) is of the type of judgments common to this code and D. This one resembles Dt. xix. 11-13, The penalty HID without the infin. abs. is Deuteronomic (see p. 72). V. Pentode of Injuries (xxi. 18-25). (i). And if men strive together and one smite the other with a stone or with his fist and he die not but taketh to his bed ; if he rise and walk about without his house on his staff, then the one who smote him shall be quit. Only the time of his abiding at home he shall pay and he shall cause him to be entirely healed. (2). And if a man smite his slave or slave-woman, with his rod and he die under his hand he shall be severely punished, (3). If he linger a day or two he shall not be punished, for he is his silver. (4). And if men strive with one another and smite a woman with child and her children go forth from her and no hurt follow, he shall be heavily fined according as the woman's husband shall impose upon him and he shall pay in accordance with the de- cision of the judges. (5). But if hurt transpire thou shalt give person for person, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn- ing for burning, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. The principle of judgment is given in connection with the special case of the injury to a woman with child. It doubtless applied also to all other injuries to persons, of a graver sort, such as we have had in the last two pentades or indeed in this decalogue of laws of injuries, xxi. 12-25. This lex talionis is also found in Lev. xxiv. 19 sq. in connection with laws respecting injuries in a brief form; "fracture for fracture ("GIT), eye for eye, tooth for tooth. According as one puts a blemish in a man so shall it be put in him." "DC? is not used in our code. In 220 APPENDIX Deut xix. 21, the law is given in connection with false witness- ing, " person for person, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." The Deuteronomic code uses 3 = for, where our code and priest's code use nnn. VI.-VII. Pentades. Injuries in Connection with Property in Slaves or Cattle (xxi. 26-36). (i). And if a man smite the eye of his slave or the eye of his slave-woman and destroy it, to freedom he shall dismiss him for his eye's sake. (2). And if the tooth of his slave or the tooch of his slave- woman he cause to fall out, to freedom he shall dismiss him for his tooth's sake. (3). And if an ox gore a man or woman and he die, the ox shall be stoned to death and his flesh shall not be eaten. The owner of the ox shall be quit. (4). But if the ox was wont to push with the horns yesterday and the day before, and it used to be made known to his owner and he used not to keep him in, and he shall kill a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and his owner also shall be put to death. (5). If a ransom be imposed upon him, he shall give the re- demption of himself according to all that is imposed upon him. (6). If * he gore a son or gore a daughter, according to the law it shall be done to him. (7). If a slave or a slave-woman, the ox gore, thirty shekels of silver shall he give to the owner and the ox shall be stoned. (8). And if a man open a pit or if a man dig a pit and do not cover it and an ox or ass fall therein, the owner of the pit shall pay. Silver shall he render to its owner and the dead animal shall be his own. (9). And if one man's ox smite another man's ox and it die, they shall sell the living ox and halve its silver and also the dead ox shall they halve. (10). Or if it was known that the ox was wont to push with its horns yesterday and the day before and his owner used not to keep him in he shall pay heavily, ox for ox, and the dead ox shall belong to him. * The Lxx. reads lav Ae as in other cases. The Massoretic 1J< is a scribal error for QK- THE GREATER BOOK OF THE COVENANT 221 \\l\-Pentade of Thefts (xxi. 37-xxii 3). (i). If a man steal an ox or a sheep and slaughter it, or sell it, five cattle shall he pay for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. (2). If the thief be found while breaking in, and he be smitten and die, there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him. (3). If the sun has risen upon him there shall be blood-guilti- ness for him. He shall pay heavily. (4). And if he have nothing he shall be sold for his theft. (5.) If the theft be at all found in his hand alive, from ox to ass to sheep, he shall pay double. IX. Triplet of Damages (xxii. 4-5). (i). If fire go forth and find thorns and stacks of grain or standing grain, or a field be consumed, the one who kindled the fire shall pay. (2). If a man cause a field or vineyard to be devoured, or shall send his cattle and they feed on another's field (he shall pay well from his field according to its produce). (3). (And if they devour all the field) he shall pay, making good from his field and making good from his vineyard. The Samaritan codex alone gives the clauses bracketed above. But they are evidently original. X. Decalogue of Breaches of Trust (xxii. 6-16). (i). If a man give his neighbour silver or vessels to keep and it be stolen from the man's house, if the thief be found he shall pay double. (2). If the thief cannot be found, the master of the house shall be brought near unto God to see whether he has not put forth his hand to the property of his neighbour. For all kinds of transgressions, for ox, for ass, for sheep, for garment, for any lost thing which any one saith that it is his, unto God shall the cause of both come. He whom God pronounces wicked shall double to his neighbour. (3). If a man give unto his neighbour an ass or ox or sheep or any cattle to keep and it die or be hurt or captured without any one seeing it, an oath of Yahweh shall be between them that he hath not put forth his hand to the property of his neighbour and its owner shall accept it, and he shall not pay. 222 APPENDIX (4). If it was stolen away from him he shall pay its owner. (5). If it was torn in pieces he shall bring it as a witness. That which is torn in pieces he shall not pay for. (6). And if a man ask it of his neighbour and it be injured or die, its owner not being with it, he shall pay it all. (7). If its owner was with it he shall not pay. (8). If it were hired it came for its hire. (9). And if a man entice a virgin who is not betrothed and lie with her he shall buy her altogether to himself for a wife. (10). If her father utterly refuse to give her to him he shall weigh out silver according to the price of virgins. The first pentade has to do with property which the owner wishes to entrust with his neighbor. The second pentade has to do with property where the request for it comes from the side of the person who would borrow or hire or buy it from the owner. The seduced damsel belongs to the latter because of her value to her father as property. The Deuteronomic code enlarges this law in Deuteronomy xxii. 28-29. " If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found ; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days." D uses n{jyi3 iyj for the nSra of E, fixes a definite sum to be paid in any case to the father, and refuses the option given to the father in E. The man must pay the price to the father, must marry the virgin, and must keep her all his life. XI. A Triad of Statutes (xxii. 17-19). (l). Whoso practiceth magic shall not live. (2). Every one who licth with a beast shall be put to a violent death. (3). Whoso sacrificeth to other gods shall be put under the ban. These laws are not homogeneous. The only bonds of unity are the death penalty and the participial form which is charac- teristic of the statute (pn)- They are insertions from other codes. The penalty of (2) corresponds with the penalty of the statutes xxi. 12-16, but the penalties of (i) and (3) correspond with Deuteronomic penalties. THE GREATER BOOK OF THE COVENANT 23 1. The feminine nSBbp is peculiar, probably referring to the practice of necromancy by women. This is the only one of the numerous laws on this subject. It must have come from an early pentade of statutes, all the rest of which have been lost. In the Deuteronomic code, xviii. 10-14, there are no less than eight distinct terms used for these rites. In the Holiness code there are five passages in which there is a reference to this sub- ject. In three of them, Lev. xix. 31 ; xx. 6, 27, the same two terms are used, roN ,31N and 'jyT- In the other passage, Lev. xix. 26, the verbal forms KTlJn and piyn are employed. The em- phasis upon this subject in H shows that this must have been a serious and common transgression, when this code was codified. 2. This is the only sexual crime mentioned in the Covenant code. It is in the form of an ancient statute. The particle ^3 (every- one) is hardly original. It was doubtless " Whoso lieth with a beast." It is hardly possible that this sexual statute originally was by itself. The decalogue of statutes, Dt. xxvii., has four sexual statutes (vers. 20-24), one of which corresponds with our statute (ver. 21), except in penalty. The Deuteronomic code has several special cases, Dt. xxii. 13-30, and there are two sets of sexual laws in H, Lv. xviii. 6-16, and xx. 10-21, but these are of different types. (3). This statute is also isolated. It must have been taken from a group of statutes. The command, as given here, is peculiar in the expression r\^h niiT^ Tl^a- This is so against the style of our Covenant code that we do not hesitate to follow the Samaritan text and strike it from our text as having crept in from a marginal note. The Samaritan text inserts D"nnN after DTI^K- This would then be necessary, so that the verse should read, " Whoso sacrificeth to other gods shall be put under the ban." The cnn (= ban) was a sacrifice. The penalty is sacrifice for sacrifice, or an exact retribution. The same pen- alty is assigned by Deut. xiii. 16, to an idolatrous city. Possibly an original decalogue was constituted by the combination of the pentades (i) and (3). None of this triplet of statutes could have belonged to the original Covenant code. They have been inserted by redactors. 224 APPENDIX XII. Humanitarian Laws (xxii. 20-26). (i). A stranger thou shalt not maltreat and thou shalt not op- press him for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. (2). Thou shalt not afflict a.ny widow or orphan. If thou at all afflict him. surely, if he cry unto me, I will attentively hear his cry and my anger will burn and I will slay you with the sword and your wives shall be widows and your children orphans. (3). If thou lend my people silver, the poor man who is with thee, thou shalt not become like a money-lender to him. (4). Ye shall not put upon him usury. (5). If thou take the cloke of thy neighbour as a safe-pledge, ere the sun go down thou shalt return it to him, for it is his only covering. It is his cloke for his skin. In what shall he lie down ? And it shall come to pass when he cry unto me I will hear, for I am gracious. These laws are of several different types. They show clearly the hand of the Deuteronomic redactor who used older laws. The group did not belong to the original code. 1. The law of the stranger is fuller and richer in Deut. xxiv. 17-18. " Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless ; nor take the widow's raiment to pledge : but thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and Yahweh thy God redeemed thee thence : therefore I command thee to do this thing." It is also emphasized among the attributes of God, Deut. x. 18-19, and in the curse Dt. xxvii. 19. In the Sanctity code, Lev. xix. 33-34, it is also grandly set forth. "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the homeborn among you, and them shalt love him as thyself ; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt : I am Yahweh your God ." It is found in its second member in somewhat more fulness in connection with a pentade of justice in our code, Ex. xxiii. 9. We could hardly find such a repetition in an original code. It came in here from Rd with the other humanitarian material. 2. The law of the widow and orphan is richer and grander here THE GREATER BOOK OF THE COVENANT 225 than anywhere else. It is associated with the law of the stranger in the passage cited above from D. 3. Kindness to the poor is emphasized in the Priests' code, Lev. xxv. 35 : " If thy brother wax poor and his hand becomes feeble with thee, thou shalt strengthen him whether a stranger or a sojourner, and he shall live with thee." 4. The propriety of separating this from the previous command is in the change to the second plural of the verb of command, and in the emphatic prohibition of usury. Usury is forbidden in Deut. xxiii. 19-21: "Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother, usury of silver, usury of food, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend on usury, but unto thy brother thou mayest not lend on usury." In the priests' code also, Lev. xxv. 36, " Do not take from him usury or interest." JV3~in = interest is only found in the Pentateuch in this passage. 5. The law of pledges is fuller in Deut. xxiv. 6, 10-13, prohibit- ing the taking of the hand-mill and the going into his house to take the pledge from him, as well as our law of the cloak. XIII. Pentade of Reverence and Offerings fxxii. 27-29). (i). God thou shalt not revile. (2). And a prince among thy people thou shalt not curse. (3). Thy abundance and thy overflow of liquids thou shalt not delay (to offer). (4). The first born of thy sons thou shalt give me. (5). So shalt thou do to thy cattle, to thy sheep ; seven days shall it be with its mother, on the eighth day thou shalt give it to me. i. D'r6s is God and not elders, and on this account the rever- ence of N'tW, the prince, constitutes a second command. These two make up a group of laws of reverence. We would expect here also a law with reference to reverence of parents such as we found in xxi. 17. 3. This command seems to concern first fruits in recognition of the nxta = abundance, and yoT = tears = overflow of oil and wine (only found here in this sense), of the harvests. 4. The law of the first born is given in the little book of the 226 APPENDIX Covenant, Ex. xxxiv. 20, in connection with the feast of unleav- ened bread, where 5 is also connected with it. It is also given in the historical narratives, Ex. xiii. 2, n seq. ; in the code of Holiness, Lev. xviii. 15 seq. \ and in the Priests' code, Num. iii. 12 st-q., viii. 16 seq. We notice the absence of any provision for the redemption of unclean animals such as is in the little book of the Covenant, xxxiv. 20 (J), and of man as well as unclean animals in Lev. xviii. 15 seq. (H). XIV. Laws of Purity (xxii. 30). (i). And men of holiness shall ye be unto me. (2). And flesh torn in the field ye shall not eat. To the dogs ye shall cast it out. These two isolated laws are certainly redactional insertions. This redactor seemed to think that laws of ceremonial purity could hardly be omitted with propriety. All laws of the type of the second plural of verb are redactional, not earlier than D*. (l). This law is so general that it gives no clue to its own meaning. We have to resort to D, H and P for explanation. The prohibition of blood is in the Deuteronomic code, Deut. xii. 16, 23-27, xv. 23, and in the Holiness code, Lev. xvii. 10-14, xix. 26 a. The laws of the clean and unclean of animals are given in the codes, Lev. xi. seq. (P) and Deut. xiv. (D). (2). The law as to animals found dead in the field unfolds in the subsequent legislation as follows : D. " Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself : thou may- est give it unto the stranger that is within thy gates, that he may eat it ; or thou mayest sell it unto a foreigner: for thou art an holy people unto Yahweh thy God." (Dt. xiv. 21.) H. " And every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself, or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be home-born or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even : then shall he be clean. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity." (Lev. xvii. 15, 16.) P. " And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die ; he that touch- eth the carcass thereof shall be unclean until the even. And he that eateth of the carcass of it shall wash his THE GREATER BOOK OP THE COVENANT 227 clothes, and be unclean until the even : he also that beareth the carcass of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even." (Lev. xi. 39, 40.) Here the carcass of the animal found dead in the fields was to be cast to the dogs. In D it might be given to the stranger to eat and sold to the foreigner. In H it could not be eaten by home- born or stranger. In P the distinction between stranger and home-born has passed away and the prohibition is a universal one. XV. Pentade of Testimony (xxiii. 1-3). (i). Thou shalt not lift up a vain report. (2). Put not thy hand with a wicked man to be a witness of violence. (3). Thou shalt not go after many to do evil. (4). And thou shalt not respond to a cause to incline after many to wrest it. (5). And a poor man thou shalt not favour in his cause. This pentade is to be compared with a similar one in the code of Holiness, Lev. xix. 15-18, and with the law of the witness, Deut. xix. 15-20. LEV. xix. 15-18. "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty : but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor. Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people : neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor : I am Yahweh. Thou shalt not hate they brother in thine heart : thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neigh- bor as thyself. I am Yahweh." DEUT. xix. 15-20. " One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth : at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established. If an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to testify against him of wrong-doing; then both the men, be- 228 APPENDIX tween whom the controversy is, shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges which shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition : and, behold, if the wit- ness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to do unto his brother: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in the midst of thee." XVI. Laws of Kindness (xxiii. 4, 5). (i). If thou shalt meet an ox of thine enemy or his ass stray- ing, thou shalt bring it back to him. (2). When thou shalt see the ass of one hating thee crouching under its burden, thou shalt desist from forsaking him. Thou shalt altogether with him release it. These two commands are certainly out of place here. They interrupt the connection between the previous and following pentades, which belong together as making up a decalogue of justice. They are Deuteronomic insertions, as in other simi- lar cases which we have considered. We find a similar law in Deut. xxii. 1-4, in somewhat different language : " Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep driven away and hide thyself from them ; thou shalt bring them back to thy brother Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox fallen in the way and hide thyself from them ; thou shalt lift them up with him." Not considering the two verses of Deut. omitted as containing new matter, we note these differences : Deut. uses (a) " brother" for the " enemy " of this law, (b) DTT13 = driven away, for nj?n = straying, (c) DvQJ fallen, for |'2T crouching, lying down under a burden, (d) D'f?T lift up, for 3TJJ release, toy is used in common by the codes. XVII. /V/W, officer, may have been a substitution by D for earlier D*~it? (see p. 80). (e) Thou shall not plant thte an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of Yahweh thy God, which thou shalt make thee. And thou shalt not set thee up Mazzeboth, which Yahweh thy God hateth. (xvi. 21-22). For the place of this Word in the history of legislation, see p. 84. (/) Thou shall not sacrifice unto Yahweh thy God an ox or a sheep wherein is a blemish or any ill-favouredness : for that is an abomination unto Yahweh thy God (xvii. I). A fuller law is given in Lv. xxii. 17-25 of the type of the statutes of H (see p. 251). (g) Thou shall not deliver unto his master a slave which is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, in the midst of thee, in the place which he shall choose within one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him (Dt. xxiii. 16). This law shows a tenderness toward slaves which does not appear in the Covenant codes (see pp. 215 seg.\ (h) Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates. In his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it ; for he is poor, and settcth his heart upon it ; lest he cry against thee unto Yahweh, and it be sin unto thee (xxiv. 14-15). D here gives a Word, which appears in a more original form in a group of Words. 1. Thou shalt not oppress thy neighbour, nor rob him. 2. The wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. TYPES OF HEBREW LAW 245 3. Thou shalt not curse the deaf. 4. And thou shalt not put a stumbling-block before the blind. But thou shalt fear thy God : I am Yahweh. Lv. xix. 13-14 (H). It is possible that the clause, " nor rob him," may represent an original Word which has thus been condensed ; or the Word of D may have originally constituted the second of this group, and so made the pentade. D in verse 15 seems to paraphrase the more original second Word of H. H uses the older jn, D here the later riN (see p. 241). (/). Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn (xxv. 4). This law is in its original form without modification. It be- longs to the human itarianism of D. These examples show sufficiently the methods of D in using the older Words which were taken up into the Deuteronomic code. The Code of Holiness also has several groups of Words, e.g. the sexual Words, Lv. xviii. 7-23 (see p. 241) ; the Words as to gleaning, Lv. xix. 9-10, which are given in a condensed form in Lv. xxiii. 22 (see p. 234) ; the Pentades against oppression, Lv. xix. 13-14 (see p. 244), 15-16 (see p. 227) ; and the Words as to mixtures, Lv. xix. 19 (see p. 233). There are also ancient Words in the midst of the law of the Seventh Year, xxv. 3-9, 15-17, 36- 37, 43- We shall use here only the material not considered elsewhere : (a) I. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart, 2. Thou shalt faithfully rebuke thy neighbour, 3. Thou shalt not bear sin because of him, 4. Thou shalt not take -vengeance, 5. Thou shalt not bear any grudge against the children of thy people. Therefore thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. I am Yahweh. Lv. xix. 17-18. This pentade is evidently a late one. The humanitarianism of D is behind it (see p. 85) ; but it rises to the highest ethical elevation that we can find in the Old Testament and so becomes a basis for the ethics of Jesus. The terms are also varied, show- ing a reflection on earlier uses, In this pentade HN and JVttJJ are both used, and in the final word of exhortation jn also (see p. 241). 246 APPENDIX (6). (l). Thou shall rise up before the hoary head. And (2) thou shall honour the face of the old man and thou shall fear thy God. I am Yahweh. Lv. xix. 32. This couplet shows also a high ethical sense such as we see in Job xxix. (2). The Commandments, Dlyo. The term rnVtt is first used in the Literature, Is. xxix. 13, of a commandment of men ; then in Is. xxxvi. 21, Je. xxxii. n, xxxv. 14, 16, 18, Est. iii. 3. It is used of a divine command, Is. xlviii. 18, Mai. ii. i, 4, but without reference to law as such. It is a law term characteristic of Deuteronomic writers, used in D 1 and D" 1 43 times ; also in the Deuteronomic redaction of Jos. xxii. 3, 5, 5 ; Jer. ii. 17, iii. 4, I Sam. xiii. 13; 20 times in Kings and 40 times in Chronicles. It is used by P in the singular, Num. xv. 31 ; and in the plural by H and P 13 times. Such uses as we find in connection with J E are clearly redactional, e.g. Gn. xxvi. 5 ; Ex. xv. 26, xvi. 28, xx. 6, xxiv. 12. It is used, however, in post- Deuteronomic writings Pss. xix. 9, Ixxviii. 7, Ixxxix. 31, cxii. I, cxix. (22 t.) ; Job xxiii. 12; EC. viii. 5, xii. 13 ; Dan. ix. 4, 5. The iTOflD is evidently that which Yahweh commands, mv. A constant phrase of D in iv. 40, vi. 6, vii. n, viii. I, ii, x. 13, xi. 8, xiii. 19, xv. 5, xix. 9, xxvii. 10, xxviii. i, 13, 15, xxx. 8, 1 1, 16, is '3JX~)E'N. DIVTpVD. The phrase of D 1 is iv. 2, 2, xi. 13, 22, 27, 28, xii. u, xiii. i, xxvii. I, 4, xxviii. 14 : DDHN i\VSD "3JN IK'N- HIVD is used in these cases either alone or with other law terms, except iv. 2, vi. 6, xiii. i, xxviii. 14, where "OT is used exclusively. Besides "QH is used with "sjrco xii. 28, xv. 15, xxiv. 18, 22. In xii. n, xxvii. 4, no law terms are used. It seems, therefore, that the mE is a later type of the 131, and that in the usage of D the older 131 passes over into the rnO. The commands seem to be specific- ally those Words which have been expanded in the Deuteron- omic code. We may see specimens of such in the laws as to cities of refuge, xix. i-io; the law of the King, xvii. 14-20; and the law against magic arts, xviii. 9 f ; and the concluding laws of Dt. xxvi. In the usage of D, H and P those laws which appear in the TYPES OF HEBREW LAW 247 second person plural may be regarded as commands. The few laws in the second person plural before D s must be regarded as redactional, eg. Ex. xx. 23 (see p. 212), xxii. 21, 24c (see p. 224), xxii. 30 (see p. 226), xxiii. 13 (see p. 229). The three laws Ex. xxxiv. 13 are also redactional: Their altars ye shall break down. Their Mazzeboth ye shall dash in pieces. Their Asherim ye shall cut down. They are a condensation of the pentade Dt. xii. 3 : Ye shall break down their altars, And dash in piects their Mazzeboth, And burn their Asherim with fire, And ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, And ye shall destroy their name out of that place. This pentade clearly belongs to D 2 . Commands of this type are those relating to the place of worship, xii. 1-12 ; the law against mutilation, xiv. 1-2 ; and the laws respecting clean and unclean animals, xiv. 4-21. There are also detached redactional additions to other laws, xii. 16, xiii. ib, 5, xviii. 15, xix. 193, xx. 2-4, 18, xxii. 24, xxiv. 8-9, xxv. 17. The code of H makes a greater use of this type of law. We shall give several examples ; the commands in italics, the redac- tional material in ordinary type. (a) i . Ye shall be holy, for I am holy, Yahweh your God. 2. Each his mother and \i\sfather ye shall fear. 3. My sabbaths ye shall keep. I am Yahweh your God. 4. Do not turn unto idols. 5. Molten gods ye shall not make you. I am Yahweh your God. Lv. xix. 2-4. The fourth of this pentade has been changed to the jussive with ^X ; the second has been changed, in the most part, after the model of the JYIpn with introductory x (see p. 251) ; but the original form is retained in the verb. A similar example of such a change may be seen in Lv. xviii. 6. (b) I. Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, 2. Ye shall reverence my sanctuary, I am Yahweh, 3. Turn ye not unto them that have familiar spirits. 248 APPENDIX 4. Seek ye not out wizards to be defiled by them, I am Yahweh your God. Lv. xix. 30-31. The first of this quartette is the same as the third of the pre- vious pentade. The second pair is in the negative jussive form, as the fourth of the previous pentade. (c) I. Ye shall not steal, 2. And ye shall not deal falsely, 3. And_yBJ. (a) The person that turns unto necromancers and unto wizards to commit fornication after them / / will set my face against that person and cut him off from the midst of his people. Lv. xx. 6-7. (V) Any person that eateth that which dieth of itself or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be home-born or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and be un- clean until the even ; then shall he be clean. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity. Lv. xvii. 15-16. (f) Any person that doeth any work on that same day, that person will I destroy from among his people. Ye shall do no manner of work ; it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. Lv. xxiii. 30-31. Appended to the Law of the peace-offerings is a statute. The person that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offer- ings that pertain unto Yahweh, having his uncleanness upon him, that person shall be cut off from his people. Lv. vii. 20. There is also a statute as to eating blood. Any person that eateth any blood, that person shall be cut off" from his people. Lv. vii. 27. There are other statutes which have been taken up into the more elaborate groups of laws of P, but those given are sufficient for our purpose. (4). The Judgments, It is not difficult to distinguish the judgments. The BBEO is the decision of a case by a tSBk 1 , a governor, or judge. It is used in Ex. xxi. 31 (E) of the particular decision in a case ; in the song, Dt. xxxiii. 10, 2 1 , of particular judgments of the Law ; in i Sam. viii. 9, 1 1, x. 25 (Ephraimitic source) of the law of the king written by TYPES OF HEBREW LAW 253 Samuel ; in the combination, BSWI pit. Ex. xv. 25, Jos. xxiv. 25 (both E), Is. xxx. 25, of particular judgments. It is also used by P for single judgments 16 times. The plural, D'tDBE>Di is the title of a series of judgments in Ex. xxi; i, and Rje refers back to them in Ex. xxiv. 3. The plural is used but once alone in Dt, Dt. vii. 12 (D' 2 ) ; elsewhere always in the combination QiEDtWl D^pn (see p. 249). The combination, D^BQWI nipn, is characteristic of H (see p. 249). Other combinations are redactional and later. Thus the type of judgments persists throughout the legisla- tion. They are really decisions of cases in courts of law. The collection of judgments in the code of the Covenant sufficiently indicates their original type. They begin with the particle 13, followed by a verb, usually in the third person. Par- ticular cases are introduced by the conditional particle QK- There are nine pentades of these judgments in this code (see pp. 216-222). In the Deuteronomic code there are large numbers of these judgments in the same typical form. There are, indeed, ap- parently two sets, of different origin, coming from different courts, the one set seeming to be earlier using elders, D'JpT. a d neighbor, jn, Dt. xix. 11-13, xx i- J -9 18-21, 22-23, xx "- 1 3~ 21 , 22, 23-27, 28-29, xxiii. 25-26, xxiv. 1-4, 5, 10-13, xxv. 5-10*; the other later using judges, D'DSKN and brethren, D^flN. xv. 7-18, xvii. 8-13, xix. 16-21, xxi. 15-17, xxiv. 7, xxv. 1-3, 11-12; the most of both sets having redactional material also, chiefly from D, but occasionally from D a and Rd. These belong in the realm of civil law and social and domestic relations. It is probable that the humanitarian laws, xxii. 1-4, 6-8, belong 1 to the latter set. The laws as to stray cattle, verses 1-4, seem to hover between the type of words and judgments. We have seen in Ex. xxiii. 4-5 two detached judgments (p. 228) on this subject which seem to belong with the Deuteronomic laws. It is probable that D has partly made over an earlier judgment into a command. I venture the following restoration on the basis of the two passages : I . If thou see thy brother's ox or his sheep straying, thou shall bring it safe again unto thy brother. 2. If thy brother be not nigh unto thee, thou shalt bring it home to thine house until thy brother seek after it. 254 APPENDIX 3. If thou meet the ox of thine enemy straying ; thou shalt bring it back to htm, 4. If thou see thy brother's ass fallen down by the way, thou shalt help him earnestly to lift it up again, 5. If thou see the ass of one hating thee crouching under ifs burden, thou shalt with him altogether release it. This makes a harmonious and touching pentade. The humanitarian judgments, verses 6-8, seem to belong here: 1. If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young ; thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, but the young thou mayst take unto thyself; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayst prolong thy days. 2. If thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battle- ment for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. The judgment as to gleaning has been considered on p. 234. It is not certain to which of the groups it belongs. The judgments against the worship of other gods, xiii. 2-18, belong to the earlier group, but there is redactional material in them in their present form. The only specimens of this kind of judgments in H are in the laws of the Seventh year, Lv. xxv. 25 seq., where they represent earlier elements which have been taken up into this complex of laws. The code of H has a number of judgments of a different type from any found in E or D, namely, those of the type of ^3 e"N. followed by the third person of the verb. These correspond with the statutes of the form, ntx K"N. characteristic of this code (see p. 251). Judgments of this type are mingled with those of the earlier type in Lv. xxv. ; see verses 26, 28, 29, 30, as compared with verses 25, 35, 39, 47. Other judgments of this type are Lv. xix. 20-21, xx. 27, and they are embedded in the laws of priestly purity, xxii. 14, 21. The following specimens from Lv. xxiv. 15-22 will suffice. They introduce statutes, and are accompanied with redactional matter. The judgments are given in italics. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying: (i ). Whatsonier man, if he curse his Cod, he shall bear his sin. Whoso blasphcmcth the name of Yahwch shall be put to a violent TYPES OF JHEBREW LAW 255 death ; all the congregation shall stone him to death : as well the stranger as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the name he shall be put to death. 2. And a man, if he smite any person of man, shall be put to a violent death. And whoso smiteth the person of a beast, he shall make it good person for person. 3. And a man, if he cause a blemish in his fellow, as he has done so shall it be done to him, breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth : as he has caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be rendered unto him. And whoso smiteth a beast shall make it good: and whoso smiteth a man shall be put to death. One judgment shall ye have, as well for the stranger as for the home- born : for I am Yahweh your God. The judgments have doublets of older statutes (see pp. 249, 251) and other redactional material. There are a number of judgments of this type in material usually ascribed to P. But good reasons have been given by Wurster (Z. A. T. W., iv. 124 seg.) and Cornill (Einleit. s. 78-79) for assigning this material to H. These specimens are Lv. xii. 2-8, xiii. 29-37, 38-39, 40-44, xv. 2-15, 16-18, 19-24,25-30; Num. v. 11-31. Other examples in P are Num. xxvii. 8-n, xxx. 3-17. The code of P has two types of judgments which are char- acteristic of P, and which may be compared with its character- istic statutes. The former of these is of the type ^3 J^QJ, Lv. ii. 1-16, iv. 1-35, v. 1-13, 14-16, 17-19, v. 20-26, vii. 21, the latter of the type 13 D1K, Lv. i. 2-17, xiii. 2-28. Thus the judgments persist throughout the codes ; the earlier ones are from the courts of the elders and judges, the later from the courts of the priests. (5). The Laws, nhlD. A careful study of the term rnin, as applied to law, makes it evident that it was the earlier usage of all the documents of the Hexateuch except P to regard min as the I -aw in general, as em- bracing a complex of words, statutes, jndgments, commands, and that the use of min, nilin for particular laws is post-Deu- teronomic. Such laws are to be found only in P (see New Hebrew Lexicon, p. 435). These are found in Lv. vi. 2-6, 7-11, 18-23, vii. 1-7, 11-37, xiii. 47-59, xiv. 2-32, xiv. 33-57, xv. 19-33. XI. THE USE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS IN THE DOCUMENTS. The earlier uses of {?QJ are reflected in J E of the Hexa- teuch. (a). The appetite of hunger, Nu. xi. 6 (J), xxi. 5 (E), the feeling of distress, Gn. xlii. 21 (E), not elsewhere in Hex. (). C'sDJ ^rt3J smite him mortally, Gn. xxxvii. 21 (J). D uses the Hiph- il in this phrase, Dt. xix. 6, II ; so Je. xl. 14, 15. (c). ,-|n EB;J is used Gn. ii. 7 (Poem of J), for the man Adam ; elsewhere nn(n) C'W is used for animals, Gn. i. (4 t), ix. (4 t), both poems of P; Lv. xi. 10, 46 (H) ; Ez. xlvii. 9. (, 33^>. The shorter form is always used in the documents J and P ; the longer form 33^5 is always used in the law codes of D and H. There is a difference of usage in E and the frame of D. (256) USE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS IN THE DOCUMENTS 257 E uses 3^5, Gen. xxxi. 20, xlii. 28, xlv. 26, 1. 21 ; Ex. iv. 21, vii. 23 (Driver's J, Kautzsch's J E), x. 27; Nu. xxiv. 13; but 33$>, Gen, xx. 5, 6, xxxi. 26 ; Ex. xiv. 5 (Driver's J, Kautzsch's J E) ; Jos. xxiv. 23. This use of 33^3 might be redactional, but it is not evi- dent. The frame of D uses 33^ constantly, except Dt. iv. n (Sam codex 33^3), xxviii. 65, xxix. 3, 18 (phrase from Jeremiah) ; Jos. xi. 20 (phrase of E and P), xiv. 8 (elsewhere in this phrase 33^)- It is evident that this difference in the documents of the Hexateuch is not accidental, but is characteristic of literary pref- erence and of periods of composition ; for it corresponds with the usage of the literature elsewhere, (a). The form 3^3 is used in the earliest poetical literature, Ex. xv.; Judges v.; i Sam. ii.; the earliest prophets, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah xv., Zechariah ix.-xi., and the Judaic and Ephraimitic sources of the prophetic his- tories. This corresponds with the usage of J. (). The form 33^> j s US ed in the earlier Isaiah 11 times (3^ only vi. 10, xxix. 13, possibly scribal errors); in Zephaniah i. 12, ii. 15 (3^3 Hi. 14, scribal error) ; and the Deuteronomic redaction of the prophetic histories. This corresponds with the usage of D. (c). Nahum uses 33^5 ii. 8; 3^3 ii. n, but Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the second Isaiah and Job prefer 3^5, but occasionally use 33^5. This corresponds with the usage of E. (d). Is. xiii.-xiv. 23 ; Jer. l.-li.; Hag., Zee. i.-viii. (except vii. 12) ; Jonah, Joel, Pss. Ixxviii., xc., civ., use 33^>. This corresponds with the usage of H. (e). Lamentations (ex- cept iii. 41) ; Is. xxiv.-xxvii., xxxiv.-v.; Mai., Obad., Zech. xii.- xiv., Memorials of Ezra and Nehemiah, use 3^3. This corre- sponds with P. So do Proverbs (except iv. 21, vi. 25) ; the Psalter, with few exceptions; Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes (except ix. 3) ; and Canticles. (/). The Chronicler and Daniel use 33^3, but there are a few examples of 3^3, chiefly in set phrases. When one considers how easy it was for an editor or scribe to exchange 3^5 and 33^) it is remarkable that the difference in usage has been so well preserved. (See my articles 3^1, 33^3 in the new Hebrew Lexicon.) XII. OUTLINE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE HEXATEUCH FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS. 1. THE literary origin of the Hexateuch is not given in the Hexateuch itself. There are several writings contained in it that are ascribed to Moses, but this does not enable us to decide as to the other parts or as to the Hexateuch as a whole. The Hexateuch is an anonymous writing. P. 6. 2. There is no evidence in the other writings of the Old Testa- ment that justifies the theory that Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that Joshua wrote the book of Joshua. The name of Moses is attached to certain laws and codes of legislation, but it is not clear how far this attributes authorship to him and how far these correspond with the contents of the Pentateuch. P. 13. 3. The New Testament testifies to the historical character of the Pentateuch and Joshua, that Moses was the great lawgiver and prophet, and to the fundamental position of the Mosaic legislation ; but it does not indorse the theory of the Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch. P. 25. 4. There are several variant traditions among the Jews as to the literary origin of the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua. The Baba Bathra represents that Moses wrote his book and the chapter of Balaam, and that Joshua wrote his book and the last eight verses of the Pentateuch. But the Talmud in other pas- sages goes with Josephus and Philo in representing that Moses wrote the last eight verses of the Pentateuch. The apocalypse of Ezra states that the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua were burned with the Holy City, and that Ezra by divine inspiration rewrote them. P. 31. 5. The Fathers differ as to the Hexateuch. Clement, Tertul- lian, and Chrysostom held that Ezra restored the Hexateuch ; Irenacus, Thcodorct, and Basil that Ezra recast it. Jerome is indifferent whether Ezra recast it or not. There is no consensus (258) OUTLINE OF HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE HEXATEUCH 259 of the Fathers and no ecclesiastical decision of the question. P. 33- 6. In the times of the Reformation Carlstadt denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch ; and Luther said, " What matters it if Moses should not himself have written the Pentateuch? " Cal- vin constructed a harmony of the Pentateuchal legislation. The Roman Catholic, Masius, distinguished between Mosaic originals and the present Pentateuch. No ecclesiastical decision of the question was made by the Roman Catholic or Protestant Churches. P. 34. 7. The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch was prepared in the seventeenth century by Hobbes, Peyrerius, and Spinoza, who presented evidence from eleven anachronisms, two indications of special authorship, two inconsistencies and several laudatory passages, that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. P. 36. 8. Simon was the first to apply Historical Criticism to the Pentateuch in a systematic manner. He strove to distinguish between the original writings of Moses and the work of the pro- phetic scribes. He called attention to (i) the double account of the deluge, (2) the lack of order in the arrangement of the laws and narratives, and (3) the diversities of style. He was followed by Clericus, Van Dale, and Semler, all of whom recognized that the Pentateuch received its present form by a later editor. P. 40. 9. Huet, Heidegger, and Carpzov sought to remove these diffi- culties by the theories that the anticipations of later history are predictions, that diversity of style is due to the inspiration which would have it so, and that to find defective arrangement is to make a charge against the Holy Spirit all untenable theories which showed the weakness of the traditional position. P. 42. 10. Witsius, Graves, Adam Clarke, and Prideaux recognized essential Mosaic authorship, but also editorship by Ezra. Vit- ringa presented the theory that Moses himself was an editor of older documents which he incorporated in his history. He was followed by Calmet, Gleig, Fleury, and Francois. P. 43. 11. Astruc discovered the Elohistic and Jehovistic sections of Genesis and divided the book of Genesis into two great memoirs and nine lesser ones. He arranged these in parallel columns, and showed that this explains the different uses of the divine names and the repetitions of the same subject. P. 46. 260 APPENDIX 12. Eichhorn combined the work of all his predecessors, and analyzed the documents in Genesis with great thoroughness. He introduced the documentary hypothesis. He represented that Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers were edited from a number of different documents; Exodus and Leviticus at Mt. Sinai, Num- bers in the land of Moab, and Deuteronomy by Moses at the close of his career. Deuteronomy was the people's book. The other legislation was the priest's code. Eichorn's view gained supremacy in Germany in his own day, and was adopted by Tay- lor in England and Edward Robinson in America. P. 49. 13. Bishop Marsh, Faber, and T. Hartwell Home recognized a few alterations in the Pentateuch, but declined to accept the documentary analysis. P. 54. 14. Alexander Geddes introduced the fragmentary hypothesis and maintained that the Pentateuch and Joshua were compiled in the age of Solomon by the use of a great many ancient docu- ments. This fragmentary hypothesis was introduced into Ger- many by Vater, who pushed the time of the composition nearer the exile. He was followed by many others. P. 57. 15. De Wette saw the defects of the documentary and frag- mentary hypotheses. He showed that the Pentateuch in its present form is a unit, the plan of one mind. Bleek was the first to give shape to the supplementary hypothesis. The Elo- histic writing was the basis, the Jehovistic the supplementary one. Ewald showed that the Elohistic and Jehovistic docu- ments extended throughout the entire Pentateuch. Soon after it was found that they extended also through Joshua ; so that the unity of the Hexateuch was manifest as springing from a variety of documents. P. 60. 16. Ranke, Hcngstenbcrg, HUvernick, Keil and others de- fended the traditional theory, and refused to concede anything but editorial additions. P. 61. 17. A more careful analysis was made by Tuch and Stiihclin. Hupfcld revived the view of Ilgcn. and separated the document of the second Elohist from the Jehovist, and sought to point out the work of the editor. Knobcl, Ewald and Schrader traced a scries of editings, and arranged the documents in historical order from the time of Moses to the Exile. The supplementary hypothesis was adopted by Samuel Davidson and Dean Stanley in England. P. 68. OUTLINE OF HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE HEXATEUCH 261 1 8. Kurtz, Delitzsch, Kleinert, Perowne, and others took inter- mediate positions, admitting the documentary analysis, but con- tending for an earlier age of composition and editing. Delitzsch and Kurtz sought editors in Eleazar and the elders of Joshua's time. Kleinert inclined to the age of Samuel for an earlier editor, and to the reign of Hezekiah for a later one. P. 67. 19. The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch thus far resulted in the discrimination of four chief documents, each of which used earlier sources, (i) An Elohistic writing (P) which ex- tends throughout the Hexateuch. This is of a priestly charac- ter, and contains the priestly legislation. (2) A Jehovistic writ- ing (J) which extends through the Hexateuch. This is written in a prophetic spirit, and contains the code called the little book of the covenant. (3) Another Elohistic writing (E) which ex- tends through the Hexateuch. This is theocratic in character, and contains the code called the greater book of the covenant. (4) The Deuteronomist (D) whose work is confined chiefly to Deuteronomy and Joshua. He gives the code of Deuteronomy called the book of instruction. (5) These writings were com- pacted in several editings by Redactors (Rje, Rjed, R). P. 68. 20. The reasons for the composition of Deuteronomy in the time of Josiah according to the later hypotheses are : (i) Ex- pressions which indicate a period subsequent to the con- quest (ii. 12, xix. 14) ; (2) the law of the king which implies the reign of Solomon (xvii. 14-20) ; (3) the one supreme judicatory of the time of Jehoshophat (xvii. 8) ; (4) the one central altar of the times of Hezekiah (xii. 5 seq.); (5) the return to Egpyt in ships not conceivable before the time of Manasseh (xxviii. 68) ; (6) the forms of idolatry of the middle period of the monarchy (iv. 19, xvii. 3) , (7) no trace of Deuteronomy in writings prior to Jeremiah ; (8) the point of view indicates an advanced style of theological reflection ; (9) the prohibition of Mazzebah (xvi. 22) regarded as lawful in Isaiah (xix. 19) ; (10) the style implies a long development of the art of Hebrew oratory, and the language is free from archaism, and suits the times preceding Jeremiah ; (11) the doctrine of the love of God and His faithfulness with the term " Yahweh thy God " presuppose the experience of the prophet Hosea ; (12) the humanitarianism of Deuteronomy shows an ethical advance beyond Amos and Isaiah and prepares the way for Jeremiah and Ezekiel ; (13) Ancient laws embedded 262 APPENDIX in the code account for the penalties for their infraction in 2 Kings xxii.; (14) ancient laws of war are associated with laws which imply the wars of the monarchy, and have been influ- enced by Amos. P. 81. 21. Edward Rcuss is the father of the development hypothesis which has been advocated by Vatke, George. Graf, Kuenen, Kal- isch, Kayser, Wellhausen, Stade, Konig, Lcnormant, Robertson Smith and others. This theory represents that the several doc- uments of the Pentateuch were produced in the several stages of development of the religion of Israel. The covenant codes represent the earlier legislation, the Deuteronomic code the legislation of Josiah, the priest code the legislation of Ezra and his successors. The narratives are closely connected with the codes. The redaction of the Hexateuch was subsequent to Ezra. P. 90. 22. (i) If we take the Pentateuchal legislation as a unit at the basis of the history of Israel, we find a discrepancy between it and the history and the literature of the nation prior to the exile in these two particulars, (a) a silence hi the historical, propheti- cal, poetical and ethical writings as to many of its chief institu- tions; (b) the infraction of this legislation by the leaders of the nation throughout the history in unconscious innocence and un- rebuked. (2) The Pentateuchal legislation is composed of sev- eral codes which show variation throughout. (3) We can trace a development in the history of Israel from the conquest to the exile in several stages, corresponding in a most remarkable man- ner to the variations between the codes (4) The books of Kings and Chronicles in their representation of the history of Israel give it, the former from the point of view of the Deuteronomic code, the latter from the point of view of the priest code. Pp. 96, no. 23. The theory of the school of Reuss attempts to account (i) for the variation of the codes by different legislations at widely different periods of time ; (2) for the discrepancy between the Fentatcuchal legislation and the history and literature, by the non-existence of the legislation in those times of silence and in- fraction ; (3) for the development of the religion of Israel in ac- cordance with those codes by the representation that the origin of these codes corresponds with the development ; (4) for the difference in point of view of the authors of Kings and Clironi- OUTLINE OF HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE HEXATEUCH 2G3 cles, on the ground that the author of Kings knew only E J D, while the author of Chronicles was filled with the spirit of P ; (5) for the peculiar position of Ezekiel's legislation, by the state- ment that his legislation was in fact an advance beyond D and a preparation for P. P. 96. 24. The reasons advanced against the post-exilic origin of the priestly document are (i) its language is classic, and yet the word lists are nearer Ezekiel than any other writer. (2) There is a realism about it that points to early times ; this is due in part to earlier laws incorporated in the code, in part to a vivid historic imagination. (3) There is a unity in the code notwithstanding its elaboration into a vast variety of specific commands, that urges us to think of the grasp of a master mind, but this unity may be the product of historic experience. (4) There are many laws that are inappropriate to the times of the restoration. These come from the sources in the older codes. There are also an- achronisms. P. 108. 25. The discussion of the theory of Reuss was opened in Great Britain in connection with the Robertson Smith case in the Free Church of Scotland. Robertson Smith advocated the theories of that school. He was opposed by Douglass and others, who maintained the traditional theories. The result of the case was the establishment of freedom of discussion in Great Britain. Cheyne, Davidson, Driver, G. Adam Smith, Ryle and others recog- nize the distinction of sources of documents and the order J E, D, P. P. 129. 26. The discussion was opened in America by my articles in the Presbyterian Review, 1881, 1883. These brought on a con- troversy in which I was sustained by Prof. H. P. Smith and Prof. Francis Brown. Dr. Green defended the traditional theories and was sustained by Drs. Hodge and Patton. Drs. S. Ives Curtis and Beecher took intermediate positions. Subsequently Profs. Bissell, Osgood and others came out for the traditional theories, but Profs. W. R. Harper, George Moore and others ad- vanced to my support. P. 130. 27. Recent contributions to the discussion have been made by Dillmann, Baudissin, Delitzsch, Strack and Kittel, who have taken an intermediate position, making a still more careful an- alysis of the documents and recognizing the order J E, D, P, but maintaining that P uses a large amount of documentary legis- 264 APPENDIX lation going back to the earliest times. Budde and Cornill made a more careful analysis of J E, and found traces of them in the Prophetic histories. Driver and Holzinger mass the evidence for the analysis from language and style beyond any other writers. Driver represents that " Hebrew legislation took shape gradu- ally, and the codes J E, D, and P represent these successive phases of it." Moore has shown an analogy to the Redaction of the Hexateuch in Tatian's Harmony of the Gospels. P. 130. 28. (i) We have not one narrative but a fourfold narrative of the origin of the Old Covenant religion, as we have a fourfold gospel giving the narrative of the New Covenant religion. (2) The Pentateuch does not give us one Mosaic code but several codes of legislation, a decalogue of worship, covenant codes of several decalogues, a people's code, a code of holiness, and a priests' code contained in the narratives, somewhat as the gospels present us the discourses of Jesus in the varied types of the evangelists. (3) The Pentateuchal legislation is based on Mosaic laws and institutions, but it was unfolded in several stages of advancement in the historical life and experience of Israel from the conquest to the exile. It was a divine ideal, a super- natural instruction, to guide the people of Israel throughout their history, as the discourses of Jesus present the ideals of the Christian church. (4) Law and prophecy are not two distinct and separate modes of revelation but the same. (5) There is in the law, as in the Gospels, a divine transforming power which shaped the history of Israel, as the Gospel has shaped the history of the church in successive stages of appropriation. P. 160. 29. The evidences for the analysis of the Hexateuch into four great documents are (i) difference in divine names; (2) differ- ence in vocabulary ; (3) difference in style ; (4) doublets and triplets in the narratives; (5) several different, and, in some re- spects, parallel codes; (6) difference in conceptions of religion, doctrine, and morals. 30. Exodus vi. 3 states that God appeared unto the patriarchs as El Shadday, but by the name Yahweh was not known to them. The priestly document of which this is part conforms to this statement. Ex. iii. 12-15 gives an account of the revelation and explanation of the divine name Yahweh. The theocratic docu- ment of which this is a part conforms to this statement. The prophetic document uses Yahweh from the beginning uncon- OUTLINE OF HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE HEXATEUCH 265 scious of these statements. The earlier Deuteronomic writers use " Yahweh thy God," the later " Yahweh your God." P. 48. 31. Each of these writers has his favorite words and phrases. P prefers the sign of the definite accusative with suffixes. J prefers the older method of the verb with suffixes. E uses many archaic words and forms, and also the Ephraimitic dialect. P uses many words of later formation, and resembles Ezekiel. J is richer in his vocabulary, more elegant and picturesque in phrases. P. 70. 32. E is brief, terse, and archaic ; graphic, plastic, and realistic ; written in the theocratic interest of the kingdom of God. J is poetical and descriptive, the best narrative in the Bible, giving us the history of the kingdom of redemption. D is rhetorical and hortatory, practical and earnest, written in the more theological interest of the training of the nation in the fatherly instruction of God. P is annalistic and diffuse, fond of names and dates, written in the interest of the priestly order, and em- phasizing the sovereignty of the Holy God and the sanctity of the divine institutions. P. 79. 33. There are a number of parallel passages such as the two poems of the creation, the two poems of the deluge, the two narratives of the separation of the Levites, and of the wife and children of Moses, the three stories of the Egyptian plagues, the two narratives of the call of Moses, the two versions of the ten commandments., the two stories of the institution of judges, and the two stories of the conquest. P. 75. 34. There are several codes of legislation showing variation and progress in the constant order, covenant codes, the Deu- teronomic code, the priest code, in the most important institu- tions such as the priesthood, the altars, the sacred tent, the sacrihces, the purifications, and the feasts. P. 101. 35. There are several types of Hebrew law which represent differences of origination, and which persist with variations of form throughout the legislation. See Appendix X. 36. The four main documents, E, J, D, P, show a thorough- going difference in religion, such as theophanies, miracles, covenants, prophecy, altars, priesthood, sacrifices, and purifica- tions. Pp. 101, 146. 37. The four documents have constant development in doc- trines, such as the doctrines of the Divine Spirit, the Divine 266 APPENDIX Attributes, Creation, Sin, Redemption, making it clear that these subjects are considered from different points of view, and at different periods of historic conception. P. 150. 38. The codes show a constant advance in civil, social, and domestic ethics. P. 86 and Appendices V.-X. INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS. ABENZRA 36 Acts of violence, Pentade of . . 217 seq. Addis, W. E 144 Astruc, Jean, 46, 47, 49, 52, 56, 143 Augustine 33 Authorship, special indications of. . 38 BACON, B. W 75 Bartlett, E. T 144 Basil 33 Bathgen, F. W 143 Batten, L. W 144 Baudissin, W. W., 130, 132-134, 143 Bauer, G. L S3 Baur, Ferd 162 Beecher, W. J 130 Bellarmin 33 Bertheau, E 211 Bissell, E. C 130, 137 Bleek, Ferd 61 Bohmer, E 64 Breaches of trust, decalogue of. .221 seq. Bredenkamp, C 143 Brown, Francis 47, 130, 144 Brown, C. R 144 Bruston, C 143 Budde, K 135, 143 Buhl, F 136, 143 CALMET 44, 56, 59 Calvin 34, 99, 209 Canus 35 Carlstadt 36, 41 Carpenter, J. E 144 Carpsov, J. G 42, 43, 62 Carriere, A 143 Castelli, David 144 Cheyne, T. K.,.,..,, 144 Chrysostom 33 Clark, Adam 43 Clementine Homilies 33 Clement of Alexandria 33 Clericus 41 Codes; of D., 8 seq,, 81 seq., 99 s.q., nosey., 133 sey., 157 seq., of E., 101 seq., 122, 132 seq., 156 seq.; of H., 101 *eq., i>7 seq., 133 seq., 137 sey.; of J- loisey., 132 seq., 156 seq. ; of P., 99 seq., no sey., 132 seq., 157 seq.; of Sinai, 131 seq. Colenso ga Concubines, Hebrew slave, pentade of 216 sey. Cornill, C. H 134, 135, 143 Covenant, Greater Book of, 7, 18 sey., loo, 156, 158, 185, 189, 211 seq.; little Book of, 7, 100, 156, 184, 189, 2ii seq. Criticism, Higher, what is it, i seq.; problems of, 2 seq. ; evidences used by, 4 seq. ; obstacles to, 145 ; Lower i Curtis, E. L 144 Curtiss, S. Ives 130, 144 D., 68 ; style of 75 Darmstetter, J 144 Davidson, A. B 129 " Samuel 66 Davison, W. T . . 144 Dealings with the weak and poor, pentade of 224 seq. Decalogues, of J., 189 seq.; of the Tables, 189 seq.; of Deut. xxvii. 239 De La Saussaye, Chautepie 144 (267) 268 INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS Delitzsch, Frant, . . 14, 23, 67, 130, 133 " Fred 143 Deuteronomy, date of, 81 seq.\ style of 168 seq. De Wette, 60, 62, 65, 81, 92, 100, 107, 132 Diatessaron, Tatian's 138 seq. Dillmann, August, 63, 69, 88, 130, 131, '33, 134, 143, 'S3. 218 Dods, Marcus 212 Douglas, George 129, 130 Drechsler 62 Driver, S. R., 47, 69, 70, 83, 85, 88, 135, 143, 144, IS', 157. *68 Drummond, James. 144 Duff, A 144 Duhm, B 93, 143 E., 68 ; style of 74 Eichhoro, J. G., 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 5 6 . 57i 58, 60, 99, 100, 107, 142 Ewald, H 61, 63, 64, 132, 211, 212 FEAST of Passover, 106, 204 seq.\ of unleavened bread, 106, 195 *eq.\ of weeks, 106, 199 seq.\ of harvest, 106, 199 seq .\ of in- gathering, 106, 201 seq.\ of booths (tabernacles) 106,201 seq. Feasts and offerings, pentades of, 229.1^. Fleury, Abbe 44 Kloigl, Victor 144 Francois, Abbe L 44 Fulda, F. C 53 GABLF.R, J. G 52 Gast, F. A 130, 144 Gautier, Lucien 143 Geddes, Alex... 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 107, 13? George 9, 93 Giescbrecht, F 94, 143 Gleaning, law against 234 Gleig, Bishop 44 Gore, Charles 29 Graf, Karl H 91, 92, 127 Graves 43 Green, W. H. 74, no, 113, 117, 130, 142 Gregory 35 Grill.J 143 Guthe, H 143 H., style of \-]iseq. Harper, \V. R. 130, 144 Hartmann, A. T 58 Hasse, G 53 Haupt, Paul 144 Havernick, A. C 62 Heidegger 42, 62 Hengstenberg, E. W 62, 63 Hexateuch, term explained i Hirsch, E. G 144 Hobbes, T 36, 41 Hodge, A. A 130 Hommel, Frit* 143 Home, T. H 54, 55, 56, 58, 118 Horst, L 127 Huet, P 42 Hupfeld, H 48, 63, 64 Hypotheses, documentary, 46 seq.\ fragmentary, 57 seq.\ supple- mentary, 6c seq.; development, gost9 xxxiv. 14, 16 190 xxxiv. 18 69, 195, 196 xxxiv. 19-20 197 xxxiv. ao 198, 226 xxriv. 21 185, 192, 193 EXODUS. XXXiv. 23 199, 3OI xxxiv. 33 49 xxxiv. 33, 34 903 xxxiv. 35 203,204 xxxiv. 26 207, 208 xxxiv. 27 7, 189, 211 xxxiv. 33-35 337 xxxv.-xl. bis 91 xxxv. ii, 15 103 xxxv. 16 102 xxxvii. 25 103 xxxviii. i, 1-7, 30 102 xxxix. 32, 38 103 xxxix. 39 102 xL 2, 5, 6, 26, 29. 103 Xl. 2, I? 69 Xl. 6, 10, 29 103 LEVITICUS. i.-xvi 91 i 118 t-5 8 ii. ii 204 iv. 7, TO, 25, 30, 34 102 >v. 7 103 iv. 13 fey 117 vii.-ix 91 vii. 12, 13 304 xi. sfj ... . . 226 xi. 34 7 xi. 39, 40 106, 237 xii. , xiii. , xiv., xv 106 xv. 33 XVI xvii. xvii. xvii. xvii. xvii. xviii xviii xviii xviii xviii xix. xix. -xxvi 3-9 7 10-14 15,16 95, 137, 106, .-xxi . 6 sty . 6-16, 17-33 15 sty 3,30 153 121 133 X97 336 217 9' 214 233 336 153 I 9 2 INDEX OF TEXTS 275 LEVITICUS. six. 4 xix. 9-10 Xix. 15-18 32" xix. 19 xix. 26 223, 226 xix. 33-34 224 xix. 35-36 235 xx. 5-6 192 XX. 6, 1O-2I, 27 22' xx. 7, 8, 26 15: xx. 9 218 xx. 25 70 xxi. 2 217 xxi. 6-8 15 xxii.g, 16,32 152 xxii. 27 209 xxiii 106, 195, 199, 203 xxiii. 3 194 xxiii. 5 69 xxiii. 5-6 195 xxiii. 6-8 196 xxiii. 10-14 208 xxiii. 15-21 200 xxiii. 17 204 xxiii. 22 234 xxiii. 34-36, 40-44 201 xxiv. 10-23 91 xxiv. 17 217 xxiv. 19 seq 219 xxv 91, 121, 230 XXV. IO 71 xxv. 35, 36 225 xxv. 37 70 xxv. 39-46 215 xxv. 49 217 *xvi 17,91, 231 xxvi. 2 192 xxvi. 3-45 64 xxvi. 9, 42, 45 149, 166 xxvi. ii seq 231 xxvi. jAseq 121 xxvii. 13, 15, 19, 20, 31 155 xxvii. 26-27 197 NUMBERS. 1.48-X.28., gi NUMBERS. i.., 39 ii- 2 39 iii. 12 seq 226 iii. 25- IV. II. V. I.., 103 103 39 viii. 16 seq ...................... 226 ix. i ............................ 69 ix. 12 .......................... 205 . 15 ........................... 103 xi. 18-33 ........................ 147 xi. z^seq ....................... 158 xi. 24, 26 103 xi. 25-29 ........................ 151 *"-3 ........................... 39 xii. 4 seq ........................ 158 xii-S, 10 ........................ 103 72 xii. 6 xv. 39. xvi. .. xii. 6-8 ....................... 237 xiv. 18-20 ....................... 155 . 21-22 ....................... 153 xv. 33 ......................... 192 xv.-xix .......................... 91 ......................... 192 ......................... 79 ......................... 49 xvi. 30 .......................... 70 xvii. 21-25 ...................... 147 xvii. 22, 23 ...................... 103 xviii. a .......................... 103 xviii. 12-13 ..................... 208 xviii. 15-18 ...................... 198 xix ......... . .106 xvi. 9. 79 148 XX xx. 8-17 XX. 21 74 xxi. 8-9 147 14 12, 38 xxi. 21, 31 seq 70 xxi. 30 73 xxii. 13, 16 74 xxiii. -xxiv 95 xxiii. i, 14, 29 102 xxiv. ii 153 XXV. 12-13 149 27C> INDEX OF TEXTS NUMBERS. 217 DEUTERONOMY. vi. 2 1 86 xxviii 106, 199 vi. 5 155 vi. 18 T8-, xxviii -xxxi . . . . 01 vii. 2-4 1O2 xxviii. 9-10 . 104 Rl xxviii. 16 . . 60. 2O5 vii. 8, 9, 13 155 xxviii 16-17 . 105 vii. 22 86 xxviii. 17-25 xxviii 36-31 . '96 2OO viii. 3-4, 15-16 viii. 18 . . , . 140, 147 166 ix . 9 189 xxix. 12 TQ. 15-18.. ix. 26 49 20 x. 6 158 60 x. 8 39 218 x. 8, 9 104 xxxv 16 xxxvi. 13. . x. 12, 15 155 XXXV. 20-21, 22. . . . 218 x. 18-19 224 155 DEUTERONOMY. ri. 6 70 66 1 86 i. i-xxii. 47. .. 64 xii xxvi 8, 23, L i 37 xii i 8j ii. 5 38 xii 5 . 18. IQ. 211 U. 12 37, 44, 81 xii 5-7. 1214 212 . . 154 xii. 6, ii, 13 211 iii. ii, 14 . . . 17. 44 xii 9, 10 2O iij, 24 40 xii. l6. 2127 226 iv. la 16 .... .. 2-18 xii. 25 . 181 149 152 iv. IS-IQ. 24. . . IQI xii 27 IO2 iv. IQ . . . 18, 83 xiii 221 iv. 20 . IO. 2O i go 146 155 iv. 40 . . 186 xiii. 16 223 v . 180 xiv 77 106 121 xv. 1-18 230 v. it, 14. .. 71 215 i8j 217 9 T 11... 183 7 xv. 19-22 XV 21... 97 226 INDEX OF TEXTS 277 DEUTERONOMY. xvi ............................ 106 xvi. i ...................... 69, 195 xvi. 1-8 ......................... 18 xvi. 2, 4-7 ....................... 204 xvi. 3-4,8 ...................... 196 xvi. 8 .......................... 73 xvi. 9-12, 17 .................... 199 xvi. n, 12 ....................... 183 xvi. 13-15 ....................... 201 xvi. 16 ..................... 199, 203 xvi. 18-20 ....................... 229 Xvi. 21, 22 ....................... 84 rvii. 3 ....................... 18, 83 xvii. 8 seg. t 14-20 ................ 82 xvii. ii ........................ 159 xvii. i^seg ...................... 20 xvii. 18-20 . ..................... 19 xviii. 9-14 ....................... 18 xviii. 10-14 ...................... 223 xviii. 15 seq ........ .............. 88 xix .............................. 218 xix. 4 for ....................... 217 xix. 5, ii ...................... 218 xix. 9 ........................... 155 xix. 14 .......................... 81 xix. 15-20 ...................... 227 xix. 21 .......................... 220 xx. 1-15, 19 ..................... 86 xx. 16 .......................... 73 xxi. 10-14 ...................... 86 xxi. 18-21 ...................... 218 xxii. 1-4 ........................ 228 xxii. 9-11 ....................... 233 xxii. 12 ......... , ................ 217 xxii. 13-30 ...................... 223 xxii. 28-29 ...................... 222 xxiii. 6 ......................... 155 xxiii. 10 seq .................... 106 xxiii. 15 ......................... 152 xxiii. 19-21 ..................... 225 xxiv. 5 .......................... 74 xxiv. 6, 10-13 ................... 225 xxiv. 7 .......................... 218 xxiv. 8 .......................... 159 xxiv. 16 ......................... 19 xxiv. 17-18 ...................... 224 xxiv. 18, 22 ...................... 183 DEUTERONOMY. xxiv. 19-22 xxv. 17. 234 235 86 xxv. ig 2O xxvi. 2-1 1 207 xxvi. 13, 15 152 xxvi. 17 166 xxvii. -xxx 231 xxvii. 2 seq 38 xxvii .6 102 xxvii. 8 232 xxvii. 15 190 xxvii. 19 224 xxvii. 25 229 xxviii.-xxxi 17 xxviii. 36 82 xxviii. 37 17, 19 xxviii. 68 83 xxviii. 69 149 xxix. i 19, 20 xxix. 1-4 147 xxix. 9, 14, 21, 24, 25 19 xxix. 9-14 99 xxix. 12 166 xxix. 20 149 xxix. 24 17, 19 xxx 27 xxx. 6, 16, 20 155 xxxi. i 39 xxxi. 9 39, 104 xxxi. 9-1 1, 24-26 88 xxxi. 9, 26 8 xxxi. 14^^ 158 xxxi. 14, 15 103 xxxi. 16 192 xxxi. 18, 20 49 xxxi. 22 9 xxxi. 27 72 xxxii 9, ii, 27, 95 xxxii. 3-4 IS 1 xxxiii 64, 95 xxxiii. 1 39 xxxiii. 8-n 104 xxxiii. 10 158 xxxiv. 10 38 xxxiv. 11-12 64 278 INDEX OF TEXTS JOSHUA. i. 7, 8 . . JUDGES. L8 Hi. 3,6 xiii . 4-5 113 iii. 15-17 iv t. o I CM xiv. 15-30 112 iv 7. o. 20. . . 7O .. 158 iv n Id 36 ,. IIQ jr I2O xxi. 8 I IO v 10 . 113 xxi. 10. . . XI3 V. 13 77 I. SAMUEL. ii. 23 103 v. 14, 15 74 v. 15 IS' vi. 4,6 104 v.-vii 73 vi. 5 147 vii. 5 iia J 5 2 vii. 17 102, 112 vii- 7. !3> *9 3O 49 ix. 9 ISO 153 ix. 12 sef 113 x 113 38, 232 x.5,8 113 viii. 31 9 Ioa xi. 15 113 ix. 18, 19 49 nv. 35 IO2, 112 ia xv. 21-33 112 40 73 xv. 35 5S 49 xvi. 4-5 *' n, T 4 73 xvii. 42 7 154 xx. 6 ,. 112 49 XX. 14 73 104 xxi. 9 ixa 7 2 II. SAMUEL. i R 155 xxii. 10-34 103 xxii. 24. 49 vi 17 "4 xxii. 34 166 vii 6 104 xxiii. ii 155 104 wut 49 xi a xxiv. 8, 13, 15, 18 TO 7 a 49, *5 a T 3 xxiv. 25 149 T 3 xiv.a6 xxiii 5 7* JUDGE*. xxiv. 25 15 I. KINGS. i-39... ,. 104 Ii. 18. 166 INDEX OF TEXTS 2T9 I02 218 I. KINGS. i. 50, 51 1.50 ii. 3 19 ii. 28 102, 218 ii. 28-30 104 iii. 4 102 vi. 20 102 viii 19 viii. 4 104 viii. 9. S3, 56 20 viii. 12, 13 12 viii. 27 .wy 122 viii. 51 19 viii. 64 102 ix 19 ix-3, 7,8 19 xii. 32 102 xviii. 30 bis, 32 102 xx.3 2 72 II. KINGS. x. 31 2 xii. 16 118 xiv. 6 19 xvi. 10 71 jtvii 41 xvii. 21 72 xviii. 4 83 xviii. 12 20 **i.3,5 18 xxi. 8 20 xxii. 3 seq 81, 86 xxii. 8 20 xxii. 8, ii 15 xxii. 11-13, X 6) 17, 19 17 xxiii 19 xxiii. 2, 21 15, 16, 18 xxiii. 4, 5, ii, 12, 21-23, 2 4 *8 ixiii. 8-20, 15 102 xxiii. 25 15, 16, 20 I. CHRONICLES. vi. 17 bis 103 vi. 34 22, 103 ix. 19, 21, 23 103 rv. i 104 I. CHRONICLES. xv. 17 xvi. i ... 4 104 xvi. 15 149, 166 xvi. 39, 40 114 xvi. 40 21, 103 xvii. i 70 xvii. 5 104 xvii. 22 . 166 xviii 38 xxi. 18 102 xxi. 29 103, 114 xxii. i.., . 102 xxn. 12 21 xxiii. 29 114, 235 xxiii. 32 103 xxviii. 19 114 103 104 II. CHRONICLES. i-3,6, 13; 5,6 i. 4 iv. 3 71 v. 5 104 vii. 8-10 114 viii. 3 114 xii. i 21 xvii. 9 22, 23 xix. 8-n 82 xxiii. 18 22 xxiv. 6 103 xxv. 4 22 xxix. 20-24 117 xxix. 22 118 xxx. 16 22 xxxi. i 83 xxxi. 3, 4 21 xxxiv. 14 22, 55 xxxiv. 14, 15, 19, 30 15 XXxiv. 15 22 xxxiv. 30 16 xxxv. 3, 6 15, 16 XXXV. 12 22 XXXV. 26 21 xxxvi. 21 121 EZRA. iii. 1-6 122 iii. 2 ... ,22 INDEX OF TEXTS EZRA. vi. 18 33 vii. 6 23 vii. jo 21 NEHEMIAH. i.8 aa IL x 69 vi ii . x 23, 23 viii. 3, 8, 14, 18 33 viii. 9, 13 3i viii. 13-17 123 viii. 17 130 if. 3 . 23 x.39,30 21 x-34,37 zii. 44 3i ESTHER. i. ii Ui-7 JOB. VU.31 ......................... 155 xvHi. 19 ......................... 166 xix. 33 .......................... xo PSALMS. Tf, 7 141 xiv 141 xiv. 3-3 141 xxxii. i 73 xxx vi. i 141 xl 117, "8 xl 7 73 xl.8 30 Iv. 16 f66 Iviii. 5 71 Ixx.i 151 Ixxiv 149 Ixxviii 78, 148 Ixxviii. 30, 37 217 Ixxviii. 60, 67 103 cv 78, 148 or. 8 149, 166 PSALMS. "j M9 cvi. 45 149, 166 ax. 7 72 i- 5 149. i6 cxix. 54 166 PROVERBS. x.-xxii. 16 ECCLESIASTES. vii. 30 .. ISAIAH. 9 155 ly -3 317 x -26 149 xi. 15-16 149 xiii. 4 71 MX. 19 84, 103 xxvii. 9 102 xxxiii 24 155 xxxvi. 7 83 xL 18 71 xliii. 16 149 I- 3 149 Ii. 10 149 liii 88, 117 liii. 10 118 liii. 13 154 lix. 7-8 141 Ixi. i 71 JERF.UIAH. viii. 8 XXV. II, 13... .............. 14 .............. 121 xxxiv. 8, 15, 17 .................. 71 xli. 5 sfy ....................... 116 F.ZEKIEL, iv. xi, 16 ....................... 335 viii 3 ........................... 72 xvi. 60 Us, 62 ............... 149, 166 xvii. 22-34 ....................... 137 xx. 38 .......................... 166 INDEX OF TEXTS 281 EZEKIEL. 166 MARK. i. 12, 13 36 36 xl. xlviii .. 115, 126 xl. 2 72 LUKE. xli. i xlv. 18-20 122 iv. 1,2 DANIEL. xx. 28 26 i. 4 72 XX. VJ . . . 27 ix. 7 TVl'v. AA . ix. ii, 13 22 x. 7-16 72 JOHN. x. ii, 16 71 i. 45 27 HOSEA. v. 46, 47 27 230 26 iv. 8 118 vii. 23 viii. 12 1-1 xiv. 3 , . ice ACTS. AMOS. !66 v. 25 . . , . IIQ XXVi. 22 27 MlCAH. iii. ii ROMANS. iii. 9-18 vi. 7 n8 x. 5, 19 vii. 18 ZECHARIAH. I. CORINTHIANS. it. 14. .. 26 vii. -viii . . . . 122 xi. 23 seq 37 viii. 8 166 X. II IT. CORINTHIANS. iii. 15 25 MALACHI. iv. 4 21 HEBREWS. iv. 7 26 MATTHEW. vii .14 26 iii. 13 .. 1-18 viii. 5 27 iii. 14 sea., 16, 17 139 ix. 19 27 iv. 2-7 139 x. 28 ... . 26 xix. 7-8 . 26 xii. 21. . . 27 INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS AND PHRASES. 1 (pp. 69, 195, 196, 229.) PN (P. 235.) (pp. :o, 169, 212.) n (p. 103.) njno ^>nN (pp. 103, 158.) n3N ,31N (p. 223.) ,nrn (P. 177.) m3K (pp. 70, I75-) DUN \li>X (P- 1 66.) D'H^K (pp. II, 46 q. % 52, 56, 165, 175, 225.) DVPK(n) (pp. 165, 166, 215.) ^n^K (PP. 49. ^ 223.) rb* (p. 175.) D'^N (p. I74-) K? ^>N (PP. 47, 165, 166.) TON (p. 70.) ION ,DJON .njoN (P. 70.) 33^5 )t3N (p. I54-) "3JN .'JN (pp. 70, 165, 166, 180.) m ( T 'JN (pp. 165, 166, 172.) Sj'DN (p. 202.) 31N (p. 218.) pN(n) (pp. 70, 169, 170.) 1J3 (p. 217.) -IPI3 (p. 169.) ni3N n'3 (P. 178.) n3 (p. i^>g.) 1 Some of ihc words contained in this in ex are cited, in the passages referred to, in the f nglith Irani'ilion. (282) INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS AND PHRASES 283 DSTlUEniD i>33 (P- 178.) ^3 (p. 7i.) $>y3 (P. 71.) vjn ,iya (P- 71.) 13-ipD iy3 (P. 170.) K-O (P. 77.) D^y nm (PP. 150, 176.) ^3 (p. 209.) PKOBQ (p. 218.) -IBO (p. 7i.) rbva (P 222.) $VQ (PP- 155, i7i.) yu (p. 176.) rbdn (P. 178.) cni (p. 71.) pm (P. 170.) ns 13^ (P- 71-) ny i3i (P. 71.) niDT (p. 71.) (D3 orrcn) n VDT (p. 174.) ynn (P. 225.) ny? (p. 74) for njn im (p. 71.) p|nn (P. 218.) T^IH (pp. 73, I79-) T3tn (PP. 213, 230.) &rb*b (oa^) n-'n (PP. 165, 166.) 3^t3^n (p. 170.) D^n D'jron (p. 171.) ^n (P. 74) f r n.3^ nipn3 n^n (p. 173.) n-'pn (P. 228.) rra D^pn (pp. 149. l66 -) wo ns ''nopn (P. 165.) n-npn (p. 204.) mi ,3^ nt^pn (P. 154.) 13 rrm (p. no.) (p- 174-) 284 INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS AND PHRASES mr (pp. 106, 204, 206, 209.) riDB(n) rot (p. 206.) nosn jn rar (P. 206.) tfvhvn rat (P. 204.) ma -or (pp. 149. 165. TOT (P. 173.) MR (P. 203.) nrn (P. 72.) (nf) pm ,pm (PP. 154, 179- > nNDn ,Ntsn (pp. 72, 105.) ^>n (P. 174.) pen (P 204.) now non (P. 151.) 'nipn (p. 173.) onn (P. 223.) mis (P. 72.) mn^ -JN "3 onjn^ (p. 165.) 'JITf (p. 223.) miT ( pp. ii, 46 sty., 52, 56, 165, etc.) 1^ (PP- 73. 179- ) IDS' (p. 215.) nx-iD(n) ns' (P. 72.) 60V NTT (p. 73-) TV (p 72.) (3$>) Taan naa (pp. 154, 179-) 1103 (p. 152.) 3BO ,BO3 (PP 198, 206.) D33 (p. 78.) mD3 (p. 217.) mn ms (P. 149-) na!> ,3^ (P. 256.) ,on-ni> (P. 177.) ntn^ (p. 171.) b^ (P. 176.) (p. 176.) (p. 172.) .nxo (p. 1-7.) P 176.) INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS AND PHRASES 285 .TUB (PP. i65, 166, I77-) mo (p. 235-) DHjno (p. 193.) rvxno (p. 179-) (PP. 73, 179-) (P. 175.) (p. 223.) i P. 225.) rovho (PP- 72, 185, 186, 194.) (pp. 230, 231.) (pp. 105, 199, 200 seq.) (pp. 154, 179.) (PP. 171, 185.) ,n3lTD (pp. 84, ioi, 231, 232.) nwo (pp. 195, 204, 229.) NlpO (P- I94-) 31 pD (p- 1 73-) njpo (p. 177.) njno (p. 72.) (p. 235.) ( P' I72t) (p- 214.) (P- 235.) (p. 173.) (pp. 165, 166.) ^? PD (Pp. 73, 180.) my (p. 178.) spy (p- 178.) y (p. 179-) emp,r6:D oy (P. >6g.) D'y (P. 177.) n*oy (PP. 173, 241.) -ioy (p. 200.) py ,ruy (P. 217.) nrn ovn cvy (p. 176.) mvy (pp. 196, 203.) any (p. 78.) nny (P 214.) no-iy (p. 218.) (PP 74, 77-) (p- 194.) ms (pp. 155, 171.) D'oya (p. 203.) nail ma (p. 175.) -pa (P. 178.) JN (pp. 198, 206.) N3V (p. 73-) niNav (P. 178.) mv (P. 217.) nnv (P. 218.) iv (P. 79-) crip ,enp (p. 152, 193.) mm <: cmp (p. 173.) 3p (P. 190.) pp (p- 178.) .anp (P. 171.) ja-ip (PP. 105, 209.) INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS AND PHRASES 287 run (P. 150.) rvp&o (p- 208.) D^I ,^n (PP- 180, 203.) on (p- 179-) rn-j (p. 74) for nTv tinm ,eon (p. 177.) yn (P. 215.) (PP- 173, 217.) (pp. 73, 179.) (pp. 193, 194 ) (pp. 179, 194-) ns? (pp. 198, 206.) DP 1BP ipB^ ,pP (PP. T 72, 213 ) D^B' (pp. 106, 212.) ,1305? (p. 230.) (PP- 169, 172.) (pp. 217, 218.) (p. 169.) (P- 70.) (pp. 80, 178, 232, 253.) (p. 175 ) mm (p- 106.) (p. 171.) mn (P. i so) mm (PP. s, 14, 16, 17, 255.) naym ,raym (pp. 172, 240.) aenn (p. 178.) jry Dinn(Ni?) (P. 170.) D^nn (P 103.) nsipn (p. 202.) (P. 225.) 288 INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS AND PHRASES Additions to New Edition. <3 D1K (p. 255.) HK (pp. 241, 253.) (p. 251.) "3 E"N (p. 254.) (PP. 87, 242.) (p. 253.) (p. 80.) D^pn (pp. 87, 239, 248.) D^pn (P. 249.) mpn (pp. 239, 251.) DDBC>DI rnpn (p. 249.) (p. 85.) 'r6N mrr (P. 85.) nnt? npi (P. 241.) mo (pp. 72, 219.) (p. 246.) (pp. 87, 232, 252.) (p. 80.) JDJ (p. 241.) ?B3 (p. 252.) '3 C?BJ (p. 255.) H>P (P. 187.) (P. 80.) jn (PP. 241, 253.) (p. so.) THE WRITINGS OF PROF. CHARLES A. BRIGGS D.D. CHARLES SCRIBNERS' SONS, Publishers, 153-157 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK. The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch. Revised Edition. With Important Additions. Crown 8vo $2.50 The Messiah of the Apostles. Crown 8vo 3.00 The Messiah of the Gospels. Crown 8vo 2.00 flessianic Prophecy. Crown 8vo 2.50 The Bible, the Church and the Reason. The Three Great Fountains of Divine Authority. Crown 8vo 1.75 Whither? A Theological Question for the Times. Crown 8vo 1.75 American Presbyterianism. Its Origin and Early History. With maps. Crown 8vo 3.00 Biblical Study. Its Principles, Methods, and a History of its Branches. Crown 8vo 2.50 The Authority of Holy Scripture. Inaugural Address. Fourth Edition . Crown 8vo, paper. Net 50 The Case Against Professor Briggs. Parts I. and II. Crown 8vo, paper. Each, net 50 The Case Against Professor Briggs. Part III. His Defence Before the General Assembly. Cr. 8vo, paper. Net. .75 The Defence of Professor Briggs Before the Presbytery of New York, December 13, 14, 15, 19 and 22, 1892. 8vo, paper. Net 50 The Higher Criticism of the Hex- ateuch. By Prof. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., of Union Theological Sem- inary, New York. New, Revised and Enlarged Edition. Crown 8vo, $2.50. SUMMARY OF CONTENTS : The Testimony of Scripture The Traditional Theories The Rise of Criticism The Documentary and Supplementary Hypothesis Date of Deuteronomy Development of the Codes Witness of the History The Argu- ment from Biblical Theology and its Results Recent Discussions. It is with the aim of contributing to a better understanding and higher appreciation of the documents of the Bible that the book has been written, which is designed for the general public rather than for Hebrew students, and, for the most part, techni- cal material has been put into the Appendix, which constitutes a considerable part of the volume. This new edition is the result of a thorough revision of the entire work, and contains numerous additions of importance. It is also characterized by a thorough study of the types of Hebrew law and the history of Hebrew legislation. It should therefore be of great interest to the legal profession. " The volume oefore us gives'in plain language Dr. Briggs' belief. No minister can afford to be ignorant of the subject, or of Dr. Briggs' position." The Chrittian Enquirer. PROFESSOR BRIO OS'S WRITINGS. Messianic Prophecy. The Prediction of the fulfilment of Redemption through the Messiah. A critical study of the Messianic passages of the Old Testament in the order of their development. By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology in the Union Theological Seminary, New York. One volume, crown octavo, $2.50. " Messianic Prophecy is a subject of no common interest, and this book is no ordin- ary book. It is, on the contrary, a work of the very first order, the rii>o product of years of study upon the highest themes. It is exegesis in master-hand, about its noblest business It has been worth while to commend this book at some length to the attention of Bible students, because both the subject and the treatment entitle it to rank among the very foremost works of the generation in the department of Exegetical Theology. Union Seminary is to be congratulated that it is one of her Professors who, in a noble line of succession has produced it. The American Church is to be congratulated that the author is an American, and Presbyterians that he is a Presbyterian. A Church that can yield such books has large possibilities." New York Evangelist. "It is second in importance to no theological work which has appeared in this country during the present century." The Critic. " His arduous labor has been well expended, for he has finally produced a book which will give great pleasure to Christians of all denominations The pro- found learning displayed in the book commends it to the purchase of all clergymen who wish for the most critical and exact exposition of a difficult theme ; while its earnestness and eloquence will win for it a place in the library of every devout lay- man." .V. Y. Journal qf Commerce. " It is rich with the fruits of years of zealous and unwearied study, and of an ample learning. In it we have the flret English work on Messianic Prophecy which stands on the level of modern Biblical studies, It is one of the most important and valuable contributions of American scholarships to those studies. It is always more than in- structive : it is spiritually helpful. We commend the work not only to ministers, but to intelligent laymen." The Independent. "On the pervading and multiform character of this promise, see a recent, as well as valuable authority, in the volume of Dr. Briggs, of the New York Theological Seminary, on 'Messianic I'rophecy.'" W. E. GLADSTONE. " Prof. Brfggs' Mesnianic Prophecy is a most excellent book, in which I greatly rejoice." Prof. FRANZ DKLITZSCH. " All scholars will join In recognizing Its singular usefulness as a text-book. It baa Ix-i 11 much wanted." Rev. CANON CIIETNK. " II is a book that will be consulted and prized by the learned, and that will add to the author's deservedly high reputation for scholarship. Evidences of the ability, learning and patient research of the author arc apparent from the beginning to the end of the volume, while the style in remarkably fine." l'hU particularly instructive for Germans on account of the very characteristic extract* from the writings of English theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Moreover, he is unusually familiar with German literature of recent date aa well as with that of the earlier period." ZarncJu't Literaturitches Centralttatt fOr Deuttch- land. "Here Is a theological writer, thoroughly scientific In his methods, and yet not ashamed to call himself evangelical. One great merit of this handbook is the light which it throws on the genesis of modern criticism and exegesis. Those who use it will escape the crudities of many English advocates of half-understood theories. Not the least of its merits is the well-selected catalogue of books of reference English, French, and German. We are sure that no student will regret sending for the book.' 1 The Academy, London. " Dr. Briggs begins with a chapter upon the advantages of Biblical study, and the subjects of the following chapters are : Exegetical Theology, the Languages of the Bible, the Bible and Criticism, the Canon and Text of the Bible, Higher Criticism, Literary Study of the Bible, Hebrew Poetry, Interpretation of Scripture, Biblical Theology, and the Scriptures aa a Means of Grace. It will be seen that the subjects occupy a wide range, and, ably treated as they are the volume becomes one of real value and utility. Appended to the work is a valuable catalogue of books of reference in biblical studies, and three indexes of Scriptures, of topics, and of books and authors. The publishers have done honor to the work, and it deserved it." The Churchman. " The minister who thoroughly masters this volume will find himself mentally in- vigorated, as well as broadened in his scope of thought ; will almost certainly be able to better satisfy himself in his understanding of what the truth is which from the Bible he ought to preach to men ; and so will speak from his pulpit with new force, and find his words mightier, through God, to the pulling down of (strongholds. " Botton Vonyrtyationaltit. "After all that we have heard of the higher criticism, It Is refreshing to flnd so cholarly and trenchant defence* of the old paths Ills historical account of t ho movement and development among the English -speak ing scholars is very valuable. This, and the chapter on the ' Literary Study of the Bible,' arc among the best in thi> excellent book." fine York Christian Advocate (Methodist). " We are constrained to rank this book as one of the signs of the times In the Amer- ican church. It marks the rising tide of Biblical scholarship, Christian liberty of thought and evangelical Interpretation of the Scriptures." Cfirintlan I'num. " There arr many grounds on which the work may be earnestly commended. Large reading In German and Kngllnh, quick apprehension of the salient point* of opposing theories, an unflairidngcarneMneiw of purpose, and very positive belief In his positions conspire to make the work Instructive and attractive. But above all these excellence* there shine* nut the author's deep reverence for the whole Blbl." Th Examlntr (Baptlst, N. Y.) PROFESSOR BRIG OS'S WRITINGS. The Bible, the Church, and the Reason. The Three Great Fountains of Divine Authority. By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., E-lward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology in Union Theological Seminary, New York. Crown 8vo, $1.75. " It consists if l^cti'res delivered at different times since the recent assault npon him. In these lectures he does not indicate the least inclination to beat a retreat, cry for quarter, or even secure a truce. And yet, with some few excep- tions, he does not exhibit personal feeling, nor defend himself personally from the charges made against him. He simply elaborates and substantiates the positions in his inaugural which have subjected him to public criticism and to a possible trial for heresy." The Christian Union. " The problems which are discussed with masterly power in this volume are not those of Presbyterianism, or of Protestantism, but of Christianity, and, indeed, of all Biblical religion. To any man for whom the question of God and revelation has an endlessly fascinating interest, the book will prove suggestive and stimulating. We cannot see why even the Israelite and the Roman Catholic should not desire to taste despite the traditions of synagogue and Mother Church this latest forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge." The Literary World. " But on a calm review of this book, while making due allowance for some of the characterizations of his opponents, and without entering into the merits of the subject involved, one must reach the candid conclusion that Professor Briggs is deeply reverent and devout in his attitude towards the Word of God ; that he is conscientiously and earnestly aiming at its exaltation and its stronger hold upon the minds and hearts of men. He says : ' Criticism makes the Bible more real, more historic, more pregnant with holy meaning than ever before. .... Think not the critics are destroying the Bible which they study with so much enthusiasm and love. They have enthroned it in a higher position than it has ever held before in the estimation of the world.' Surely, an impartial judgment will not fail to give full credit for purity of motive and loftiness of purpose to a man who writes like this." The Evangelist. " It deals, as the author observes, with ' matters which lie at the root of our common Christianity,' and largely, at any rate, ' with questions of truth and fact,' to be determined, not by hasty and superficial writers in periodicals, but 'by patient, diligent, painstaking, exhaustive investigation of truth and fact.' (Preface p. ix.) It appeals, therefore, to men of all shades of churchmanship, provided that they recognize the duty of continually absorbing fresh elements of truth, which both may and must more or less modify the conceptions already adopted by the common consent of past ages. But, if I may say so, it appeals most of all to those who attach the highest value to the principles of the Refor- mation, and who, therefore, recognize a Bible within the Bible, of which the experience of the Christian life in the community and in the individual is the true test." Professor T. K. Cheyne^ D.D., in the London Academy. PROFESSOR BRWGSS WRITINGS. Whither? A Theological Question for the Times By CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIOOS, D.D., Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology In the Union Theological Seminary, New York. Third Edition. One volume, crown 8vo, $1.75. 11 He shows ttial genuine Christiana y has nothing (o lose, but much U> gain, by un- fettered tin mirlit and by the ripeBl modem acholarship ; that the doctrines which pro- gressive theofogy threatens are no essential part of the historic faith, but rather out- worn garments, woven with warp and woof of tradition and speculation ; that being hung upon the noble form of Christianity, have obscured its real proportions, and that ' the higher criticism ' of which timid and uuscbolarly souls are so much afraid, i- really making the Bible more manifestly the book of God, by relieving it from the false interpretations of men." The J'reiu, 1'hiladelphia. " The book is a strong one. It is packed with weighty matter. Its reach is larger than any of the author's other works, though its compass is smaller. It contains only 300 [Mint's, yet it is a critical treatise on Westminster and modern theology, and also on church life and Christian unity. It is written in nervous, virile English that holds attention. It has unusual grasp and force. The title and the chapter headings sug- gest compression: 'Whither?' 'Drifting. 1 'Orthodoxy,' 'Changes,' 'Shifting,' ' Excesses,' ' Failures,' ' Departure*,' 'Perplexities,' 'Barriers,' 'Thither.' There is a whole history in some of these words, and a whole sermon in others." Tfu Critic, New York. "At the same time It is irenlc both in tone and tendency. It is noble from beginning to end, though the author may possibly place unnecessary emphasis on the organic unity of the different denominations 'of Christendom as the condition precedent for a true catholic nnlty. There is not a touch or smell of rationalism or rationalistic speculation In the book, nnd freely as the author deals with his oppo- nents, it is an honest freedom, which will promote good feeling even amid debate/' The Independent. American Presbyterianism : Its Origin and Early History, together with an Appendix of Let- ters and Documents, many of which have recently been discovered. By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology in the Union Theological Seminary, New York. I volume, crown Svo, with Maps. $3.00. " Tl.e Presbyterian Church owes a debt of gratitude to the enthusiasm and antiquar- ian research of Professor Briggs. DC seems to have seized the foremost place among them, and hi* vigorous, skilful, and comprehensive researches put all Protestant Christians, and especially Congregationalism, under obligation to him." Botton CongregationaUtL "This i* an admirable and exhaustive work, full of vigorous thinking, clear and careful statement, incisive and judicious criticism, minute yet comprehensive research. It Is such a hook an only a man with a gift for historical Inquiry and an enthusiasm for the history and principles of his Church could have produced. It represents an amazing amount of labor. Dr. Briggs seems to have searched every available source, British and American, for printed or written documents bearing on his subjects, and be has met with wonderful success. He has made many Important discoveries. Illus- trative of the Puritan men and period, useful to himself, but certain also to be helpful to all future inquiries In this field." Britith ymtrlrrly Reriew. CHABLES SCRLBNER'S SONS, Publishers, 153-157 I ii Hi \\. mi. . New York. THE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW.